Switzerland set to ba Islamic Minarets

[Furrowed Brow]

Switerzland have just voted and exit polls suggest that they have voted for a ban on the building of islamic minarets.

BBC link

One reason for the proposed ban given is that Sharia law is incompatible with Swiss Democracy.

Is this correct? Or are the Swiss guilty of descrimination?

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

Its not correct:) you quote all wrong, not from Quran: Whistle nice try but you failed to prove anything here

Outstanding counter-argument there. I'm stumped!

Can't you understand english? its not from Quran wat you quote, you brought wrong statements and evidence. bring some authentic source please

Still no one ask for your opinion, just anwer in yes or no, is racism in west being done or no? we are not talking about world, its all about West.

What part of: "all of these things are still done everywhere in the world." was so hard to understand that you want me to rephrase it for you? Sorry, I can't make it any clearer for you than this.

Is this post about all the world? Are Minaret's ban in whole world? can't u see that we are discussing about west n europe? your failure to give answer is clearly showing that there is a lot of racism in west

I said, "Those are Fake inventions, major part of right work was done already by muslims. Correct your english

Then prove they are fake inventions? And you might want to capitalise "english" and "muslims", write 'Fake" without a capital 'F' and end your sentence with a period if you want to tell someone to correct their English. Oh and your quotation mark wasn't closed. It also should have been "asked for your opinion", "just answer with yes or no", "racism in the west ", "done or not?", "We are not talking about the world, it's all about the West.", "it's all about religious discrimination", "as no one reads it" and ". Just give ". Why you think you have the right to tell anyone to correct their English is beyond me

Its internet, where people use short forms, not your primary grammar class. wat I wrote was easy to understand. even if you cud'nt I rephrase it again in simple english for you.

Whatever you wrote, I told you no need to go in detail, is all about religions discrimitnion, stopping religious rights.
Further you fail to answer, did Switzerland BAN Hindu temples?
Did Switzerland BAN Christian church if you say the teaching is not compatible in your so called new century? Answer any1 of this,without giving your lecture, as no one read it. just give short answer please.

Whatever you asked, I didn't read it. Respond to my arguments, without giving your silly questions, as no one reads them. Just respond to my arguments please

Now can we abandon that ridiculous form of debating you are using in order to dodge every argument presented against you? Or are you going to keep your act of illiteracy up?

Still you fail to answer any of question, which clearly prove that the act of Swiss Govt. and people was discrimination against Islam, and seems you support racism and racism as well.

Whether your accusation is justified or logical or not, accusing another member of racism is a personal attack. This is a warning to refrain from such accusations in the future.

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention

Whatever you asked, I didn't read it. Respond to my arguments, without giving your silly questions, as no one reads them. Just respond to my arguments please

Now can we abandon that ridiculous form of debating you are using in order to dodge every argument presented against you? Or are you going to keep your act of illiteracy up?

I realize you are trying to use parody as a form of argument here. However, I would suggest avoiding the sarcasm and personal comments, even you think they are justified and accurate.

[TrueReligion]

Can't you understand english? its not from Quran wat you quote, you brought wrong statements and evidence. bring some authentic source please

What do you think all those little Q's stand for? .....
Are you really that clueless about your own holy book that you don't even know how verses are notated? Or are you trying to be wilfully ignorant in a futile attempt hoping that people might actually believe you?

Because its not taken from correct context:) whatever you posted, its in every religion book, (Torah, Bible, Vedas, Bhagwat Geeta) and in the law and constitution of every country.
So I dont see anything important and relevant in this

Is this post about all the world? Are Minaret's ban in whole world? can't u see that we are discussing about west n europe? your failure to give answer is clearly showing that there is a lot of racism in west

Is this post about racism?
There isn't a lot of racism in the West, all though any racism is too much. Saying the West is racist is a racist statement by the way.

