Thread: It's Ramadan don't you know... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025913
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Well, at least, it will be very soon. In case you didn't know,

Channel 4 will be providing a handy reminder

Channel 4 itself describes the broadcast of the daily call to prayer as "a deliberately provocative act", and rather predictably, it's got some people foaming at the mouth, with Channel 4's point that "Islam is one of the few religions flourishing in the UK" adding further fuel to the fire for the morally outraged/disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/outright nutters/others. Some pieces claim it's clearly aimed at proselytism, which seems rather o.t.t to me, not least since I don't watch very much Channel 4 anyway.....

So, should anybody be getting agitated about it, and if so why?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Sometimes I have the impression that with respect to Muslims, the UK is more or less arriving where the Netherlands were 7–8 years ago, at the height of the Fortuyn/Verdonk/Wilders years. In my country, the more agitated discussions about Islam have fortunately subsided a bit now. I hope this will happen in the UK as well.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

And just to be clear: this is a three-minute segment broadcasted on television, and people are going to complain? Can't they just...not listen? I know in America some people are literally incapable of turning off the TV, but I wouldn't expect it from you over there.
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Some will be uncomfortable with it, seeing it as proselytism or a sleight on Christianity. It'll be interesting to see the response from those who don't want God to be mentioned in public.

You never know, some people may be prompted to .....pray?
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
And just to be clear: this is a three-minute segment broadcasted on television, and people are going to complain? Can't they just...not listen? I know in America some people are literally incapable of turning off the TV, but I wouldn't expect it from you over there.
Two points about this:

1) Quite a lot of those who will complain about it will never watch or listen to it at all; instead they'll base their complaints on what someone told them or, more likely, what they read in the Daily Mail newspaper about it.

2) There seems to be a certain section of the British population who watch things they know they're going to dislike or find offensive precisely so they can get offended and complain about it, either officially or on the Daily Mail website. They'll be watching in their thousands.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

.
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
This is a massively cute move by Channel 4.

First off, your audience will comprise Muslims who maybe have never paid much attention to the channel before or who are encouraged to see it in a different light. Then you'll get others who are genuinely interested in world religion and, finally, you'll get the usual nutters who are watching because they want to get annoyed. Either way, viewing figures are increased, media exposure goes up and everybody is a winner. Apart from the people who live to be annoyed, some of whom may, hopefully, have to be hospitalised.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some will be uncomfortable with it, seeing it as proselytism or a sleight on Christianity. It'll be interesting to see the response from those who don't want God to be mentioned in public.

You never know, some people may be prompted to .....pray?
Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society said

quote:
However Channel 4 was warned not to give excessive coverage to Ramadan. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “I wouldn’t object to it as at least it gives some balance to the BBC’s emphasis on Christianity but Channel 4 has to keep it in proportion.

“The percentage of Muslims in the UK is very small so few people will be interested in it. It may be a novelty and Channel 4 is good at causing a sensation. We don’t want to see any broadcaster becoming a platform for religious proselytising.”

 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Given that the "nones" and the active atheists form a larger proportion of society in the UK than do almost all identifiable practicing religionists of the various persuasions (not sure about nominal RC or CofE), I would expect that a similar or larger amount of time should be set aside for non-religious contemplative or "spiritual-but-not-religious" observances.

But I doubt that the "nones" would get the same foaming-at-the-mouth reaction as would the Muslims.
 
Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :
 
Ramadan - the time of year when Muslims can eat nothing in the hours of daylight. They have to literally starve themselves. Never has the saying "not enough hours in the day been more true".
(Expects abuse from those without a sense of humour)
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
Ramadan in July isn't going to be easy for Muslims living in the Northern Hemisphere.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that the "nones" and the active atheists form a larger proportion of society in the UK than do almost all identifiable practicing religionists of the various persuasions (not sure about nominal RC or CofE), I would expect that a similar or larger amount of time should be set aside for non-religious contemplative or "spiritual-but-not-religious" observances.
Having just Googled, it turns out I was in fact missing something...Channel 4 is apparently publicly owned, is that correct? Otherwise I can't see why on earth anyone would feel the need for equal representation of various groups.

And if they broadcast five three-minute calls to prayer every day during Ramadan, that (by my calculations) is about 1.04% of the day, or about 1.5% if consider that most people sleep eight hours or so, at least aspirationally. Given that the Muslim population of the UK is 4.8% (according to Wikipedia, at least), Muslims would still seem to be drastically underrepresented by this particular public broadcaster. [Biased]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that the "nones" and the active atheists form a larger proportion of society in the UK than do almost all identifiable practicing religionists of the various persuasions (not sure about nominal RC or CofE), I would expect that a similar or larger amount of time should be set aside for non-religious contemplative or "spiritual-but-not-religious" observances.
Do the "nones" actually set aside time in their personal lives for "non-religious contemplative or spiritual-but-not-religious observances"? My experience is that most people don't do this, in which case having it on TV is rather silly.

By contrast, Christians, Muslims, and the faithful of other faiths do regularly set aside time for prayer and worship.

ETA: Whilst I think we all know that Channel 4 is trying to be its usual provocative self, rather than actually provide a service to the Muslim community in the UK, it is amusing to note that most of the channel's other "provocative" acts would be more offensive to the average Muslim than to the average Christian.

[ 02. July 2013, 15:25: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

.
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?

Church and mosque coexist peacefuly throughout the muslim world, ass the Holy Qur'an urges.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Ramadan in July isn't going to be easy for Muslims living in the Northern Hemisphere.
It depends on whose advice you follow.

There is a strong school of thought that suggests holding to the timings of sunrise/set in Mecca is sufficient to be observant.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that the "nones" and the active atheists form a larger proportion of society in the UK than do almost all identifiable practicing religionists of the various persuasions (not sure about nominal RC or CofE), I would expect that a similar or larger amount of time should be set aside for non-religious contemplative or "spiritual-but-not-religious" observances.
Having just Googled, it turns out I was in fact missing something...Channel 4 is apparently publicly owned, is that correct? Otherwise I can't see why on earth anyone would feel the need for equal representation of various groups.

And if they broadcast five three-minute calls to prayer every day during Ramadan, that (by my calculations) is about 1.04% of the day, or about 1.5% if consider that most people sleep eight hours or so, at least aspirationally. Given that the Muslim population of the UK is 4.8% (according to Wikipedia, at least), Muslims would still seem to be drastically underrepresented by this particular public broadcaster. [Biased]
It's not publicly owned really no. It's funded by selling advertising etc in the same way as most commercial stations. It does, however, have a public service remit by order of the act that allowed it to be established. Because of that, it's supposed to "demonstrate innovation" or something nebulous like that. Sceptics have often complained that that just allows it to show stuff that wouldn't be allowed on other channels....
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Well, at least, it will be very soon. In case you didn't know,
That's great to hear. Looks like pork bbq and ice cold beer for lunch.

[ 02. July 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?
There are no official churches in Saudi Arabia. You are officially not allowed to practice any other religion than Islam, Bibles, crucifixes et al are banned, Christian ministers are forbidden to conduct services within the country.

And that's according to the Saudi government.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?
What do you call "unbiased"?

From the US State Department here:

"The Government restricted the establishment of places of worship and public training of non-Sunni clergy. The Government officially did not permit non-Sunni clergy to enter the country to conduct religious services, although some did so under other auspices, and the Government generally allowed them to perform discreet religious functions. Such restrictions made it difficult for most non-Muslims to maintain contact with clergy, particularly Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, whose faiths require a priest on a regular basis to receive sacraments. However, many non-Muslims continued to gather for private worship."

or from the Apostolic Vicariate of Northern Arabia (the part of the Roman Catholic church with jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia):

"As Saudi Arabia is home to Islam's holiest sites, it does not permit churches to be built, as a result there are no Christian churches or places of worship. Non-Islamic religion is not recognized and its public display or activity is prohibited. The Catholic community respects the sensitivities of the region and has always maintained a low profile. Relations with the local authorities are generally good. The country allows Roman Catholics and Christians of other denominations to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work.

