A Swiss referendum has just banned the construction of minaretts in Switzerland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8385069.stm
Although this will probably have no practical consequences (building a tower to enjoy the scenery is still legal, even next to a mosque), it will increase islamophobia. During the campaign mosques were vandalised, so Muslims have every reason to be worried.
Unfortunately Switzerland isn’t alone in this. A recent poll in 8 European countries has shown that incredibly high percentages of interviewed hold islamophobic views. (For instance: 55.4 % agree to the statement “Muslims are too demanding”.
What’s worse: The study shows that a majority of islamophobic people has prejudices against other minorities as well:
“Different types of prejudices are interrelated within a syndrome of Group-focused Enmity that arises from a general ideology of inequality (see figure 1).As proposed, our analyses of the European data revealed strong interrelations of six different elements of the GFEsyndrome: anti-immigrant attitudes, anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim attitudes, racism, sexism, and prejudice towards homosexual persons. These different types of prejudices are strongly linked in all eight countries. In other words: A person who holds negative sentiments towards immigrants is more likely to be prejudiced against other groups as well such as Jews, Muslims, and even homosexual persons or women etc.”
http://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/w/files/pdfs/gfepressrelease_english.pdf
(This study is a must-read in my view. Shocking.)
Is this really that much of a surprise, though? Bigotry always tends to be a pretty all-encompassing attitude in my - limited - experience.
The report does look interesting - I'll download it later for a proper read.
As for the Swiss decision on Minarets, it really is shockingly illiberal. Sadly, even on more libertarian websites, I've seen some appallingly bigoted views about it - with a large number of people putting their dislike of Islam (and Muslims) above any liberal principles they might otherwise have. None of the excuses I've seen (that it's about protecting traditional Swiss architectural culture or about noise pollution) hold up. This was, without doubt, an attack on Swiss Muslim culture.
Dear
Why are u afraid of Islam.It breaks really my heart to hear just prejudices and sterotypes about islam without concrete evidences and the bias campains that have been launched to damage the reputation of islam and the prophet of God.The prophet Mohamed may peace and belessings upon him called people to believe in the Oneness of God (Tawheed), and they do not believe that God is One. he also called people the loftiest of morals and to give up the lowest. He called them to virtue and to block all the means that lead to immorality.
Michael Hart said in his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (p. 13), where he put Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) at the head of his list of one hundred:
I chose Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to be top of this list … because Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.
The Englishman George Bernard Shaw wrote a book called Muhammad, which was burned by the British authorities. He said:
The world is in the utmost need of a man with the mentality of Muhammad.
Medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance of bigotry, painted Mohammadanism in the darkest colors. They were in fact; trained to hate both the man Muhammad and his to them was anti-Christ. But I have studied his life, and found him to be extraordinary. I have reached the conclusion that he was never an enemy to Christianity. He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness.
Annie Besant said:
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme.
The Austrian Schabrak said:
Mankind may be proud of having a man like Muhammad among them, for despite being illiterate he was able more than ten centuries ago to introduce legislation that we Europeans would be the happiest ever if we could produce something of equally high quality.
5-
Dr. Zwemer (a Canadian Orientalist):
Muhammad was an able reformer, eloquent and well spoken, courageous and daring, a great thinker. We cannot attribute to him anything that contradicts these qualities. This Qur’aan that he brought and his history bear witness to the truth of these claims.
6-
The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle, the Nobel Prize winner, says in his book Heroes:
It is very shameful for any individual in this era to listen to what is said about the religion of Islam being a fabrication and Muhammad being a treacherous fabricator. Throughout his life we see him holding firm beliefs, sincere in resolve, generous and kind, compassionate, pious, virtuous, very serious. In spite of that, he was easy-going, cheerful, friendly, and even sometimes light-hearted. He was just, sincere in intention, smart, chivalrous, and quick-witted, as if he carried in his heart the lamps of every dark night, filled with light; a naturally great man who never studied in school or at the hand of a teacher, because he had no need of that.
7-
Goethe, the German poet, said:
We Europeans with all our concepts and ideas have not yet attained that which Muhammad attained, and no one will ever surpass him. I searched in history for the loftiest example for man to follow, and I found it in the Prophet Muhammad. Thus the truth must prevail and become supreme, because Muhammad succeeded in subjugating the whole world by means of the message of Divine Oneness.
pls visit this site to know more about islam and the prophet mohamed
http://www.rasoulallah.net/
Islam is a political faith that wants nothing more than domination end of. no ifs or buts, it is. it is shown if you all take your blinkers of, and i said islam not muslims note the diff. thanks freedom to speak thank you.