Ofcourse the post is about racism:)check completely and than give statement, seems you dont have idea which post are you giving statementsis .
And yes, West is famous for its racism, every1 knows this, whatever you say, doesnt matter at all

Its internet, where people use short forms, not your primary grammar class. wat I wrote was easy to understand. even if you cud'nt I rephrase it again in simple english for you.

Haha. It was you who told me to correct my English. I just showed you how pathetic that is to say in a debate, especially if your own English isn't that great. Now you blame me for pointing it out?

No need for this kind of comment, its just showing childish nature of the person

Still you fail to answer any of question, which clearly prove that the act of Swiss Govt. and people was discrimination against Islam, and seems you support racism and racism as well.

And again you didn't respond to my arguments which clearly means you want to behead everyone that lives in the west and you support terrorism as well. Both can play that game

Again, you still didnt answer. why its continous failure from your side to show any reliable reference and clear view of the comitee for the BAN of Minaret?

The question asked from TM, is that as she claims there is no discrimination done, and I asked simple question, what are the reasons given by the authority to BAN the minaret, till now she could'nt give satisfactory answer, all what she has done is bringing other stuff, which is not at all related to post.

Do we discriminate against the KKK? Yes. Do we have a reason to do so? Yes. Do people discriminate against Islam? Yes. Do they have a good reason to do so? Yes.

You might think your religion deserves respect and that slaughter in the name of your imaginary friend is a good cause. Some people however are rational and they know that (and this includes both Muslims and others) Islam has to change fundamentally if it wants to be accepted in Europe. Islam is an embarrassing religion for those that try to follow it in Europe, because how it goes hand-in-hand with violence, suicide bombing and immorality makes it too obvious that Islam in general stands for submission and not peace. Part of it is media-hype, part of it however is very, very true. You want to blame the Swiss for discriminating? How about you actually acknowledge what the real problem is here. Islam, in general, messes it up for those that try to follow Islam in peace. It is not the Swiss being racists, it is the Muslims showing incompatibility with the West.

How many churches in England are there do you think where they try to indoctrinate and mind-control people into terrorists acts in the name of Christianity? How many Mandirs are there in Europe where they try to persuade Hindus into suicide bombings? How many Synagogues are there where crazy rabbis try to promote hatred against the West amongst Jews? None that I know off. Is the radicalization of Buddhism any threat to anyone? Is Jews building more synagogues and becoming more orthodox a threat to a society?

Look at yourself. You are part of the subgroup: Anti-fundamentalist, I assume you live in the West or at least you have learned English. Yet you show repeated hatred against the West. You try to make us seem racist, bad inventors, copy cats and immoral. If you are supposed to be one of the "liberal and good guys", then how are the bad ones?

Reply to the post, not personaly, it will just show nothing but poor form of justification, which till now you failed to give

[T-mash]

Because its not taken from correct context:) Cool whatever you posted, its in every religion book, (Torah, Bible, Vedas, Bhagwat Geeta) and in the law and constitution of every country.
So I dont see anything important and relevant in this Confused

Really? I'd love it if you could point out where my constitution (you can either pick the Netherlands or France) says these things. I somehow strongly doubt it says what you claim it says

Ofcourse the post is about racism:)check completely and than give statement, seems you dont have idea which post are you giving statementsis .
And yes, West is famous for its racism, every1 knows this, whatever you say, doesnt matter at all

The West is famous for their technological advancement really. It is only you that says the west is famous for its racism. And again saying that is highly racist and I'd quite like it if you'd stop making racist remarks towards half the world....
Even though you prove my point that Islam has a hatred against the west and is not compatible with it, I'd till prefer if you drop the racist act.

Again, you still didnt answer. why its continous failure from your side to show any reliable reference and clear view of the comitee for the BAN of Minaret? Reply to the post, not personaly, it will just show nothing but poor form of justification, which till now you failed to give

I love your "yadda-yadda-yadda-I pretend I didnt see anything!" tactic. I have answered all your questions about 4 times now in my 'lectures'. I am only here to let you read my sentences, I'm not here to teach you how to. Maybe it's my fault, but it seems impossible for me to get any intelligent response out of you so we are done here.