The situation of the Church in Saudi Arabia is similar to that of the early Christian communities."
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
Just to clarify with regard to Saudi Arabia, I was talking about coexisting bells and muezzins historically and in the present in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Iran, and Iraq, all of which had or have significant Christian populations, although Iraq's is now the smallest due to a strange combination of the Mongols, the Assyrian Genocide and diaspora, and post-2003 violence, the result of which has been that the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, variously of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and Baghdad, now lives more mundanely in Chicago.

No part of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of the Ghassanids, has ever been primarily Christian, so there has not been a similar situation in which post-conquest Christians and Muslims live side by side.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

No part of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of the Ghassanids, has ever been primarily Christian, so there has not been a similar situation in which post-conquest Christians and Muslims live side by side.
Although there are more than a million Filipino Catholics employed in Saudi Arabia.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Christians could use the call to prayer as a reminder to pray for their Muslim neighbours. The subject matter of those prayers would no doubt vary. This one has a long Anglican pedigree, but might be somewhat controversial for some.

"O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen."
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
Ramadan - the time of year when Muslims can eat nothing in the hours of daylight. They have to literally starve themselves. Never has the saying "not enough hours in the day been more true".
(Expects abuse from those without a sense of humour)
Could someone explain this post, please? The syntax isn't quite clear, but as far as I can understand it seems to be expressing an anti-Muslim sentiment, and then saying that it's only a joke and that anyone who objects lacks a sense of humour.

[ 02. July 2013, 18:18: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Some will be uncomfortable with it, seeing it as proselytism or a sleight on Christianity. It'll be interesting to see the response from those who don't want God to be mentioned in public.

You never know, some people may be prompted to .....pray?
Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society said

quote:
However Channel 4 was warned not to give excessive coverage to Ramadan. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “I wouldn’t object to it as at least it gives some balance to the BBC’s emphasis on Christianity but Channel 4 has to keep it in proportion.

“The percentage of Muslims in the UK is very small so few people will be interested in it. It may be a novelty and Channel 4 is good at causing a sensation. We don’t want to see any broadcaster becoming a platform for religious proselytising.”
So people aren't supposed to be interested in anything they don't do themselves? That's a strange thing for Mr Sanderson to say!

According to some forecasts, Islam is likely to have an increasing presence in the UK over the following decades, and it's even been predicted that the number of practicing Muslims will outpace the number of practicing Christians in just a few decades. It would therefore make perfect sense for all British people to know more about Islam.
 
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

No part of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of the Ghassanids, has ever been primarily Christian, so there has not been a similar situation in which post-conquest Christians and Muslims live side by side.
Although there are more than a million Filipino Catholics employed in Saudi Arabia.
If that was edited for accuracy it would say...
quote:
There are more than a million Filipino workers, including some practicing Catholics, employed in Saudi Arabia.
The Philippines is very much a secular country these days, with the proportion of the population that are practicing Catholics only about one third.

If you understood the conditions in which guest workers live in the rich petro-economies of the Arabian peninsula, you would also understand that living in the same country does not mean they are actually living side-by-side with the locals.

[ 02. July 2013, 18:56: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?
Where have you been for the last couple of centuries?

Not only are new churches not allowed - completely banned even in provate houses - but the remains or ruins of old churches have often been demolished, and the land filled in so there is no evidence they were ever there at all. The same has been done to mosques they think are heretical as well. And of course pagan temples. Many valuable historical and archaeological sites have been destroyed. The stated policy of the Saudi kingdom is that there should be no visible presence of any other religion than Sunni Islam in the territiry it rules.

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
No part of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of the Ghassanids, has ever been primarily Christian, so there has not been a similar situation in which post-conquest Christians and Muslims live side by side.
Not since the Saudis took over, no, but before that there were at least some Christian as well as Jewish communities in Yemen and possibly some parts of the Gulf coast (maybe among Persian rather than Arab speakers) And way back before Islam there were both Christians and Jews in the area round Mecca and Medina which is how come they get intio the Koran.

[ 02. July 2013, 19:06: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Ramadan in July isn't going to be easy for Muslims living in the Northern Hemisphere.
It depends on whose advice you follow.

There is a strong school of thought that suggests holding to the timings of sunrise/set in Mecca is sufficient to be observant.
Yes. This was resolved some time ago. Muslims in Scandinavia, especially in the parts closer to the Arctic Circle, really struggle with the extended hours of daylight in summer, when you get virtually no night at all, so they tend to go with the hours of sunrise/sunset in Mecca. Muslims further south, in Northern Europe, generally follow the sunrise/sunset pattern of where they're living, which probably is a bit of a grind for them, but do-able. How they manage to carry on with normal working days as well, I don't know.
 
Posted by Not (# 2166) on :
 
Since they're broadcasting it at 3am, it's hard to see how anyone who doesn't really, really want to be offended can be.

(Images of Melanie Phillips et al setting alarm clocks for 0255 to ensure they're ready to be outraged...)
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Channel 4 is broadcasting the first one at 3am, but there's more than one call to prayer a day...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Melanie will need one of those clocks with multiple alarm times, so she can have multiple outrages.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Given that the "nones" ...
Do the "nones" actually set aside time in their personal lives for "non-religious contemplative or spiritual-but-not-religious observances"? My experience is that most people don't do this, in which case having it on TV is rather silly....

LC: Since Terry Sanderson IS trying to set up some sort of regular "contemplative or spiritual-but-not-religious" observance, you might allow him to put his oar in!

And: how do you KNOW that these nones have no regular observances?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

And: how do you KNOW that these nones have no regular observances?
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that out of the fairly large number of "nones" that I have known well enough to discuss such things with, precisely none of them had any kind of "regular observance".

Clearly some do - the "atheist church" that started in London earlier this year, for example, starts to look a bit like that, although it's not very frequent.

Unless you count people who like, for example, to take long walks in the country in order to think and clear their heads, in which case I'd have to add at least "taking a shower" to the list of observances.

Mr. Sanderson seems more concerned with not having "excessive" coverage of Ramadan than anything else, but if he and Mr. Porteous Wood had a proposal for some way of marking national atheism week (and had rather wider support than just their friends and family), I'd be happy for Channel 4 to give him oar-room.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

.
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?

Church and mosque coexist peacefuly throughout the muslim world, ass the Holy Qur'an urges.
Tell that to the Christians fleeing from Syria and churches ransacked.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
No part of Saudi Arabia, with the exception of the Ghassanids, has ever been primarily Christian, so there has not been a similar situation in which post-conquest Christians and Muslims live side by side.
Not since the Saudis took over, no, but before that there were at least some Christian as well as Jewish communities in Yemen and possibly some parts of the Gulf coast (maybe among Persian rather than Arab speakers) And way back before Islam there were both Christians and Jews in the area round Mecca and Medina which is how come they get intio the Koran.
Hence "primarily." Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and parts of modern Iraq and Iran had Christian-majority areas in a way that no part of Arabia did.

The point, of course, is that Christians and Muslims have lived with one another's noise with varying amounts of conflict for nearly the entire history of Islam. Perhaps Britons (and Americans, and Bosnians, and...) can learn from that coexistence in ways that minimize the bad times and maximize the good.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
AIUI, interfaith relations in Cordova, Spain were reportedly pretty peaceful under Moorish rule.

As to getting used to church bells and calls to prayer: for me, those would be tolerable if heard from another part of town, so I wouldn't get so much of the noise. I haven't heard the call to prayer live, but I know I react to church bells that way.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

.
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
Nor in the backwoods of the US Deep South.

