Banning of minarets in Switzerland

oscarBravo

gimme5minutes wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but is a minaret the thing that issues a loud call to prayer multiplie times a day?

You could always try reading the thread before you reply to it.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is NOT Islamic law. If you continue to assert this is true then back it up or withdraw your claim. By claiming this as a fact without evidence you are breaking the forum charter.

ei.sdraob

irishconvert wrote: »

This is NOT Islamic law. If you continue to assert this is true then back it up or withdraw your claim. By claiming this as a fact without evidence you are breaking the forum charter.

sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Islam

Homosexuality is deemed forbidden by Islamic law. The Qur'an, the central text of Islam believed by Muslims to be the revelation of God,[6] is explicit in its condemnation of homosexuality.[7][8] The Qur'an proclaims Islam as the "religion of nature," and sanctifies and encourages sexual intercourse within marriages only.

Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.” Later it was decided that if no building were tall enough, the he could be shoved off a cliff.[9] Regardless of the exact method, many jurist argue over the way the punishment should be carried out.

Same-sex intercourse officially carries the death penalty in several Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.
Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.
Initial reports had said she was a 23-year-old woman who had confessed to adultery before a Sharia court.

Scofflaw

irishconvert wrote: »

This is NOT Islamic law. If you continue to assert this is true then back it up or withdraw your claim. By claiming this as a fact without evidence you are breaking the forum charter.

islamonline.net wrote:

Q: Could you please tell me the ruling on homosexuality: sodomy and lesbianism. And if it is haram, what is the punishment for it in Islam?

A: Dear questioner, we would like to thank you for the great confidence you place in us, and we implore Allah Almighty to help us serve His cause and render our work for His Sake.

We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man's sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism)

Responding to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states the following:

"The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot) (peace be upon him), as narrated in the Qur'an should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut's people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) told them, (What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!) (Ash-Shu`araa' 26: 165-166)

The strangest expression of these peoples' perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him); these guests were angels of punishment in human form sent by Allah to try these people and to expose their perversity. The Qur'an narrates the story thus: (And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and did not know how to protect them. He said, 'This is a day of distress.' And his people, who had long since been practicing abominations, came rushing toward him. He said, 'O my people, here are my daughters. They are purer for you, so fear Allah and do not disgrace me in front of my guests. Is there not a single upright man among you?' They said, 'Thou knowest well that we have no right to thy daughters, and certainly thou knowest what we want.' He said, 'If only I had strength to resist you or had some powerful support!' Said (the angels) 'O Lut, truly, we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee....)(Hud 11: 77-81)

Having said this, I should stress here that Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements. "

It can be prosecuted under "Fasaad fi al-ardh" - "spreading mischief in the land", and is subject to the death penalty on that basis.

cordially,
Scofflaw

irishconvert

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_topics_and_Islam

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7708169.stm

It is true that homosexual relations are forbidden in Islam but there is NOTHING in the Qur'an that says homosexuals should be executed. There might be reports of homosexuals being punished in hadith but many hadith are unreliable. You need to tell me which hadith you are referring to.

As for rape I am 100% sure that a rape victim should not be punished. This is not Islamic teaching and anybody who stones or punishes a rape victim in any way is acting against Islam.

OldJay

prinz wrote: »

You mean like Dr Taj Hargey? Seems to be a well assimilated chap..

No, I mean like every muslim I've ever encountered here, in Norway or in Australia.
I've seen greater tolerance or understanding of muslims in Israel compared to some of bigotted bilge I've seen in this thread.

pablomakaveli

Ziggurat wrote: »

Why are certain people so averse to change?

I understand their (and I'm speaking about people in general) desire to preserve their culture - the human desire to be part of a group, to identify with that group as part of the individual's identity. What I don't understand are the irrational attempts to resist any change and how bitter and outraged the reaction sometimes is.

