Swiss Move to Stop Radicle Islam!

[wulf42]

Islam is not the source of all terrorism, nor is all Islam related to terrorism. You frame situations in such a way that you arrive at the problem with the solution already in tow, and you refuse to listen to other posters when they point out your missteps.

Do you think the speaker quoted is brain damaged then ? I'm laying a trap here, if it's not clear.

I think my earlier comment has already answered your question!

[wulf42]

Islam is not the source of all terrorism, nor is all Islam related to terrorism. You frame situations in such a way that you arrive at the problem with the solution already in tow,

Go google Islamic terrorist's activities over the years.....it will go on for about 100 pages or so!The problem is clear Islamic Extremism is every bit a threat as the Nazi's were in WW2! Likely worse the Nazi's were at least confined to Europe.

Edited December 3, 2009 by wulf42

[Black Dog]

lol........You must be a Liberal, your to stupid to be anything else.

And yet I know the difference between "you're" and "your".

Then why is all the terrorism we see related to Islam? i am sure there are peaceful Muslims! but when people who practice this religion want to hunt down and kill a person for simply printing a cartoon making fun of them........then you got to wonder?

Which has nothing to do with the threat presented by minarets. The Swiss vote and your(see?) half-assed defence thereof calls to mind the ignorant peasants of the Dark Ages who feared the plague was spread by witchcraft and went about slaughtering cats, which they believed to be agents of the devil. Of course, with no cats around, the rat population exploded and with it, the plague itself.

Go google Islamic terrorist's activities over the years.....it will go on for about 100 pages or so!The problem is clear Islamic Extremism is every bit a threat as the Nazi's were in WW2! Likely worse the Nazi's were at least confined to Europe.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiit. I shudder to think how addled by propaganda and fear you must be to actually make a statement like that. At their peak, the Nazis ruled over all of western Europe and large swaths east and in Africa. “Radical Islam” can’t even get its crap together to take over majority Islamic countries. Adolf Hitler ruled one of the mightiest industrial and military powers of their day. Radical Islam’s poster boy was last seen hiding out in a cave. Radical Islam does not pose an existential threat to the west. At best, it will be a costly nuisance for many years to come, but that’s about it.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

Listen! i have had enough of your self rightous crap i will say whatever i damn well want! i don t give a rat's what you think ......read the post's from that idiot Black mutt thats not an insult??? if i am pushed trust me you will get back what you throw! So what if i don't agree with your view? .........what evidence have you got to show??? i haven't seen anything from you other than you flapping your lips! Toronto 18 should at least wake you up.........God almighty what do you need??? Knocking down the twin towers weren't convincing enough for you????

If anything, those acts show that we need to think a little bit before we act. I'm sorry to have to prevent you from punching the first turban'd gentleman you see, even if it's done figuratively.

[Michael Hardner]

I think my earlier comment has already answered your question!

Ok, well as I said it was a trap and the brain damaged individual is GW Bush - who said those things in the days after 9/11.

[Michael Hardner]

Go google Islamic terrorist's activities over the years.....it will go on for about 100 pages or so!The problem is clear Islamic Extremism is every bit a threat as the Nazi's were in WW2! Likely worse the Nazi's were at least confined to Europe.

Terrorism happened, but why do you think it gives you license to unleash your unthinking attitudes towards people who had nothing to do with it ? Thankfully, no one seems to be standing up for you on this thread, so at least there are some limits to the thoughtlessness and reactionary language we see on here.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Guest TrueMetis]

Then why is all the terrorism we see related to Islam? i am sure there are peaceful Muslims! but when people who practice this religion want to hunt down and kill a person for simply printing a cartoon making fun of them........then you got to wonder?

Do the Eco-terrorists and Christians bombing abortion clinics not count?

Edited December 3, 2009 by TrueMetis

[naomiglover]

Swiss Muslims gain support from unexpected source - rabbis

Switzerland's Muslim population received support from an unexpected source on Wednesday when an ultra-Orthodox Jewish group voiced its opposition to a campaign to ban the building of minarets, distinctive architectural features of Islamic mosques, in the country.

