More on the Swiss minaret controversy
I beg to differ with the writer of an article "When Church Bells sound in Saudi Arabia, then Minarets can rise in Europe" that was published in a website in Canada: AverroesPress.com. The greatest disservice the article does is in terms of comparing apples to oranges. The two countries in the title - Switzerland and Saudi Arabia - are different in so many ways. I could have believed such a provocative title from a hateful moron from the Pipesland (the xenophobe lackeys of Daniel Pipes, e.g., Dr. Khorshed A. Chowdhury who writes under pseudonym Syed Kamran Mirza; Abul Kasem and the MM/FF brigades of Ali Sina) but not from a serious thinking Muslim. Comparing the two countries and trying to say that if the Saudis had done "X", the Swiss would do "Y" is not analysis but paralysis of the ability to think rationally.
The Swiss action by the electorates show that the constitution of a country can be hijacked by the whims of a rogue majority. I don't here doubt that in a liberal democracy people have the right to even change the constitution, rewrite it, amend it and even dump it. [Digression: In a democracy, it is perfectly alright for a people to openly practice sodomy and anything, which may be commonly perceived as perversions from religious views, as long as the people say it is okay with such practices. That is, God has no place in dictating how should people behave. It is people who decide.] But none of those changes have happened with the constitution in Switzerland except that the xenophobic Swiss now made it a law to ban a symbol of Islam, and thereby relaying a message that Islam or Muslims are not welcome. The message is loud and clear for all to hear and see, and is a culmination of a long train of xenophobia exhibited for quite some time, esp. in the aftermath of 9/11, in a country that showcases itself as a model of direct (liberal) democracy. Thanks also to the organizers of Jerusalem Summit of Daniel Pipes to sell their brand of hatred across the western world!
Would the Vatican Authority allow a mosque, temple or synagogue to be erected in its soil? The answer is a simple one: no. While there are non-Christian visitors and workers there, there is no non-Christian citizen; the place is a symbol of Christianity; and its residents like to keep it that way. In spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is a much bigger country (and not a city state) than the Vatican with lots of functionalities of a modern state, it still likes to portray itself as the custodian of the two major Muslim houses of worship in Islam. The Saudi Arabia has no non-Muslim citizen either. It has some non-Muslim migratory workers there though, working mostly outside the two holy cities. Whether we approve or not, it has a system - dynasty that tries to interpret laws from Islamic sources, mostly the Qur'an and the (hard-core Wahabisitic) sunnah. (And as we all know, that system in itself is considered illegal or flawed by many Muslim jurists.) Following the dictates of a very well-known hadith restricting construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Madinah, the Saudi regime thus far, has avoided permitting construction of such structures in its soil. It has not ratified many of the so-called human rights/laws and conventions that it considers opposing its understanding of Islam or more broadly, the Shariah. It is not a liberal democracy where demos dictate the outcome of how a country should be run. What is Vatican to the Christians, and Catholics, in particular, the Saudi Arabia is to hundreds of millions of Muslims today. And yet, who knows, one day, Saudi Arabia itself may allow construction of non-Muslim houses of worship in cities outside Makkah and Madinah, to cater to the religious needs of non-Muslim temporary residents! FYI: outside, Saudi Arabia, however, every other Arab country (including Sudan) I know of or visited has already many non-Muslim houses of worship. Iran, BTW, still has not stopped any religious community to build theirs either. Even the Iranian Jews (in spite of rhetoric of the current regime against the Israeli Zionist entity) are represented in the Assembly there, something that we cannot see in many parts of the western world for the Muslim people (including the USA, where only two congressmen are Muslims - while the Muslim population numbers approx. 2.5%).
