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?

[TrueReligion]

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.

See VUK, all fun and attacks on 1 side, but even if you ask any muslim scholar, or Mosque, they wont justify this act of these people, as they dont show the real identity of Muslims.
To know well about muslims and Islam, you have to check and read the scripture if it say something like this.
The statement which I gave, was only a reply, as my all statements and evidence were just thrown away here, and no1 care to read those evidences as well.

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?

VUK,can you justify the attack on Iraq? or Sudan?
Can you justify the attack of Israel on Lebonan? or Palestine? is that war on terrorism?
If US was after Osama, why US and every attack whole of Afghanistan? can you justify it?

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.

VUK, its not a post of changing country into some religion, does BAN of Minaret shows, that Switzerland was being forced to Islam in future? can you show me any claim from any muslim community or group in Switzerland?

[VermilionUK]

See VUK, all fun and attacks on 1 side, but even if you ask any muslim scholar, or Mosque, they wont justify this act of these people, as they dont show the real identity of Muslims.

Bingo!
That's a good point, but the fact is that these groups are growing, and they are Muslims. Whether or not they don't "show the real identity of Muslims" is irrelevant - the fact is that they are here and we have to deal with them. It has been suggested by some Muslim experts that these new groups of Muslims are followers of Wahhabism - the system of hatred towards non-muslims, or "kafir".

To know well about muslims and Islam, you have to check and read the scripture if it say something like this.
The statement which I gave, was only a reply, as my all statements and evidence were just thrown away here, and no1 care to read those evidences as well.

What "evidence" have you given that justify the protest? That image of someone with a banner stating "no more mosques"?

VUK,can you justify the attack on Iraq? or Sudan?
Can you justify the attack of Israel on Lebonan? or Palestine? is that war on terrorism?
If US was after Osama, why US and every attack whole of Afghanistan? can you justify it?

I didn't support the war - so I won't try to justify it. Terrorism is an ideal, it's not a peice of land that nations can invade to destroy terrorism, so I don't think the invasion of Afganistan made any difference. Even if we make the claim that it was to replace the corruption, then it still failed, as their government is still corrupt.

VUK, its not a post of changing country into some religion, does BAN of Minaret shows, that Switzerland was being forced to Islam in future? can you show me any claim from any muslim community or group in Switzerland?

No, but the fact that you think the ban is racist indicates that if something goes against Islam, it is racist. Non-native peoples should not treat the ban as racist.

Also, as stated previously, when groups of a religion proclaim to destroy Europe unless it converts to Islam - it probably gives people a bad impression of Muslims, and people may think that Muslims seek to take over Europe - hence why there are more barriers to Islam in Europe, such as this minaret ban in Switzerland.

[TrueReligion]

See VUK, all fun and attacks on 1 side, but even if you ask any muslim scholar, or Mosque, they wont justify this act of these people, as they dont show the real identity of Muslims.

Bingo!
That's a good point, but the fact is that these groups are growing, and they are Muslims. Whether or not they don't "show the real identity of Muslims" is irrelevant - the fact is that they are here and we have to deal with them. It has been suggested by some Muslim experts that these new groups of Muslims are followers of Wahhabism - the system of hatred towards non-muslims, or "kafir".

VUK, maybe these groups are growing, but I think there main point of concern is, that they think the war raged by US, is against Islam, and they think that all the western people are behind that war, which is infact not true, as I know personaly many western non-muslim,are totaly against this war, and hate the policies of US, and I myself have seen protest by these non-muslims to stop these war, which is a good sign.
Only thing to deal with these kind of people, is to ignore, as long as they not making chaos and problem in the area, like breaking windows of shops etc etcor harming other people.
Rest as I dont know much about these groups, can;t say if they are Wahabis or what, but as a muslim, Islam does;nt teaches to hate any other non-muslim, its strictly against the teachings of Islam.