The proposal had been put forward by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), the largest party in parliament, which said minarets were a sign of Islamization.

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis, which convened this week in Moscow, issued a statement criticizing the proposed ban, saying that Europe won't defeat extreme Islam by battling freedom of religion and knocking down mosque minarets in Switzerland.

Rabbi Aba Dunner made his remarks in response to the results of a referendum held earlier this week, in which 57% of Swiss voters voted in favor of the ban.

"Only through unrelenting support of moderates within the Muslim community and promoting interfaith dialogue can European governments defeat the fundamentalist extreme Islam," Rabbi Dunner said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1132517.html

[DogOnPorch]

The head of the Conference of European Rabbis, which convened this week in Moscow, issued a statement criticizing the proposed ban, saying that Europe won't defeat extreme Islam by battling freedom of religion and knocking down mosque minarets in Switzerland.

People are free to practice Islam in Switzerland and there are no minarets being torn down.

[M.Dancer]

lol........You must be a Liberal, your to stupid to be anything else.

Your= possive - your insults are weak.

you're = contraction (you are)- you're really thick.

to = preposition - are you going to continue this nonsense?

too = adverb - by your logic you're so stupid, you too must be a radical liberal extremist.

[Michael Hardner]

possive

possessive - Having or manifesting a desire to control or dominate another, especially in order to limit that person's inability to spell correctly on MLW.

possive - Having or manifesting a desire to possess a possum or an opossum.

[DogOnPorch]

Anyone who uses YouTube or the like as "evidence" should not only be banned from the boards, but tracked down at their place of residence and/or employment and mercilessly taunted in real time.

Good way to die.

[Guest American Woman]

AW:

I think Swiss Muslims will be angry and bitter over this," said Reinhard Schulze, professor of Islamic Studies at Berne University. "And we know that anger and bitterness among a community can lead to radicalisation, even to militancy.

The first sounds as if it's a threat; as if Muslims might radicalize and resort to militancy if they don't like a law that's passed.

It's not a threat: it's a acknowledgement of cause and effect. If I was a Muslim trying to integrate into Swiss society, I'd be pretty insulted, baffled and angry that my religion was being targeted for sanction in such a petty manner.

Since when is "radicalization and militancy" a 'cause and effect' reaction to laws we don't like? We don't see gays resorting to radicalization and militancy when laws to allow same sex marriage are voted down. We don't hear threats of radicalization and militancy if abortion laws are altered, and we sure wouldn't accept it as "cause and effect" if it were to happen-- and I think it's safe to assume that you would be part of that "we."

It seems as if people are seen as biased/prejudiced if they see Islam overall as radical and/or militant, yet they threaten radicalization and militancy if they don't like the laws. How is that suppose to project the "religion of peace" vs. "violent" vision of Islam? Frankly, I think that statement, that reaction, justifies people's belief that Islam is a violent religion; at the very least, I think it reinforces their belief.

Bottom line. Islamic countries wouldn't allow church steeples to dominate their skyline and Switzerland, whether you agree with their decision or not, has the same right to not allow minarets. They aren't banning Islam or Muslims right to worship; they are placing restrictions on the buildings, not the religion.

Edited December 4, 2009 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

I am surprised we don't see Eyeball here praising this move.

After all, Swiss style democracy is what he likes...citizen assemblies, direct democracy, referendums....

[Black Dog]

Since when is "radicalization and militancy" a 'cause and effect' reaction to laws we don't like?

It's not in every case. In this case, it's a distinct possibility.

We don't see gays resorting to radicalization and militancy when laws to allow same sex marriage are voted down.

I guess that depends on who you ask and what your definition of radicalization is.

We don't hear threats of radicalization and militancy if abortion laws are altered, and we sure wouldn't accept it as "cause and effect" if it were to happen-- and I think it's safe to assume that you would be part of that "we."

Your logic fails here. There's a difference between understanding cause and effect and, as you imply, accepting the consequences.

It seems as if people are seen as biased/prejudiced if they see Islam overall as radical and/or militant, yet they threaten radicalization and militancy if they don't like the laws.

First no one said anything about violence. Second, we have a law proposed targeting a specific group: d'ya think that maybe that group might get a little miffed?

