Not allowed to build minarets anymore | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Not allowed to build minarets anymore

Well said. That is a part of it. I would disagree about the men are dogs part but Islam does recognize that men are psychologically and physically different from women and that is all part of it.
yeah... I was a little bit upset when writing that (note last line of the first paragraph). I don't know if the quran actually says anything to that effect, as I've (sadly) never read it (let me get through the Bhagavad Gita first).
 
I live in Finland and this was on the news. I felt perplexed: why would anyone feel that this kind of law is necessary?

A couple of Swiss people were interviewed in the piece of news that I saw. Someone said that she's very disappointed and ashamed of the result. Another person said that minarets are not just religious symbols but symbols of the power of Islam and that he doesn't welcome symbols like that in Switzerland. He said he wouldn't expect to be able to build just anything he wanted if he moved to another country.

I think I can understand the point of view of those who voted for this law but I would have voted against it, because the law is against human rights in my opinion. I want to be able to practise and express my own religion (even if I moved to another country), and I want other people to be able to do that as well. After all, that's a hallmark of a civilised culture. It would be different if people wanted to put up Nazi flags all over my city but, as far as I'm concerned, Islamic symbols are not symbols of war or intolerance, but of religious faith, just like the cross is a symbol of my Christian faith.
 
Last edited:
I think Fly_Away the problem is not with the Islamic religion but rather the Arabic portrayal of Islam as you have said there is a distinction between the culture and the religion but the converse isn't true for the Arabic culture, as a majority of those whom are Arabic are Islamic and their culture is projected upon the religion.

For worse this is the root of most problems and fears and they have been reaffirmed with actions that have happened. Only takes one person to make it so that we can't have any nice things.:m080:

EDIT:
Even in this scope the general idea is that the extremists and the negatives are being examined under a microscope needless to say this paints a terrible portrait and due to modern news' death and suffering sells it is amplified greatly.

The problem is with any portrayal of any religion happens when it is not based on the religious text of it or when meanings are butchered by anyone with other agendas. Culture is made by people, Islam is divine. You're right about people needing to make the distinction between the two. They are very different. Recognizing that religion is against extremism is one of the key steps here because extremism in Islam or any religion usually happens when a) people twist things around so that they can worship their man-made culture (sometimes at the expense of others), or b) politics and economics become a main motivating factor.
 
Last edited:
I'm like :m192:
 
OK, to be brutally honest I would have voted in favor of such a law. Now before you shred me to pieces, let me explain a bit...

Muslim situation in Europe is quite different from US. They migrate here in large numbers from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East. And a lot of them do not even try to integrate into the society, they do not become Europeans, instead they just treat it as some kind of promised land that is their's for the taking. Consider this: how would you feel in US if Mexicans that come into your territory would start to treat it as their own and would require the former residents to adapt to their lifestyle? Unfortunately that's what is happening in western Europe. EU officials are tiptoeing around the issue and a lot of people are getting dissatisfied with it. So it's no wonder that laws like this can get popular support from the public. They do not do it because of intolerance to Islam but rather from the concern on their own safety.

The spread of Islamic culture generates a lot of friction because it conflicts with values and traditions of European culture. For example a lot of Muslims believe that religious rulings are of higher order than freedom of speech or even the civil government. Remember the feedback Danes got after publishing those caricatures? Now I consider myself a religious man but I do not have a sudden urge to blow things up every time someone makes fun of the Pope. The officials have legalized some pretty absurd regulations - like officially banning the story of the three piglets from the education system in UK just because it can hurt religious feelings of certain individuals. My personal opinion is that if religion tries to regulate things like that then it deserves certain restrictions itself. I value my freedom more.

So I interpret this law a symbolic call of attention to insecurities and problems that people are experiencing. Of course it would make no sense in a long run.
 
Last edited:
OK, to be brutally honest I would have voted in favor of such a law. Now before you shred me to pieces, let me explain a bit...

