Bandow provides a useful general survey; I've included his reports on some of the more modern, moderate states below. "The Problem of Islamic Religious Persecution: How is it that only Western nations are accused of 'defaming' religion?," by Doug Bandow for National Review, December 3 (thanks to Twostellas):
America, like so many countries in the West, laments its strained relations with the Islamic world. In June, Pres. Barack Obama traveled to Cairo to speak against the "fear and mistrust" that exist between the West and Islam. Yet Muslim governments demand respect for Islam while refusing to offer similar respect for religious minorities within their own borders.The recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of minarets in that European nation has become the latest controversy to generate Muslim protests worldwide. However, Islamic governments are in no position to complain about Western intolerance and "Islamophobia." Most Muslim nations are repressive or offer only limited political freedom. More often than not, Islamic states violate basic human rights; and almost all persecute Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities.
Many authoritarian states -- especially Communist or formerly Communist ones -- violate religious liberty along with other freedoms in order to maintain political control. But Muslim nations are almost unique in their willingness to persecute religious minorities to promote religious ends, as is evident from the State Department's latest report on religious liberty abroad.
The State Department refers to "state hostility toward minority or non-approved religious groups," as if different faiths randomly oppressed different faiths. However, Islam has distinguished itself with the willingness of governments and individuals to harass, attack, jail, and kill members of other religions. Even the most moderate and tolerant Islamic states often fall far short of respecting religious minorities. In Morocco, for instance, the government detained converts from Islam to Christianity, expelled Christian missionaries, and restricted "non-Islamic materials and proselytizing." Many other Islamic states are far worse, however.
AFGHANISTAN
The U.S. expelled the Taliban government, but has not created a free society. Although the Karzai government responded to outside pressure and took some steps to improve religious liberty, explains State, "the residual effects of years of jihad against the former Soviet Union, Taliban rule, civil strife, popular suspicion regarding outside influence of foreigners, and still weak democratic institutions hindered the realization of this aspiration." Relations among different Muslim sects "continued to be difficult"; non-Muslims face "harassment and occasional violence"; "most local Christians did not publicly state their beliefs or gather openly to worship." [...]INDONESIA
The most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia long has reflected a more moderate variant of Islam. But Muslim extremists remain active and often unconstrained by the authorities. Reports State: "Ongoing government restrictions, particularly among unrecognized religions and sects of the recognized religions considered 'deviant' were significant exceptions to respect for religious freedom." Worse, the government sometimes "tolerated discrimination against and the abuse of religious groups by private actors and failed to punish perpetrators." Those responsible are rarely punished. Moreover, "Some groups used violence and intimidation to forcibly shut at least nine churches and 12 Ahmadiyya mosques." [...]IRAQ
Tragically, liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein meant liberating some of the worst sectarian passions, which he had brutally held in check. Roughly half of Iraq's historical Christian community has been displaced, many to Jordan and Syria, another secular Arab dictatorship. Although the government does not persecute, reports State, "violence conducted by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country's vulnerable religious minorities." Although overall violence is down, Christians and other religious minorities continue to be targeted by radical Muslims.MALAYSIA
This former British colony remains freer than Iran but not as free as Indonesia. Observes State: "Minority religious groups remained generally free to practice their beliefs; however, over the past several years, many have expressed concern that the civil court system has gradually ceded jurisdictional control to Sharia courts, particularly in areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims." Conversion from Islam is prohibited and, notes the department, "Religious minorities continued to face limitations on religious expression and alleged violations of property rights," including prohibiting proselytizing of Muslims.[...]TURKEY
Although the government generally respects freedom of religious practice, it restricts Islamic expression in education and official circumstances. Moreover, notes State, "Minority religious groups also faced difficulties in worshipping, registering with the Government, and training their followers," as well as proselytizing. Further, "Threats against non-Muslims created an atmosphere of pressure and diminished freedom for some non-Muslim communities. Many Christians, Baha'is, and heterodox Muslims faced societal suspicion and mistrust, and some elements of society continued to express anti-Semitic sentiments."...
Islam needs a reformation and enlightenment. At this time the radical Islamist elements can freeley operate and have a strong influence in many governments.
I believe the answer would be free porn, alchohal or ganja for all radical Muslims who adhere to strict Sharia Law.
Radical Islam is destroying the planet with its petroleum and poisoning our society with its cult of death.
"Radical Islam is destroying the planet with its petroleum and poisoning our society with its cult of death."
There is only ONE Islam. And yes, it's ruining and destroying the planet with it's over-breeding supremacist, totalitarian, monolith Barbarism.
There is only ONE Islam.
Well stated. Islam can only be "moderate" to the extent that the follower is either disobedient or indifferent to its texts and doctrines.
However, Islamic governments are in no position to complain about Western intolerance and "Islamophobia."
The Moslems are well positioned to complain:
1) Lying-ass news entertainer celebrities who adamantly refuse to cover the important news (O'Reilly, Hannity, Krauthammer, Dobbs, Rusbaugh, et al).
2) Moslems are a key protected victim class as viewed through the legal and reportial prism of the Marxist globo-socialist governments that dominate the West.
3) K-19 academe throughout the West, to include the petrodollar whore frauds who apoplogize there.