How is that suppose to project the "religion of peace" vs. "violent" vision of Islam? Frankly, I think that statement, that reaction, justifies people's belief that Islam is a violent religion; at the very least, I think it reinforces their belief.

Only because you're taking an extreme interpretation. It's not hard to fathom that some moderates Muslim might be inclined to look at their place within Swiss society differently as a result of this law. Doesn't mean they'll necessarily resort to violence or radicalism, but it's a possibility.

Bottom line. Islamic countries wouldn't allow church steeples to dominate their skyline and Switzerland, whether you agree with their decision or not, has the same right to not allow minarets. They aren't banning Islam or Muslims right to worship; they are placing restrictions on the buildings, not the religion.

It's clearly a symbolic gesture aimed at making a statement about Islam in Switzerland. It is not a simple matter of architectural controls. To suggest anything else is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Black Dog

[Michael Hardner]

I am surprised we don't see Eyeball here praising this move.

After all, Swiss style democracy is what he likes...citizen assemblies, direct democracy, referendums....

Excellent point - eyeball ?

[wulf42]

If anything, those acts show that we need to think a little bit before we act.

So unless i misunderstand you what you are saying is that 9/11 is the West's fault??

good Lord!!....Canada will likely go on ignoring the warning signs and be passive pretty much the same as the American's did before they were hit by Islamic terrorist's on 9/11,I am sure on 9/10 they thought the same way as you..Canada has so far been immune to such horror and who knows it may be that way for a few years to come but at some point one of these terror cells are going to get through. "Toronto 18" was stopped before they could act although it has to make you stop and think how many more terror cells didn't they catch? The sad truth is Canada will go on worrying more about offending a terrorist's rights rather than protecting their own citizens from potential attacks until one day one of these terror cells gets through and kills thousands in a 9/11 style attack and then Canadians will wake up and say "hey WTF is happening here"? As Edmund Burke once said "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I don t see anything wrong with a Country trying to stop Islamic extremist's from threatening their country! If Muslims come to live in peace fine they should be welcomed but they should realize when they go to another Country to live it will be by their customs and laws and should respect that countries culture rather than try to change it, no different if you or i went to Saudi Arabia and try to change their culture or religion....go stand on a street in Saudi Arabia and say you would like to build a Christian Church in downtown Riyadh, you would likely end up on a Islamic Web site having your head removed from your body. If Canada is not at risk from Islamic Extremism then why is it so easy to find articles on this matter such as this?

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cb4b3799-46b2-4bff-b42e-852d05978222

Edited December 4, 2009 by wulf42

[Michael Hardner]

So unless i misunderstand you what you are saying is that 9/11 is the West's fault??

Oh yes, you misunderstand me all right.

The rest of your post is an over-emotional rant. As I've already explained to you, these things call for reason, thinking and discussion (i.e. doing "something") not emotional bleating (i.e. doing "nothing")

I'd like for you to get past this blockage in your brain whereby you can't move past the Islam=terrorism simplicity. Let's hope it happens.

[Black Dog]

I'll just pull what I can from this steaming pile...

I don t see anything wrong with a Country trying to stop Islamic extremist's from threatening their country!

And blocking the construction of minarets will do that? Huh. Easy gig.

If Muslims come to live in peace fine they should be welcomed but they should realize when they go to another Country to live it will be by their customs and laws and should respect that countries culture rather than try to change it.

And are minarets a wholesale attempt to change the culture of Switzerland?

If Canada is not at risk from Islamic Extremism then why is it so easy to find articles on this matter such as this?

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cb4b3799-46b2-4bff-b42e-852d05978222

Has anyone denied that Islamic terrorism is a risk we face? No? Then why are you acting like someone has?

[Guest American Woman]

It's not in every case. In this case, it's a distinct possibility.

And it's wrong, in any case. Furthermore, it sends the wrong message regarding "Islam is peace." It's doing more to encourage actions like the Swiss ban on minarets, and to justify their reasons for the ban, than anything else. It's feeding the stereotype too many have of Islam.

I guess that depends on who you ask and what your definition of radicalization is.