Matt,
Actually I was surprised that the percentages are so high. “50,4% of the Europeans somewhat or strongly agree that “there are too many immigrants” in their country. 24.5% supposes that “Jews have too much influence in [country]“. 54.4% of the Europeans believe that “the Islam is a religion of intolerance.” Nearly one third (31,3%) of the Europeans somewhat or strongly agree that “there is a natural hierarchy between black and white people”. “ Would you have expected these high figures? I didn’t expect the result of the Swiss referendum either.
I too noticed that quite a lot of people express their prejudice more freely than before that referendum. We are going to hear a lot from that side from now on, I think. Every day a new proposal what to ban next, probably.
I read about the referendum result today. The turn-out was low by Swiss standards, and all the opinion polls prior were predicting it would be defeated. It was interesting to read the rather self-indulgent hand whinging in the editorials and the negative tone of the reports. However maybe the people were sending a message to the political elite - like f*** off. We have seen it here in the UK with the rise of the BNP in largely Labour areas, and indeed the rise of UKIP. The political class, and indeed the chattering class, in so many European countries are quite divorced from the views and opinions of the voters and actively seem to regard these views with nothing but contempt. So given this why are you so surprised when the electorate are given a chance to stick two fingers up at the political class they relish the prospect ?
I watched an edition of Question Time not so long ago which had Robert Kilroy-Silk on. As he pointed out mass immigration has changed the character of our country, and many others in Europe, but this has been done without us being consulted and without our consent. As he said 'no one asked us' we were just told and we have to put up with it. It is hard to disagree with that analysis.
Sadly, yes.
There's always going to be a high level of suspicion towards "others". That just seems to be how people are. But I also suspect that the "too many immigrants" camp spans a fairly wide spectrum. Some of them will be hard-line racists, but there are probably also quite a few who are simply concerned about how immigration is handled.
Although, to be honest, the "natural hierarchy between black and white people" one is a bit of a (nasty) surprise. I thought we'd moved further beyond such attitudes.
Assuming the Swiss ban survives the European Court of Human Right.
One good thing about this whole sorry Swiss business, however, is that it does seem to lend a bit of weight to the theory that close contact with immigrant communities erodes negative attitudes towards them. According to European Voice:
So perhaps there's some hope for the future.
Is this another case of Europeans and Muslim-Europeans engaging in mutual antagonism?
I just read this story this morning, and I have a few questions about it.
First of all, why is it necessary to have minarets on these mosques? Are they actually going to be used to call the faithful to prayer, or is it just for architectual accuracy? I have seen scores of mosques in America, but have never seen any with minarets as they would be generally useless for their intended purpose when the neighbors are overwhelmingly non-Muslim.
Secondly, it doesn't appear that the Swiss have an issue with the building of mosques, but just the minarets. Why then are some calling them "racist"? The Swiss are very aggressive when it comes to keeping their country postcard-perfect, so why should this be any surprise?
Switzerland is a democracy, and the people have decided that for whatever unknown reasons they would prefer not to have minarets in their midst. End of story. Assigning racist motivations to their decision seems quite unfair to the Swiss.
Am I missing something here?
To answer your question in Switzerland it would not be possible to use minarets due to noise legislation. So, as they are not used for their original purpose, they are purely decorative. Even here in England and in an area with a high Muslim population I have never heard of them being used.
"I watched an edition of Question Time not so long ago which had Robert Kilroy-Silk on. As he pointed out mass immigration has changed the character of our country, and many others in Europe, but this has been done without us being consulted and without our consent"
If cultural development requires the consent of the current generation then it simply will not happen. It's like cryongenically freezing someone to keep them young.
Many things have changed the character of our countries without our consent. Have a look at good old Santa: Coca Cola company. Who took a vote on that? It is quite pathetic people moaning about the erosion of our culture by immigrants when we have been culturally colonised from across the Atlantic without a murmur. Whether you are talking about the Disnification of the likes of Mary Poppins or Winnie the Pooh, awful beer, the eclipse of the adverb or a milk shake which is thickened with cold chicken fat, it has been almost excusively negative.
