Islamophobia in Europe: Banning Minarets

[Rupert]

I guess a lot of us could be very wrong and just plain old Islamaphobiacs? Now I am just a simple minded soul, using old fashioned common sense as I see it, and so I asked myself if I see an onslaught of world citizens rushing to get across the borders into Islamic countries for all their "righteous" forms of governing and fair treatment of people of other beliefs and lifestyles? I know a lot here are buying their tickets as we type, but otherwise.......how many do you know that are planning their Holiday trips to Iran? Pakistan? Saudi? Maybe you are looking for a big welcome in Gaza or the West Bank? Be sure to let us know when you are leaving!
Regards!

[waqas]

Originally Posted by *isteve

C'mon Ash, that's not what I said, and if you want to make generalisations about Muslims then your arguments hold no more water than the OP's.

You only need to talk to look at what is happening in Iran to reallise how many normal Muslims actually oppose religious government and want a more western style liberal one, but on their terms - not some non-democratic, US sponsored authoritarian Shah or some Russian puppet. Pakistan is still in the middle of an all out war about that very same principal.

Iran is a classic case. Originally run by a dictatorial Western sponsored Shah who harshly suppressed religious dissent and supported a pro-western secular state that left many in poverty. The USSR, seeing an opportunity to gain influence in an oil rich state, armed and funded a religious underground movement which eventually creates a Shia religious state which is pro-Russian, just as it did in Yemen in 1966.

In the meantime, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US, keen to gain redress the balance, sponsored a Sunni minority leader, Sadam Hussein to fight pro Russian Shias in Iran by proxy, and practically laid down the red carpet for the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan by funding and supporting the tribesmen who are fighting Russian occupation.

I'm not surprised Muslims mistrust the West and the Russians. The sadness of it is that so many of them are still dying by proxy fighting for other people's political goals, even if the funding now comes from the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union. The simple and tragic fact is that Muslims are still inflicting far greater damage on themselves than on the West and so far our attempts at meddling are not helping all that much.

But the OP's assertion that the West is anti-muslim is a bit galling when you consider the efforts made by the west to intervene to prevent the genocide of muslims in Kosovo.

*isteve,
I agree with you except that

-Iran was not "originally run by Shah", it was originally run by a democratic system until in 1953 CIA and British MI5 toppled that government in a coup and installed that Shah.
-Saddam Hussain was another dictator that was installed by Daddy Bush et al. when he was in CIA.
-King Hussain of Jordan was another CIA puppet (he got $1 million per year from CIA, this is a fact, not a conspiracy theory).
-USA gives $3 billion to a country called Israel (population 7 million), the aid to Israel is one third of all US aid given to other countries, this country is what South African activists have called "worse than apartheid" because in apartheid South Africa there were no F-16s, White Phosphorus, Cobra Gunships etc to bomb the Blacks, there were no White-only roads where natives couldn't go. Just two days ago the US Congress passed a resolution that condemns Goldstone report. The resolution is full of errors and accusations that are not true. Robert Goldstone is a Jewish South African, Pro-Israeli, his report concludes that Israel committed war crimes when it used disproportionate force and there was willful killing of innocent civilians, and that civilian infrastructure was targeted even though there is no evidence that hospitals, ambulances, mosques were sheltering fighters, the report also says that Hamas also committed war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians (but no civilians died of those notorious rockets, Israel killed 1387 people including 700+ women and children).
The US aid to Israel is more than the combined GDP of several Arab Nations, this continues while Israel evicts natives from their homes and continues to settle foreigners (who have no connection to the land but have a Jewish mother).
WRMEA: U.S. Aid to Israel
-USA continues to shield Israel by vetoing UN resolutions, Israel has violated more resolutions than any other country but Iraq and Iran bear the wrath of the "civilized" world.
us veto israel un - Google Search
-Israel killed some 1000+ Lebanese in 2006 in a similar operation
-Israeli-backed militia massacred several hundred refugees in Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Lebanon while Ariel Sharon was literally watching at the gates of the camps. Ariel was recently nominated by the "West" for Nobel Peace Prize.
-Bosnian Muslims witnessed massacres of thousands of people while West had blocked all weapons to the Muslims while supplying Serbians with weapons. Tens of thousands of people were massacred, several mass-graves have been found. Clinton's bombing didn't come in time to stop that, the massacres had been going on for years by that time. Watch Robert Fisk's "From Beruit to Bosnia", the documentary covers the trail of destruction of Muslim lands, it was made for Discovery but it was never aired, I wonder why.
from beirut to bosnia - Google Search
-500,000+ Iraqi children died from UN sanctions imposed by "West" between 1991 and 1995 and Madeline Albright said that it was worth it.


