Tuesday, December 19, 2006

German Church lays down the law for Muslims

In a move which would send shockwaves throughout the Church of England, and result in condemnation and cries of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ from the highest echelons of the British Government, the Protestant Church in Germany, led by the Lutherans, has bravely issued a 124-page document on the future relationship it wishes to see between Christians and Muslims in Germany.

Cranmer is indebted the Gates of Vienna for this summary:

In short: Europeans must demand Muslims to respect certain values. Schoolteachers wearing head scarves are unfit to teach. Jewish and Christian symbols can be displayed in schools, because they don’t conflict with the values in Germany’s constitution. Nuns who teach can wear their order’s dress if they so prefer. Oppression of women, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. No person can claim cultural identity as an excuse for violating human rights.

One section states:

Civil servants must at all times adhere to liberal democratic and constitutional structures and concomitantly to the equality of men and women. If a Muslim applicant for a training activity wants to wear a head cloth at public schools with reference to freedom of religion in the service, this behavior justifies doubts about her suitability — in view of the meaning of the head cloth in Islam — as a teacher in a national school.

Apparently, the Muslims of Germany are not very happy with this.

If any of Cranmer’s communicants wishes to read this report, it is to be found here (in German). If any may translate its more salient points, he would be appreciative of the further insights. It sounds like a document worth reading, and nailing to the doors of a number of European institutions…

29 Comments:

Anonymous Voyager said...

http://www.ekd.de/english/2169.html

19 December 2006 at 07:31  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I don't speak Deutsch either, and Voyager's link isn't a translation of this paper (that I can find!).

I must say it's really heartening that Christians on the continent are making a stand on the issue. EUrabia may not be so inevitable after all. Can't see this sort of paper being produced in the UK though.

19 December 2006 at 10:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

No the "Text 86" which is the document referred to is not yet posted on the English Website.

I doubt anyone will be enthusiastic enough to translate 124 pages

19 December 2006 at 11:24  
Blogger Voyager said...

Humour

19 December 2006 at 13:57  
Blogger wrinkled weasel said...

This is a bit indulgent, sorry. (reproduced from my blog, but it is relevant)

Suspect Paki

No, this is not a piece of racism, though you may be forgiven for thinking so. This is the name of a blog by somebody who thinks it's ok to use the word because he is one. That way its funny and ironic and not racist, he claims.

http://www.suspectpaki.com/

He did a fairly average rant about the NHS and I left an innocuous note which was sympathetic and complimentary. I also noted that

"You seem to be rather apopleptic about Jews, but no more than I am about Muslims, so I suppose we are quits."



My comment was fairly mild if you take the trouble to read his hysterical posts..

His terse reply to my post was
"read my rules"

Suspect Paki's rules state

"

* Anyone insulting Allah (swt), His Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or any of the prophets for that matter is liable for deletion.
* Anyone accusing me of anti-Semitism in any way will be liable for editing or deletion. Let’s get this clear for those of you who plainly, just don’t want to get it! I don’t hate Jews. I hate Zionism. Expressed in the illegal, terrorism-founded state of Israel, it’s actually worse than apartheid.
* Anyone getting too personal towards me or other posters will be liable for deletion.
* You don’t have to like everything I say to be my friend. I don’t have to like everything you say to be yours. It’s called pluralism. It exists in Islam and has done since the beginning.
* I get asked puerile questions like “why not talk about Darfur or the Democratic Republic of Congo” or other probes along similar lines. If you want to read about Darfur, you’re free to read other blogs. I write about what interests me. And Britain, being my country, interests me. Britain created the mess in Palestine. Britain went to war against the Iraqi people, despite the will of the British people. I write about Islam, because there are plenty of ignorant Islamophobes around(who are no better than slave-trading, racist, holocaust-deniers in my book) with their own blogs. Go read those if you hate my misrepresented religion. Otherwise, you are welcome to stay.

Those are his "rules" in their entirety.

I left another note:-

It seems to me that you are oversensitive to criticism, and like your fellow Islamists, you can dish it out but you cannot take it.

It’s a shame because this blog is interesting.

Of course, he cannot take it. He can dish it out but like most of the Muslims in this country he will criticise everything we do but won't allow us to criticise him.