By contrast the waves of European, African and Asian immigration have enhanced and added to our culture. This applied to the Hugeunots, Russian Jews, Wind-Rush Carribeans, Ugandan Asians or the current rush of East Europeans. All have made this country a little more interesting and a little more varied. If the Swiss think they can ring fence their culture against dilution by foreigners then they are sadly mistaken. Their crude attempts to preserve cultural purity will atrophy and kill their culture, not preserve it.
The voter turn-out was extremely high by Swiss standards for referenda: 57%. Usually it’s little more than 40%. The Swiss have several referenda every year, so I wouldn’t say they used a rare chance to “stick two fingers up at the political class”.
On the whole the voters have shown realism, and the system of direct democracy has worked well. Now there is a result that is against the Swiss constitution, against the European Convention of Human Rights, and against the Declaration of Human Rights. I share Matt’s guess that this ban on minaretts won’t survive the European Court of Human Rights, and the initiators of this referendum must have known that too from the beginning.
The whole thing is symbolic, and (yes, Jay!) racist. There are exactly 4 minaretts in Switzerland and none of these is used for calls to prayer. Swiss communities have a lot of influence on the look of planned buildings, so usually the resulting architecture is un-controversal. Here is a photo of one of these 4 mosques with minarett in Switzerland: not exactly oriental.
The “unknown reason” why the Swiss accepted this referendum is racism or islamophobia incited by a campaign that is very worrying. This is a legislation that is aiming at the rights of Muslims. Almost certainly it’s also a protest against how immigration is managed. The tension between Switzerland and Libya has probably played a role too.
Some people have said that human rights must be excepted from referenda. In my view they miss that all law, including human rights, must be set somehow, and referenda are the most direct democratic means to do so.
On the other hand Switzerland has joined the Council of Europe and the UN and their legislation is restricted by that, fortunately.
BigC,
"Whether you are talking about the Disnification of the likes of Mary Poppins or Winnie the Pooh, awful beer, the eclipse of the adverb or a milk shake which is thickened with cold chicken fat, it has been almost excusively negative."
Don't forget the personal computer and the internet. They have allowed myopic, embittered old cynics such as yourself the ability to broadcast across the planet.
You seem to be having some difficulty in telling the difference between culture and technology Jay. Leaving that aside, I did use the word "almost". I'd put Mark Twain, the blues and Charlie Chaplin on a list of exceptions.
Momo,
"This is a legislation that is aiming at the rights of Muslims."
What "rights" are you talking about? If the European Constitution is anything like the American you have the right to freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. I doubt there is a freedom of architecture.
Do you honestly believe that you are wiser, more tolerant, and more progressive than the majority of the Swiss people?
First off, a general point... Islam is not now, nor has it ever been a race. The Swiss decision to ban minarets can be regarded as bigoted, prejudiced or idiotic. But it cannot be regarded as racist.
Now...
If the Swiss want to pass laws banning constructions in general that conflict with some of their ideas about traditional Swiss culture, then they can. Although I'd still regard such laws as stupid. It's the specificness of this law that makes it suspect. As has been pointed out, there are four minarets in the entire country - and yet, apparently, a country-wide law is required to tackle this radical threat to the traditional Swiss way of life?
Also, can we put this "the people voted" guff to rest - if *some* people vote for an idiotic, illiberal measure then it still remains idiotic and illiberal.
Matt, I’ve never seen the point why one should trouble with distinctions between bigotry, prejudice, racism and so on. They belong in the same box. Besides, it’s not unimportant that the majority of Muslims in Europe are immigrants or people “with migration background”, usually with darker hair and skin than the rest of us, and not accepted as belonging to our countries. If this referendum had targeted a “native” minority, the result would have been very much different, I guess.
Matt,
I fully admit that I have little knowledge of this issue in Switzerland. Perhaps it is far more sinister than I realize, but my initial impulse is to give the Swiss people the benefit of the doubt. I am quite sure that the actual situation is far more complicated than the headlines would imply. I am going to assume that the Swiss are kind and intelligent people who have for some reason taken an action that could be regarded as mean and stupid by those who are quicker to judge. I ultimately believe in the aggregate wisdom of democracy, and if this issue was so developed that it actually made it on the ballot for a national referendum, there must be more to it than meets the eye. It is important to have respect and tolerance for--and faith in--others.