Some of your recent quotes:

What happens in west, is that the thinking become very dirty, and they consider marriage also a dirty game, which is proved in older posts, that marriages in west is getting less frequent, and people are turning to sex without marriage, which is a sign of un-civilized society.

So the conclusion is , that Muhammad (pbuh) is not a pedophile, infact western society, which is having many cases of Pedophile, thinks that the legal wedding in other culture and regions of the world is also pedophile case.

[TrueReligion]

Because its not taken from correct context:) Cool whatever you posted, its in every religion book, (Torah, Bible, Vedas, Bhagwat Geeta) and in the law and constitution of every country.
So I dont see anything important and relevant in this Confused

Really? I'd love it if you could point out where my constitution (you can either pick the Netherlands or France) says these things. I somehow strongly doubt it says what you claim it says

If its not in their constitution, what is France Army and Holland Army doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world? giving flowers? are they not killing the people, which are of the religion of Dutch and French Army?

Ofcourse the post is about racism:)check completely and than give statement, seems you dont have idea which post are you giving statementsis .
And yes, West is famous for its racism, every1 knows this, whatever you say, doesnt matter at all

The West is famous for their technological advancement really. It is only you that says the west is famous for its racism. And again saying that is highly racist and I'd quite like it if you'd stop making racist remarks towards half the world....
Even though you prove my point that Islam has a hatred against the west and is not compatible with it, I'd till prefer if you drop the racist act.

who said Islam is against west? did I ever said that? I said that west is famous means more in racism, that simple means that there are more cases of racism in west, than any other part of world.
I simpy ask you, that do you accept it or no, but rather than answering, you gave other statements. just answer yes or no, and we are done

Again, you still didnt answer. why its continous failure from your side to show any reliable reference and clear view of the comitee for the BAN of Minaret? Reply to the post, not personaly, it will just show nothing but poor form of justification, which till now you failed to give

I love your "yadda-yadda-yadda-I pretend I didnt see anything!" tactic. I have answered all your questions about 4 times now in my 'lectures'. I am only here to let you read my sentences, I'm not here to teach you how to. Maybe it's my fault, but it seems impossible for me to get any intelligent response out of you so we are done here.

Some of your recent quotes:

What happens in west, is that the thinking become very dirty, and they consider marriage also a dirty game, which is proved in older posts, that marriages in west is getting less frequent, and people are turning to sex without marriage, which is a sign of un-civilized society.

So the conclusion is , that Muhammad (pbuh) is not a pedophile, infact western society, which is having many cases of Pedophile, thinks that the legal wedding in other culture and regions of the world is also pedophile case.

Rather than commenting on post, and providing evidence of what is asked, you are giving irrelevant statements,
Its asked from you, that wat are the comitee arguments in imposing the BAN of Minaret. can you provide any satisfactory argument?

We are not discussing about hatred towards muslims, or kiling sum1, just simple according to the post I asked, give answer to that only, its very simple T-M

[JoeyKnothead]

I'd dare say many folks don't like the minaret because of real or perceived perceptions of Islam. The West is fed a steady stream of information indicating Islamists seek to "take over" (whether this is an accurate reflection or not), and are concerned for their own way of life. Make no mistake, an aggressor that wants specific lands ("We only want Muslim lands to be under Muslim control") will seldom be happy when preaching those two feet from the border are evil, and various other demonizing terms.

Then we have the issue of the recent UN declaration regarding religious speech, and how it can be seen as an attempt to silence opposition to the Muslim voice. I notice often theists of all stripes will readily seek to silence opposition with some of the most foul language and acts imaginable, then cry when reasonable attempts are made to prevent such.