19 December 2006 at 14:06  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Voyager,

His Grace thanks you for the 'Humour', which appears to be in the same incomprehensible language as the Protestant Church's document.

Mr Weasel,

His Grace has received occasional Mohammedan visitors to his august blog, and his regular communicants have invariably noted that they tend to be over-sensitive, quite humourless, and incapable of dealing with any criticism, no matter how objective.

They tend not to stay very long at all.

19 December 2006 at 14:12  
Anonymous Shamzy said...

Hello, I am a Muslim and new to this blog. The religious Christians gracing this august blog, might find the following article intriguing

---------------------------------
Americanized Muslims

by: ELDER GEORGE, Thursday, September 07, 2006

THE September issue of The American Legion magazine contained an article by Ahmed Younis, National Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) in which he sought to portray American Muslims adapting to and becoming part of the American way of life. He accomplished his mission; however, the American way of life is not adaptable to Islamic teachings.
Many of my readers already know that I am not a Muslim, but for the purpose of this article I am making it known that I am a former U.S. Navy officer and Legionnaire, and receive The American Legion magazine monthly.

In many of my previous columns I wrote that what the West considers to be "moderate" Islam is Islam without teeth, and what it considers to be "modern" Islam is Islam without standards. Younis' article portrayed a moderate and modern Islam without using those words. Perhaps he didn't even realize the modern Islam he portrayed. He referred to the London bombings, French riots, the Danish cartoon fiasco, and many other incidents of discord between Muslims and their surrounding communities in the West, and indicated that the United States looks on with amazement that American Muslims have not succumbed to the same sort of violent backlash as their European counterparts. Obviously many European Muslims have not yet been made "moderate" and "modern." Besides, Europe does not have a Guantanamo.

Younis went on to show how MPAC cooperated with the government in fighting terrorism. What is terrorism? Hammas and Hezbolah are referred to as terrorist organizations by the media, yet both were democratically elected. Who has killed more civilians, the West or Muslims? Will MPAC net use the term Islamo-fascist?

Younis wrote, "we see numerous generations that see themselves as organic to the United States and legitimate with the global Muslim community." How can that be? Let's take a look at the organic United States. It has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, high rates of suicide, high rates of depression, high rates of unwed motherhood, and high rates of adultery. Its children are taught sexuality in grade school, little girls now wear thongs instead of underwear, children ride on trains and buses in which posters promote pre-marital sex, and 24 million children live in a home without fathers. Can any member of any religion consider itself to be organic with such a society and loyal to its religious principles?

Even the most liberal interpretation of the Koran will concede that the practices of the West are haram. They are haram from top to bottom. All religions in the West have been neutered and consequently have no spiritual influence on their members. The Gospels teach that women should have their heads covered in church. Now Christian women attend Sunday services dressed as though they were auditioning for HBO and MTV. They were told not to speak in church. Now they are ministers. The divorce rate among Christians is higher than among atheists and the divorce rate among the clergy equals that of the laity. That's "moderate" and "modern" Christianity. All religions become neutered and emasculated under the Western guise of moderation and modernity.

Younis ends his article with the statement "one can be both 100 percent American and 100 percent Muslim, doing both while engaging with mainstream society." That statement is what we in the West call "a mouthful," and one that is difficult "to swallow." No religion can be engaged with mainstream Western society and retain its fundamental teachings. Religious groupings such as the Amish and Orthodox Jews engage in mainstream society politically, but stay among themselves socially and professionally; and even they are witnessing their members succumbing to Western secularism. Spirituality in any religious form and the West are opposites.

The prophet wrote, "Do not with your own hands cast yourself into destruction." Any man who attempts to engage his spiritual beliefs with mainstream Western society does just that.

----------------------------------
PS.The last quote is from the Quran not 'prophet wrote'!

19 December 2006 at 16:51  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear Shamzy,

Thank you for posting Elder George’s article. The main message seems to be that Christian and Islamic beliefs are similar and that secularism is a monster. "Spirituality in any religious form and the West are opposites."

As a matter of fact, the ability to live with these opposites has considerably increased the living standards in European countries. As a result, millions of people from the highly spiritual countries of the East and South have left their paradises and migrated to the evil Western countries and are now lecturing Westerners about the advantages of spirituality. Naturally, the evil secularists’ are wondering what does attract these highly spiritual people of the East to the evil West and keeps them there and why don't they migrate to the spiritual paradises in the East?