Muslim situation in Europe is quite different from US. They migrate here in large numbers from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East. And a lot of them do not even try to integrate into the society, they do not become Europeans, instead they just treat it as some kind of promised land that is their's for the taking. Consider this: how would you feel in US if Mexicans that come into your territory would start to treat it as their own and would require the former residents to adapt to their lifestyle? Unfortunately that's what is happening in western Europe. EU officials are tiptoeing around the issue and a lot of people are getting dissatisfied with it. So it's no wonder that laws like this can get popular support from the public. They do not do it because of intolerance to Islam but rather from the concern on their own safety.

The spread of Islamic culture generates a lot of friction because it conflicts with values and traditions of European culture. For example a lot of Muslims believe that religious rulings are of higher order than freedom of speech or even the civil government. Remember the feedback Danes got after publishing those caricatures? Now I consider myself a religious man but I do not have a sudden urge to blow things up every time someone makes fun of the Pope. The officials have legalized some pretty absurd regulations - like officially banning the story of the three piglets from the education system in UK just because it can hurt religious feelings of certain individuals. My personal opinion is that if religion tries to regulate things like that then it deserves certain restrictions itself. I value my freedom more.

So I interpret this law a symbolic call of attention to insecurities and problems that people are experiencing. Of course it would make no sense in a long run.
In otherwords, racism hiding behind nationalism.

I don't give a shit who comes to "my country", the customs they bring with, or what language they speak.
Don't like the language they speak? Don't speak to them, problem fucking solved.

[youtube]nW20EMJr6o4[/youtube]
 
Guys, keep the tone civil. Fair (mod) warning.
 
OK, to be brutally honest I would have voted in favor of such a law. Now before you shred me to pieces, let me explain a bit...
Nobody should shred you to pieces, you're entitled to an opinion.

The spread of Islamic culture generates a lot of friction because it conflicts with values and traditions of European culture. For example a lot of Muslims believe that religious rulings are of higher order than freedom of speech or even the civil government. Remember the feedback Danes got after publishing those caricatures?

Muslims are supposed to to live by the laws of the country that they're living in, even if it is a non-Muslim country, unless it forces them to go against their religion. The minaret issue, for example, does not force them to go against their religion, because there is no rule in Islam about having to have a minaret on a mosque. In fact, in the days of the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), they used to simply make the call to prayer without a minaret. This is how it is done these days in a lot of places as well. Somewhere along the lines in between, minarets were used to make the call to prayer. Minarets are still built sometimes for artistic/architecturally aesthetic purposes etc. I find them pretty but they're not important to me because they hold no value other than aesthetic value. The stupid part of the ban is the reasoning behind it that it "represents Islamic law." Now consider something like the hijab ban. That is something that Muslims should protest against because it simply goes against women's rights and responsibilities in their religion and should not affect others (ie, loud announcements and what not). It's all about priorities. Now the issue that you're mentioning here with the caricatures, I believe it was in bad taste of the artist, but do I see it as a threat? Not really, because it doesn't hinder a person's ability to practice his/her faith. Sure its annoying, but it is certainly not something to start a riot over, just like the minaret issue. The only one of the issues that I mentioned above that should really be protested against in a democratic society is the hijab ban because it goes against what the society is supposed to offer and infringes on the rights that God gave to women and it prevents them from practicing their religion freely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tamagochi
This reminds me of one of the reasons I like living in the US. I don't think a ban like that would fly over here. We take certain freedoms very seriously.

What do I think of the actual ban? It kind of got my weels turning don't yah know. I usually idealize countries that have a stronger democratic process then the United States. But this goes to show that the tyranny of the majority is infact real. I guess why the checks and balances system is so important to ensure that no actor in the national government gets away with being this stupid.

Is anybody overthere planning on challenging the law?

:m056:
 
This reminds me of one of the reasons I like living in the US. I don't think a ban like that would fly over here. We take certain freedoms very seriously.

I second that. I know its not perfect here but I put a high value on these freedoms.
 
You know what Billy. I'll solve this problem for you, and invite all middle-eastern Muslim people to come live in the U.S. We're a country with people that, in theory, embrace different cultures. We have laws that protect religious rights, and laws against discrimination of someone because of their race or religion. Problem solved. I'm going to build a damn minaret on the top of my country home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sassafras
I agree with the Swiss. Since this is all about architecture, Arabic architecture should stay in Arabia. Or any other country where the predominant culture did not evolve there, such as USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Antartica.