Unlike BigC, I would never condemn an entire culture. Unlike Momo, I am not going to pretend I understand the Swiss attitude, or how "Swiss men" think. Unlike you, I am not going to make any judgements about Swiss idiocy or illiberalism. I am an American, not a self-righteous, condescending European bastard.
I have no idea why Europeans feel the need to provoke Muslims needlessly with tasteless cartoons and then jump into the fortified trench of Free Speech like sniping cowards. I can't understand why they feel the need to protect the supposed Secularism of their nation by banning head scarves. I don't know why they would pass a law banning the building of minarets. We do not do such things in America because they are idiotic and illiberal, but that is the way the social model works OVER HERE. Since you are not over here, I am going to assume that you relentless schmucks have an entirely different reasoning at work, and have faith that you are kind and intelligent people who have arrived at your decisions with wise and careful thought.
If Europeans feel the need to pass quaint laws protecting their Swissness, Frenchness, Daneness, or Britishness, then who am I to judge? Or you? If they don't they are going to wind up with a cosmopolitan free-for-all like America, which the majority of Europeans just could not stomach. If you truly were tolerant and liberal, you would have to live with the fact that some people actually do enjoy Disneyland, Coca-Cola, and "chicken fat milkshakes" (Which appears to be some sort of urban legend popular in Britain.) and that they have the right to enjoy their leisure or pleasures how they choose and without your smug judgements.
As far as I can tell, Switzerland has not banned Muslim immigration, the observance of Ramadan, or the reading of the Koran. For whatever reason, they don't want to see minarets, which is an entirely disposable aspect of the Muslim faith. The law can be changed to be less specifically discriminatory if need be, or it can be overturned in EU courts if need be. Have faith in people and faith in the system and stop being such self-righteous, proselytizing judgementalists.
Hear Hear. As a Canadian, I seldom have occasion to agree with an American opinion, but in this case I must wonder - if the Swiss were making a racist point, why on earth would they stop at minarets? If the accusations are true, that "Swiss people don't like Muslims", then wouldn't they make some effort to limit the actual spread of Islam? The impression we're left with is that this is some "warning shot" as though Muslims are to be scared into silence or face "real" action by the Swiss people, and it's ridiculous. One can't help but wonder who are the greater wimps - the Swiss for passing the law or the Muslims for being intimidated by it.
The European Convention (not constitution btw) gives us the right to “manifest one's religion or beliefs” AND not to be discriminated against (and there is a court in Strasbourg watching over these rights). A ban on minarets, but not church steeples, is clearly discriminating Muslims. I bet that Strasbourg will say the same. The Swiss voters are already screaming sovereignty and so on, but they did sign the Convention, and are bound by it.
But even if they hadn’t: we are talking about rights that are usually considered unalienable, remember? Can they be subject of a referendum? I should think not. On the other hand, where do unalienable rights derive from, if not from democratic decisions?
Yes, of course, Jay. Do you honestly believe I would give you any other answer? :-)
There is a Swiss attitude that has always astonished me: Swiss men are actually proud that they decided to let women vote too. They say that this gives women’s vote in Switzerland more legitimacy than the German one which was declared in the November-revolution. No man was asked here, they were simply told that we have equal rights, and that’s how it should be: asking for rights means acknowledging that somebody has the right to refuse them.
The UNESCO principles on tolerance say:
"Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one's own convictions and accepts that others adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behavior and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one's views are not to be imposed on others."
Tolerance comes from our recognition of:
1. the dignity of the human beings,
2. the basic equality of all human beings,
3. universal human rights, and
4. fundamental freedom of thought, conscience and belief.
The Qur'an speaks about the basic dignity of all human beings. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about the equality of all human beings, regardless of their race, color, language or ethnic background. Shari`ah recognizes the rights of all people to life, property, family, honor and conscience.
Islam emphasizes the establishment of equality and justice, both of these values cannot be established without some degree of tolerance. Islam recognized from the very beginning the principle of freedom of belief or freedom of religion. It said very clearly that it is not allowed to have any coercion in the matters of faith and belief. The Qur'an says, (There is no compulsion in religion) (Al-Baqarah 2:256).
If in the matters of religion, coercion is not permissible, then by implication one can say that in other matters of cultures and other worldly practices it is also not acceptable. In surat Ash-Shura Allah says to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), (If then they turn away, We have not sent you as a guard over them. Your duty is but to convey (the Message)…) (Ash-Shura 42:48). In another place Allah says, (Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious. Your Lord knows best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance) (An-Nahl 16:125).