Could it be money? That's impossible because the spiritual leaders of the East are always criticising the so-called materialism of the West. Could it be Western freedom? However, that appears to be equally impossible because the spiritual leaders of the East hate the freedoms of the West.

It's a mystery, isn't it?

The prophet wrote,"Do not with your own hands cast yourself into destruction. ----- PS.The last quote is from the Quran not 'prophet wrote'!"

Here more suras from the Quran concerning non-believers or believers of other religions:

"5.59 Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?

"8.55 Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve.

98.6 Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.

24.55 Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them..

63.4 When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them!..

9.5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

47.4 So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates...

9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."


As-Salamu Alaykum ("Peace be upon you")

19 December 2006 at 21:09  
Blogger Newmania said...

They tend not to stay very long at all..........

Your Grace I would like to draw you attention draw your attention to the Jail House Lawyer situation.Peter Hitchens deserves support in my opinion but frankly I lack the time or money to get involved in some (no doubt meaningless)legal publicity stunt

19 December 2006 at 21:44  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace seems to be eager to learn more about the document. Therefore, I quick scanned the 128 pages hoping to make His Grace happy by providing some information about its contents. Here an excerpt:

"Difficulties and conflicts should not be ignored but must be declared clearly and clearified as far as possible....

How can good neighborhood be lived in a competition situation? ...

The foundation of the Protestant church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the happy message of the merciful God for all people....

Since it is its mission to testify also to Muslims, that they are God's beloved creatures, they have to work for respecting the Muslim community...

The Protestant church wants urgently that Christians and Muslims preach peace with the name of God emphasised with the related behaviour. This must be expressed in spite of contrary statements in the Koran which for fight and war as well as attacks in the name of Islam...

The Muslim identity is rooted in a cultural world which has not entirel carried out the chances of a religion under the conditions of the scientific-technical age and a secular state as it has been done in West...

Religious fights lasting for centuries led to the insight that peace among churches and religions is a high and dispensable good and that any mission has to abstain from violence...

Therefore, Christians cannot agree if believers of other religions claim the freedom for similar behaviour in the present with reference to ecclesiastical misdemeanours of former centuries. People may never again be submitted to intolerance, coercion or violence becausrse of their faith. ..

The Islamic groupings which carry such burdens into the present time and reject selfcorrections with the argument that this offends against religious commands, may not be exempted from demands for change and new formulation of their principles. To let their stubbornness unreprimanded, corresponds neither to the fundamental rights of the constitution nor the Christian tolerance...

The integration will of Muslims in particular of the second and third generation has to be strengthened and should not be disappointed...

The question is whether the Islamic idea of the submission of humans under the rule of God is in agreement with democratic principles - above all, to the principle of the sovereignty of the people...

Nevertheless, there are also Muslims who openly express convictions hostile to democracy and who strive to establish a supposedly ideal Islamic state. Such Muslims who are also called Islamists reject the liberal democracy as a work of man and substitute it for God's rule whose realisation lies in the hands of his true servants. Not rarely, they connect this with the conviction that Islam, how they understand and practise it, will provide the solutions for all the problems of the world. They believe to be able to directly read the holy will of God unambiguously from the Islamic revelation document, the Koran, and they want to transform him directly in political action...

Especially, the demand for giving the regulations of the sharia on grounds of its religious meaning the status of a public law cannot be accepted...

The hurting of one’s religious feelings can never be a justification for threatening and are attacking other people or are impaired in other way in her rights. The appeal on the reverence for the sacred and the threat or application of violence do not match. Who reacts to offending criticism with threats and violence, destroys it own credibility, acts juridically inadmissibly and must count on state sanctions...

To react to attacks appropriately, belongs rather to the requirements existing for all confessions to behave in doctrine and practise community-compatible and constitutional.
Should they be unable or uwilling to do this, then society and state will take this into consideration in its reaction and any collaboration with such groupings. Otherwise, the consequence would be an inappropriate “blind equal treatment” in relation to other confessions guided only by the respect for religions but ignoring the threat to the common welfare..."