5) Marist globo-socialist leaders in power in America now who never saw a Moslem ass they wouldn't kiss or a sandal they wouldn't lick.
.
4) Petrodollars.
I don't see how the Moslems could be better positioned than they are right now. Looks pretty tight to me.
Maybe a thermonuclear blast will loosen things up some time in the future.
*** 92:8 ***
The State Department refers to "state hostility toward minority or non-approved religious groups," as if different faiths randomly oppressed different faiths.
State is populated with puppies issued from Pedigree Diploma Mills, mainly the Ivy League and a few other tacitly approved institutions, and so of course they're confused and incoherent (there's a difference). No, they do not make any sense, but yes, they can do that cuz they're certified.
And don't blame Hillary (Yale) for the mental chaos. Just rest assured that these important persons will do the wrong thing. And bravo to them that, for that's what they are supposed to do.
Muslims should clean first their own before they criticize their host country. Do they have sense of shame just for once?
I wonder if any of us can truly imagine the supremacist mindset of Muslims. If you have ever come to understand how Nazis really, truly believed that Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc were genuinely sub-human, that killing them and abusing them was natural and good, only then might we see how Muslims are not bothered by the hypocrisy of demanding everything for themselves while never even considering the idea of acting reciprocally, never acknowledging any rights for non-Muslims.
Hypocrite thy name is Islam.
Many of us understand the Nazi mindset and the shocking similarity of the Muslim minset. The problem is that not ENOUGH of our people can understand. Our government education system does not teach the basics that are necessary to understand this phenomena.
Shutdownthemosquesdown.org The Feds won't do it so it's got to be a grassroots movement like the Tea Party and be directed at individual state governments which may have to exercise their 14th amendment rights. Or just don't nothing and bitch on the Internet all the time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. ANY belief system that believes and teaches that some human beings are better than others, is to be fought with every fiber of our being.
Is it possible to build a church or display a cross or Menorah in a Muslim county. I think not.
I thought John was making a suggestion for somebody else to create such a site, but perhaps he had a typo, it already exists
www.shutdownthemosques.org
Islam is even worse than Nazism. Nazism was only around for 12 years, but Islam has been murdering and oppressing people for nearly 1400 years. Yet these Muslims have the gall to complain about how they are supposedly being oppressed. What they are really saying is 'how dare you fight back against our supremacist, totalitarian ideology, you should just roll over and submit like good dhimmis'. I have some bad news for Islamists: the Swiss minaret ban is only the beginning of the fightback.
Wnaaat? Malaysia isn't modererite after all? Where's Sri to explain this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTJTlqmz0YU
OK, OK, so the Muslims have very thin skin, don't like to be told "you can't do that", are criminals with a criminal ideology, and are harsh towards nonmuslims the moment they can be harsh with impunity. Still, the National Review ought to have enough sense of humor to suggest that Muslims are just pious, Irish Catholics with skin a little thinner than usual and with a little less tendency to wander far from the faith.
At any rate, may every Muslim die a thousands deaths by papercut as when cross-examined to provide justifcation for imagining that his willful god exists with the properties acribed to it. In the meantime let's include this story in the same file where we deposit the ones about Christian dominionists who think themselves entitled to display those ten misguided laws (misguided because of alleged divine command) in governmental buildings and who throw a little hissy fit when things don't go their way and who would happily persecute nonchristians maliciously if they could get away with doing so.
Now, CATHOLICERIC, why don't you take your own advice, in silence, until you are perfected? Go on, do as you're told. Clean your own. You will be protected for life from caricaturing yourself again as Catholics everywhere find it so irksome not to do. For example, I know a Catholic man, aged about 73 yrs, who for decades has been repeating parrotlike that "people who live in glass houses...". In fact he's a parasite who lives off a generous pension obtained by working for decades for, get this, the community and economic development department of the City of Detroit.
That parasitical Catholic just loves his cliche, and his parasitism is typical behavior for Christians generally. You know it, and I know it. He should be forced into penury by having his pension terminated. SS benefits, too.
MENORAH, why not ask if it's possible to display reproductions of the ark of the Mosaic coventant among Muslim majorities? It's much more Jewish than a menorah and would be good therapy for Muslims' thin skin. But would it invite embarrasing questions about malice that is as intrinsic to Judaism as it is to Islam?
Yep, it would, and the rationalizations and sophistries offered in defense of that malice by the usual suspects would differ hardly a jot from the Muslims' own excuses for Islam.
STAND FAST IN THE LIBERTY, your response is PCMC hokum. The character of every Muslim is inferior to that of any noncriminal, who could never be a Muslim given the criminality intrinsic to Islam and the bad attitude cultivated in the Muslim's thinking by Islam.
Every noncriminal is better than every Muslim, and that's just the way it is...just as some criminals are better than other criminals. However, it does not follow that Americans are better than Muslims.
The major problems in our part of the world are obvious for all to see. They are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the last of which is more Jewish than Judaism. Like socialism, a relative to which Jews still flock like flies, they need to be recognized as organized crime movements and eradicated as such. Send capitalism, too, with them and maybe, just maybe we would have free-markets and the liberty about which you lack understanding.