But why should they have to change? Change does'nt always necessarily mean it is a good thing. In this case people are expecting the Swiss to accept change so that the Muslims don't have to (i.e allowing them to build minarets on their mosques). The Swiss have a right to say no to this change if they want.

irishconvert

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But why should they have to change? Change does'nt always necessarily mean it is a good thing. In this case people are expecting the Swiss to accept change so that the Muslims don't have to (i.e allowing them to build minarets on their mosques). The Swiss have a right to say no to this change if they want.

The views on this thread are so hypocritical. How would you feel (I assume you are Irish) if New York or London for example decided to ban Irish pubs as the Irish culture is not compatible with theirs? How would you feel if New Yorkers banned the Paddy's day parade?

bonkey

bonkey wrote: »

Well, DRS (Swiss national radio) just ran a news article suggesting that its far from a one-off. For anyone who reads German (or can use google language tools et al) : http://www.drs.ch/www/de/drs/nachrichten/155807.cvp-und-fdp-fordern-eine-wertediskussion.html

Short version...the CVP and FDP are now making noises about looking at issues like not permitting Muslims and Jews have any more graveyards, a burka-ban, a head-scarf ban, the consideration of religious issues when it comes to things like swim-class in school...

...but hey...its all good, because Saudia Arabia and Iran are still worse.

Just to follow up on this....they have since backed down and apologised for getting carried away.

bonkey

opo wrote: »

Would it be too far down the road to suggest that a majority of Swiss people want Switzerland to continue to look and feel like Switzerland?

(I know this is a difficult concept)

No...its a pretty simple concept.

What I've difficulty understanding is how a lack of this law would have somehow endangered that.

I'd also question what exactly counts as "looking like Switzerland". Something like this perhaps?

prinz

irishconvert wrote: »

The views on this thread are so hypocritical. How would you feel (I assume you are Irish) if New York or London for example decided to ban Irish pubs as the Irish culture is not compatible with theirs? How would you feel if New Yorkers banned the Paddy's day parade?

A better comparison would be banning Guinness signs haning outside the pubs..and that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. You can still go into the pub and enjoy your pint. Mosques are not being banned, you can still go in and enjoy your Islam.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

A better comparison would be banning Guinness signs haning outside the pubs...

...while still allowing Carlsberg, Smithwicks etc. etc. signs.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

...while still allowing Carlsberg, Smithwicks etc. etc. signs.

...and? It still wouldn't bother me. Why would it? I know Guinness exists. I know where I can go to enjoy it. I know I can enjoy it in peace. Whether or not there is a Guinness sign over the door is irrelevant.

bonkey

pablomakaveli wrote: »

In this case people are expecting the Swiss to accept change so that the Muslims don't have to (i.e allowing them to build minarets on their mosques).

That's inaccurate.

People are expecting the Swiss to allow minarets to be treated like any other building proposal....rather than being singled out for special treatment.

Planning permission laws always allowed the Swiss to accept or refuse any given minaret proposal, just as it allowed them them to accept or refuse church tower proposals, office-block proposals, domestic residence proposals, etc.

itsonlywords

irishconvert wrote: »

It is true that homosexual relations are forbidden in Islam but there is NOTHING in the Qur'an that says homosexuals should be executed. There might be reports of homosexuals being punished in hadith but many hadith are unreliable. You need to tell me which hadith you are referring to.

As for rape I am 100% sure that a rape victim should not be punished. This is not Islamic teaching and anybody who stones or punishes a rape victim in any way is acting against Islam.

Yeah Yeah Yeah

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

...and? It still wouldn't bother me. Why would it?

Clearly it wouldn't, because you don't have a problem with discriminatory legislation (or - worse - discriminatory constitutional provisions).

I'm curious if your support for discriminatory legislation would continue to hold if you were being discriminated against.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

...and? It still wouldn't bother me. Why would it?