Now let's look at Switzerland. It's a direct democracy and not a dynasty of the kind we have in Saudi Arabia. The confederation is a home to many world bodies, including the WTO and Red Cross. Its constitution - federal state in nature - drew inspiration from the USA and is similar in many ways to ours in the USA, allowing for two houses, more like our senate and house of representatives. Its women were granted voting rights in the Cantons since 1959 and at the federal level since 1971, although actual process started rolling since only 1990. While roughly 3 in 4 Swiss consider them to come from Christian background, almost 1 in 3 consider oneself to be either an atheist or an agnostic. The Muslim citizens comprise approx. 5-6% of the population. So, the Swiss Muslims are not temporary workers or aliens. They are citizens of Switzerland. The current law banning minaret in Switzerland has sent a message that they don't represent the country, or that they are not welcome, unless, of course, they renounce Islam and become like them. (This behavior is nothing new since the days of the Prophet (S) when the the Qur'an warned Muslims of the kuffar doctrine: unless Muslims abandon Islam, they won't be accepted by them.) That has been the message of all the messengers of hatred since the dawn of time; not integration, not pluralism, but downright alienation (which is worse than cultural assimilation)! Funny that they like to put on the garb of a liberal, democrat, and liberated human being to whom religion is less important! No one should fall for that hollow brand of humanism! The Swiss through their hateful law has shown their real identity - they are a bunch of hypocrites, closet racists, xenophobes and bigots -- by any definition. When these apes utter borrowed words of human rights, they mean it for themselves and not for non-Europeans, and surely not Muslims. Their actions, whether these be in France, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland or any of the European countries, show that racism and bigotry are in their genes, and that the World War II has miserably failed to enlighten the sons and daughters of Europe. Shame on Switzerland and her bigots, bunch of hypocrites!
What also saddens me, as clearly demonstrated by the writer of the above article, is that many Muslims are falling into the traps of Rand robots, taking us like the Pied piper of the Hamelin, preaching us that we need to grab the tails of these bigots so as to be recognized as their equals. These Rand robots tell us that we need to behave like myopic rats and follow the trails of our predecessors, without which we should not be here in the West; as if, we should pack up and go back to the lands of our ancestors. In their sermon, I see a copy cat of the Reformed Judaism of the 19th century. Someone may like to study that subject seriously before preaching us about its wisdom. They may like to have a chat with our distinguished scholar and researcher Joachim Martillo before getting too excited with that experiment. Shame on our Rand robots who can't think independently and are only good at repeating their Masters' voices like puppets!
The Swiss action by the electorates show that the constitution of a country can be hijacked by the whims of a rogue majority. I don't here doubt that in a liberal democracy people have the right to even change the constitution, rewrite it, amend it and even dump it. [Digression: In a democracy, it is perfectly alright for a people to openly practice sodomy and anything, which may be commonly perceived as perversions from religious views, as long as the people say it is okay with such practices. That is, God has no place in dictating how should people behave. It is people who decide.] But none of those changes have happened with the constitution in Switzerland except that the xenophobic Swiss now made it a law to ban a symbol of Islam, and thereby relaying a message that Islam or Muslims are not welcome. The message is loud and clear for all to hear and see, and is a culmination of a long train of xenophobia exhibited for quite some time, esp. in the aftermath of 9/11, in a country that showcases itself as a model of direct (liberal) democracy. Thanks also to the organizers of Jerusalem Summit of Daniel Pipes to sell their brand of hatred across the western world!
Would the Vatican Authority allow a mosque, temple or synagogue to be erected in its soil? The answer is a simple one: no. While there are non-Christian visitors and workers there, there is no non-Christian citizen; the place is a symbol of Christianity; and its residents like to keep it that way. In spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia, in contrast, is a much bigger country (and not a city state) than the Vatican with lots of functionalities of a modern state, it still likes to portray itself as the custodian of the two major Muslim houses of worship in Islam. The Saudi Arabia has no non-Muslim citizen either. It has some non-Muslim migratory workers there though, working mostly outside the two holy cities. Whether we approve or not, it has a system - dynasty that tries to interpret laws from Islamic sources, mostly the Qur'an and the (hard-core Wahabisitic) sunnah. (And as we all know, that system in itself is considered illegal or flawed by many Muslim jurists.) Following the dictates of a very well-known hadith restricting construction of non-Muslim places of worship in Madinah, the Saudi regime thus far, has avoided permitting construction of such structures in its soil. It has not ratified many of the so-called human rights/laws and conventions that it considers opposing its understanding of Islam or more broadly, the Shariah. It is not a liberal democracy where demos dictate the outcome of how a country should be run. What is Vatican to the Christians, and Catholics, in particular, the Saudi Arabia is to hundreds of millions of Muslims today. And yet, who knows, one day, Saudi Arabia itself may allow construction of non-Muslim houses of worship in cities outside Makkah and Madinah, to cater to the religious needs of non-Muslim temporary residents! FYI: outside, Saudi Arabia, however, every other Arab country (including Sudan) I know of or visited has already many non-Muslim houses of worship. Iran, BTW, still has not stopped any religious community to build theirs either. Even the Iranian Jews (in spite of rhetoric of the current regime against the Israeli Zionist entity) are represented in the Assembly there, something that we cannot see in many parts of the western world for the Muslim people (including the USA, where only two congressmen are Muslims - while the Muslim population numbers approx. 2.5%).