This summary is very true, lots of countries on this planet are subdued by Islamic supremacism, there is no freedom for anybody who's got a different view or perspective from the Islamic way of life. But Mohammedans complain about the ban of minarets in a very small European country where only 400,000 of them live. I'm wondering where lies the comparison?
But the clear Swiss decision for freedom and democracy is a clarion call for all of Europe, at least for the neighbouring countries. The German media is full of chat shows, discussions and what have you about that topic. The politicians are very upset, they don't really know how to react, as it's always a great sin from the point of view of PC to say anything against the religion of peace(TM). But we'll carry on.
I guess I'll refer to what was said about the government of Iraq. Seeing that it was overthrown when the war started, I still see no government set in place there.
When Saddam was in power (no I'm not defending him), there was structure there. Yes he did bad things, but as far as I'm concerned, they were to people that plotted against him. What I'm trying to say is HIS RIGHT HAND MAN WAS A CHALDEAN CATHOLIC (an indigenous Iraqi Christian [as I am]).
We have been there for thousands of years and have been targets since the beginning (have you heard of the Armenian Genocide? Well I bet you didn't hear that nearly a million Iraqi Christians were also murdered [a huge number if you consider how many of us are left in the world])
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/08/genocide-of-iraqi-christians.html
I believe the shameless people who are wiping out my race would have been manhandled or at least halted if there was a structural government and someone who KNEW how to run the country.
In conclusion, a bad government is better than no government at all.
Islam ...a scourge on us ALL!
Something I'm somehow not getting. I've been reading endless books about people's lives in IslamWorld, the Hell that it is. I even read most the Koran and got so damned mad, frustrated. So here's what I'm not getting. If these people(musslims) have all this hate and violence in their so called religion, then why aren't people in western society getting it that acts of violence perpetrated on innocent victims and non-Muslims is psychopathic and on the same level as Jeffery Dahmer, Charles Manson, et.al? Why isn't there more said about how if there's no sense of remorse or guilt or shame or right or wrong according to local rules, laws and Constitutions, then doesn't that pretty much mean psychopathic personalities that should be either confined to max security mental institutions or max security prisons? I don't get it why the ones who lived through Hitler aren't getting it about what we're up against. But then I don't get it why Obamah wants to close Gitmo. I don't get it why the reason for the war on freedom of religion and Western Civilization in general isn't stated. Maybe in my heart I get it but when I think about it too long I get too frustrated and emotional. And send out more email of info to all the people I know who need it.
"But Mohammedans complain about the ban of minarets in a very small European country where only 400,000 of them live."
"only 400,000?" I don't consider that to be an "only." That's huge. I was shocked to learn there were so many in Suisse.
You are raving and making little sense (e.g., your comment that "Muslims are just pious, Irish Catholics with skin a little thinner"). Judaism and Christianity are not a threat to world order, nor do these religions produce untold numbers of terrorists who desire to conquer the world in the name of their faith. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian ethic is arguably as enlightened an ethical system as man has ever known and is intricately responsible for Western Civilization being the great civilization which it is.
One of the greater intellectual errors is moral equivalency thinking and you are guilty of this egregiously so. This site is for constructive criticism of an ideology (i.e., Islam) that threatens liberty wherever it exists. You know or should know that the theological blueprint of neither Christianity nor Judaism threaten real freedom at all. Grow up intellectually (and emotionally) or get lost. By the way, and for your information, I am an agnostic, not religious in the least, and I think you're an idiot.
Much more could be said about each country -- and the problems of those who are not Muslims, living in Muslim-ruled lands, go far beyond the need to obtain permission to build or repair their churches and temples.
Just two examples, from two of the most "moderate" and multi-religious of Muslim-dominated countries. In Indonesia, there has taken place the systematic destruction, by Muslims, of churches and temples. In Indonesia, according to the Barnabas Fund, thousands of churches have in recent years been destroyed. In Malaysia, in Kuala Lumpur, a Hindu temple was razed by Muslims in the government, over Hindu protests.
And one from non-moderate, but at least non-Arab Pakistan: churches and church-supported schools have been the object of attacks; more than a decade ago, Bishop John Joseph, in an act of conscious martyrdom to protest the persecution of Christians, immolated himself.
It is absurd for Muslims to scream about a handful of minarets in Switzerland -- ignoring the fact that the mosques themselves haven't been touched -- and not, anywhere at all, give the slightest hint of recognition that the way they humiliate, persecute, force to live in conditions of physical insecurity, non-Muslims, and what's more, not only exercise control over the repair and building of churches, but fail to punish, and in some cases egg on, Muslims to attack and destroy churches, Hindu temples, and other monuments associated with non-Muslim faiths. This is so widespread, so impossible to miss, that one wonders how any Muslim spokesman at all, how Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, for example, think they can get away with continuing to ignore the horrible treatment of non-Muslims not everywhere, but almost everywhere, in Dar al-Islam, and simulaneously scream bloody murder about the mildest attempt, by the people of Switzerland, to express their quite-justified doubts and fears -- those doubts and fears are shared by sensible people all over Western Europe, despite the best efforts of politicians and much of the media to put on the defensie those who have retained their common sense -- of Islam, doubts and fears that grow, and grow, especially as one sees the completely unjustified, hysterical, dishonest, and disgusting reaction of Muslims to the Swiss vote.