Further, Allah says to the Believers, (Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and beware (of evil): if you do turn back, know then that it is Our Messenger's duty to proclaim (the Message) in the clearest manner) (Al-Ma’idah 5:92).
One can also cite Allah's words: (Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if you turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message)) (An-Nur 24:54).
All these verses give note that Muslims do not coerce people; they must present the message to them in the most cogent and clear way, invite them to the truth and do their best in presenting and conveying the message of God to humanity, but it is up to people to accept or not to accept. Allah says, (And say, 'The truth is from your Lord, so whosoever wants let him believe and whosoever wants let him deny’) (An-Nahl 16:29).
The question then comes: If Allah gave choice to believe or not to believe, then why did He punish the people of Prophet Nuh, the `Ad, the Thamud, the people of Prophet Lut, the people of Prophet Shu`ayb and Pharaoh and his followers? The answer is in the Qur'an itself. Those people were not punished simply because of their disbelief. They were punished because they had become oppressors. They committed aggression against the righteous, and stopped others to come to the way of Allah. There were many in the world who denied Allah, but Allah did not punish every one. Ibn Taymiyyah, the outstanding Muslim scholar, said, "The states may live long in spite of their people's unbelief (kufr), but they cannot live long when their people become oppressors."
Another question is raised about Jihad. Some people say, "Is it not the duty of Muslims to make Jihad?" But the purpose of Jihad is not to convert people to Islam. Allah says, (No compulsion in religion) (Al-Baqarah 2:256). The real purpose of Jihad is to remove injustice and aggression. Muslims are allowed to keep good relations with non-Muslims. Allah says, (Allah does not forbid you that you show kindness and deal justly with those who did not fight you in your religion and did not drive you out from your homes…) (Al-Mumtahinah 60:8).
Islam teaches that fighting is only against those who fight. Allah says, (Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors) (Al-Baqarah 2:190).
Islam may tolerate anything, but it teaches zero tolerance for injustice, oppression, and violation of the rights of other human beings. Allah says, (And why should you not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from Yourside one who will protect; and raise for us from Yourside one who will help!') (An-Nisaa' 4:75).
Islam teaches tolerance on all levels: individual, groups and states. It should be a political and legal requirement. Tolerance is the mechanism that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), and the rule of law. The Qur'an says very clearly: (To every People have We appointed rites and ceremonies which they must follow, let them not then dispute with you on the matter, but do invite (them) to your Lord: for you are assuredly on the Right Way. If they do wrangle with you, say, 'God knows best what it is you are doing.' 'God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning the matters in which you differ') (Al-Hajj 21:76-69).
There are many levels of tolerance:
a. Between family members, between husband and wife, between parents and children, between siblings etc.
b. Tolerance between the members of the community: tolerance in views and opinions, tolerance between the madhahib (Islamic Juristic Schools).
c. Tolerance between Muslims and the people of other faiths (interfaith relations, dialogue and cooperation).
Muslims have been generally very tolerant people. We must emphasize this virtue among us and in the world today. Tolerance is needed among our communities: We must foster tolerance through deliberate policies and efforts. Our centers should be multi-ethnic. We should teach our children respect of each other. We should not generalize about other races and cultures. We should have more exchange visits and meetings with each other. Even marriages should be encouraged among Muslims of different ethnic groups.
With non-Muslims we should have dialogue and good relations, but we cannot accept things that are contrary to our religion. We should inform them what is acceptable to us and what is not. With more information, I am sure the respect will develop and more cooperation will develop.
Reciprocity in the sense of “as long as your states deny Christians their rights, Muslims won’t have rights in ours”?
I think if you were to suggest reciprocity to most Egyptians or inhabitants of the Arabian Penninsula they would point out the fact that they do not prop up corrupt dictatorships in European countries. If we started with the reciprocity there we might get somewhere.
Irrelevant as per. Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and indeed across the Moslem world. Christians in these countries are not Westerners, but local people. Coptic Christians pre-date Moslems in Egypt and were once the majority population. In Turkey - of course one of those 'corrupt dictatorships' you always go on about - the Ecumenical Patriarch has a very difficult time operating even though Bartholomew I is a Turk.
I think the Pope has a point when he says we should demand 'reciprocity'.
And where is the difference between your sort of reciprocity and taking hostages?