Do you think it might bother Guinness, to be discriminated against in this manner?

oscarBravo

itsonlywords wrote: »

Yeah Yeah Yeah

If you have nothing to contribute, don't post.

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clearly it wouldn't, because you don't have a problem with discriminatory legislation (or - worse - discriminatory constitutional provisions).
I'm curious if your support for discriminatory legislation would continue to hold if you were being discriminated against.

(a) You're talking about personal discrimination now, hugely different to what happened in Switzerland. Not every Muslim wants to build a minaret. Just like a law against church steeples isn't discrimination against every Christian.

(b) There is plenty of "discriminatory legislation" about the place. Look at maternity leave as opposed to paternity leave. I'm male, boo for me.

prinz

bonkey wrote: »

Do you think it might bother Guinness, to be discriminated against in this manner?

Maybe it would. Guinness the brand does not equal every Guinness drinker. Therefore to claim it would be discrimination against every Guinness drinker would be sensationalism.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

(a) You're talking about personal discrimination now, hugely different to what happened in Switzerland. Not every Muslim wants to build a minaret. Just like a law against church steeples isn't discrimination against every Christian.

No, I'm talking about discrimination. Being in favour of discrimination just because you're not a member of the group being discriminated against isn't exactly laudable.

(b) There is plenty of "discriminatory legislation" about the place. Look at maternity leave as opposed to paternity leave. I'm male, boo for me.

This is a good thing, how?

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

Maybe it would. Guinness the brand does not equal every Guinness drinker. Therefore to claim it would be discrimination against every Guinness drinker would be sensationalism.

Straw man. You're saying that discriminating against Guinness the company is OK because Guinness drinkers wouldn't be bothered by it.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

You mean like Dr Taj Hargey? Seems to be a well assimilated chap..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

..of course mention him here and some people automatically start calling his commitment to Islam into question, without foundation I may add.

If you ascribe to his reasonable line of thinking so much, why are you trying to defend as reasonable a needlessly xenophobic and Islamophobic action, driven by right-wing zealots?

That is, after all, a collection of his descriptions of the ban, taken from teh very article you keep quoting.

He calls it needlessly xenophobic. He refers to it as Islamophobic. He refers to the architects of its success as right-wing zealots.

You want us to listen to this guy...but your own line of reasoning seems to disagree fundamentally with what he's saying.

bonkey

prinz wrote: »

Maybe it would. Guinness the brand does not equal every Guinness drinker. Therefore to claim it would be discrimination against every Guinness drinker would be sensationalism.

I didn't pick the example....but the distinction between company and customer vs religion and faithful is where the analagy clearly breaks down.

itsonlywords

irishconvert wrote: »

The views on this thread are so hypocritical. How would you feel (I assume you are Irish) if New York or London for example decided to ban Irish pubs as the Irish culture is not compatible with theirs? How would you feel if New Yorkers banned the Paddy's day parade?

Well I totally agree with Switzerland's right to determine it's own destiny. It happens that the majority decided that future Miranets should be banned. I lived in Libya and Saudi and could not practice my religion. I accepted that from those people as that was the law of their country. I accepted what I did and still do consider to be "backward" rules about my dress code, because I had to. So when they come and live in predominantly Christian countries then they must live according to our customs. When they allow decent people freedom then they can complain. Until they are in the majority then they must accept democracy. That would be hard for most muslims to accept as we see in the countries where Islam is practiced by the majority. No need to mention all but there are many. Anyway while I am alive we will never see Islam taking over here but it the way of Islam to take over the world. This is a very interesting article which puts Islam into perspective. I really enjoyed reading it. http://www.islam-watch.org/ImranHossain/IH_IslamNoGuidance.htm

prinz

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I'm talking about discrimination. Being in favour of discrimination just because you're not a member of the group being discriminated against isn't exactly laudable.

There is a big difference between supporting something and being indifferent.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is a good thing, how?