you know what has been voted on in Switzerland is only a start and that is why muslims fear, that we in the West know and understand how evil islam really is. we can read your koran,hadiths,etc. mr.mohammud and we will in the end get rid of your evil cult
Lakeview_Paul,
You said
Do you really believe that pious Irish Catholics are indistinguishable from Muslims? The difference is huge. A Muslim can refer to core Islamic texts to justify violence against and subjugation of non-Muslims under the rule of Islamic law. An Irish Catholic cannot refer to his core text -- the New Testament -- to justify violence or imposition of religious law. Do you think there is no significant difference in the social results of the New Testament on the one hand and the social results of the Qur'an and Hadith on the other? Muhammad united religion and state in Medina. The central figure of the New Testament rejected theocracy repeatedly. Do you know the places in the New Testament where that happens? You should, before you draw false equivalences between very different religions.
You said,
You know, Christian dominionists actually are a tiny minority of Christians. The same is not true of Islamic Law Muslims. They represent a very substantial minority, perhaps even a majority, of Muslims worldwide. The reason is simple: the central figure of the New Testament rejected theocracy. The central figure of the Qur'an set out a detailed plan to subject the whole earth to Islamic law.
You said,
Good grief. You claim to know what "typical" behavior of Christians is "generally"? Somehow I think you yourself know that is a foolish and unconsidered remark. Okay, so you evidently hate Christians, and/or Christianity (and other religions, or members of other religions). And you are a fanatical libertarian or anarchist who thinks there should be no social safety net provided by the government, no ifs, ands, or buts. And perhaps you are an atheist. Do you find all these positions of yours terribly clever? To me it all seems rather jejune.
You said,
That "Yep" of yours sounds so self-satisified. But in any event. You say malice in Judaism is as intrinsic as that in Islam? You really are mistaken.
1. Tina Magaard, a linguist who got her Ph.D. in Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne, did a three year study of the original texts of ten major religions. She found that by comparison with the other nine religions, the texts of Islam were far more aggressive against other religions.
2. If, in speaking of malice in Judaism, you refer to the parts of the Jewish holy texts where Jews are commanded to wipe out whole towns, that's fine to point out, but it remains utterly different from what one finds in the Qur'an and Hadith. What happens in the Old Testament is not an open-ended command into the future for Jews to attack unbelievers and subjugate them under Jewish law as second-class citizens. Judaism is not a proselytizing faith. Islam is. And Islam's core texts do indeed contain open-ended commands to make war against non-Muslims (when possible) and to subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. The violence in the Old Testament is described. It is old history, limited to a number of towns. The violence in the Qur'an is prescribed. It is a command for now, for the future, and for the whole earth. For example, in one of the most canonical hadith collections we find Muhammad saying that the whole earth belongs Allah and Muhammad:
3. If the malice in Judaism is indistinguishable from that in Islam, why is it that the number of Nobel prizes in the sciences, mathematics, economics, etc., that the Jews receive is literally thousands of times greater per capita than the number of such prizes awarded to Muslims?
4. You should consider reading the short but pithy chapter in Daniel Boorstin's The Creators, the chapter comparing the Judeo-Christian tradition with the tradition of Islam. Boorstin points out a number of fundamental differences. The God of the Old Testament is more a God of Creation than a God of Command. The God of the Qur'an is more a God of Command than a God of Creation. The Old Testament God, primarily a Creator, even had to rest on the "seventh day" after all his active work of creating. The Qur'an denies and challenges that Judaic image of God, because the Qur'an says that Allah did not have to rest after creating the cosmos, because Allah simply commanded things to Be, and they were. That difference is actually there in the Qur'an's story of the creation of the cosmos. Furthermore, as Boorstin points out, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, human beings are "made in the image of God," and are told to imitate their Creator, they are told to create: to "be fruitful and multiply." Their realization of their destiny would be in the extent they became creators, like their God. But in the Qur'an, human beings are not made in the image of God. They are not conceived as sons and daughters of God, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition. In the Qur'an, human beings are called slaves of Allah, the commander, the despot. Thus Boorstin concludes that for Muslims, "to create is a rash and dangerous act," a kind of blasphemy.
You really need to make more distinctions.
You said,
Ah, a dead giveaway: "The major problems in our part of the world are obvious for all to see." When someone says something like that, you know you are dealing with a propagandist of some sort, someone with an "ism" or a belief system to push, someone who doesn't want to think about his own belief system.
Anyway, so you hate religion, and you think that atheism or something similar is the cat's pajamas. You are some sort of anarchist who finds capitalism opposed to free markets, which you think are obviously the best thing going. You think you don't fit into any categories, but your pushing of your current worldview, which is really just rather narrow is not nearly as uncommon as you think.
"Listen to the muzzle-ems kvetch and moan - o"
"Listen to the muzzle-ems SQUEEEEEL!" (HUH!)
"Watch the little gee - hah - deees pump their fists! - so"
"They want fear to be your next MEAL!"
(but the Swiss said)
"Chop their little MIN-A-RETZ down to nuthin'"
"Chop their little MIN-A-RETZ OFF!" (YEAH!)