*isteve, did you not know about these facts (these are not disputed) when you said that "OP's assertion that the West is anti-muslim is a bit galling"?

[waqas]

Originally Posted by jake.astig

did anybody ever ask what would happen if the situation was reversed?

let's say i want to build a catholic church in saudi arabia or iran. how would that go?

waqas, you'll need to answer this question first before you expect others to accomodate you or your faith.

Jake,
As I said above, what happens in Saudi Arabia is ridiculous and is contrary to the spirit of Isam and Quran. Let's not forget that the people of Saudi Arabia (and other Arabs dictatorships are tired of oppression and it's the West that continues to support these dictators in return for agreements for oil, as long as those Sheikhs invest the money back in the West).

[Nass]

It's quite interesting - there's a good discussion of what Islamophobia actually is here and although I recognise myself in some of the aspects, in others I most definitely don't.

Personally, it's not your average mainstream Muslim guy that remotely concerns me. He surely has the same hopes and aspirations for his kids as I have mine?

It's the extremist nutters that scare the **** out of me. I don't think that's an outrageous or morally reprehensible view.

The bit I don't get is what that average mainstream Muslim guy thinks about the nutters. Or to what extent they support the idea of their theocratic state, the President of which calls for Israel to be wiped off the map? Do they support it or...?

[waqas]

Originally Posted by Ash

Gary, you're right, in part.

OTOH all the major faiths profess humanity in their teachings, with provisions for Islam as mentioned before. And what you're saying Gary is that we cannot both tolerate and respect a person of another faith without us converting to their faith as well, or become Bahai' and accept everything as harmonious truth.

Nah, I can respect and even love my muslim brothers and sisters without subscribing to their beliefs quite easily.

Ash,
Your respect of Muslim brothers and sisters without subscribing to their beliefs (even when you think that their beliefs are pretty bad) is really appreciated and I have no hesitation in saying that the average Western Government is more tolerant on religion than the average Muslim Government, perhaps the Muslim people are more tolerant than their Governments but they're probably still not as open as the Western people are open to Muslim people.

[waqas]

Originally Posted by Ash

It's not worth pursuing this avenue, to be honest.

No church or even evangelism of any kind is permitted in any Islamic state by law. I would personally not be comfortable if such a law were reversed for the Western world as freedom of faith is vital for people to come to their own convictions freely and willingly. Now this to me is not an invitation for muslims to gain a sociopolitical stronghold on western society, but they should still be allowed to believe as they choose in that free society.

Ash,
This statement is not true, you can say that about Saudi Arabia maybe, but not about all Islamic states. Google is our friend:
churches in pakistan - Google Search

No doubt the minorities (even the average Muslim citizen) don't enjoy the same rights that they would enjoy in a "Western" country, but people are getting better, more and more sane voices are out there when there is persecution against a minority group, but I agree, the overall system is pretty bad for the minorities.

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by waqas

Ash,
This statement is not true, you can say that about Saudi Arabia maybe, but not about all Islamic states. Google is our friend:
churches in pakistan - Google Search

No doubt the minorities (even the average Muslim citizen) don't enjoy the same rights that they would enjoy in a "Western" country, but people are getting better, more and more sane voices are out there when there is persecution against a minority group, but I agree, the overall system is pretty bad for the minorities.

So while "someone" makes thing better back home, we're just going to bash the Swiss (or whoever), for not allowing us to do what we want to do?

Hmmmm.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by Nass

Hmmm - I'm not so sure about this? I googled it because I was curious and there do seem to be churches in Iran which is an Islamic state. Same with Pakistan. That said, clearly it's not a comfortable mix, persecution is rife etc.

I lived in Egypt myself which isn't an Islamic state but is a Muslim country. Egypt has a rich history of Coptic Christians and although that again isn't a comfortable situation, I do remember coptic churches there.

There are thousands of underground churches in the world, many in Islamic states and communist countries. The Islamic law gives provision to prosecute for propagating a non-Islamic message in those Islamic states.