Oh, I'm sure it does depend on who I ask. I have no doubt of that.

As for what the definition of "radicalization" is, since this is about Islam, let's go with the definition of "radical" Islam vs moderate Muslims, which is naturally what I had in mind when making my comments.

Your logic fails here. There's a difference between understanding cause and effect and, as you imply, accepting the consequences.

Sure there is; but to assume that this could very well be an "effect" of the said "cause," and for you to simply explain it as such, seems as if your "understanding" is running along the lines of 'acceptance' to me. In other words, would you be as "understanding" if a Christian leader said changing abortion laws could lead to "radicalization and/or militancy" among Christians? Or would you be totally critical of such an observation/statement?

First no one said anything about violence. Second, we have a law proposed targeting a specific group: d'ya think that maybe that group might get a little miffed?

"Miffed" is a far cry from "radicalization" and "militancy." As for no one having said anything about violence, what kind of thoughts do you think "militancy" incurs?

The Swiss government is extremely nervous about the prospect of militancy among Swiss Muslims...

What do you think the Swiss government is nervous about?

Only because you're taking an extreme interpretation. It's not hard to fathom that some moderates Muslim might be inclined to look at their place within Swiss society differently as a result of this law. Doesn't mean they'll necessarily resort to violence or radicalism, but it's a possibility.

The fact that it's a possibility, the fact that it's being pointed out that it's a possibility, says a lot. And no, I'm not taking an extreme interpretation; I'm taking the statement/observation exactly for what it is.

As I pointed out, no one has stated that "cause and effect" possibility regarding other controversial laws, even though those affected by the laws could very well be inclined to look at their place within whatever society differently, too.

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, Muslim nations apply strict standards regarding religion other than Islam in their own countries, so I fail to understand why Muslims would expect other nations to act differently than their own nations do. Why aren't they feeling any animosity towards Muslim nations?

It's clearly a symbolic gesture aimed at making a statement about Islam in Switzerland. It is not a simple matter of architectural controls. To suggest anything else is either ignorant or disingenuous.

It is a symbolic gesture aimed at making a statement about Islam in Switzerland. I agree. It's saying that some of the aspects of Islamic law don't fit in with Switzerland's idea of democracy. But it is only "symbolic." As I pointed out, their right to worship isn't being denied, so ultimately, it only affects the architecture of the building they worship in, which was my point-- which is neither ignorant nor disingenuous.

Edited to add:

I just read an article that says a lot of the same things I've said:

"People are taking a very hard reaction to this," Al Maskati told The Media Line from a visit in Switzerland. "We don't want a fight between Switzerland and the Arab world but the people might start to react in the same way as they did to the Danish cartoons."

That would suggest the possibility of violence, Black Dog. He does go on to say he doubts it will happen, but by saying it, he's definitely suggesting the possibility.

"We see this as fascism against Muslim people and a violation of human rights," he said. "But on the other hand it was a democratic decision and we can't say much because it's their choice.

Just as I said, he's saying the Swiss have the right to make the decision they did.

Dr Matthias Küntzel, a German political scientist and author of many books on relations between the Muslim world and Europe, said ....

"This is not going to incite hatred and violence," he told The Media Line. "They just voted against a symbol and the minarets are not as important as Mohammad. There have been no insults here made against a religious figure and this is a law in a non-Islamic country."

"Also the minarets are not the mosques, and most mosques do not have minarets," he said. "Muslims in Switzerland are free to have their mosques and practice their religion.

Exactly what I said about only the architecture, not the religion, having restrictions placed on it.

Dr Küntzel argued that some of the more extreme reactions to the referendum were hypocritical, pointing to Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where churches are banned.

Again, backs up what I said.

"I do not agree with this campaign against minarets," Dr Küntzel added. "But in the same voice I can't agree with some of the reactions because religious minorities in some Muslim countries are much more oppressed than Muslims in Switzerland. Either you have to take a stance supporting the freedom of religion or you have to accept that others will treat religious minorities exactly as you."