"Shove those little MINI-WRETCH-es into some...."
"where only-allah knows where to shop"
Well, actually the profit mudhummud (may PB&JbUHB*) would probably be shopin' around in there but, um, he was like that....
Wonderin1
*Peanut-Butter&Jelly_b_Up-His-Butt
You are dealing with an atheist who wants a platform to espouse his views. He also, in a very bigoted fashion, lumps all religions together as being just as bad as the other. There is no intellectual process there, but simply a smug self-assurance of one who mouths generic talking points. You can see similarly canned rhetoric among Neo-Fascists and Communists.
It's an extremists' world, the moderates just live in it
Lorita,
I see nobody else has handled your question, there may be other more qualified, but I have been thinking on this one for several years, as have many others.
The jist of the question is, "Why is it, that in spite of mountains of evidence, that many seemingly intelligent people become apologists for Islamosupreicism and its scriptural derivatives in regards to the dire consequences, which integrating Muslims into our society will pose to our future generations?"
First of all it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out, basically all you have to do is look at the homogeneous nature of the Islamic world and you will get a clue before you even open a book. I've been studying this subject for about 7 years now, however if this were Thermopylae I'd be a Thebian, others and you know who you are, would be more like Spartans in regards the the professional manner in which you conduct yourselves. Anyways I digress.
Here are some of my favorite reasons, which may explain the behavior behind your frustrations.
#1- Cultural elitism: Many don't expect cultures which they deem to be less than theirs to behave to western standards, sort of like when Travis the chimp, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8QZT40Wm7M ,went crazy as if he had Hatith read to him as a lullaby, before he ate that persons face off. People were disgusted, but they didn't blame the Chimp, they blamed the owner. Due to the fact that the chimp is just an animal, and can't be held to the same social standards as human beings. This is how a lot of people subconsciously view Muslims, like Travis the chimp. They would never admit it, but it is true nonetheless.
#-2 Is fear: When people come to realize the immense danger which has permeated our society I think there are instinctual mental blocks people throw up in order to divert themselves from seeing the truth. Case in point would be the astounding mental gymnastics which went on display over Fort Hood. It would be comedic if it weren't so dangerous. They were even making up, out of thin air, fake mental conditions to explain away all of the mountains of evidence that Hasan Nidal was acting upon religiously motivated prescriptions to violence for his fellow soldiers. In this category are cultural relativists, etc. etc. and all of the other creative ways people will tell you 2+2=12 with complete assurance.
#3 Laziness: This is the category for most Americans. I have a test for you. Ask 10 random people what the Hadith is. I'll bet no more than 3 in 10 will know. This is the category Lakeview_Paul is in. A person who was born with the knowledge of the universe sort of magically self imbued into his, or her mind by birth right.People that don't need to read, or reason ....
Do not fret though, look at the minaret ban, banning minarets had nothing to do with architecture, or a muzzens call. There were city ordinances in place to handle that, it was a referendum against Islamization, all of the polls a week before the vote supposedly showed the referendum would fail. The pollsters were not being honest. In the end free people will not just let themselves get over run, as much as our governments are trying to suppress this reality through draconian measures against free speech ie OIC blasphemy laws. Rest assured there will be some VERY big surprises in the next round of elections in Europe, the States will follow suite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTJTlqmz0YU
Anyways Robert talks about this subject in some of his books.
Another great Islam vs Travis the chimp example would be the Mohammed Teddy Bear riots.
The case:
English woman travels to the pisslamic world to live in a virtual cesspool in order to teach Muslim children arithmetic and English. In the course of getting to know her students she names a Teddy bear Mohammed ... after one of her students mind you. The Islamotards following the example of Mohammed himself decide that she has insulted the prophet by creating an idol, or a cartoon figure out of the prophets likeness. Following Mohammeds tradition of killing those that insulted him (ie Theo Van Gogh, ie dead 7th century Jewish poets) an entire nation of Tavis the Islamochimps run wild in the streets with blood lust waving machetes, calling for blood, calling for heads. What does the western media do? They sympathize with Travis the Islamochimp of course, because the English school teacher should have been smart enough to know that you don't name your Teddy bear after Mohammed even if one of your students parents have elected to defame the prophets name after their sons likeness.
Get the link, blame the victim in order to dispel the obvious truth, which would lead you to the gross and horrible reality which Islamic traditions, Hadith, and Muslim infestations present to the stability, and peace of western civilization in the long run. It is cowardice our children will curse us for.
Muslims call themselves the Umma, that is they are a single community of believers. In Islam, borders and countries are viewed as artificial.
Why Islam dominates, other faiths/religions are not allowed. Christians, Jews, and all other faiths are persecuted, Christians cannot build churches or cathedrals. Copts in Egypt cannot ring bells. The temple mount at this time has a monstrosity on it, and no Jew or Christian is allowed to worship there.
Until the Umma, the Muslims allow equal treatment and freedom of all religions within their borders, then no Mosques or minaret should be allowed to be built anywhere in the free world. A place known as Dar al Harb, the place of war, a place of unbelievers.
Good for the Swiss. This is one win for honor and integrity.