As I look at the minaret issue, it does seem to be religious descrimination, but when the airwaves are full of declarations of "jihad", and "death to (western ideals)", and folks are blowing themselves up among innocent civilians, when does it start becoming a legitimate fear borne of fact? How 'bout when planes are flown into towers, and folks are dancing in the streets? I remember Arafat saying such as "We're not terrorists, but if you keep showing us celebrating I can't guarantee your safety".

Whether my fear of the Muslim religion is legitimate, that fear exists, and it finds support in many acts and statements regarding my way of life. When a religion preaches what for all purposes is discrimination against others, it should not complain when its targets begin to act against them. Up to and including its icons, its holy texts, and its people.

Of course we can all say, "Well some folks have distorted Islam", but this doesn't reflect the fact that so many Islamic states are non-democratic, non-tolerant towards others, and frankly as fear inducing as any horror film.

Would I vote to ban the minaret?

I'd vote to ban any organized religion that can be linked to the horrors this planet has witnessed, and so the minaret issue becomes moot.

[TrueReligion]

I'd dare say many folks don't like the minaret because of real or perceived perceptions of Islam. The West is fed a steady stream of information indicating Islamists seek to "take over" (whether this is an accurate reflection or not), and are concerned for their own way of life. Make no mistake, an aggressor that wants specific lands ("We only want Muslim lands to be under Muslim control") will seldom be happy when preaching those two feet from the border are evil, and various other demonizing terms.

Then we have the issue of the recent UN declaration regarding religious speech, and how it can be seen as an attempt to silence opposition to the Muslim voice. I notice often theists of all stripes will readily seek to silence opposition with some of the most foul language and acts imaginable, then cry when reasonable attempts are made to prevent such.

As I look at the minaret issue, it does seem to be religious descrimination, but when the airwaves are full of declarations of "jihad", and "death to (western ideals)", and folks are blowing themselves up among innocent civilians, when does it start becoming a legitimate fear borne of fact? How 'bout when planes are flown into towers, and folks are dancing in the streets? I remember Arafat saying such as "We're not terrorists, but if you keep showing us celebrating I can't guarantee your safety".

Whether my fear of the Muslim religion is legitimate, that fear exists, and it finds support in many acts and statements regarding my way of life. When a religion preaches what for all purposes is discrimination against others, it should not complain when its targets begin to act against them. Up to and including its icons, its holy texts, and its people.

Of course we can all say, "Well some folks have distorted Islam", but this doesn't reflect the fact that so many Islamic states are non-democratic, non-tolerant towards others, and frankly as fear inducing as any horror film.

Would I vote to ban the minaret?

I'd vote to ban any organized religion that can be linked to the horrors this planet has witnessed, and so the minaret issue becomes moot.

Thanks for your speech and concern. Same thing can be given from Muslim prospective as well, about others, and I dont want to bring it on, as it will just make another argument to start.

About the BAN on Minaret, as its proven that its more a arab symbol of building, the main part of worshiping place is Masjid (Mosque), which is not BAN.

Now till now no one here could prove clearly what is the real reason of BAN of Minaret, all are giving their own assumptions, but all assumptions are relating it to terrorism, which is surprised, as Ive seen all the posts of persons replying here, that they have very limited knowledge of Islam.

Moslty people which argue here, are from West, and have;nt travel or been to muslim country, to know about the culture and living of Muslims.maybe most of people here have limited , or very less interaction with muslims also.

But, I would only like to ask all of you, whoever wants to give reason, what was the cause of this label which was put on Muslims "Terrorism"?

This only started after 9/11. and before this, I never heard about this label, did any1 of you heard this much?

For 9/11 issue, I can give several arguments and explanations, what is the reality of that, but I know you people will not be convinced, as all of you believe your own media rather than truth and wats hapening in rest of the world.

Waiting for any good reply now, and please, make this debate neutral and healthy, bringing flamable remarks, will just prolong this debate, and bring more hatred among every1, which is not a reason we all are here.