And for that matter, tho i live in the US Deep South, I live in an urban area, in a neighborhood in which, as a matter of fact, a large percentage of the population is Muslim. I don't hear church bells or muzzeins, just speeding cars, sirens, and the occasional distant sound of gunfire.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
And btw best wishes for Ramadan and a joyful Eid to any Muslim readers of this website that there may be.

I don't know how many Muslim readers or members there are on this website. ISTM that the very extremely occasional Muslim shipmate that has posted has recieved a lot more flack than, say, our atheist members*. We had a very thoughtful Muslim poster in particular a few years back whom I thought got mostly unfairly hostile responses. It quite saddened me. (It's been quite a while and I can't provide documentation)

*tis is in no way a slight against our atheist members who are among the the best posters on the Ship.

[ 03. July 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Good for them! Muslims have to listen to our church bells all the time; on the quarter-hour, in some places. It's said that the dueling muezzins and bells in various cities have always been fierce, particularly in the Middle East.

.
Not in Saudi Arabia [Biased]
It is often said that churches aren't allowed there - but is there any unbiased evidence?

Church and mosque coexist peacefuly throughout the muslim world, ass the Holy Qur'an urges.
'ass the Holy Qur'an urges'

In his zeal to show his respect for Islam, it looks like leo has committed blasphemy against it.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
[Two face] Amos! Leo will deny it of course...... [Biased]

However my understanding is that it's going to be on at 3.00am?

For heaven's sakes I'll be in bed, fast asleep bar insomnia

And will it be any longer than the adverts anyway?
 
Posted by dv (# 15714) on :
 
Channel 4 always seems to think it is being radical but comes across as a brattish child playing up. We see this every year with the dreary alternative Christmas message. It is about as provocative as all those old hat ENO opera productions with gratuitous nudity, shocking no one but the production team in their bubble .... Time to grow up.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Channel 4 is broadcasting the first one at 3am, but there's more than one call to prayer a day...
The Guardian article says:
quote:
The headline-grabbing move will see Channel 4 broadcast the three-minute call to prayer at about 3am for 30 days from the start of Ramadan on 9 July.


Channel 4 will also interrupt programming four times on the first day of Ramadan to mark subsequent calls by means of a 20-second film to remind viewers of the approaching prayer time.


After that date, the channel will air the 3am call to prayer on live TV, and the other four prayer times will be broadcast on its website.
So it's only the 3.00am call that will be broadcast after the first day - hardly seems worth getting worked up about!
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Seems like quite an interesting thing to do.

What's the problem?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
where the Netherlands were 7–8 years ago... agitated discussions about Islam
It was nine years ago that Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist exremist.

How strange that such an act would produce "agitated discussion"!

Surely it should be possible to agree that Channel 4's actions are fairly innocuous, without feeling the need to go on and trivialise Islamofascist atrocities.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Ramadan in July isn't going to be easy for Muslims living in the Northern Hemisphere.
It is the Southern Hemisphere here, it is bloody cold, and everyone is perpetually hungry.

Just this morning I was urging my friend Youcef, who is very thin, to eat up and put on some condition before Ramadan, in case he disappears.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
I'm probably giving you more airtime than you deserve, leo, but FFS, can you possibly demonstrate any greater obtuseness than by these statements?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often said that churches aren't allowed [in Saudi Arabia] - but is there any unbiased evidence?
That's not the way things work, leo. If you want to argue the manifestly counter-factual position, it's on you to mount evidence to support your claim.
quote:
Church and mosque coexist peacefuly throughout the muslim world, ass the Holy Qur'an urges.
"Throughout the Muslim world." Really?! You put that in the present tense as though things were hunky-dory in, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and any number of additions 'stans. What countries am I leaving out?
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
I really, really hate the the word 'Islamofascist.' [I][/I]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
What's wrong with it?
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
It shows a comedic misunderstanding of fascism, for a start.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I partially agree. I dislike use of the word 'fascist' as a general term of abuse against anyone with slightly authoritarian tendencies or indeed anyone who has a slightly different point of view, not least because it detracts from the 'Fascism' as a valid political ideology which is my view no worse than, say, communism.

But 'fascism' as an insult is widespread (and despite my personal dislike I've probably used it myself once or twice). I don't see why 'Islamofascist' is any better or worse than other examples of the word fascist when it's used as an insult.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
It's not what these outrages are, though.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
What are they then? I'm afraid I'm not quite following the point you're trying to make.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
The point is simply that it isn't fascism, or anything like it.

Fundamentalism, maybe, but certainly not fascism.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The point is simply that it isn't fascism, or anything like it.

Fundamentalism, maybe, but certainly not fascism.
You're correct that fascism is not synonymous with Islamist extremism, but overstating your case when you claim that it isn't "anything like it".

Christopher Hitchens, who is associated with the term but did not coin it, provided a list as long as your arm of similarities between the two.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You're correct that fascism is not synonymous with Islamist extremism, but overstating your case when you claim that it isn't "anything like it".

Christopher Hitchens, who is associated with the term but did not coin it, provided a list as long as your arm of similarities between the two.
The similarities (in the particular list he draws up) are not restricted to 'Islamic' fundamentalism - but apply to fundamentalism of any stripe (including Christian and Jewish fundamentalism).

His list is - however - highly arbitrary. With a few exceptions most fascists nominally value the same things as most of the rest of the people on this planet - family, culture, loyalty etc. Of course they define their practice of these things differently.

This would not have bothered Hitchens - he was a polemicist whose career was based on wrapping up prejudices in an english accent
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm probably giving you more airtime than you deserve, leo, but FFS, can you possibly demonstrate any greater obtuseness than by these statements?
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is often said that churches aren't allowed [in Saudi Arabia] - but is there any unbiased evidence?
That's not the way things work, leo. If you want to argue the manifestly counter-factual position, it's on you to mount evidence to support your claim.
quote:
Church and mosque coexist peacefuly throughout the muslim world, ass the Holy Qur'an urges.
"Throughout the Muslim world." Really?! You put that in the present tense as though things were hunky-dory in, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and any number of additions 'stans. What countries am I leaving out?
The historical precedent for peaceful coexistence comes from Muhammad (pbuh)'s covenant with the monks at of Egypt's Saint Catherine's Monastery - more here.

Nowadays, only 4 out of the 52 countries listed below do NOT allow Christians to worship and/or churches to be built. The info.below is an abridged summary from a much longer article at
this website.