I agree with ethoman but let's add one more reason:
4. CONFUSION: Most westerners consider themselves to be inherently "good" people, "moral" and well balanced in their views. I say this in a general way and don't include psychopaths or mentally disturbed folks (see Charles Green). From the standpoint of an average westerner who, perhaps, has not experienced Islam or muslim people first hand the whole issue is rather "peripheral." They of course are aware of major terrorist incidents when the occur and then they get news on it from the (mostly) liberal press and from what people around them talk about, but really it's not a big issue for them. Now as we all know islam lies out of both sides of its mouth - the press interviews some mullah who smiles and says "religion of peace" next some imam saying "religion of tolerance," after that some liberal commentator says "we just don't know" then BHO comes on and says "don't jump to any conclusions islam is so great etc. etc." AVERAGE PEOPLE ARE JUST CONFUSED about the issue, and since most people like to be fair and give the benefit of a doubt, that's what they do. Stealth jihad's greatest ally is confusion coupled with the very decency of the people they want to subjugate.
The rest of the world should adopt the Arabian standard and apply it to the treatment of mohammedans.
However the wahabbis treat outsiders is how the rest of us should treat the mohammedans.
AND the policy should be loudly and openly acknowledged.
A policy of mohammedan reciprocity.
No churches in Arabia? Fine. No mosques in Christendom.
No Bibles? Fine. No korans.
No open Christian prayer? Fine. No open mohammedan prayer.
And they can be told simply that we'll just follow their rules. So if they don't like it, they can just loosen up the rules on their side and we'll do the same.
But the no minaret thing is a decent start.
It's actually ridiculous to get upset about this little minaret ban:
Minarets are not an original part of Islam. Muhammad didn't talk about them, didn't built any, and they're not mentioned in the quran or the hadith. They have no religious significance! A minaret is just an extra, plastered on for one particular reason:
Marking the geographical area under it as being under Islamic rule.
We can rightfully, and should, reject these irrelevent symbols of theocratic power.
It's actually ridiculous to get upset about this little minaret ban:
Minarets are not an original part of Islam. Muhammad didn't talk about them, didn't built any, and they're not mentioned in the quran or the hadith. They have no religious significance! A minaret is just an extra, plastered on for one particular reason:
Marking the geographical area under it as being under Islamic rule.
We can rightfully, and should, reject these irrelevent symbols of theocratic power.
One phoney 'argument' used by some dhimmi critics of the democratic Swiss ban on minarets is that many Muslim immigrants in Switzerland are from Kosovo, and so less of a threat than Muslims from other geographical areas.
'The religion of peace' site provides a corrective, with its picture of the week:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Also, 'TROP' provides this important link about how some Kosovan Muslims have destroyed and desecrated many Christian churches in Kosovo:
"The Kosovo tragedy"
http://www.interfax-religion.com/kosovo/
It's like a racket wrench, no matter which way you try to turn it, it only moves in one direction.
http://go.to/islamhistory
Don't just say 400,000 muhammadan muslim in Swiss is
nothing, these is serious matter....
If you have 4,000 muhammadan muslim in any countries
they will create problems in that countries they
migrate too...so don't think that 400,000 is a small amount
One Muhammadan muslim marry 4 wives X 4 children X 400,000
can you guess what will happen in Swiss in 2 years time...
Hopefully,when the Muhammadan muslim pray 5 times a day
in Swizerland there won't be an avalanche in the mountains
of Swizerland because of these SOUND BLASTER MINARETS.....
Very well said by Ethoman and Eleanor. I so agree with his Travis the Chimp-argument. It was also a point of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It is Muslims themselves who should be most concerned about this point, because it really is the biggest insult to them, that they are somehow not capable of the same responsibility/ accountability as the Kaffirs are held to.
And yes, there is so much confusion. In some posts here it was said “there is only one Islam”. And many Muslims say the same, when they explain the beauty and glory of Islam. But other Muslims and apologists or just ignorants, say: “Do not tar all Muslims with the same brush”. “When a Muslim does something bad do not blame Islam for it, he probably has other reasons for his conduct”. So many decent democratic people think: OK, obviously there are different sorts of Islam and Muslims. But they fail to demand that the Muslims themselves then actually should DIVIDE and in part side with democracy against theocracy and Islam-supremacism all the way. Or perhaps claim total neutrality.
Another reason why Westerners fail to respond adequately to the Islamic threat might be that Which Lee Harris says, in his book “The suicide of reason”, the Islamic threat to the West”. Western people are rational and autonomous (so divided) to the core; and cannot imagine that other people think primarily tribal. Instead they trust these tribal thinkers in the end to comply to rational options before them, in their own interests, for a good life. Whereas the tribal thinkers well may be willing to sacrifice their own life, something a rational person would never see as his/ her “self-interest”.
And finally, Lee Harris says that the law of the Jungle, in which might makes right, through force and deception, is the most common law practiced in human history. But it has been superseded by the rule of law and rational thinking, enlightened self-interest-for-all for so long now, that: many Westerners cannot even imagine other humans would resort to the law of the jungle, when it results in their success (of their own goals). And that unsuspecting naiveté is precisely what gives the “law of the jungle-operator’ even more chance to success.