Maybe I will find some time tomorrow for more.

20 December 2006 at 00:41  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Colin,

His Grace is most appreciative of your interraction with Mr Shamzy, but you appear to have frightened him off. As His Grace observed: They tend not to stay very long at all

Your intermittent translations of this important document are much appreciated. His Grace was most interested to read: The foundation of the Protestant church is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the happy message of the merciful God for all people...

If this were an English document, it would have omitted the word 'Protestant'. In fact, the more His Grace gleans from the content, the more he is persuaded that such a declaration could no longer have its genesis within the Church of England, and the more admiring he is of the Lutherans for leading this.

That Martin's spirit lives on is a source of great joy to His Grace.

20 December 2006 at 08:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

that such a declaration could no longer have its genesis within the Church of England

Yes Cardinal Newman does seem to have caused some confusion in the ranks............on the other hand if the A of C had any hand in such a document I am sure the name of Jesus would have been omitted

20 December 2006 at 08:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It may be time to reintroduce the Clarendon Code

20 December 2006 at 13:02  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

Your Grace

I have just taken delivery of an excellent little book by David Pawson entitled The Challenge of Islam to Christians
( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Challenge-Islam-Christians-David-Pawson/dp/0340861894 )

I do not know how your Grace views modern instances of prophetic utterances, but Rev. Pawson states in the book to have had a definite premonition that England will one day be an Islamic country.

The public responses of other British Evangelical Christian leaders with whom he has prayerfully shared this have in the main been either dismissive or highly negative. However, from what Rev. Pawson writes, the public pronouncements of at least one are at variance with what Rev. Pawson reports as his private comments. This indicates to me that the leaders of what I would consider the true Church in Britain have already conceded defeat.

If your Grace has not already done so, may I urge you and all concerned Christian believers to get a copy of this book and read it in order that we may be ready in spirit, mind and body to remain faithful to our Lord and Saviour in the face of the coming persecution.

As Rev. Pawson states in his book, British Christians may have to learn a new confession of faith:

There is no god but Yahweh, and Yeshua is His Son.

May we who profess Christ prepare ourselves that we may be faithful to Him, whatever the cost.

Respectfully Yours

20 December 2006 at 14:22  
Blogger Unite Muslims said...

Hello,
Cranmer said...
His Grace is most appreciative of your interraction with Mr Shamzy, but you appear to have frightened him off.

LOL..Frightened me off? you must be kidding. I appreciate Colin for replying to my comment but I assure you sir, what he gave was the regular answers I've got many hundreds of times before this. Just scan the instructions in Jihadwatch.com and you'll see he has followed the guidelines of how to reply to a Muslim like those thousands of obedient online student of Fitzgerald and Spencer.

However to tell you, I'd like to come here more frequently and join your discussions but I am from Sri Lanka and unfortunately I have very limited access to the Internet.

As His Grace observed: They tend not to stay very long at all
Well well, so Muslims have come, seen and gone from this blog. That's more than I thought of Muslims. Anyway that shows my Muslim brothers and sisters have some understanding of the net. My limited exposure to the blogophere and net forums has taught me there are very few people out here, who act or talk normally like if we met in the real world, and its seldom on the net you meet people of differing opinions having a constructive discussion without resorting to bashing and endless arguments. So in a way I am glad to hear Muslims don't stick around much in this blog, where you quote of all sources the "Gates of Vienna".

I agree "Oppression of women, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society," or in an Islamic society. It makes me very sad and angry to see these cruel things happening in some Muslim communities. These are grave sins in Islam and shows the ignorance of Muslim communities who still practice those tribal and ancient customs that were prevalent amongst them before they became Muslims. However trying to imply these are Islamic or All Muslim practice these horrible things, shows the writers ignorance of Islam or Muslims.

Also consider these contradictory statements,
1) "Nuns who teach can wear their order’s dress if they so prefer. "
with
"Schoolteachers wearing head scarves are unfit to teach." ?

2) "If a Muslim applicant for a training activity wants to wear a head cloth at public schools with reference to freedom of religion in the service, this behavior justifies doubts about her suitability"
with
"Jewish and Christian symbols can be displayed in schools, because they don’t conflict with the values in Germany’s constitution."?