Now let's look at Switzerland. It's a direct democracy and not a dynasty of the kind we have in Saudi Arabia. The confederation is a home to many world bodies, including the WTO and Red Cross. Its constitution - federal state in nature - drew inspiration from the USA and is similar in many ways to ours in the USA, allowing for two houses, more like our senate and house of representatives. Its women were granted voting rights in the Cantons since 1959 and at the federal level since 1971, although actual process started rolling since only 1990. While roughly 3 in 4 Swiss consider them to come from Christian background, almost 1 in 3 consider oneself to be either an atheist or an agnostic. The Muslim citizens comprise approx. 5-6% of the population. So, the Swiss Muslims are not temporary workers or aliens. They are citizens of Switzerland. The current law banning minaret in Switzerland has sent a message that they don't represent the country, or that they are not welcome, unless, of course, they renounce Islam and become like them. (This behavior is nothing new since the days of the Prophet (S) when the the Qur'an warned Muslims of the kuffar doctrine: unless Muslims abandon Islam, they won't be accepted by them.) That has been the message of all the messengers of hatred since the dawn of time; not integration, not pluralism, but downright alienation (which is worse than cultural assimilation)! Funny that they like to put on the garb of a liberal, democrat, and liberated human being to whom religion is less important! No one should fall for that hollow brand of humanism! The Swiss through their hateful law has shown their real identity - they are a bunch of hypocrites, closet racists, xenophobes and bigots -- by any definition. When these apes utter borrowed words of human rights, they mean it for themselves and not for non-Europeans, and surely not Muslims. Their actions, whether these be in France, Holland, Denmark, Switzerland or any of the European countries, show that racism and bigotry are in their genes, and that the World War II has miserably failed to enlighten the sons and daughters of Europe. Shame on Switzerland and her bigots, bunch of hypocrites!
What also saddens me, as clearly demonstrated by the writer of the above article, is that many Muslims are falling into the traps of Rand robots, taking us like the Pied piper of the Hamelin, preaching us that we need to grab the tails of these bigots so as to be recognized as their equals. These Rand robots tell us that we need to behave like myopic rats and follow the trails of our predecessors, without which we should not be here in the West; as if, we should pack up and go back to the lands of our ancestors. In their sermon, I see a copy cat of the Reformed Judaism of the 19th century. Someone may like to study that subject seriously before preaching us about its wisdom. They may like to have a chat with our distinguished scholar and researcher Joachim Martillo before getting too excited with that experiment. Shame on our Rand robots who can't think independently and are only good at repeating their Masters' voices like puppets!
Wow. If only you saw the irony of at once excorciating others for their "intolerance" while in the same breathe equating "sodomy" with "perversion". Apparently "freedom" and "tolerance" in your world only extend to your right to believe in sky fairies and alleged prophets and not to others' choice of recreational activities.
ReplyDeleteI also get a kick out of your false equivalency between the less than a mile squared Vatican to the whole country of Saudia Arabia; your ludicrous assertion that there are no Christians in Saudi Arabia (ever think that they may just be afraid to admit it?); your use of the term 'kuffar' (whose commonly understood modern meaning, as opposed to historical, is derogatory towards non-Muslims); and your false equivalency between banning minarets (but not mosques) in Switzerland and allowing churches (but not other overt displays of Christianity) in other majority muslim countires.