The poster above who calls himself 'combat 18' should be aware that there is no sympathy here for Nazis or fans of Hitler.
I'm sure everyone else here would agree.
The hypocrosy of the Islamic world stands prevalent. While saying that not allowing the minaret to be displayed in Switzerland is offensive, they themselves have shown lack of respect and tolerance towards non-muslims.
Churches are not allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, new churches in Pakistan are not allowed to be built, in the Hamas controlled Gaza region, bibles have been burned, churches have been vandalized, and Christians are being forced to convert to Islam.
It is true Egypt, that Coptic Christians are not allowed to ring the church bells. I myself can vouch for that. I have been there.
In Sudan, at the crossroads of Islam and Christianity in Africa and one of the only nations on earth where slavery is still common, the Islamic fundamentalist government has been waging war on its millions of Christian citizens. As a result of the vicious civil war going on since 1955 between the Muslim Arab North and the Christian Black South, it is estimated that some two million people have died thus far. Those that are not killed outright are forced to convert to Islam and then sold into slavery.
Although the population of modern Turkey is more than 99% muslim, less than one hundred years ago, under the predecessor Ottoman Empire, it was about 30% Christian. The situation changed when some two million Armenian Christians were massacred between 1905 and 1918, a genocide which the Turkish government still denies. Of the remaining Christians, many fled immediately, while others facing death threats, systemic harassment, and discrimination, emigrated later. The Greco-Turkish war of 1922 resulted in most of the 200,000 Greek Christians leaving the country, with only a small remnant remaining, who continue to complain of government harassment and discrimination.
In Saudi Arabia, Christians are less than 1% of the 21-million population, and the public practice of Christianity is virtually unknown since by law there are no Christians in Saudi Arabia.
And to date, the country of Turkey has not apologized for the massacre of the Armenian Christians.
There have been in the past, centuries of violence within Christianity starting with the rise of the Catholic church in establishing its roots, and banning anything they considered heretic, The Crusades were in defense of 460 yrs of muslim aggression in the holy lands, we had the Knights
Templar massacre on October 13th 1307, the Spanish Inquisition, The persecution of Protestants in King Henry's time with the uprising of the Protestant movement, and we had the Catholic Church turn a blind eye to the massacres of 6 millions jews in WW2. But the Catholic church has apologized, but in no way does Christianity tell its adherents to exhort violence and murder, nor does Judaism.
As a former Christian, I am now a true non-believer in any religion, due to the fact that there are contradictions in all religions and that the use of reasoning and logic have outweighed the doctrines emanating from the pages of these so called "holy" books of a god or son of god.
But, the core tenants of Islam that have been meticuously stated by many above, and the actions and inactions taken by extremists muslims and so called "moderate" muslims only give jurisprudence to the fact that Islam as created by Muhammed, lends itself as a truly violent, non-peaceful, and intolerant political/religious system.
BTW, every time I had set foot in a Church I have never heard a priest or pastor say to go out and commit abhorrent acts of violence and bloodshed to non-Christians.
The anti-abortion shooters who say that their god condones that act,(this is not a belief nor tenant of Christianity)
are very miniscule compared to the millions of Islamic jihadists commiting violence and trying to establish an Islamic world order. Nowhere, have I ever seen in the New Testament to wage war with non-believers, to force them to convert, to behead them or cut off their hands and feet. This is prominent in Islam with the over 100 verses which say to do just that.
While the muslims outrage over this minaret ban in Switzerland, the non-muslims in the Islamic world continue to be persecuted.
Europe has banned in Germany the wearing of hijabs for muslim teachers in schools and Sarkozy has banned the wearing of burkas in France saying it oppresses women. Maybe Europe is finally waking up to radical Islam, will America do the same?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/03/here-is-fitna.html
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781#
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened/
demographicproblem.wmv (7209KB)
None of the reasons ethoman proffers, supplemented by the fourth reason that Eleanor added, are primary; all are secondary. They are factors, but they are not the kind of reason that passes the test of being primary, defined as that without which the phenomenon would not have been generated nor would not be persisting.
I.e., without the primary reason, the phenomenon of the West persisting in whitewashing Islam and ignoring its danger would not be sustained by all those secondary reasons combined, let alone any one of them -- that is, if we accept the fact that Islam is obviously globally dangerous of the highest degree of deadliness, and in addition grotesquely unjust.
There are many secondary reasons, including more than the four ethoman and Eleanor provided, and they may be ranked in order of importance/influence, but all below the primary reason.
The primary reason is that Muslims are perceived to be an ethnic people (or a collection of ethnic peoples) and that thus -- this "thus" being the crux of the primary reason -- we the white West are obliged to accord them extraordinary privileges, respect and deference with an irrationally high threshhold set for what would constitute a breach of this obligation by which we would be guilty of the capital thought crimes of bigotry, prejudice and racism which are capital crimes because they would lead us down the slippery slope toward ethical physical crimes against that ethnic people, the Muslims, such as rounding them up, putting them in camps, ethnically cleansing them, and at the inexorable bottom of that slippery slope, of course, genocide.