Afghanistan: (99% Muslim) churches were banned under the Taliban, but the country does now have one small Roman catholic chapel. Christianity is now legal, but there just aren't many Christians there.
Algeria: (99% Muslim) Christianity legal. Churches exist.
Azerbaijan: (93% Muslim) Christianity allowed. A new Roman catholic church was built in the capital as recently as 2002. It replaced the old church which was destroyed, not by Muslims, but by Communists when it was a part of the Soviet Union. There are also several other Christian denominations (including the Church of Armenia) which worship openly in Azerbaijan.
Bahrain: (81% Muslim) Churches allowed.
Bangladesh: (90% Muslim) Churches allowed.
Brunei: (67% Muslim) Christians are free to worship, the Roman catholic Church has three churches in the capital and two in other towns. Bear in mind Brunei is a tiny country. Brunei has its own Roman catholic bishop.
Burkino Faso: (50% Muslim) total religious freedom. several churches in the capital.
Chad: (54% Muslim) Approximately 30% of Chad's population are Christian. Christians worship openly.
Comoros: (98-99% Muslim) there are less than 400 Christians. Despite that it has 3 Churches (2 Roman catholic, one protestant) who carry out their business unheeded. Christianity was briefly banned following a coup in 1999, however, religious freedom was reinstated in a new constitution in 2001.
Djibouti: (94% Muslim) The population here is 94% Muslim, 6% Christian. Christians worship freely with no restraints.
Egypt: (90% Muslim) Churches allowed. The Pope of the Coptic Church resides in Egypt.
Eritrea: (60% Muslim) There is freedom to worship in Eritrea, but any religion has to be registered and recognised by the government, currently three Christian denominations (including Roman catholics) are recognised and worship openly with their own churches.
Guinea: (85% Muslim) 10% Christian. All Christian denominations are recognised by the government and are free to worship.
Indonesia: (86% Muslim) Christians are free to worship.
Iran: (98% Muslim) Christians are allowed to worship.
Iraq: (97% Muslim) Likewise.
Jordan: (95% Muslim) The Coptic church is particularly big in Jordan.
Kazakhstan: (57% Muslim) The Russian Orthodox Church is big here. Kazakh culture is built on tolerance and once it gained independence from the USSR hundreds of mosques, churches and synagogues were built relatively quickly.
Kosovo: (90% Muslim) "densely covered" with Serb orthodox churches and monasteries.
Kuwait: (85% Muslim) Churches allowed.
Kyrgyzstan: (75% Muslim) The Russian Orthodox Church is big here.
Lebanon (60% Muslim) several churches here. 39% of Lebanese are Christian and worship freely.
Libya: (97% Muslim). Religious freedom is a given right in Libya.
Malaysia (60% Muslim) Islam is the official religion in Malaysia, but religious freedom is enshrined in law. Buddhists make up the second largest group. 9% of Malaysians are Christian and are free to worship.
Madlives: (99.8% Muslim) No religions permitted by law other than Islam, although in practice, the tiny amount of Christians in the country are left alone and are physically free.
Mali: (90% Muslim) 5% of Malians are Christian and the constitution guarantees religious freedom.
Mauritania: (99.99% Muslim) Mauritania is ruled by a military junta. Churches were banned in 2006.
Morocco: (99% Muslim) Christianity allowed.
Niger (90% Muslim) a secular state, freedom to worship any religion is a right enshrined in law. Despite less than 1% of the population being Christian, missionary missions are active and perfectly legal and protected under Niger's law. Churches and Christian schools are open and operate without restriction.
Nigeria (50% Muslim) The Church of Nigeria has 17million members and thousands of churches.
Oman: (93% Muslim) 50 different Christian groups worship freely and openly in Muscat alone.
Pakistan: (97% Muslim) Churches, church schools etc all allowed.
Palestine: (95% Muslim) Christians have increasingly found themselves in the middle of the Muslim/Jewish struggle. However, churches are still permitted and many of Christianity's holiest sites (including the Church Of The Nativity in Bethlehem) are within Palestinian territory and operate.
Qatar: (77.5% Muslim) The Roman catholic Church built a new church in Doha (Our Lady of the Rosary) in 2008 with government permission.
Saudi Arabia: (100% Muslim) Christianity is banned in Saudi Arabia.
Senegal: (94% Muslim) Hardly any Senegalese are Christian, but Protestant and Roman catholic Churches both exist, although they cater mainly to foreigners, including Europeans. They are free to worship and preach openly. The Bahai'i Faith is the second biggest religion and also operates freely.
Sierra Leone: (60% Muslim) The Church operates freely in Sierra Leone and there are Churches and Church schools. The Church of England has a surprisingly high profile.
Somalia: (99.9% Muslim) no effective government so laws on religious freedom or otherwise are pretty much irrelevant. There is a Roman Catholic Cathedral in Mogadishu, but it was damaged in the civil war. To all intents and purposes, however, Christians are persecuted here.
Sudan: (90% Muslim) 5% of Sudanese are devout Roman Catholics. Churches exist. The Coptic churches also significant.
Syria: (90% Muslim) Churches allowed.
Tajikistan: (97% Muslim) There is religious freedom in Tajikistan, although religions have to register with the government, however, they only need 10 or more members to do this. Churches operate freely.
The Gambia: (90% Muslim) Christianity is the second largest religion in The Gambia. Not only do churches operate freely, but intermarriage between Muslims and Christians is common.
Tunisia: (98% Muslim) Tunisia allows both Christians and Jews to worship freely. There are Churches and synagogues in the capital and one of the oldest synagogues in the world operates on the island of Djerba. Many Jewish pilgrims visit it without restriction every year.
Turkey (99.8% Muslim). Turkey is a secular state by constitution. Religious freedom is enshrined in law.
Turkmenistan: (89% Muslim) 9% of the population are orthodox Christians and the Orthodox Church is recognised and protected in law. Churches exist and operate freely.
UAE: (76% Muslim) The UAE has a huge amount of foreign workers (mainly in Dubai and Abu-Dhabi). Christians can worship freely in the entire Emirate and there are churches and chapels. However, it is illegal to try and convert Muslims.
Uzbekistan: (88% Muslim) Despite this high figure, in a recent survey, only 35% of Uzbeks said they considered religion to be important in their lives. The Uzbek government is wary of Christianity and there have been high profile arrests of Christians. However the government is secular and it is an East-West political pressure as opposed to a Muslim one. There are, however, some very large churches in Uzbekistan.
Yemen (99% Muslim) Despite its tiny Christian population, Yemen does have Churches, including the Anglican Christ Church Aden, originally built for British Seamen. It is part of the Anglican diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf and operates without restriction.

[ 04. July 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nowadays, only 4 out of the 52 countries listed below do NOT allow Christians to worship and/or churches to be built.
Leo there is however a difference between something being 'legal' and minorities being properly respected and protected (hence why Egyptian Copts are celebrating the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood and their attempts to impose Islamic law on Egypt). All of those countries listed may allow Christians to exist but it does not mean that they are protected or treated equally...

As for the Church Bells-Adhan comparison... it is unfortunately a false comparison, a true comparison being if Christians hollered out the Creeds from Church towers every day.

The Adhan is a theologically loaded statement in a way that Church bells are not and does therefore serve a proselytising purpose...

All of this has made me wonder if in the interests of education, equality and to some extent provocation, C4 will present the Daily Prayers during Advent-Christmas and Lent-Easter say?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
No Sergius - it's the BBC's job to do Christianity - at least according to the earlier quote from Terry Sanderson....
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Why should the BBC 'do' any religion?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Why should the BBC 'do' any religion?
It's part of the Reith legacy - religion is written into the schedule as having to occupy a certain percentage of programming.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Nowadays, only 4 out of the 52 countries listed below do NOT allow Christians to worship and/or churches to be built.
Leo there is however a difference between something being 'legal' and minorities being properly respected and protected
Well, 'minority' muslims are facing the same prejudice and discrimination in so-called Chriatian countries.

quote:
General Synod member Alison Ruoff called for a ban on building more mosques in Britain and said new places of worship would lead to Sharia law and no-go Muslim areas.
Mrs Ruoff, a member of the Bishop of London’s Diocesan Council, said: “We are still a Christian country – we need to hold on to that. “If we don’t watch out, we will become an Islamic state.”
The former JP, of Waltham Cross, North East London, told Premier Christian Radio there were enough mosques for Britain’s Muslims
[URL=. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/989134/Islam-Christianity-Christians-call-to-ban-mosques.html#ixzz2Y5VQwD8d]source[ /URL]