I never said it was a good thing. Neither am I getting hot and bothered about discrimination etc.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Straw man. You're saying that discriminating against Guinness the company is OK because Guinness drinkers wouldn't be bothered by it.

...and you're saying the opposite, that discrimination against Guinness the company is not OK because Guinness drinkers are apparently affected by it. The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

bonkey wrote: »

You want us to listen to this guy...but your own line of reasoning seems to disagree fundamentally with what he's saying.

Switzerland’s referendum vote to ban minarets is needlessly xenophobic but it does not infringe the religious liberty of Swiss Muslims. Minarets remain emblematic of mosques in the Muslim heartlands but there is no theological reason why houses of worship in the West have to incorporate such towers.
Their original purpose was to relay the prayer call with the unamplified voice. Today this is done by modern technology, so minarets are not integral to contemporary mosque design. European mosques should stop mindlessly mimicking Eastern design and create prayer halls that blend into the landscape.
Muslims who have settled in Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe) should not confuse culture with creed.

He seems to be coinciding with exactly what I have been saying re the need for minarets, and the need for compromise and a new way forward.

oscarBravo

itsonlywords wrote: »

It happens that the majority decided that future Miranets should be banned.

Is it your view that because a majority decide something, then it must by definition be acceptable?

If a majority of Swiss decided that slavery was OK, would that be acceptable?

I lived in Libya and Saudi and could not practice my religion. I accepted that from those people as that was the law of their country. I accepted what I did and still do consider to be "backward" rules about my dress code, because I had to.

So it's OK to impose "backward" rules about architecture on Muslims, because some Muslim countries impost "backward" rules on dress on non-Muslims?

bonkey

itsonlywords wrote: »

Until they are in the majority then they must accept democracy.

No-one has suggested otherwise. What is being criticised is the decision that was reached.

Taking a simple parallel....people in Ireland must accept the democratically elected government, and the decisions it makes within its remit regarding the running of the country. That doesn't mean that they can't criticise that FF are in power, or that their decisions regarding the management of the financial crisis are completely legal within the irish democratic system.

Democracy is a system for fairly arriving at a decision. It does not, under any circumstances, guarantee a fair decision, nor a correct one. It also should never be immune from criticism.

oscarBravo

prinz wrote: »

I never said it was a good thing. Neither am I getting hot and bothered about discrimination etc.

I'm asking you a straight question: are you in favour of discrimination against men, by having maternity but not paternity leave?

...and you're saying the opposite, that discrimination against Guinness the company is not OK because Guinness drinkers are apparently affected by it. The reality lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm saying that discrimination is not OK. You seem to think that discrimination is perfectly fine - or at least that some discrimination is perfectly fine.

irishconvert

itsonlywords wrote: »

Well I totally agree with Switzerland's right to determine it's own destiny. It happens that the majority decided that future Miranets should be banned. I lived in Libya and Saudi and could not practice my religion. I accepted that from those people as that was the law of their country. I accepted what I did and still do consider to be "backward" rules about my dress code, because I had to. So when they come and live in predominantly Christian countries then they must live according to our customs.

Where does Christianity come into it? Can you tell me where in Christian scripture it says a minarate is not allowed

itsonlywords wrote: »

When they allow decent people freedom then they can complain. Until they are in the majority then they must accept democracy.

Democracy, you obviously have no idea what the word means.

itsonlywords wrote: »

That would be hard for most muslims to accept as we see in the countries where Islam is practiced by the majority. No need to mention all but there are many. Anyway while I am alive we will never see Islam taking over here

So tyouadmit is all scaremongering, trying to make people fear that their "values" are threatened by Islam?

itsonlywords wrote: »

but it the way of Islam to take over the world. This is a very interesting article which puts Islam into perspective. I really enjoyed reading it. http://www.islam-watch.org/ImranHossain/IH_IslamNoGuidance.htm

Islam-watch is a very well known anti-Muslim website. You may as well link to articles on the BNP website.