Islam In Europe

[S.A.M.]

I have never been to Saudi Arabia, so I'm sure you know much more about them than I do. But do you disagree that most of the population supports the execution of apostates under Islamic law?

Many Saudis don't even pray, and do not care to be compelled to follow religious practices. Strangely enough, like other people, they tend to have individual ideas on religion.

However, they have a low crime society, where children play on the streets without supervision and are left unattended in malls.

They believe their system works for them.

I assume it's because they want to have an Islamic government.

Mostly they prefer to live a way of life as different from the West as possible.

 

[S.A.M.]

Here, for example, is how Saudis treat wannabe terrorists
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html

 

[Nasor]

I've spoken with many muslims from various countries at my university, and most of them - even though they seem like very nice, friendly, intelligent people - will cheerfully agree that they think apostates should be executed in accordance with the instructions of Mohammad.

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among muslims. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Islamic countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders.

 

[S.A.M.]

I've spoken with many muslims from various countries at my university, and most of them - even though they seem like very nice, friendly, intelligent people - will cheerfully agree that they think apostates should be executed in accordance with the instructions of Mohammad.

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among muslims. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Islamic countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders.

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Are you kidding? Most of those countries have free elections, and the extremist Islamic leaders keep getting elected over and over. The governemnt in Saudi Arabia is facing a constant struggle because most of the population doesn't think that they're extreme enough in enforcing strict Islamic law.

So, from your logic I can say that all US Americans are crazy for war, oil and money; as well as fake Christians and also corrupt people, because they elected Bush as president?
I don´t think so, but you are allowed to your opinion.

When the U.S. helped the Afghan rebels kick the Taliban out and the country finally held free elections, they voted in Hamid Karzai, an Islamic fundamentalist. I would say "extremist," but his views aren't really very extreme compared to the rest of the muslim population. There was never even a question of repealing the death penality for people who try to leave Islam.

Aww, just like in the US, death penalty is still in place, so much freedom huh?
I bet Afganistan is such a better place now, with half of the population then before the war they can´t be pretty hard to control can they?
Even after the US made an oil pipeline through Afganistan right after they bombed the shit out of them, never finding Osama because he wasn´t there in the first place; he was chilling with the Bush family in Saudi Arabia.
Aww, so much freedom...

 

[GeoffP]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

Strangely enough, most Afghanis think the war was justified too. :shrug:

Oddly enough, you keep posing imperialism as the "alternate choice". It isn't. Rejecting the madness of political islam doesn't make one a Rovian.

 

[Nasor]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.

Lol. Are you expecting me to disagree? I assume that if most of the population of the United States didn't want the U.S. invading other countries, destroying economies, propping up dictators, arming conflict-ridden countries etc., they would stop voting for the politicians who do it.

Wisdom_Seeker
So, from your logic I can say that all US Americans are crazy for war, oil and money; as well as fake Christians and also corrupt people, because they elected Bush as president?

Not "all" Americans, just "most". Again, if most of the population of the U.S. didn't want their government behaving that way, they could always simply stop voting for the politicians who do it, right? Or did they stop holding free elections in the U.S. and I didn't hear about it?

 

[John99]

I've spoken with many Americans from various parts of the countries and most of them-even though they seem like nice friendly intelligent people-will cheerfully agree that that they think the war on Afghanistan was justified and Afghans being killed since last 5 years are in accordance with spreading democracy

I’m sure that there is plenty of variation among Americans. My point was that although there is variation, a sizable fraction of them are trying to live in the dark ages. I base that opinion on the fact that they keep electing leaders who promise to keep them in the dark ages. While there is surely variation among the population of Western countries, it doesn't seem to be enough to stop them from electing fundamentalist leaders who keep arming conflict ridden countries, use food aid and dumping to destroy local economies and support unpopular dictators who support them rather than the people.

First, you can always move back to India.

use food aid

Evil bastards, feeding people instead of letting the crows eat them.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Hmm, well almost. History shows that it is likely Christianity that is the route cause of the current level of terorrism. Had not the Christians tried to wipe out or convert the muslims during the Crusades then the small independent tribes of islamic peoples of those times would have been unlikely to have ever grouped into a large cooperative unit that we see today. .

Historically this doesn't hold water Cris. The armies of islam had organized enough to conquer the entire middle east (with the exception of a small bit of byzantium) all the way to and including parts of India, all of north africa, spain and southern france (before being turned back at Poitier) sicily, parts of southern italy and they even sacked and looted the vatican in the 9th century. All that before any crusader was seen, organization was not a problem

 

[Sock puppet path]

Re: the video, changing your laws to suit immigrants is not a path to integration. Integration is the aim isn't it?