quote:
Switzerland had a nationwide referendum to ban minarets on mosques. This month, Italy's interior minister vowed to close a controversial mosque in Milan.
In Austria, the southern province of Carinthia passed a law in February that effectively bans the construction of mosques by requiring them to fit within the overall look and harmony of villages and towns.
Far-right leaders from 15 European cities met in Antwerp, Belgium, in January and called for a ban on new mosques and a halt to "the Islamization" of European cities. The group said mosques act as catalysts for taking over neighborhoods and imposing Islamic ways of life on Europeans.
"We already have more than 6,000 mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a symbol of radicalization, some financed by extreme groups in Saudi Arabia or Iran," Filip Dewinter, leader of a Flemish separatist party in Belgium, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide at the conference.
Dewinter criticized a mosque being built in Rotterdam, Netherlands: "Its minarets are six floors high. These kinds of symbols have to stop."
Although the group in Antwerp represented minority political parties from Belgium, Austria and Germany, its cause resonates elsewhere.
Construction of a mosque in Cologne, Germany, drew protests from residents last year and sparked a political debate in Berlin over concerns that it could overshadow the city's great Gothic cathedral.
In London, plans for a "mega-mosque" for 12,000 worshipers next to the site of the 2012 Olympics drew 250,000-plus opposing signatures.
source
quote:
"Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero," Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote this week on the AFA website. "This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."
[URL=." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013448-503544.html]source[/URL]
quote:
Le Pen, deputy leader of France’s National Front, has called for a referendum in France not only on minarets, but also on immigration and a wide array of other issues linked to Muslims. Filip Dewinter, head of Belgium’s Vlaams Belang, said he wanted to change zoning laws there to ban “buildings that damage the cultural identity of the surrounding neighbourhood”. It remains to be seen how far they can get with these demands.
source
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
ISTM that the very extremely occasional Muslim shipmate that has posted has recieved a lot more flack than, say, our atheist members*. We had a very thoughtful Muslim poster in particular a few years back whom I thought got mostly unfairly hostile responses. It quite saddened me.
Me too - and I was called to Hell for supporting him.

Was proud to be in Hell for such a cause.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, 'minority' muslims are facing the same prejudice and discrimination in so-called Chriatian countries.
Leo I don't normally disagree with you, but I think this might be the issue that does!

To start with the Swiss case, that is democracy in action, and at a later date the Swiss people may, by referendum, change the decision and allow what is really a planning issue (rather than a religious freedoms issue since minarets aren't a fundamental part of the Muslim faith) to be changed later on.

I suppose that comment is suitable for most of the other example you give, I do however also wish to draw a distinction between what you indicate as discrimination/persecution, which effectively amounts to the spoken thoughts of a small group of people, and the treatment at the hands of Islamic law for apostates and non-believers (amongst other groups) who find themselves stoned to death, butchered (as in Syria) or hanging from a crane... there is a big difference between being ushered into the City of God and being told that for local planning reasons you can't build a new Mosque since it's not really needed at this time, or that if you do can you please keep it in style with the local historical look of a place...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, 'minority' muslims are facing the same prejudice and discrimination in so-called Chriatian countries.
In what sense is this the 'same' ? If you think it's the 'same' in terms of magnitude - then you honestly don't know enough about the status of Christians in the Arab/Muslim World to comment.

Even before one gets to how 'religious freedom' is interpreted on the ground one has to deal with the issue of apostasy laws.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Well, 'minority' muslims are facing the same prejudice and discrimination in so-called Chriatian countries.
In what sense is this the 'same' ? If you think it's the 'same' in terms of magnitude - then you honestly don't know enough about the status of Christians in the Arab/Muslim World to comment.

Even before one gets to how 'religious freedom' is interpreted on the ground one has to deal with the issue of apostasy laws.
Did you read the list I quoted, above, about freedom in all but 4 muslim countries?
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Leo,

Your list seems to state the legal position, according to the constitution or whatever of the countries concerned, without taking into account the reality as it is experienced by Christians living there.
I don't know enough to comment in detail but in Egypt it is practically impossible to get planning permission to build a new church.

To revert to Saudi Arabia, I remember reading in the Church Times a couple of years ago that roadblocks are set up on Good Friday to prevent expats travelling to their Embassies for services.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I fear that I am a bit astonished at one or two of the entries on the list Leo quotes:
quote:
Senegal: (94% Muslim) Hardly any Senegalese are Christian, but Protestant and Roman catholic Churches both exist, although they cater mainly to foreigners, including Europeans. They are free to worship and preach openly. The Bahai'i Faith is the second biggest religion and also operates freely.
With a hierarchy of seven, and 570,000 RCs among the Christian 5% of the population, the notion of Xtianity as a foreign chaplaincy in Senegal is ... interesting. As is that of the Bahai population at 22,000 being the second biggest. And the Copts in Jordan??

Fans of anecdotology might be interested in a Muslim friend's Ramadan advice that those working in cubicles should not bring in too many attractively-fragrant snacks or lunches.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
Leo: Could you compare for us the treatment (legal treatment will do) of Muslims who convert to Christianity in that long list of countries you mentioned with the treatment of Christians who convert to Islam in the West?

I'll just quote this from Wikipedia and snigger in your general direction, shall I?

quote:

In February, 2008, an Egyptian judge, Muhammad Husseini of a court in Cairo ruled that a Muslim who converted to Christianity cannot legally change his religious status, although he may believe what he wants in his heart. Judge Muhammad Husseini said that according to sharia, Islam is the final and most complete religion and therefore Muslims already practice full freedom of religion and cannot convert to an older belief (Christianity or Judaism). Husseini also told the administrative court that Hegazy "can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert."

 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Did you read the list I quoted, above, about freedom in all but 4 muslim countries?
Nigeria is not and never has been a Muslim country. It has a Muslim population, mostly in the north. That's not at all the same thing. It doesn't have a state religion.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Leo,

Your list seems to state the legal position, according to the constitution or whatever of the countries concerned, without taking into account the reality as it is experienced by Christians living there.
I don't know enough to comment in detail but in Egypt it is practically impossible to get planning permission to build a new church.

To revert to Saudi Arabia, I remember reading in the Church Times a couple of years ago that roadblocks are set up on Good Friday to prevent expats travelling to their Embassies for services.
And so-called Xian countries are trying to strop planning permission for mosques, as i quoted above.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Did you read the list I quoted, above, about freedom in all but 4 muslim countries?
Nigeria is not and never has been a Muslim country. It has a Muslim population, mostly in the north. That's not at all the same thing. It doesn't have a state religion.
Indeed - and the Christians there are very oppressive too.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Leo: Could you compare for us the treatment (legal treatment will do) of Muslims who convert to Christianity in that long list of countries you mentioned with the treatment of Christians who convert to Islam in the West?

I'll just quote this from Wikipedia and snigger in your general direction, shall I?

quote:

In February, 2008, an Egyptian judge, Muhammad Husseini of a court in Cairo ruled that a Muslim who converted to Christianity cannot legally change his religious status, although he may believe what he wants in his heart. Judge Muhammad Husseini said that according to sharia, Islam is the final and most complete religion and therefore Muslims already practice full freedom of religion and cannot convert to an older belief (Christianity or Judaism). Husseini also told the administrative court that Hegazy "can believe whatever he wants in his heart, but on paper he can't convert."
I could look at this - though the Holy Qur'an insists that there should be no compulsion in religion.

And it's worth mentioning that over half the mosques in the UK have been vandalised in the past three months.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And so-called Xian countries are trying to strop planning permission for mosques, as i quoted above.
And as pointed out above, all those are covered either by democracy in play, or by planning laws.

If you have ever lived in a conservation area it is quite possible to understand, for example, the Austrian example in its proper context... Minarets are not an essential aspect of Islamic worship or belief, therefore they are not required and can appropriately be prevented on planning regulations to ensure that an area maintains its historical/protected look.

And as for your next posts - there is a lot of inconsistency in the Qu'ran, the interpretation depends on when it occurred in the schema of revelation, and to be truly honest you have to admit all the nice stuff occurs when Islam is in a pretty weak state and all the 'Jews are descendants of apes and pigs - wipe them out' stuff happens later on and therefore supersedes the stuff that came before it...

[ 04. July 2013, 20:34: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The similarities (in the particular list he draws up) are not restricted to 'Islamic' fundamentalism - but apply to fundamentalism of any stripe (including Christian and Jewish fundamentalism).
This is just a debating tactic.