To know well about muslims and Islam, you have to check and read the scripture if it say something like this.
The statement which I gave, was only a reply, as my all statements and evidence were just thrown away here, and no1 care to read those evidences as well.

What "evidence" have you given that justify the protest? That image of someone with a banner stating "no more mosques"?

VUK, you know well it was only respond to what you posted, sometimes counter argument and attack is required in debate, but my main evidence, the one giving Islamic law and teachings, no 1 read, and ignored it totaly.

VUK,can you justify the attack on Iraq? or Sudan?
Can you justify the attack of Israel on Lebonan? or Palestine? is that war on terrorism?
If US was after Osama, why US and every attack whole of Afghanistan? can you justify it?

I didn't support the war - so I won't try to justify it. Terrorism is an ideal, it's not a peice of land that nations can invade to destroy terrorism, so I don't think the invasion of Afganistan made any difference. Even if we make the claim that it was to replace the corruption, then it still failed, as their government is still corrupt.

VUK, its not a post of changing country into some religion, does BAN of Minaret shows, that Switzerland was being forced to Islam in future? can you show me any claim from any muslim community or group in Switzerland?

No, but the fact that you think the ban is racist indicates that if something goes against Islam, it is racist. Non-native peoples should not treat the ban as racist.

Also, as stated previously, when groups of a religion proclaim to destroy Europe unless it converts to Islam - it probably gives people a bad impression of Muslims, and people may think that Muslims seek to take over Europe - hence why there are more barriers to Islam in Europe, such as this minaret ban in Switzerland.

This last statement is just your assumption, not a bse of BAN on Minaret, dont forget Islam was major part of Europe 1 time, until crusaders.
But ofcourse, just making BAN on Minaret did'nt justify this statement, beside your assumption, any more likely explanation you can give for the BAN, which is given by commitee? because till now no proper justification is given.

[VermilionUK]

No, but the fact that you think the ban is racist indicates that if something goes against Islam, it is racist. Non-native peoples should not treat the ban as racist.

Also, as stated previously, when groups of a religion proclaim to destroy Europe unless it converts to Islam - it probably gives people a bad impression of Muslims, and people may think that Muslims seek to take over Europe - hence why there are more barriers to Islam in Europe, such as this minaret ban in Switzerland.

This last statement is just your assumption, not a bse of BAN on Minaret, dont forget Islam was major part of Europe 1 time, until crusaders.
But ofcourse, just making BAN on Minaret did'nt justify this statement, beside your assumption, any more likely explanation you can give for the BAN, which is given by commitee? because till now no proper justification is given.

I've already provided quotes from the committee on their reason for the ban, and you still ask me for evidence/explanations. We've already discussed the points raised by the committee, I see no reason to repeat that part of the discussion.

In fact, the point I raised doesn't even require "evidence" - it should be self evident.
Here's why:
If you see large groups of Muslims protesting to kill Europeans and bring a second holocaust, you're not going to have a good opinion of them are you? So, rather than have an outright ban on Muslim buildings, banning one construction is a way of the people voicing their opposition to the trend that is going on. Of course, this is only my opinion, but if I gave you quotes from the committee earlier, and they were only the opinion of the committee.
However, in a democracy opinions matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 86:

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.

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

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.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

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?

You don't get out much, do you? Terrorism has occurred before and after 9/11.

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.

I reject any notion that flying planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents is justified. I would admit to the notion that "all's fair in love and war", but consider such to be the act of cowards and criminals. Had they flown into the White House (sans innocents) I'd have a different opinion, considering it a legitimate act of war.

How we can uncouple religious terrorists from their religion is beyond my comprehension.

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.

I really do 'preciate the sentiment here.

IMO, Islam has a terrible reputation, and more discussion between the various parties could lead to a better understanding. I agree my perspective is influenced by what news reaches me, and so any time we can hear from those outside the mainstream I think we can gather better, fuller information.