20 December 2006 at 17:37  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Unite Muslims,
Many Muslim scholars do not think the head scarf is mandatory in the first place as you conveniently overlook in your comments. The Qur'anic verse most frequently pointed to tells women to cover over their bosom not their hair. The Prophet Muhammed is said to have said that women were to cover all parts of their bodies except for their faces and hands but this saying can not be traced directly back to the mouth of the Prophet, can it?. The fact is that the enforcement of the headscarf is often carried out by men-fathers, husbands, brothers and others that for many reasons, some oppressive, are concerned about containing the sexuality of the female in question. In an October 15 2006 interview with Bild am Sonntag, Ekin Deligoz, a Green party member of Germany’s parliament, advised fellow Muslim women: "You live here, so take off the headscarf." She added that the headscarf is a symbol of female oppression. Because of her comments, Deligoz has received a deluge of death threats and is now under police protection.

The scarf is very muchl a political symbol. It's a sign meaning "we fight for the spread of Islam all over the world and you're going to live with it, sooner or later, whether you like it or not".

With specific regard to point no:1. School teachers are public servants paid for out of the state taxation system. Nuns belong to self-financing, overtly non-political, private communities. That marks out a pretty significant differentiation. A head scarfed teacher is implicitly or explicity making a political statement when donning a scarf. That is unacceptable to me. At least, if its a state institution.

20 December 2006 at 19:44  
Anonymous Colin said...

Hello Mr. Shamzy aka unite muslims,

It is good that you returned and even better to know that you will contribute to this blog more often. When I visited Sri Lanka a few years ago, I fell in love with this country and its beautiful people. It looked like a paradise to me. Hindus kindly showed me their temples and explained to me why their religion is the best in their view. Buddhists did the same. Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to meet a muslim in Sri Lanka. There don't seem to be many. Thus, you must be proud to belong to the chosen few. Congratulations, it is always good to know that people are happy for whatever reason.

Back to our main topic, the civil war in Sri Lanka between hinduistic Tamils and buddhist Sinhalese demonstrates the dangers of ethnic and religious diversity. It is sad to see all these killing and suffering. However, buddhists and hindus are relatively peaceful people because they are not instructed by their religion to fight the others.

Unfortunately, the situation appears to be very different with the religion of muslims. The main problem non-muslims have with islam results from its instruction to engage in endless aggressions towards non-believers until they are in a state of subjection for paying taxes. Is it really so surprising that non-muslims are not happy about this? What do you expect? That non-muslims are happily looking forward to becoming slaves?

How would you feel if the bible contained a similar content as the koran, i.e. it would call non-christians the "vilest of animals" and instruct christians to slay them wherever they are found, take them captive and force them to pay taxes to christians. Probably, you would tell us that christiantiy looks like a religion of warriors who want to enslave the rest of the world. And how could I possibly demonstrate to you that you are wrong if christians are following these instructions in historical and contemporary times?

BTW, I know Daniel Pipe's website but I didn't know that he gave instructions on how to respond to muslims. Rest assured that neather His Grace nor I need instructions on how to think and to draw conclusions. Who is Fitzgerald?

20 December 2006 at 20:45  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace,

"Your intermittent translations of this important document are much appreciated."

It's my pleasure. Please accept it as a Chrismas gift.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time to translate the entire documents. Therefore, I shall try to pick some more highlights.

20 December 2006 at 20:50  
Anonymous Colin said...

His Grace,

Here, as promised, some more translations from the document:

"It is to be counteracted against the prejudice, religions are unpredictable and dangerous.

The freedom of religion includes the right to keep away from faith or to change the religion.
That such behaviour is acceptable, is a view not represented everywhere in Islam;

The freedom to give up a religion, may not be questionned with the justification that this step occurred under the influence of an “aggressive conversion”. The Christian church, but also Islam and other confessions, see themselves in the duty of proselytisation.

The sharia is important for the west, because according to Muslim view it is as a law of God in principle applicable everywhere and cannot be declared invalid in Western countries.

For the liberal state based on the German constitution, sharia courts or similar institutions cannot be considered. Not only for the rule of law but also for the protection of the freedom of religion, Christians reject any acceptance or even only the acquiescence by the state of such an Islamic jurisdiction. Their procedures and results would have to lead especially for the concerned women to disadvantages which would be absolutely unacceptable because of their contradiction to equal rights.