I know about Egypt - it's my heritage. What you may not know Nass is beneath the facade of Coptics and muslims living relatively peacefully with each other in a 'democratic' Arab nation is systematic oppression of the Christian minority groups. Who holds the top jobs and influential positions in society in Egypt? Is it that the Christians are any less educated?

There is an unspoken, assumed social norm in Egypt that disadvantages the minority group and the effects of which do not reach any further than discussions at the dinner table. The amount of wrangling a church group in Egypt has to go through to pitch up a church is astounding, and these group are at constant threat of being mobbed, attacked and even bombed. These don't make the news headlines.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

All this means is that you don't subscribe to the fundamentalist version of your religion of choice.
The whole Muslim issue is a Muslim problem that is spilling over into the rest of the world. Until the Muslim culture gets it's shit together and decides that they will no longer tolerate the evil in their midst, they are going to have to deal with the fact that people will not have 100% trust in Muslims in general.
A Muslim saying they abhor violence, but then doing nothing to root it out of their own religious culture is pretty hollow.
I believe the term is tacit permission when you say you won't support something but then support it by inaction.
I recall some years ago a friend of mine pointed out that the Muslim faith is about 700 years younger than the Christian faith and that they would grow up eventually.
Consider what was routinely being done in the name of Jesus in the 1300s, and consider that this is the level of maturity that the Muslim faith is at in the 21st century.

Indeed I do not believe being fundamentalist in any religion is constructive, and defeats the purpose of belief in that religion.

Islam came in 640AD, but I'm not sure that by virtue of its 'younger age' the followers are any less 'mature' - we're all living in the same time period, but it's the appreciation in Islam that followers are to emulate the life of the prophet Muhammad in every way that brings them back to seeking the simpler, less Westernised lifestyle. This I believe fosters even more animosity against the West as many try to distance themselves from the 'wayward and immoral' society they see around them.

[Ash]

Originally Posted by waqas

How is that Bible post any more out of context than the Quran post you made? You read the context and it's talking about "fight until there is no persecution", and about "will you not fight those who broke covenants they made with you", how can you say that that is any different from what Bible says?!!

Simple. Forget what the Scriptures say. Ask yourself what do they mean? The Bible is not (should not) be interpreted as saying that it's OK to fight and kill, whether or not the believer feels justified. You look at the world today, and that may not be the case - do not judge the faith by the follower.

I am not going any further into specific scriptural discussions, there are ENDLESS apologetics out there on each side. And all we'll do is just be playing tennis.

Say (O Muhammad to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar)!

"I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)."

[Ash]

Originally Posted by waqas

Ash, I disagree with you, I will just give one example of sexual promiscuity, how can you say that it's ok to have multiple girlfriends at the same time (or even one girlfriend at a time with extra-marital sexual relationship), even have kids or get pregnant before marriage and still continue to live together as an unmarried couple, and still be spiritual? That is something that is much more common and acceptable for the average Christian compared to the average Muslim (not comparing a Christian living in a free society and a Muslim living in a locked up Saudi Arabia, just the compare the average Muslim in US or Europe).

waqas, this is just soooooo misguided, I'm just sad for this short-sightedness. But you are not the only one I know using this poor argument to try and convince people that Christianity = the West = immorality. This 'compare the righteous muslim to the sinful Christian' argument is very shallow. There is just no point going any further with you on this if you cannot see past your own ignorance.

My point is not say that "my car is big", every person has to defend only his own deed in front of God, I'm not saying I am a better person because I belong to this group that happens to have a better overall average.

Well actually, you are. By virtue of above...
You start to lose credibility when you say things like this. Stick to the core values and be objective.

[Damn Brit]

Originally Posted by Ash

Gary, you're right, in part.

OTOH all the major faiths profess humanity in their teachings, with provisions for Islam as mentioned before. And what you're saying Gary is that we cannot both tolerate and respect a person of another faith without us converting to their faith as well, or become Bahai' and accept everything as harmonious truth.

Nah, I can respect and even love my muslim brothers and sisters without subscribing to their beliefs quite easily.

Yes Ash, the religions do profess humanity in their teachings but very few of their followers choose to hear that part. I like to think that when a person offers another, it has nothing to do with their religion and everything to do with their humanity. You don't need to be religious to practice humanity.

I've said before that I have no problems with peoples beliefs, I believe in Gaia, but I am strongly against organised religion. Organised religions are based on indoctrination and fewar of their god to get people to toe the line. Organised religions preach the 'one god', that is a denial of any other.