 

[Nasor]

On a side note, it’s a little disturbing that both S.A.M. and Wisdom_Seeker seemed to assume that I was in favor of the U.S. government (and indeed, seemed to think that I would see the “error of my ways” when they applied my reasoning of holding a population responsible for what their freely-elected leaders do) just because I’m vehimently against religions that teach their followers to kill people who try to leave.

 

[S.A.M.]

On a side note, it’s a little disturbing that both S.A.M. and Wisdom_Seeker seemed to assume that I was in favor of the U.S. government (and indeed, seemed to think that I would see the “error of my ways” when they applied my reasoning of holding a population responsible for what their freely-elected leaders do) just because I’m vehimently against religions that teach their followers to kill people who try to leave.

Why not? Didn't you assume the same thing about 350000 gazillion people?

 

[GeoffP]

Re: the video, changing your laws to suit immigrants is not a path to integration. Integration is the aim isn't it?

Not if the evil locals believe in horrid things like women's lib and not beating up Jewish people. Then they need regime change. Sometimes tolerance requires intolerance.

Emm, there are many ramifications of Islam, they are even fighting each other. But there are also peacefull Islamic people as well, and even Sufis are "Muslims"; word which, by the way, literally means "one who submits to God".
So, you cannot treat Islam as an organization like a country, but the religious practice of many different people.

But I certainly can treat it all islam as the same body where it applies to its treatment of non-muslims, which is uniformly more poorly than muslims. Non-muslims are treated as second-class citizens throughout the ummah; conversion away from islam is a felony throughout the entire range of dar-al-islam. Naturally I understand that there are many, many peaceful muslims (who seem quite quiet nonetheless) and that different brands of islam also hate and deride one another - the Sufis in particular - as "unislamic"...but that also reflects the initial problem of differentiation in the legal rights of believers and unbelievers.

Let me ask you this: is the Catholic Church not an organization?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

But I certainly can treat it all islam as the same body where it applies to its treatment of non-muslims, which is uniformly more poorly than muslims. Non-muslims are treated as second-class citizens throughout the ummah; conversion away from islam is a felony throughout the entire range of dar-al-islam. Naturally I understand that there are many, many peaceful muslims (who seem quite quiet nonetheless) and that different brands of islam also hate and deride one another - the Sufis in particular - as "unislamic"...but that also reflects the initial problem of differentiation in the legal rights of believers and unbelievers.

Well, the non-tolerance of people who have another faith as yours is always damaging; it doesn´t matter is you follow a religion or not. Even the Q`ran says so, that you have to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; but as in other religions such as Catholic they don´t even follow the religious texts they claim to follow.

Let me ask you this: is the Catholic Church not an organization?

The Catholic Church is certainly a lucrative organization, but Christianity is not. Christianity comprehends the Catholic Church and many other ramifications, just like Islam.

 

[Sock puppet path]

Not if the evil locals believe in horrid things like women's lib and not beating up Jewish people. Then they need regime change. Sometimes tolerance requires intolerance.

True, most of the muslim immigrants I know here and there are a few a good folks who are eager to be norweigan. It is, as with christians the more fundamentalist of the lot that are pushing for changes in law to suit themselves. This is actually a great disservice to the regular muslim immigrants I know. They have no desire to recreate the enviornment they fled from.

When we have muslim kids at my sons birthday partys or muslim guests we simply take that into account when preparing the meal, no need for a new law

 

[Nasor]

Why not? Didn't you assume the same thing about 350000 gazillion people?

Whaaaa?

I assumed that since people in certain Islamic countries keep electing leaders who do things like impose the death penalty for the "crime" of not wanting to be a Muslim, most of the people in those countries must want the death penalty for people who try to leave Islam. Just like most of the U.S. population must like the way the current administration keeps invading other countries. Otherwise they would presumably not vote for the leaders who enact such laws. That seems like a perfectly logical connection to me. Of course there are bound to be many people who don't agree with that sort of policy, but apparently they are a minority.

So I stand by my statement that the Muslim extremists (and by "extremists" I mean people who think it's a good idea to kill anyone who decides they don't feel like being a Muslim any more) are not simply a tiny minority; rather, they are a huge group that comprises many millions of people, and are a significant fraction of the Muslims in the world. Have I made a mistake here somewhere? I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong about this. But the fact that there are many people in Islamic countries that don't take that view (which is what you seem to keep harping on) doesn't change the fact that there are apparently enough such people to keep getting the majority of votes.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, the non-tolerance of people who have another faith as yours is always damaging; it doesn´t matter is you follow a religion or not.

Yes - but we are not discussing just any religion here, but a specific one and its political-geographic ramifications.

Even the Q`ran says so, that you have to treat others as you would like to be treated yourself; but as in other religions such as Catholic they don´t even follow the religious texts they claim to follow.

What a curious statement. Could you perhaps specify here as to which provisions "they" are not following and whether or not that is a positive or negative thing?