Who looks at Islamic declarations of human rights - for example, the Cairo declaration of human rights of 1990-, will discover that they differ in a fundamental point from the international declarations of human rights: The Koran and the sharia are superordinated to the granting of all human rights.

As owner of book or scripture, that is as a receiver of a former revelation, Jews and Christians take a special position in Islamic jurisdiction. Therefore, in the Islamic conquered territory they received the status of “protecteds”, who had the right to keep their own faith, but had to pay additional taxes. As sudued people, not citizens of equal rights, they were treated mostly more tolerant than members of non-Christian minorities during the European Middle Ages. Although they have partially come to influence and respect, nevertheless, at other times they were submitted to massive repressions put or discriminated by various special laws. Juridically, they were never treated as equal to the Muslims. This is the situation of Christian minorities in Islam imprinted countries till the present. Certain social positions were refused for them; partially the full support of the state is not available to them in the case of infringements. Also as a rule, a Muslimin cannot marry till this day a non-Moslem man on account of sharia-juridical regulations and a non-Moslem cannot inherit from a Moslem.

According to the Islamic tradition, Mohammed after the occupying of his home town Mecca in 631 A.D has killed himself apostates because of their change of religion.

Most converts are harmed in countries by Muslim majorities, if family or society believe that they must wash off the "disgrace" of conversion by threats, intimidations or attacks on body and life of the convert. More frequent results for converts are there his disinheritance and the loss of his possession, of his job and of his family by expulsion or compulsive divorce. Some converts are imprisoned, others are submitted to psychiatric compulsive treatments. Depending on the circumstances, they are forced to flee abroad.

If it came in an Islam imprinted country to a court procedure - what hardly ever happens -, the defendant should be beheaded according to the sharia. Although this sharia-juridical regulation is only seldom applied, howerver, it leads to the fact that the awareness of social injustice is considerably reduced in the case of familial pressure on the convert, even if he has to suffer a lot or dies.

Not few converts - just as Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Islam - are faced with serious threats also in this country. The menace and intimidation of dissenters or even the violent attack on them are not to be tolerated even if one takes into consideration the values and norms of other cultures and religions. Hence, the danger of the menace by family, compatriots or secret servies in Western countries may not be played down or even denied."

20 December 2006 at 23:05  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Unite Muslims do tell what mode of dress Christian teachers wear in Islamic societies ? Are Christian holidays celebrated widely in Islamic societies ?

Do you have many pork butchers in such societies to cater for Christians living there ?

Now we know that in Southern Sri Lanka Christians are concentrated and have their churches............but let us consider Pakistan where no doubt Christians are revered and respected as a minority and can pray in their churches protected by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakiatan which states - Art 19

Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam

20.
Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions.

21.
No person shall be compelled to pay any special tax the proceeds of which are to be spent on the propagation or maintenance of any religion other than his own.


Now would you rather rely on The State in Pakistan to uphold your rfreedom under Art 20 and Art 21 or a Christian country ?

21 December 2006 at 07:02  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Your Grace,
I fear we have lost Mr. Shamzy aka unite muslims. Another Mohameddan appears to have bitten the blogging bullet. How very predictable.

21 December 2006 at 19:02  
Blogger Unite Muslims said...

istanbultory
Many Muslim scholars do not think the head scarf is mandatory in the first place as you conveniently overlook in your comments
My, my, this certainly interests me. Of all people the non-Muslims telling me what's mandatory and whats optional in Islam!!! I wonder what their objectives are? You can have your beliefs of Islam and I'll have mine. I agree theres many kinds of oppression happening among Muslims but I am not responsible for what others do and here I can speak only for myself. I am a Muslim and I believe that except the face and hands of a Muslim woman no other part of the body should be visible to any outsider male. That said, I want you to know though I wont force anyone to do anything against there will, I'd certainly try persuading my Muslim sisters to cover her body except her face and hands because it my religious duty to enjoin Gods commands. Anyway if you don't mind can you tell me who these scholars are and provide me links?

The scarf is very much a political symbol.
Can you please tell me how?