If a christian tolerates a muslims belief then in the strictest terms of their religion, they are not a true christian. This is why it's so important for a separation of church and state because it is the state that tolerates those varying beliefs. I do believe that in countries in the muslim world where that separation doesn't exist, even though they may officially tolerate other religions, in reality, they are only paying lip service to this as a PR exercise.

[waqas]

Originally Posted by Nass

It's quite interesting - there's a good discussion of what Islamophobia actually is here and although I recognise myself in some of the aspects, in others I most definitely don't.

Personally, it's not your average mainstream Muslim guy that remotely concerns me. He surely has the same hopes and aspirations for his kids as I have mine?

It's the extremist nutters that scare the **** out of me. I don't think that's an outrageous or morally reprehensible view.

Likewise, it's not the average Westerner that the Muslims love to hate, it's the West's oppressive policies that the Muslims oppose. Who should you fear more; the average Bible Belt conservative who votes for Sarah Palin because she believes that it's God's order to kill Iraqis or a bearded, turbaned conservative Muslim person in Afghanistan who burns the American flag? The former has caused millions of deaths of Muslims (and Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Koreans) by not doing enough to stop these crazy wars, the latter hasn't caused any damage to the Western lives.

The bit I don't get is what that average mainstream Muslim guy thinks about the nutters. Or to what extent they support the idea of their theocratic state,

Islam has been used by dictators to legitimize their dictatorship, General Zia ul Haq of Pakistan took over for 90 days and promised to hold elections, then he stayed on for 11 years, during that time he had a referendum to legitimize his rule "Do you want Islam to be the law of the country? If Yes, then you elect me President". Most of the people are reported to have said no , but the results came out with a heavy majority of "Yes" and he was "elected" as President. He introduced many barbaric laws like blasphemy act (it has been used against not just against minorities but against Muslims for political agenda), Hudood ordinance (the infamous law that required a women to have 4 male witness to prove her rape, otherwise she was considered adulteress), these laws have no basis in the Quran but they were packed as "Islamic" and they brought Islam a bad name and in a way it changed the mindset of the people and instilled intolerance in their minds.

Just ask any American who had been to Pakistan before 1979's Afghan war, Pakistan was a peaceful progressive country.

the President of which calls for Israel to be wiped off the map? Do they support it or...?

That President of Iran didn't exactly say that. No people would like to kill 7 million people of another country. There are some Muslims who would say "Kill all Jews" but there are many Westerners who would say "Kill all Muslims" and "Bomb Mecca to end this insanity", even a US Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said that Mecca should be bombed.

tom tancredo bomb mecca - Google Search

wiped off the map - Google Search

The translation presented by IRIB has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". He says that the Iranian government News Agency IRIB/IRNA translation is the source of the confusion:

One may wonder: where did this false interpretation originate? Who is responsible for the translation that has sparked such worldwide controversy? The answer is surprising. The inflammatory 'wiped off the map' quote was first disseminated not by Iran's enemies, but by Iran itself. The Islamic Republic News Agency, Iran's official propaganda arm, used this phrasing in the English version of some of their news releases covering the World Without Zionism conference. International media including the BBC, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and countless others picked up the IRNA quote and made headlines out of it without verifying its accuracy, and rarely referring to the source. Iran's Foreign Minister soon attempted to clarify the statement, but the quote had a life of its own. Though the IRNA wording was inaccurate and misleading, the media assumed it was true, and besides, it made great copy.

...
According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

[waqas]

Originally Posted by Gooshin

So while "someone" makes thing better back home, we're just going to bash the Swiss (or whoever), for not allowing us to do what we want to do?

Hmmmm.

The audience here is predominantly Western so I am talking about the problems that concern the West. I am a proponent for equal human rights for minorities in Muslim countries and I don't hesitate to stand out against out the persecution that "believers" carry out against the "infidels".

[Gooshin]

Originally Posted by waqas

The audience here is predominantly Western so I am talking about the problems that concern the West. I am a proponent for equal human rights for minorities in Muslim countries and I don't hesitate to stand out against out the persecution that "believers" carry out against the "infidels".

You live in America, forgive me if i wont take you seriously while you proclaim to be a proponent of equal rights for minorities in a Muslim country, because if you were, you would be over there, helping the cause and raising awareness.

America is the last place where you need to raise awareness.