The Catholic Church is certainly a lucrative organization, but Christianity is not. Christianity comprehends the Catholic Church and many other ramifications, just like Islam.

Financial interests aside - which actually have nothing to do with the discussion; I also note that other Christian organizations might also be termed "lucrative" within their narrower emission - if it is the Christian Church that is specifically creating a problem (no condoms in Africa springs unerringly to mind), then criticism of the Catholic Church would certainly be appropriate to that body. If humanitarian crimes are endemic to the entire range of a given body - like islam - then it is entirely possible that there are conservative elements throughout it, without the social convention of blaming everything on the Saudis, or Wahhabis, or Salafists, or Qutb. And this is the present state of things. As a further commentary, you should also note that extremist interpretation is not limited to any given islamic school. At the risk of repetition, apostates from islam are subject to the penalty of death in all four islamic schools of jurisprudence, not merely one, and not merely the one Wahhabis cite most. This indicates a wellspring of repression possible throughout all islam and not in any particular sect. I cite Western civilization in contrast, if only for the sake that there are at the least laws against such institutionalized discrimination - late though they have arrived, they appear a step better than those any other civilization has undertaken, save perhaps under Sovietization. Laws regarding the pernicious 'other' in islamic society - the dhimmi - where they exist, have usually gone rather the other way.

The application of any such laws, of course, is left up to the individual; and in spite of the recent declamations regarding individual interpretation - which, if one pauses to note, may be neither a Pandora's box nor panacea to islam's social ills, since any individual at any level making his or her own decisions on the importance of exerting islam or the "lesser" jihad might choose the high or low road, to be frank. But as a group, in a group, all the old tribalist conventions common to Homo sapiens (of any origin and under any condition) results in a group tolerance of the more extremist members of a given group. These latter exploit commonality of belief as a protection against retribution or justice due them for their more heinous acts; the 'brotherhood' (a term of recent vogue in Indonesia) of belief.

Or, more shortly: it gets brushed under the carpet. The old "well that's terrible" followed by a nonplussed shrug, and then disinterest. This is humanity, you see. But only let islam regulate itself - in a Caliphate, or out of it - and I have no further beef with it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Whaaaa?

I assumed that since people in certain Islamic countries keep electing leaders who do things like impose the death penalty for the "crime" of not wanting to be a Muslim, most of the people in those countries must want the death penalty for people who try to leave Islam. Just like most of the U.S. population must like the way the current administration keeps invading other countries. Otherwise they would presumably not vote for the leaders who enact such laws. That seems like a perfectly logical connection to me. Of course there are bound to be many people who don't agree with that sort of policy, but apparently they are a minority.

So I stand by my statement that the Muslim extremists (and by "extremists" I mean people who think it's a good idea to kill anyone who decides they don't feel like being a Muslim any more) are not simply a tiny minority; rather, they are a huge group that comprises many millions of people, and are a significant fraction of the Muslims in the world. Have I made a mistake here somewhere? I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I might be wrong about this. But the fact that there are many people in Islamic countries that don't take that view (which is what you seem to keep harping on) doesn't change the fact that there are apparently enough such people to keep getting the majority of votes.

Lets see. Musharraf gained power by a coup and until now has avoided elections. Bangladesh has elections but after Irshad gained power (again by a coup) he destabilised the political factions and they haven't recovered yet (they have two women fighting for top spot since over a decade) Ahmedinejad was elected because his opponent was also an ass, so 20 million Iranians stayed home and did not vote. Saddam was a dictator, the Sauds and Jordan are a kingdom. Palestine is occupied, Syria has a constitution that makes the Baathist party the primary one... Also all of them have been politically interfered with at some point by Western interests for some reason or another.

Which country are you referring to?

 

[GeoffP]

True, most of the muslim immigrants I know here and there are a few a good folks who are eager to be norweigan. It is, as with christians the more fundamentalist of the lot that are pushing for changes in law to suit themselves. This is actually a great disservice to the regular muslim immigrants I know. They have no desire to recreate the enviornment they fled from.

When we have muslim kids at my sons birthday partys or muslim guests we simply take that into account when preparing the meal, no need for a new law

Exactly. Thanks, sock.

 

[Michael]

There about 350 million muslims living in countries where they execute people for trying to leave the Islamic religion (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and Pakistan).

I posted poll here before where >90% of Muslims in Indonesia want to make it illegal to leave Islam and convert to another religion.

As for YouTube.
Europeans do have their heads in their arses if they allow any single beleif any form of allowances over any other beleif. That's plain asinine. Secondly, as I have said from day dot, all the Europeans and Americans have to do (and I am shocked those p*ssy Germans have not started this) is teach children to the best of our understanding based on archaeological religous findings the basis on which each of the present religions evolved from. Any religion that has some stupid moronic beleif like taxing people for maintaining a different religous beleif should either be changed to renounce such a system as immoral or simply be banned as a cult.

Michael