Well said, and again, reinforces what I had said. link

Edited December 4, 2009 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

And it's wrong, in any case. Furthermore, it sends the wrong message regarding "Islam is peace." It's doing more to encourage actions like the Swiss ban on minarets, and to justify their reasons for the ban, than anything else. It's feeding the stereotype too many have of Islam.

If one is, as the Swiss claim to be, concerned with the rise of radical Islam, taking measures like this that amount to a symbolic thumbing of the nose at all Muslims in Switzerland is the last thing one should do to discourage militancy and support integration or dialogue.

Sure there is; but to assume that this could very well be an "effect" of the said "cause," and for you to simply explain it as such, seems as if your "understanding" is running along the lines of 'acceptance' to me.

That's rather two-dimensional thinking.

In other words, would you be as "understanding" if a Christian leader said changing abortion laws could lead to "radicalization and/or militancy" among Christians? Or would you be totally critical of such an observation/statement?

No, because given what I know about anti-abortion types, the statement is likely true, as it is in this case. What I would take issue with is the reasoning driving the radicals.

"Miffed" is a far cry from "radicalization" and "militancy."

Far cry, or the first step?

As for no one having said anything about violence, what kind of thoughts do you think "militancy" incurs?

For me: having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause. Strident, unbending. "Militant environmentalists, militant feminist, militant anti-abortion campaigner"

As I pointed out, no one has stated that "cause and effect" possibility regarding other controversial laws, even though those affected by the laws could very well be inclined to look at their place within whatever society differently, too.

Because we're talking about a very specific context here. You can't just swap in different example sand expect them to apply equally.

Furthermore, as I already pointed out, Muslim nations apply strict standards regarding religion other than Islam in their own countries, so I fail to understand why Muslims would expect other nations to act differently than their own nations do.

Could have something to do with these other countries having things like laws and constitutions guaranteeing religious freedom, which Muslim countries do not.

Why aren't they feeling any animosity towards Muslim nations?

So Swiss Muslims should be mad at Muslim nations for not having freedom of religion, which is something Switzerland has. Or rather, had. WTF?

It is a symbolic gesture aimed at making a statement about Islam in Switzerland. I agree. It's saying that some of the aspects of Islamic law don't fit in with Switzerland's idea of democracy. But it is only "symbolic." As I pointed out, their right to worship isn't being denied, so ultimately, it only affects the architecture of the building they worship in, which was my point-- which is neither ignorant nor disingenuous.

So they should shut up and accept the double standard being applied because it doesn't actually affect their day to day lives? Hey here's an idea: let's pass a law requiring Jews to wear yellow stars on their clothing. It's okay though: they can still worship and participate in society: it's just a lil' symbol.

"People are taking a very hard reaction to this," Al Maskati told The Media Line from a visit in Switzerland. "We don't want a fight between Switzerland and the Arab world but the people might start to react in the same way as they did to the Danish cartoons."

That would suggest the possibility of violence, Black Dog. He does go on to say he doubts it will happen, but by saying it, he's definitely suggesting the possibility.

Given what we know, is that unreasonable? We know radical Muslims exist. We know they get touchy about their symbols. So why poke the bear in such an unnecessary and pointless way?

"We see this as fascism against Muslim people and a violation of human rights," he said. "But on the other hand it was a democratic decision and we can't say much because it's their choice.

Just as I said, he's saying the Swiss have the right to make the decision they did.

Sure, just as they'd have the right to make Jews wear yellow stars. Doesn't make it a good decision.

Dr Matthias Küntzel, a German political scientist and author of many books on relations between the Muslim world and Europe, said ....

"This is not going to incite hatred and violence," he told The Media Line. "They just voted against a symbol and the minarets are not as important as Mohammad. There have been no insults here made against a religious figure and this is a law in a non-Islamic country."

"Also the minarets are not the mosques, and most mosques do not have minarets," he said. "Muslims in Switzerland are free to have their mosques and practice their religion.

Exactly what I said about only the architecture, not the religion, having restrictions placed on it.

So? Symbols have power. If they didn't, the Swiss wouldn't feel compelled to make this symbolic gesture against these symbols of Islam.

Dr Küntzel argued that some of the more extreme reactions to the referendum were hypocritical, pointing to Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia where churches are banned.