My main point is that folks are comfortable within their own cultures. This includes those Arabs that live in other cultures, and their legitimate desire to build according to their own culture. To say objections to such are racially/religiously motivated misses the mark, but can be a factor.

Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown? I think not, and for legitimate reasons, biased only by an appreciation for one's own culture. *NOT that this is a sole attribute of African cultures, but an admittance that some do live in grass huts and are rightly proud of their own way of life.

[TrueReligion]

No, but the fact that you think the ban is racist indicates that if something goes against Islam, it is racist. Non-native peoples should not treat the ban as racist.

Also, as stated previously, when groups of a religion proclaim to destroy Europe unless it converts to Islam - it probably gives people a bad impression of Muslims, and people may think that Muslims seek to take over Europe - hence why there are more barriers to Islam in Europe, such as this minaret ban in Switzerland.

This last statement is just your assumption, not a bse of BAN on Minaret, dont forget Islam was major part of Europe 1 time, until crusaders.
But ofcourse, just making BAN on Minaret did'nt justify this statement, beside your assumption, any more likely explanation you can give for the BAN, which is given by commitee? because till now no proper justification is given.

I've already provided quotes from the committee on their reason for the ban, and you still ask me for evidence/explanations. We've already discussed the points raised by the committee, I see no reason to repeat that part of the discussion.

In fact, the point I raised doesn't even require "evidence" - it should be self evident.
Here's why:
If you see large groups of Muslims protesting to kill Europeans and bring a second holocaust, you're not going to have a good opinion of them are you? So, rather than have an outright ban on Muslim buildings, banning one construction is a way of the people voicing their opposition to the trend that is going on. Of course, this is only my opinion, but if I gave you quotes from the committee earlier, and they were only the opinion of the committee.
However, in a democracy opinions matter.

Keep aside your comments, its not part of our discussion or this post.

For comittee remarks, I told already, that these remarks does;nt justify ban of Minaret, every neutral person will say its only religious discriminition, nothing else, which you dont want to accept.
Further you also know that the majority of people who voted are christians, so that is also a point, that christians in enemity with Muslims, dont want any Muslim identity, this is also another case of religious discriminition.

Only point which we are proving here, by the action of Swiss commitee, that its only religious discrimition, no other reason behind that,

[TrueReligion]

From Post 86:

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.

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

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.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

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?

You don't get out much, do you? Terrorism has occurred before and after 9/11.

No proper justified remark, ignored ofcourse

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.

I reject any notion that flying planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents is justified. I would admit to the notion that "all's fair in love and war", but consider such to be the act of cowards and criminals. Had they flown into the White House (sans innocents) I'd have a different opinion, considering it a legitimate act of war.

How we can uncouple religious terrorists from their religion is beyond my comprehension.

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

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.

I really do 'preciate the sentiment here.

IMO, Islam has a terrible reputation, and more discussion between the various parties could lead to a better understanding. I agree my perspective is influenced by what news reaches me, and so any time we can hear from those outside the mainstream I think we can gather better, fuller information.

My main point is that folks are comfortable within their own cultures. This includes those Arabs that live in other cultures, and their legitimate desire to build according to their own culture. To say objections to such are racially/religiously motivated misses the mark, but can be a factor.

Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown? I think not, and for legitimate reasons, biased only by an appreciation for one's own culture. *NOT that this is a sole attribute of African cultures, but an admittance that some do live in grass huts and are rightly proud of their own way of life.

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,
I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

[VermilionUK]

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

I think it would be best to leave conspiracy theories out of this.
What next, the Illuminati taking over the world?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 96:

Folks who don't live in Arab countries are less likely to appreciate Arab inspired architecture. To say this is discrimination doesn't accurately reflect that folks can be proud of their own culture, and seek to have it as the predominant architecture.

Is this reason given by the comittee for ban of Minaret? can you confirm please? or its just your comments?