"Christians are persecuted in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and indeed across the Moslem world."
Not everywhere in the Moslem World. They have equal status in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Syria) and, until recently in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3526386.stm). There seems to be a curious correlation between how much they are persecuted and how friendly their governments are with the West.
There is no such correlation, save in your mind. Christians are indeed persecuted across the Moslem World. As I have pointed out you are not allowed to build a church nor to hold a Christian act of worship in Saudi Arabia: in Egypt until very recently a church could not be built nor even repaired without the approval of the President. It is now the local Governor, but the effect is much the same. This does not apply to mosques. The list of such persecution is endless and surprising, even in a country like Turkey. The persecution is sometimes subtle, and quite often blatant as has been pointed out. But it is persecution nonetheless.
What I am interested in: do you want to deny Muslim their religious rights in order to blackmail Muslim states to grant Christians their rights?
(You needn't answer me of course, but that doesn't mean I can't go on asking.)
A minaret isn't a 'religious right' is it ? It is actually a planning issue.
Muslims constantly claim about this or that and 'our Muslim brothers', so it seems they see themselves as part of one community and so one assumes must approve of the persecution of Christians. So if the situation were to be reversed - you grant Muslims in Christian states the same rights that Christians have in Muslim states - there is no room for complaint.
There is a serious problem here: I have been very shocked by the way Islam is preached in many Mosques. It seems our Muslim fellow citizens are not interested in controlling extremism, so we need to give them a hand. Perhaps it is time to licenses and control all Mosques, and license and control all preachers. Perhaps there should also be an 'authorised version' of the Koran, prepared by a committee of experts and printed like the Bible.
I suggest you go on YouTube and watch 'Undercover Mosque' and 'Undercover Mosque revisited'.
"There is no such correlation, save in your mind."
Not in the examples I gave you then? You've cited the West's 3 biggest allies as examples where persecution takes place. I've given you two examples of the West's biggest enemies where this hasn't been the case. It's a pretty rough correlation but it is a correlation nonetheless.
Curious+friend,
Just curious: do you want to participate in the discussion, that is replying to previous posts, or do you want to dump statements on us, or are you just practising to hit the “save” button only once?
Re: Momo - and they only gave women the right to vote in 1971! And even then some cantons held out - I think it may even have been 1985 by the time equality was accepted everywhere.
Thomas,
The reason why women’s vote came so late in Switzerland was of course that the men had rejected it several times in their referenda (they had had referenda on the topic for decades) . My point isn’t Swiss-bashing though, it’s the question where fundamental rights derive from. The average Swiss says that even where the decision made by a referendum is wrong (as with women’s vote or now with the minaret ban), after a while they get at the right decision. If one is patient enough, direct democracy arrives at the right decision. My point is that there are rights that can’t be decided on by a majority (or worse, women’s votes that can’t be decided on by men). But if there are rights that can’t be set by democratic decisions, where else do they come from?
A minaret is not a 'fundamental right'. How could it be so ? Perhaps it is a symbol, but that is a different matter.
It is interesting to note that in the referendum many feminist campaigned for a yes vote on the grounds that Islam is repressive to women and minarets are a symbol of that repression. As the Turkish Prime Minister noted 'minarets are the bayonets of Islam'. Interesting point.
A church steeple isn’t either. Banning minarets exclusively is a discrimination and therefore a violation of a fundamental right.
I don’t think it’s very interesting that feminists were among the campaigners, because I have never doubted that bigoted idiots can be found everywhere, even among feminists.
I linked to a photo of 25% of Swiss minarets, did you look at it? If Erdogan associates a bayonet seeing this picture, he must be completely out of his mind.
Church steeples, towers etc already exist. Minarets don't. That's the difference. I suppose the Swiss could have voted to ban all tall religious structures. But of course the Swiss didn't vote to ban mosques did they ?
Erdogan quote is correct, but I believe it is out of context. However one is sure it helped the yes vote no end.
Right. They didn’t, though, and that’s why this is discriminating.
You wouldn’t guess, Jay, but the Swiss can talk and they can be talked to, even the men! I know, because I have tried it. Repeatedly. In a very uncomplicated language at that. I wouldn’t say that “the” Swiss are kind and intelligent people, but many of them are (same percentage as everywhere I should think). And, as a rule, they have better manners than you (but who hasn’t), so I enjoy discussions with them, even if it’s like banging my head against a wall, which inevitably happens on the topic of women’s vote.