There is no extant Christian or Jewish fundamentalism which is remotely comparable to Islamist groupings and regimes such as al Quaeda and the Taleban.

quote:
he was a polemicist whose career was based on wrapping up prejudices in an english accent
Very aphoristic and politically correct, but if Hitchens was "prejudiced" in opposing Islamist extremism, then so are the overwhelming majority of Muslims.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.

And that catholics were seen as enemies of the state no less than 450 years ago.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Hitchens was a polemicist. It's how he made his living.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.
Well I guess that is one of the most historically illiterate and therefore badly applied Godwin's law examples I've come across in religious discussion...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is just a debating tactic.

There is no extant Christian or Jewish fundamentalism which is remotely comparable to Islamist groupings and regimes such as al Quaeda and the Taleban.
Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane and their supporters would fall into the first category.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
The attitude of some people in Israel towards the Palestinians is openly abhorrent.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
At least since the 1980s, Canadian Immigration staff at some of our missions have facilitated "humanitarian and compassionate" landings of Muslims who converted to Xty-- to my knowledge no precise numbers were ever assembled. From 1983-4 (a mere quarter century plus ago) I have a rough memory of a dozen that year, primarily from Yemen, Algeria, and Iran. In three of these individual cases, the host government cooperated as they were unable to provide protection to the convert.

Certainly, there's plenty of literature about forced conversion of Copts so, even when local governments are not hostile, they are frequently unable to stop grass-roots problems.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The attitude of some people in Israel towards the Palestinians is openly abhorrent.
I guess if you were being daily harassed by homemade and Iranian supplied weapons fired at you from Wandsworth, or Wandsworthians blowing up public buses and declaring that you are descendants of apes and pigs and should be exterminated from the face of the earth then you might have some strong feelings about Wandsworth as the Israeli's do about the terrorists that run Gaza...

It is more credit to Israel that they have open borders to allow Palestinians (who are shunned on a political status level by all Muslim states in the Middle East) to work in Israel, to treat in Israeli hospitals those who are used as human shields by the terrorists in charge of Gaza, as well as allowing humanitarian aid through the borders on a consistent basis and being a bastion of progressive, open and democratic governance which treats all its citizens fairly which is sadly lacking from much of the rest of the Middle East.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
If you keep hitting a dog with a stick and generally maltreating it, then it will become savage and disturbed. And this is exactly what is happening with the Palestinians. Years of mistreatment are manifesting themselves as sundry atrocities, which the Israelis then argue are reasons for further mistreatment.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And it's worth mentioning that over half the mosques in the UK have been vandalised in the past three months.
Leo,

Can you provide a link for this? The article I read said that half the mosques in the UK had been attacked since 9/11.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is just a debating tactic.

There is no extant Christian or Jewish fundamentalism which is remotely comparable to Islamist groupings and regimes such as al Quaeda and the Taleban.
Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane and their supporters would fall into the first category.
The KKK were explicitly religious. The Stern Gang likewise.

The Provisional IRA were, while a political terror group, drew almost all their support and members from the Roman Catholic population of Ireland.

And if I'm going to be extraordinarily controversial, a great many ordinary Muslims view the US military as a Christian army, and drones strikes as a terror weapon.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And if I'm going to be extraordinarily controversial, a great many ordinary Muslims view the US military as a Christian army, and drones strikes as a terror weapon.
Is that really controversial when many or most, whatever, don't get the separation of mosque/church and state thing?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is just a debating tactic.

There is no extant Christian or Jewish fundamentalism which is remotely comparable to Islamist groupings and regimes such as al Quaeda and the Taleban.
Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane and their supporters would fall into the first category.
You have just proved my point.

Goldstein was condemned by all Jewish political and religious authorities and the Israeli army.

He was an unrepresentative nutcase, and a few other nutcases latched onto his atrocity, as will always happen.

You might just as well condemn the whole sixties radical movement because some of the Weatherman faction admired the Manson murders.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The KKK were explicitly religious. The Stern Gang likewise.

And so were the Crusaders and the Inquisitors.

There is no Jewish or Christian phenomenon around today qualitatively or quantitatively equivalent to Islamist extremism, despite the fact that it is a mere subset of Islam in general.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And if I'm going to be extraordinarily controversial, a great many ordinary Muslims view the US military as a Christian army, and drones strikes as a terror weapon.
Is that really controversial when many or most, whatever, don't get the separation of mosque/church and state thing?
I'm a right-pondian (with no wish to start a pond war). I'm aware, however, of many voices on the Christian Right that thought invading Iraq would open the country up to missionaries. Also, IIRC, considerable worries about an evangelical infiltration of military culture. (Here's one article, for example.)

I don't know. I'm guessing most people would object to their country's military being labelled 'a bunch of religiously-inspired terrorists'.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The KKK were explicitly religious. The Stern Gang likewise.

And so were the Crusaders and the Inquisitors.

There is no Jewish or Christian phenomenon around today qualitatively or quantitatively equivalent to Islamist extremism, despite the fact that it is a mere subset of Islam in general.
So your argument rests on "dude, that was so last century"?

That's actually not that convincing. The seeds of extremism exist within both Christianity and Judaism, and not acknowledging that is both very dangerous and not a little stupid.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And so-called Xian countries are trying to strop planning permission for mosques, as i quoted above.
And as pointed out above, all those are covered either by democracy in play, or by planning laws.
So your argument boils down to "when we do it to them it's democracy and law in action, but when they do it to us it's persecution"?

Planning law is planning law. If it's OK to use it to stop the building of mosques in the West on the ground that the majority of the local population (i.e. democracy) doesn't want them, why is it not OK to use it to stop the building of churches in the Middle East on the grounds that the majority of the local population (i.e. democracy) doesn't want them?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.
Well I guess that is one of the most historically illiterate and therefore badly applied Godwin's law examples I've come across in religious discussion...
Why? The nazis regarded Jews who converted to Christianity as still being Jewish and worthy of extermination.

The Inquisition kept an eye on them too in bygone years.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Leo: Could you compare for us the treatment (legal treatment will do) of Muslims who convert to Christianity in that long list of countries you mentioned with the treatment of Christians who convert to Islam in the West?
[/QUOTE]
Execution for apostasy only applies in countries where religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran. – exceptions = life imprisonment for women. Drunkards and mentally ill persons are excluded from this punishment because they are considered to be not responsible for their statements.
Muslim countries that do NOT execute apostates:
Algeria: imprisonment for two to five years and a fine
Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Turkey, Nigeria, Syria, Somalia, and Kenya. Turkey: unofficial death threats by those who take the law into their own hands
There is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Holy Qur'an. There is no historical record which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy.

Many scholars interpret the Hadith passage as referring only to instances of high treason – the same as UK law until very recently. (And, of course, Christians in the West had the death penalty for apostasy or heresy – the Spanish Inquisition and the protestat reformation burnings at the stake).

Many Islamic scholars e.g. Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have held that apostasy does not require the death penalty.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And it's worth mentioning that over half the mosques in the UK have been vandalised in the past three months.
Leo,

Can you provide a link for this? The article I read said that half the mosques in the UK had been attacked since 9/11.
No I can't - I heard something on radio 4 about attacks since Lee Rigby's murder but it turns out that figures have been exaggerated - though the people who claim this as an exaggeration seem to be the Daily Telegraph and the English Defence league - neither of whom I regard as reliable.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Execution for apostasy only applies in countries where religious courts for all aspects of jurisprudence i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran.

<snip>

But that's like saying "We have equality for blacks" while allowing, with state connivance, the Klan to lynch with impunity.

Equality is not equality until the weakest can bring (successful) prosecutions against the strongest. And it's quite clear that apostasy does carry the death penalty in many more Muslim-majority countries than the two you've listed above.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I heard something on radio 4 about attacks since Lee Rigby's murder but it turns out that figures have been exaggerated - though the people who claim this as an exaggeration seem to be the Daily Telegraph and the English Defence league - neither of whom I regard as reliable.
Whether the figure applies to the last few years or the time since 9/11 is irrelevant - the fact is that if it was the other way round (churches attacked in a muslim country) the fundigelicals would be up in arms about persecution of Christians.