However Europes culture is unique and spectacular. When I travel through Europe I want to see European Culture and Architecture, not Arabic ones. I want to see Arabic/Turkish/Persian culture when I travel through the Middle East.

I was against the Burkha Ban, because that really did take away religious rights that didn't infringe upon anyone else. This doesn't.

Edit: We have a mosque here in town... It has a minaret which really should be taken down. It looks like a piece of shit tin cylinder that they painted, sculpted a top for it and mounted it on the side.
 
Banning religious architecture, ridiculous. They're pillars for christ's sake! Now I'd agree to a law about speakers and projecting sound from them, but their physical presence? Just plain stupid.
 
No I am saying its a small small piece of that same pie, the larger piece would be Muslim violence against non Muslims which is pretty pervasive in Islam and everywhere it goes.
This just proves you have no god damn clue what you're talking about. You appear to be extremely bigoted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sassafras and Moxie
Muslim situation in Europe is quite different from US. They migrate here in large numbers from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East. And a lot of them do not even try to integrate into the society, they do not become Europeans, instead they just treat it as some kind of promised land that is their's for the taking. Consider this: how would you feel in US if Mexicans that come into your territory would start to treat it as their own and would require the former residents to adapt to their lifestyle?
Do you suppose the majority of muslims who immigrate to the Europe think like this?

And certain Mexicans do think like this. There was a push awhile back to have spanish as a second national language.




The spread of Islamic culture generates a lot of friction because it conflicts with values and traditions of European culture. For example a lot of Muslims believe that religious rulings are of higher order than freedom of speech or even the civil government.

Certain factions of the US think similarly like evangelical christians. Which last I heard accounted for 25% of the United States population. I might not like a lot of what they have to say and but they have a right to say it. So long as my freedom is not directly affected by their insanity I don't have a problem.


Remember the feedback Danes got after publishing those caricatures? Now I consider myself a religious man but I do not have a sudden urge to blow things up every time someone makes fun of the Pope.

Again this makes me wonder wheather most muslims have a similar impulse. Or is it a minority do you think?



My personal opinion is that if religion tries to regulate things like that then it deserves certain restrictions itself.

But I think that you are judging a religion of millions based on what a certain minority do.


I value my freedom more.

I am genuinly curious to know when the restrctions imposed by the muslim population curtailed your personal freedoms. I mean I don't live in Lithuania so how would I know.

So I interpret this law a symbolic call of attention to insecurities and problems that people are experiencing. Of course it would make no sense in a long run.

Those insecurites should be dealt with to be sure. But is this really an effective way of doing that? I would think it would just alienate muslims more and make them more prone to religious extremism.
 
Banning religious architecture, ridiculous. They're pillars for christ's sake! Now I'd agree to a law about speakers and projecting sound from them, but their physical presence? Just plain stupid.

Perhaps a simple solution is designing it to look like just any other building outside, and inside the architecture could transport you to a different world. You'd get to please the people who no longer have to look at it, and you'd get to have everything you'd want inside...

Designed with properly sound proof walls and not even your neighbours would know.

Atara, your nation is famed for being conservative, where do you get the liberal side of it?
 
Muslim situation in Europe is quite different from US. They migrate here in large numbers from Turkey, Africa and the Middle East. And a lot of them do not even try to integrate into the society.
Well yes, this make some sense, and you're right, where this does happens here in Texas, it is not met with overwhelming appreciation.
 
Is anybody overthere planning on challenging the law?

:m056:
There is a left party that considers going to the European court of human rights in Strassburg to lodge a complaint. Switzerland has a pact with the UN (UNO-Pakt II) and is legally bound to the European human rights convention, both of which are contradicted by the law in question. But there is no way of knowing what the outcome of that would be.
Some of us are also considering starting an initiative (Volksinitiative) meaning that if we get 100'000 signatures of Swiss people in less than 18 months, we can revote or vote on a slightly different law in two or three years.
To me, neither of the options above seem completely satisfactory.