Again, backs up what I said.

Yes, let's all strive to be like Saudi Arabia.

"I do not agree with this campaign against minarets," Dr Küntzel added. "But in the same voice I can't agree with some of the reactions because religious minorities in some Muslim countries are much more oppressed than Muslims in Switzerland. Either you have to take a stance supporting the freedom of religion or you have to accept that others will treat religious minorities exactly as you."

Well said, and again, reinforces what I had said. link

I would say that Swiss Muslims, by virtue of living in Switzerland and not Saudi Arabia, and by the fact there have been no attempts by Swiss Muslims that I am aware of to restrict other religions in Switzerland, are at least tacitly accepting the principle of religious freedom. This argument only holds water if you think "those people" are one homogeneous mass and that Muslims in Geneva are ipso facto the same as Muslims in Riyadh and thus equally responsible for the actions and beliefs of the latter.

BTW, here's a quote you negelected to include from you rlinked article:

"The problem is that there is a very dangerous precedent that has been set here," Sari Hanafi, a professor of sociology at the American University in Beirut told The Media Line. "It's not a question of differing interpretations. With the Danish cartoons there were issues of freedom of expression and questions of interpretation. If you take the banning of the veil in France, there was contention over whether or not the Muslim families were forcing their girls to wear the veil... Here the referendum was explicitly racist, based on a poster campaign depicting an evil looking veiled woman beside a minaret."

Edited December 4, 2009 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

BTW, here's a quote you negelected to include from you rlinked article:

I didn't "neglect" to post it; I didn't choose to post it. There were many quotes from the article I chose not to quote as clearly I didn't re-post the whole article -- and never claimed to. That you accuse me of negligence for not including your quote says a lot about you and your 'discussion' skills.

Edited December 5, 2009 by American Woman

[Melanie_]

Wulf - how will banning minarets combat radical Muslims, while leaving the peaceful ones alone? Is all radicalism originating in those minarets - has there been some connection between minarets and terrorism? Is there a reason to specifically target minarets, or do you think they were randomly chosen among possible Islamic symbols? What will be the next symbol chosen to ban, in the name of combatting radical Islam?

Wulf suggested that Canada should follow suit with this law, and others have made the point that this kind of thing happens elsewhere already. Yes, many Islamic countries don't allow Christian symbols, but that doesn't mean we should emulate them. Lets hold ourselves to a higher standard than saying, "well, they don't support freedom of religion, so why should we?" Our values don't have to be based on a tit for tat response to values we don't agree with in the first place.

[JB Globe]

All of Europe is under siege not hard to find if you look...and last time i looked Switzerland is a part of Europe no?

Do you have any examples of Switzerland "being under siege" ????

Yes or no?

Why are you not explaining why the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism?

So far your reasoning has been: "the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism because the minaret ban will stop fundamentalism, because the Swiss supporters said so"

It's a circular argument, and you're completely avoiding answering the "how" question.

If you're not going to articulate your position beyond its most basic level, than I'm going to have to start making assumptions about your motivations and reasoning, and I'd rather not have to do that - I'd rather you speak for yourself.

[wulf42]

Wulf - how will banning minarets combat radical Muslims, while leaving the peaceful ones alone? Is all radicalism originating in those minarets - has there been some connection between minarets and terrorism? Is there a reason to specifically target minarets, or do you think they were randomly chosen among possible Islamic symbols? What will be the next symbol chosen to ban, in the name of combatting radical Islam?

Wulf suggested that Canada should follow suit with this law, and others have made the point that this kind of thing happens elsewhere already. Yes, many Islamic countries don't allow Christian symbols, but that doesn't mean we should emulate them. Lets hold ourselves to a higher standard than saying, "well, they don't support freedom of religion, so why should we?" Our values don't have to be based on a tit for tat response to values we don't agree with in the first place.

The Swiss are protecting their culture and way of life! why should outsiders come to their country and dictate what they want?? reverse the situation for a minute do you think Saudi Arabia would allow a Christian Church to built by foreigners..i am thinking no!

Edited December 5, 2009 by wulf42