It's presented as a reasoned, logical statement. Of course I can't speak for the committe, but I can try my best to point out how or why their decisions may come about. If the committee declared such as "No Muslim icons because we hate Muslims", I'd stand with you in protest.

When one's only connection to Islam is daily reports of terrorism, it's not surprising they'd think in such a fashion.

Can you prove for this? or its only a funny and childish remark?
Also, same remarks can be used by Muslims to others as well, with proof ofcourse

Reason and logic. And I agree, Muslims who're presented a daily stream of negativity against others are likely to think negatively of others. As I mentioned later in that post, this is one reason I think it is important, and I 'preciate your being here - so we get a different perspective. My personal opinion is that us discussing this issue in polite terms (even if some of it is inflammatory) shows that both sides of an issue can disagree, but that by trying to understand one another we come to a better understanding of what is important to either side. On that note I commend you for not lashing out at talk of Muslim extremists, but considering my perspective as otherwise legitimate.

You make a sound case against this ban. For one, you show the minaret is important to the people, and not so much the religion. I agree if you say, "This ban is wrong because the minaret is important to Arabs (and even Muslims)", but I'd disagree if you say, "This ban is solely racial / religious discrimination".

>on the 9/11 attacks<

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

Oh please. There's the list of passengers, phone calls from the plane, and the fact that many folks reported their loved ones being on these planes, but not arriving at their destinations.

Your point about how I got my information is somewhat valid, but I think you're really just speaking in probabilities, and not understanding my point. The news / government gave me - if me only - reason to think there were Arab Muslims responsible. Regardless of whether this is accurate or not, here I am. So, I (if wrongly) have a fear of Arab Muslims (really just the extremists), and so I might object to what I consider Arab Muslims' influence on my life / architecture. Again - right or wrong - "perception is reality". All my information - right or wrong - informs my decision making.

It's not about the veracity of one's information so much as it is what conclusions they draw and how they act.

For the record, I don't see the minaret as a problem, but I also don't think banning them is such a clear-cut example of racial / religious discrimination. Based on the above - right or wrong, if I see the minaret as a symbol of something I abhor (religious extremism), I can hate that symbol and still respect the many people who respect that symbol, but don't commit violent acts.

...Would an Arab city be happy if some African culture came in and started building grass huts* in the center of downtown?...

Its not a justified answer here, that the people of 1 culture, should not make in other place,

I agree, and thank you for pointing that out. My intent is to show that such bans may be about one's culture / architecture, and not an out and out example of racial/religious discrimination. I hate rap music. Hate it. Will not let it be played in my house. Do I hate black folks? (Work with me here, we all know a lot of black folks - among others - love the rap music, and God love 'em for it)

Here we gotta consider - A large Arab Muslim population moves in. Their architecture is different, and folks can consider the architecture separate from the Arab, from the Muslim, and separate from the Arab Muslim. They might see a minaret as an "invasion" of architecture moreso than an "invasion" of Arabs, Muslims, etc.

You are perfectly correct in pointing out the potential for this being a racial / religious discrimination issue. This point we should include in possible reasons behind such bans, but we can't say this is the only reason.

I would accept your this remarks, if Switzerland Govt. BAN every other religion architecture in the country, which include China, Japan, India etc etc, but did it happen? so why only for Muslims?

I lack the information necessary for an informed response here. What stats can we use to compare objections to say Pagoda architecture to these minarets? I would agree that allowing say a cross on top of buildings, but not a Muslim icon is such discrimination. But you yourself have said the minaret is not a religious symbol, but a symbol of one culture's architecture.

Is the ban on minarets a discrimination against a culture or style of architecture? Perhaps. Is it a clear example of racial / religious discrimination? I don't think so.

[TrueReligion]

Any proof of people in that plane? Any proof who was flying the plane? or making your claim from cnn or US-Govt only?

I think it would be best to leave conspiracy theories out of this.
What next, the Illuminati taking over the world?

As you say Sir