FYI When I was small in Sri Lanka, not many Muslim women wore headscarves, but alhamdullillah now as slowly Islamic awareness spreads I see more and more girls and women start to wear the headscarf. My mother decided to wear the scarf about 10 years ago, then when my grandmother asked her and came to know the reasons she too started wearing in maybe since about 8 years now. My sister is just out of school this year (she's 19), she doesn't ware the headscarf though see believes its a must but says she'll wear it after marrying. Some of my aunties wear it and others don't but all feel that its a must. Alhamdulillah most of their daughters wear it. Now if someone like you mistakes a piece of garment as a political symbol and ban it they'll fall into the same category of people they despise for mentally and physically oppressing my mother, grandmother, sister and my relatives.

"we fight for the spread of Islam all over the world and you're going to live with it, sooner or later, whether you like it or not".
Yes I want to spread Islam to all mankind to save them from hell and worship there Creator, Allah (swt). As much as your missionaries want to spread Christianity to the unreached people.

21 December 2006 at 21:04  
Blogger Unite Muslims said...

Colin
I am sorry I didnt reply to your first commet. I mistook you to one of those regular Islamophobes I've met on the net, but after reading some of your comment I gather you are a liberal, am I right?

Here more suras from the Quran concerning non-believers or believers of other religions:
"5.59 Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?
........

That Quran chapter or more specifically that section of the Quran chapter you were referring to was revealed to prophet Muhammad just before a battle against the pagan Arabs of Mecca and God informs in it how answer there savage slander and the way to wage that specific battle. It does not apply to all situations and I think you know that the Quran was revealed to the prophet through Angel Gabriel during a period of 23 years during which there was turbulence as well as peaceful times. That is why Muslims seek the advice of scholars of Koran and Hadeeth so ascertain and interprete Gods final revelation in the correct light and context.

BTW, I know Daniel Pipe's website but I didn't know that he gave instructions on how to respond to muslims. Rest assured that neather His Grace nor I need instructions on how to think and to draw conclusions. Who is Fitzgerald?
I don't know about Pipe's but Jihadwatch gives instructions occassionaly, (that is when they can't find some "socalled Muslim" at action in some hellhole) Fitzgerald is a associate of JihadWatch and he's the one who usually comes up with these instructions or statistics kind of stuff, unlike Robert Spencer who usually broods on the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (and inturn the blow to his Western interests?)

BTW I am happy to hear you came to my country. Which places did you travel to? I am from Kandy in the central hills of Sri Lanka. Its strange to hear you didn't meet any Muslims for you couldn't have missed passing Mosques or walking into Muslims if you were in Colombo or any other main towns. I regularly see tourist visit Mosques in Colombo and we are glad to show around our Mosques to anyone who comesby. FYI we form 8% of Sri Lanka's population of 20 million and are mostly gathered in urban areas around Mosques unlike Sinhalese or Tamils who mostly live in rural areas. I think you don't know how Sri Lankan Muslims are affected by the north-east conflict. I've written about it here.

Yeah, our war is terrible and we are always frightened to travel in certain areas or towns because we don't know when a bomb will blast next. So I feel the suspense you guys may be having after the 9/11 and I don't blame you all for the prejudice and misconceptions you have against Muslims because I think Muslims aren't reaching out enough to other people or trying to alleviate the ills amongst us like poverty and education etc which gives rise to terrorism and inturn the inconvenience in our daily lives.

21 December 2006 at 21:06  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Sir,
The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to Mohammed.

During the last thirty years, the hijab has been and continues to be the political and ideological symbol of political Islam, Islamic states and Islamic movement in the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia. Imposing the veil on women by Islamic movement and Islamic governments has been their fist bloody action to suppress the wider society.

22 December 2006 at 05:46  
Blogger istanbultory said...

And another thing. One proponent of the ban on hijab in state institutions is Professor Zekeriya Beyaz, himself a former imam and later the dean of the Faculty of Theology, Marmara University Istanbul. There are many Islamic scholars who take a similar view. Some have paid with their lives for expressing such views. Alas all possible links are in Turkish.

22 December 2006 at 10:35  
Blogger Unite Muslims said...

istanbultory,
The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to Mohammed.