[VermilionUK]

But, I would only like to ask all of you, whoever wants to give reason, what was the cause of this label which was put on Muslims "Terrorism"?

You're misunderstanding the issue. Muslims are not labelled as "terrorists", muslims are muslims, terrorists are terrorists - they are two separate groups. Some Christians have mudered people, but it does not mean that all Christians are murderers.

There are Christian terrorists - but Christians as a whole are not labelled as terrorists
There are Muslims terrorists - but Muslims as a whole are not labelled as terrorists

The problem comes when moderate Muslims seek to justify the actions of the extremists. It it those Muslims who give the average joe the impression that all muslims want to take over the world.

[TrueReligion]

But, I would only like to ask all of you, whoever wants to give reason, what was the cause of this label which was put on Muslims "Terrorism"?

You're misunderstanding the issue. Muslims are not labelled as "terrorists", muslims are muslims, terrorists are terrorists - they are two separate groups. Some Christians have mudered people, but it does not mean that all Christians are murderers.

There are Christian terrorists - but Christians as a whole are not labelled as terrorists
There are Muslims terrorists - but Muslims as a whole are not labelled as terrorists

The problem comes when moderate Muslims seek to justify the actions of the extremists. It it those Muslims who give the average joe the impression that all muslims want to take over the world.

Welcome back VUK nice to see you again.

VUK, I admit what you say, and I never made claims that the bad activities done by any muslim is justified.
I said clearly that what bad things muslims done, they should be given punishment, rather than doing carpet bombing on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, how its justified by any means? and if other muslims protest for that, they are also called as terrorists, and sort of thing.

Its only this protest against the so-called war on terror, which is leading every body in the world understand, that its only a war against Islam, made by western politicians, ofcourse people in west are against this WAR, and I thanks to them.

But action like this of BAN of Minaret, will only create further enemity and hate between muslims and western non-muslims, this is what in short ive been trying to say.

If you notice, muslims are living easily and have no problem with any other non-muslim country, example in Asia, Africa, Europe etc etc, just few countries are creating problem and bringing hate between muslims and non-muslims, for either political, religious or wealth issue.

Hope you understand my point now,

[VermilionUK]

Welcome back VUK nice to see you again.

VUK, I admit what you say, and I never made claims that the bad activities done by any muslim is justified.
I said clearly that what bad things muslims done, they should be given punishment, rather than doing carpet bombing on civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, how its justified by any means? and if other muslims protest for that, they are also called as terrorists, and sort of thing.

But you have tried to justify the protests in which Muslims were calling for a new holocaust, and stating "Behead those who insult Islam".

When I provided the image of the protest, you said:

And it was right, and justified as well

So, while you do not condone terrorist actions, you seem to support those who proclaim to kill non-muslims.

Its only this protest against the so-called war on terror, which is leading every body in the world understand, that its only a war against Islam, made by western politicians, ofcourse people in west are against this WAR, and I thanks to them.

It is definately not a war against Islam - it is a war against terrorists, who just happen to be followers of Islam. If we were fighting a country led by the KKK, we wouldn't call it a "War against Christianity" would we?

But action like this of BAN of Minaret, will only create further enemity and hate between muslims and western non-muslims, this is what in short ive been trying to say.

If you notice, muslims are living easily and have no problem with any other non-muslim country, example in Asia, Africa, Europe etc etc, just few countries are creating problem and bringing hate between muslims and non-muslims, for either political, religious or wealth issue.

The countries themselves are not "creating problems", it is only because they are not Islamic - and for that reason the Muslims feel discriminated

But they (and you) must remember that these countries shouldn't change for them - you wouldn't expect France to convert to Indian traditions because some Indians were living there would you?

Countries cannot be expected to change in order to suit the wants of immigrants - a main part of moving to another country is to try and integrate within their society, not to try and change it into your native society.