You have really little knowledge of this issue, if you think that an issue must be “developed” to deserve a referendum in Switzerland. This was the 7th this year, and they have a few weeks left for a few more if they feel like it. That’s how they run their country and normally I admire this direct democracy very much.
Feminist movement is not against the teaching of islam or religion but against the patriachal society whose rules and conventions degrades women and make them inferior to men.
Given the above, it is clear that being male or female has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. Indeed, history is full of women who set great examples of nobility and righteousness. Some of these examples are appreciated and commemorated in the Qur’an itself. We find a surah named after one of these great women, namely Mary the Virgin, and another surah called An-Nisaa’ (Women).
Indeed, history is also full of examples of "honor killings" when women exercise free will, including recent examples in the west. In many Muslim countries women cannot vote, drive a car, get an education, or access healthcare using Islam as justification. And I don't mind pointing out once again that while all Muslims are not terrorists, the overwhelming percentage of terrorists are Muslim. The planes hijacked on 9/11 were not full of Norwegian Nuns.
I don't claim to know the mind of the Swiss. But I do understand the concerns of integrating muslim immigrants into the west; it's a concern founded upon a history of Islamic violence and the desire to not follow the lead of the UK to integrate Sharia law into western culture. Dismissing it as "Islamophobia" implies an irrational fear when in reality, the Swiss are being prudent to resist integrating the potential of Islamic violence.
Islam is one of the great Abrahamic religions and as such, share a brotherhood with Christianity and Judaism. I look forward to the day when moderate Muslims take ownership for helping overcome those who pervert Islam into Islamo-fascism. Perhaps you will renounce terrorism here or will you be an apologist for terrorism like Abdulksaida?
"And I don't mind pointing out once again that while all Muslims are not terrorists, the overwhelming percentage of terrorists are Muslim."
Would you like to produce some figures to support this extra-ordinary claim?
You seem to be having difficulty with the notion of figures Owly. What is required is an analysis of the number of terrorists who have been Muslims and those who are not. You have cited a dozen or so.
" If Muslims didn't commit these terrorist acts (you probably don't think they were even that)...."
That is a disgusting and entirely uncalled for slur. I'd say "shame" to anyone else. You clearly have none.
Stop being pathetic. You know that most terrorist activity in the world today has Islam at its roots. Admit it. The bomb on the train in Russia last week is now claimed by a Muslim Terrorist organisation. Or is that Scotch Mist ?
Again if you are insinuating that Muslims didn't murder 3000 people in New York, kill 50+ of your fellow citizens in London then just exactly who did ? It is high time you admitted that there is a huge problem all over the world with Islamic terrorism. Just because it doesn't follow your warped and twisted world view and your disgusting politics does not alter the facts.
I'm not insinuating any such thing you intellectually challenged inbred. I'm not even disputing your statements on the issue. I'm challenging a stupid, unsupported, unscientific statement. It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone who bandies around expressions like "overwhelming majority" to back it up with some figures. I am simply holding Mike to the same the same standards he would expect from anyone else.
You are insinuating you disagree with the statement you pathetic 'intellectually challenged inbred' fool. Sort of reasoning one expects from the fascist left. Twas ever thus with you.
"You are insinuating you disagree with the statement"
If you draw that insinuation then I'm not really surprised but a little hint for you. The trick of understanding English is the words that are used and the order in which they are placed.
" pathetic 'intellectually challenged inbred' fool"
Probably all true except for the inbred part. I'm part Welsh and part indeterminate Mediterranean (My Gran was quite a girl). Inbreeding's a speciality of the upper classes. A restricted gene pool you see.
BigC,
"Would you like to produce some figures to support this extra-ordinary claim?"
I don't know what kind of rock you are living under, but Mike is paraphrasing a highly circulated article written after the Breslan attack. You should stop reading garbage about chicken-fat milkshakes and participate in the actual world around you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5912071/
Yes. The article doesn't provide figures either Jay. It is the writer's subjective perspective not an objective analysis. I ask again: What is this overwhelming majority? 60%? 70%? 80%? What timescale is the survey taken over? How is terrorist defined for the purposes of this study? Or is this just a subjective opinion? I think we should be told.
And I didn't read about the milk shakes. I got it from a McDonalds employee.
That’s it! If minarets had been banned in Northern Ireland, there would never have been the IRA…
Post new comment