About Turkish religious authorities, I need not talk of the integrety of those Turkish scholars who still venerate Mushtafa Kemal Ataturk after all he has did to destroy Islam in Turkey. I am not going to argue with a nonMuslim about what is optional or not but since your concerned about the Hijab you'll find the following links from the popular Muslim web portal IslamOnline.net interesting even though it may be only to hear what authoritative and respected Islamic sources state on the matter.

1) Hijab: What’s It All About?

2) The Hijab… Why??

22 December 2006 at 16:43  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Unite Muslims is typical of the arrogance of Islam. He says: 'I am not going to argue with a nonMuslim about what is optional or not', so why bother coming here?

Are we somehow inferior? Are we incapable of rational argument? Such statements just highlight your own arrogance. It's as absurd as my stating I'm not going to discuss anything with a non-Christian, so don't even bother responding to me. And the saddest part of this is that you won't even understand the logic of this argument.

22 December 2006 at 17:19  
Anonymous Colin said...

Unite Muslims,

Thank you very much for your kind and detailled reply. I appreciate that.

"I mistook you to one of those regular Islamophobes I've met on the net, but after reading some of your comment I gather you are a liberal, am I right?" That's correct. Liberal in the traditional sense which sometimes is called libertarian. The main thesis of libertarianism is that all evil comes from coercion.

"I am happy to hear you came to my country. Which places did you travel to?"

Yes, I love Sri Lanka: beautiful country, beautiful and kind people (it was before the civil war). We travelled by car from Colombo along the coast to the southern tip of Sri Lanka, then we went to the central hills, visited Kandy and went back to Colombo.

"I am from Kandy in the central hills of Sri Lanka."

That's one of the most beautiful parts of Sri Lanka and no so hot as the rest. You should feel happy to be able to live in Kandy.

"Its strange to hear you didn't meet any Muslims for you couldn't have missed passing Mosques or walking into Muslims if you were in Colombo or any other main towns." Yes, that's correct. I now remember it was because there was so much to see and so little time that we decided to concentrate on the unique Buddhist culture of the country. We already had visited many mosques in Marocco, Tunesia, and Turkey so that the thought we wouldn't miss too much by not visiting mosques in Sri Lanka. Before our visit to Sri Lanka, I read several books about its history and culture and learned that the muslims of sri lanka are descendants of traders from arabia who came to former Ceylon several centuries ago. Fascinating. Do you still have relatives in arabian countries?

Thank you for the link to your website. I am sorry to hear that the muslims of Sri Lanka are targeted by the Tamil tigers. Why are they doing this, wouldn't it be in their interest to form an alliance with other minority groups?

"Yes I want to spread Islam to all mankind to save them from hell and worship there Creator, Allah (swt). As much as your missionaries want to spread Christianity to the unreached people."

As long as it only an attempt to convince people by talking that's OK. However, the problem starts when missionaries of different religions start to coerce, prosecute or kill people of different faith. This is absolutely not acceptable. There is no need to save people from hell by killing them. This kind of salvation is hell itself. You don't enjoy the killing of innocent muslims in Sri Lanka by Tamil tigers, why should Europeans enjoy being killed by the islamic equivalent of Tamil tigers?

22 December 2006 at 18:54  
Anonymous Colin said...

Unite Muslims,

On your website your wrote that you envision a united nations of islam (UNI). "UNI does not necessarily mean something like a Caliphate, it could be like the European Union"

The European Union will not help Europeans. On the contrary, it will rob its citizens of their freedom and income and destroy its civilization. An UNI would have the same effect. Why is this so?

Power is an instrument for forcing others to act in accordance with the interest of the ruler. A bigger state provides more power. More power results in more coercion, less freedom and more exploitation. It has always been so in human history.

You might think that this is only a happening in Western countries and that Islam will prevent such an outcome. Therefore, let's hear what the Iranian Grand Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sane’i, a contemporary of Grand Ayatollah Khomenei, had to say about the matter according to his own experiences:

"Power always involves lying, theft, oppression, and betrayal. Governance requires to dupe humans. The world of governance is a world of oppression."

Good luck with your plans to put the islamic world through a new cycle of violence for creating an islamic empire which then is likely to do what the Grand Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sane’i has described and what all empires have always done.

22 December 2006 at 19:21  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older