Now, once we see this primary reason, we can rank the secondary reasons appropriately. I would argue that the most important secondary reason is ethoman's Fear -- specifically, a fear of Muslim violence. But this fear, because of the pressure of the primary reason, remains semi-conscious in a condition of general denial. Fear of Muslim violence exerts its force on the Western psyche formed by PC MC, but the force is a perversely paradoxical force: precisely because that force leads rationally toward an escalation of suspicion of Muslims and toward a rational appraisal of concrete policy actions against Muslims, beginning with intense surveillance, closing down mosques, stopping immigration, selective deportation, and ending with total deportation, the more that PC MC Westerners fear Muslim violence -- and the more that Muslims threaten, plot and actually succeed in inflicting violence -- the more the primary reason in the psyche of PC MC Westerners becomes intensified, rather than weakened as it should with a mind operating rationally.
The first segment on the Daily Show last night was about the minaret ban. Jon Stewart's commentary was emblematic of the facile and banal view that it's all about hate and indeed, unnecessary.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/257633/thu-december-03-2009-michael-specter
Unfortunately, many young people get their "news" from this comedy show.
Excellent points, Joeblough!
Joeblough, great post, I loved to read it.
I like to add to it. If the democratic nations were united in a League (LDN) as John McCain proposed, they could talk and negotiate with the OIC (Org. Islamic Countries) of 57 states. The LDN could say: Where you Muslims are in majority and power you show us what Islam means in practice.
To the by and large measure of your intolerance we will be intolerant to the Islamic minorities in our countries.
We know that many Muslims in Western countries tell us that the governments in power in Islamic countries are not practising "true Islam" so they should not be held accountable for what these governments do or allow other Muslims to do to our Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Freethinker brethren in their Islamic countries.
But for these brethren we eventually must have the same rights, opportunities as the Islamic minorities in democratic nations now have. Including the right to proselytize and apostasize with impunity. Otherwise we democrats are slowly committing suicide, with this unbalance.
Only now this is becoming more urgent, because of the growing % of the population in Democratic Nations that are Muslims. And with the suspicion that most of their loyalty is to their Ummah, and that they are disloyal to our very democracy and the nation they live in.
Demsci:
You put me in mind of something I have often heard over the years.
I used to notice fairly often, back in the days before the left had established complete control of the schools and media, that when confronted with some of the outrages perpetrated by the Soviets, the Chicoms, the North Vietnamese, the Kmer Rouge and the like, that leftists would offer up the same song about how the people in question weren't practicing "true" communism.
There was always this insistence on a pure "true" communism that was supposed to be a wonderful thing, but which nobody had ever actually seen or done anywhere -- which had never existed in reality.
And based on that, we were all expected to overlook or even ignore the actual real moral outrages perpetrated by actual real communists -- always, mind you, in the name of that peachy dandy pure true communism ... which of course nobody had seen.
So now, as you point out, we are being asked to overlook the real actual moral outrages perpetrated by real actual mohammedans, in the name of mohammedanism no less -- because, we are told, they aren't really practicing the real true pure mohammedanism, which so far as I know isn't actually preached in any mosque anywhere.
But we are nonetheless expected to overlook real criminality in the name of some imaginary alleged ideal.
The commie sympathizers kept insisting that true communism was wonderful in theory, but just REALLY REALLY hard to achieve in practice. It never seemed to occur to them that the actual practice grew naturally out of the theory, and that the truth was that communism was a lousy inhumane theory which led naturally and logically to lousy inhumane practices.
I expect that we are facing something very similar now with mohammedanism.
... complicated slightly by the fact that some of the mohammedans will declare openly that the outsiders should all be killed.
No case for religious persecution is made out at all.
Firstly, the UN conventions as well as European Convention on Human Rights define freedom of religion and conscience consisting of:
1.freedom to hold and belief and freedom to change it;(This is unqualified and unconditional right).
2.Freedom to manifest a belief which includes worship.(This is not an unqualified right and subject to reasonable regulation by country.)
So, ban on minarets is not a restriction on freedom to hold or change a religious belief. It is only a restriction on right to manifest belief(this is admitted as such by Asma Jehangir, the UN expert who calls it unreasonable restriction on freedom to manifest belief-although she does not clarify what is unreasonable in this). Indeed, it is t a reasonable restriction on the right to manifest a belief. The minarets blare the call to prayer (azan) through loudspeakers and upset and disturb people and cause noise pollution. Moreover, the ban is through appropriate legislation(Constitutional amendment) made though due process(referendum).
It is pertinent to note that the House of Lords ruled in R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants)[2006]2 All ER 487 at para 86 that " "Freedom to manifest one's religion does not mean that one has the right to manifest one's religion at any time and in any place and in any manner that accords with one's beliefs."(Per Lord Scott of Foscote).
Hesperado,
Yes the vaunted status as minorities in western society trumps all other considerations, ironically even when viewing Islamic norms related to social issues in societies where Muslims are not minorities.
This just in from:
Andrew Bostom: From Communism as “The 20th Century Islam,” to “Islam as the 21st Century Communism?”
... ... ... ... Some emphasis mine, some original.http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/12/05/from-communism-as-%E2%80%9Cthe-20th-century-islam%E2%80%9D-to-%E2%80%9Cislam-as-the-21st-century-communism%E2%80%9D/