And how many prosecutions have been brought over those attacks? Very few, I'd imagine - which of course in the vice-versa scenario would be taken as proof that the government is either in cahoots with the attackers, or at best turning a blind eye to them and refusing to protect the victims!
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Many scholars interpret the Hadith passage as referring only to instances of high treason – the same as UK law until very recently.
Which is an argument of sophistry. The follow up is that Islam and the State should be inseparable so that apostasising from Islam is rebelling against the State and disturbing the Islamic peace of the State, so apostasy is High Treason.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Many Islamic scholars e.g. Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have held that apostasy does not require the death penalty.
There is quite a lot of blue water between "not executing" an apostate, and allowing him to freely and publicly practice his new religion, though.

You won't find an equivalent in the West more recent than the autos-da-fe.

Yes, mosques in the West have been attacked in recent years, and yes, there are people who would like to see Islam banned, all Muslims put on planes to Pakistan and so on. It is worth noting two things:

1. These people are a small minority, and are indeed condemned by the majority.

2. The "attacks" are mostly things like graffiti on the walls and bacon on the door handle. Not very nice, but not in the same league as arson, or actual assault or murder.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:


Yes, mosques in the West have been attacked in recent years, and yes, there are people who would like to see Islam banned, all Muslims put on planes to Pakistan and so on. It is worth noting two things:

1. These people are a small minority, and are indeed condemned by the majority.
What do you mean by a small minority? If it's 2% then I don't see it as a problem either but I reckon about 20% of people feel that this country would be better if they all went home. As for condemnation, most people are pretty apathetic and the last thing they want is to be thought of as liberal wishy-washy do-gooders.
quote:


2. The "attacks" are mostly things like graffiti on the walls and bacon on the door handle. Not very nice, but not in the same league as arson, or actual assault or murder.
Churches suffer damage like stained glass windows being broken and theft, plus graffiti. Arson is not unknown round here - they do like a good burn up, sometimes with tragic consequences. As for mosques, smearing dog excrement on door handles, as happened just two weeks ago in Newport, is quite specific desecration, and shows that the Islamophobes and racists aren't as stupid as they are sometimes portrayed.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goldstein was condemned by all Jewish political and religious authorities and the Israeli army.

He was an unrepresentative nutcase, and a few other nutcases latched onto his atrocity, as will always happen.
That then makes him nicely analogous with UBL and Muslims. AQ is the loony fringe of the loony fringe of Islam.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What do you mean by a small minority? If it's 2% then I don't see it as a problem either but I reckon about 20% of people feel that this country would be better if they all went home. As for condemnation, most people are pretty apathetic and the last thing they want is to be thought of as liberal wishy-washy do-gooders.
Would you accept, though, that there's a difference between 'believing that they should all go home' and 'believing that it's acceptable to smear excrement over / smear pork over / burn down a mosque'?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What do you mean by a small minority? If it's 2% then I don't see it as a problem either but I reckon about 20% of people feel that this country would be better if they all went home. As for condemnation, most people are pretty apathetic and the last thing they want is to be thought of as liberal wishy-washy do-gooders.
Would you accept, though, that there's a difference between 'believing that they should all go home' and 'believing that it's acceptable to smear excrement over / smear pork over / burn down a mosque'?
Or a difference between "I think we'd be better off without people like X" and "we should make people like X leave".

I think, for example, that the UK would be a better place without Nick Griffin. I do not want to expel Mr. Griffin from the country.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What do you mean by a small minority? If it's 2% then I don't see it as a problem either but I reckon about 20% of people feel that this country would be better if they all went home. As for condemnation, most people are pretty apathetic and the last thing they want is to be thought of as liberal wishy-washy do-gooders.
Would you accept, though, that there's a difference between 'believing that they should all go home' and 'believing that it's acceptable to smear excrement over / smear pork over / burn down a mosque'?
There's a big difference between burning down a mosque and desecrating one but "sending them home" is one of those fundamentally daft things, as many muslims in Britain were born here - about 1.2 of 2.7 million (if I read my stats right).
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
I find 'why don't you go home' embarrassingly witless.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.
Well I guess that is one of the most historically illiterate and therefore badly applied Godwin's law examples I've come across in religious discussion...
Why? The nazis regarded Jews who converted to Christianity as still being Jewish and worthy of extermination.

The Inquisition kept an eye on them too in bygone years.
The point is that the Nazis were not Christian, per se. The grand religious plans of the NSDAP were Norse-Pagan rather than Christian and the extermination of the Jews was done on eugenics/scientific grounds rather than Christian/religious grounds...
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So your argument boils down to "when we do it to them it's democracy and law in action, but when they do it to us it's persecution"?

Planning law is planning law. If it's OK to use it to stop the building of mosques in the West on the ground that the majority of the local population (i.e. democracy) doesn't want them, why is it not OK to use it to stop the building of churches in the Middle East on the grounds that the majority of the local population (i.e. democracy) doesn't want them?
Either you haven't understood what has happened in the Swiss and Austrian planning rules, or you are playing devil's advocate... however in the two examples it is a matter of planning regulations regarding aesthetics where as in Islamic countries it is a matter of life and death:

In the Islamic countries under discussion, active persecution/breaking up of groups of Christians from meeting/execution of Christians etc. occurs, however in the list which Leo presented there were two concrete examples in which something happened, the banning of the building of Minarets - Muslim were not banned from meeting, murdered for not believing in submitting to a god, or stopped from building mosques, they are merely required to not build minarets or to build mosques in such a way as is in keeping with local architecture - murder of innocents and not being allowed to build a minaret are not in the same league to any rational person...
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
Sorry for a third post, but this news is the perfect way to herald in the start of ramadan.

(Although I guess Leo will not read the link since only the guardian or Morning Star are possibly the only reliable sources of information... [Razz] )
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Goldstein was condemned by all Jewish political and religious authorities and the Israeli army.

He was an unrepresentative nutcase, and a few other nutcases latched onto his atrocity, as will always happen.
That then makes him nicely analogous with UBL and Muslims. AQ is the loony fringe of the loony fringe of Islam.
Not quite.

AQ has thousands of followers, a budget of millions of dollars, and has been operating over a number of countries for decades.

It is certainly small and unrepresentative in the context of global Islam, but is not in the same category as a single unhinged individual committing one (however horrific) atrocity.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Sorry for a third post, but this news is the perfect way to herald in the start of ramadan.

(Although I guess Leo will not read the link since only the guardian or Morning Star are possibly the only reliable sources of information... [Razz] )
As an aside, the grauniad is certainly not left-wing. The Mirror is more left-wing! I don't think there is a truly left-wing mainstream newspaper anymore.

(I support AQ being deported fwiw and do not regard it as Islamophobic, but I do think Islamophobia is a major problem in Europe - albeit mostly in continental Europe, the UK does much better.)
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Are you more holy the more you hate them?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Sorry for a third post, but this news is the perfect way to herald in the start of ramadan.

(Although I guess Leo will not read the link since only the guardian or Morning Star are possibly the only reliable sources of information... [Razz] )
All but a handful of muslims will have received that new with joy.

Oh, and I have only ever seen a copy of the Morning Star once, when I was a student 40n years ago.

[ 07. July 2013, 14:40: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.
Well I guess that is one of the most historically illiterate and therefore badly applied Godwin's law examples I've come across in religious discussion...
Why? The nazis regarded Jews who converted to Christianity as still being Jewish and worthy of extermination.

The Inquisition kept an eye on them too in bygone years.
The point is that the Nazis were not Christian, per se. The grand religious plans of the NSDAP were Norse-Pagan rather than Christian and the extermination of the Jews was done on eugenics/scientific grounds rather than Christian/religious grounds...
And they got away with it because many if their supporters were Lutherans who had a legacy of anti-semitism from Martin Luther himself who wrote that Jews should be treated thus.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As an aside, the grauniad is certainly not left-wing.
As with all these things, I suppose it depends on where one is standing.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
AQ has thousands of followers, a budget of millions of dollars, and has been operating over a number of countries for decades.
Can you provide any evidence to back up those assertions, specifically that they are currently true?
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As an aside, the grauniad is certainly not left-wing.
As with all these things, I suppose it depends on where one is standing.
Given that they openly support the Liberal Democrats, and the Lib Dems are not a left-wing party....
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
As an aside, the grauniad is certainly not left-wing.
As with all these things, I suppose it depends on where one is standing.
Given that they openly support the Liberal Democrats, and the Lib Dems are not a left-wing party....
As with all these things, I suppose it depends on where one is standing.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
While it's true that the Guardian supported the Lib Dems, as I remember it was qualified support of some kind and, were an election to be held tomorrow, I very much doubt the Guardian editorial would be calling for their readers to vote the same way again.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Could you please provide examples of the Guardian's left-wing-ness? Liberalism is not the same as being left-wing, many lefties are not liberal at all (and vice versa). I am both, but many are not.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Papers and their affiliations might also be a good separate thread topic.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you please provide examples of the Guardian's left-wing-ness? Liberalism is not the same as being left-wing, many lefties are not liberal at all (and vice versa). I am both, but many are not.
The LibDems have far more in common with the Social Democrats that broke away fom Labour in the early 1980's than with the pre-1980 Liberals, who were a very mixed bag indeed! Roy Jenkins, Shirley Williams, Bill Rodgers and David Owen (the gang of Four that founded the SDP) were about as left-wing as Ted Heath and Francis Pym, Conservatives of the same era.

None of which has anything to do with Ramadan or Islamophobia.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Apologies for the tangent, Gwai and Sionis Sais.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
AQ has thousands of followers, a budget of millions of dollars, and has been operating over a number of countries for decades.
Can you provide any evidence to back up those assertions, specifically that they are currently true?
They are hardly "assertions", just common knowledge which anyone, I would have thought, would absorb from keeping up with the news.

Try the Wikipedia article on AQ.
 
Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
You seem worried.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
AQ has thousands of followers, a budget of millions of dollars, and has been operating over a number of countries for decades.
Can you provide any evidence to back up those assertions, specifically that they are currently true?
They are hardly "assertions", just common knowledge which anyone, I would have thought, would absorb from keeping up with the news.

Try the Wikipedia article on AQ.
quote:
Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden. By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians. Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.
The section on Financing from the Wikipedia article does not seem to me to provide evidence that AQ currently has a budget of millions of dollars. If that is common knowledge, surely somebody would have provided some more up-to-date information in the article.

Try again.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
AQ has thousands of followers, a budget of millions of dollars, and has been operating over a number of countries for decades.
Can you provide any evidence to back up those assertions, specifically that they are currently true?
They are hardly "assertions", just common knowledge which anyone, I would have thought, would absorb from keeping up with the news.

Try the Wikipedia article on AQ.
quote:
Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden. By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians. Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.
The section on Financing from the Wikipedia article does not seem to me to provide evidence that AQ currently has a budget of millions of dollars. If that is common knowledge, surely somebody would have provided some more up-to-date information in the article.

Try again.
The Money/Business Committee funds the recruitment and training of operatives through the hawala banking system. U.S-led efforts to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing[48] were most successful in the year immediately following the September 11 attacks;[49] al-Qaeda continues to operate through unregulated banks, such as the 1,000 or so hawaladars in Pakistan, some of which can handle deals of up to $10 million.[50] It also provides air tickets and false passports, pays al-Qaeda members, and oversees profit-driven businesses.[51] In the 9/11 Commission Report, it was estimated that al-Qaeda required $30 million-per-year to conduct its operations.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
You two are comparing different sections of the same article to come up with your differing conclusions. Moreover, that article is from Wikipedia, which isn't much more reliable than any other part of the internet.

It's like prooftexting from different verses of an unreliable bible without applying any discernment.

[ 08. July 2013, 00:08: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Wishing a blessed and great month of Ramadan to all Muslims around the world

رمضان كريم
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The Money/Business Committee funds the recruitment and training of operatives through the hawala banking system. U.S-led efforts to eradicate the sources of terrorist financing[48] were most successful in the year immediately following the September 11 attacks;[49] al-Qaeda continues to operate through unregulated banks, such as the 1,000 or so hawaladars in Pakistan, some of which can handle deals of up to $10 million.[50] It also provides air tickets and false passports, pays al-Qaeda members, and oversees profit-driven businesses.[51] In the 9/11 Commission Report, it was estimated that al-Qaeda required $30 million-per-year to conduct its operations.
But it was teh 'merkans that funded the AQ in the first place.

Wot goes around comes around. Sucks huh?
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But it was teh 'merkans that funded the AQ in the first place.

I suspect you are confusing AQ with the Taliban, but even if it were true, it would be utterly irrelevant to the issue under discussion.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Also worth mentioning that converts from Judaism were still sent to concentration camps no less that 60 years ago.
Well I guess that is one of the most historically illiterate and therefore badly applied Godwin's law examples I've come across in religious discussion...
Why? The nazis regarded Jews who converted to Christianity as still being Jewish and worthy of extermination.

The Inquisition kept an eye on them too in bygone years.
The point is that the Nazis were not Christian, per se. The grand religious plans of the NSDAP were Norse-Pagan rather than Christian and the extermination of the Jews was done on eugenics/scientific grounds rather than Christian/religious grounds...
It's not that simple. The data would suggest that the Nazis were Christian per se, or at it's as likely that the argument can be made that they were/are. Have a look here: Hitler's Christianity to start you off. There's a rather large collection of information about it.

As a descendent and cousin to people who lived in Germany, fought as Germans and went to Catholic and Evangelistic (Lutheran) churches during the war, I can tell you that it is not quite so straightforward. They have indeed since chiselled off the swastikas and soldiers from most of the church art and stained glass. The Christian churches were part of the society, just as, alike the C of E. The ideas of people like Rosenberg were not mainstream, even if they appeal to us, in wanting to see Nazism as antithetical to Christianity.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Have a look here: Hitler's Christianity to start you off.
The issue of the connections between Christianity, Nazism and anti-Semitism in Germany 1933-45 is difficult, complex and plagued by partisan oversimplifications from both sides of the argument.

The question of Hitler's attitude toward Christianity is a little more straightforward.

I have never heard of Jim Walker, but the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the most recent authoritative biography of Hitler, is in no doubt about his opposition to Christianity, and dismisses his whole attitude toward religion as "purely opportunistic".
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Serious question:

Are "the other" being treated more badly in Muslim districts then by people in non-Muslim districts with equal education levels?

That, and I don't quite get why a need to prove that some Muslims are evil seems to be coupled in many people with a need to prove that no Christians are equally that evil.

Evil is evil.

[ 10. July 2013, 01:52: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It's not that simple. The data would suggest that the Nazis were Christian per se, or at it's as likely that the argument can be made that they were/are. Have a look here: Hitler's Christianity to start you off. There's a rather large collection of information about it.
OTOH, the Nazis did try to remove the crucifixes from schools in Oldenburg in 1936 and across Upper Bavaria in 1941, but backed down after protests. While the rank and file of the Nazis may have been Christians, their leaders were guided by a very different mindset.

And of course there was the "Glaubensbewegung Deutsche Christen" which sought to rid Christianity of any kind of Jewish roots (given that e.g. Jesus was a Jew you can see where that had to take you eventually) and make race purity a condition for church membership.

[ 10. July 2013, 04:15: Message edited by: Molopata The Rebel ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0