Swiss Minarets vote- banned!!!

[ComradeMan]

What do you think about the Swiss people (democratically) voting to ban the construction of minarets for mosques?

What will the fall-out be?

Right/wrong? Islamophobia? That's democracy? Islam is something people are worried about?

[ComradeMan]

Well, the ban is actually against building new ones, not the ones that are already there- which kind of undermines your argument from a Swiss point of view.

The problem with Islam is while the rest of us may respect everyone else's freedom to practise religion Islam does not.

[ls]

The problem with Islam is while the rest of us may respect everyone else's freedom to practise religion Islam does not.

Do you actually know anything about Islam, or are you just following the capitalist propaganda yourself.

Edit: Actually you can fuck off about "the rest of us", you deserve a punch.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I condemn such bans against Islam and support the Muslims in their freedom to practise religion.

...at least until the "authoritarian socialists" take over. :lol:

[Dimentio]

This is probably one of the single greatest reasons to criticise direct democracy. In the wrong hands, it will backfire.

[Comrade Gwydion]

If it weren't that sad, it would have been hilarious: The Swiss are worried about 'islamisation', because there are four minarets in the whole country....
Minarets often aren't even three metres high... It's so fucking.... unbelievable.

[gorillafuck]

The problem with Islam is while the rest of us may respect everyone else's freedom to practise religion Islam does not.
Islam as a religion (meaning what it says in the Q'uran) is hostile to non-muslims, yes. But that's the same with all other Abrahamic religions and some non-Abrahamic religions.

[narcomprom]

Islam as a religion (meaning what it says in the Q'uran) is hostile to non-muslims, yes. But that's the same with all other Abrahamic religions and some non-Abrahamic religions.
the main part of any religion is that you are special and the rest will rot in hell.

[Red_Xan]

No matter what, it should have been obvious in a mostly Christian country, this vote would have turned out this way.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Don't you just love democracy?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I do not know enough about Switzerland to comment on the reasons however we should oppose this on the grounds its a sliding slope of what the state allows and what it does not. I do not care about the freedom of loonies to worship their god but I do care about the interference of the state into the lives of working class people, vote or no vote.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'll be completely honest. It's hard for me to care about people's rights when it comes to "the right to believe in something completely idiotic." I know they have a right to do that, but when it comes to my "emotional" reaction, I actually find these kinds of circumstances hilarious.

Am I a bad person for feeling this way? I would've voted against a ban (if I voted at all), but I still really don't care at all in terms of my "personal reaction."

[Andropov]

The problem with Islam is while the rest of us may respect everyone else's freedom to practise religion Islam does not.
Christianity, Judaism etc is no different in this regaurd.
So wind your neck in or you will be reprimanded for your Islamophobia.

[bricolage]

Ok, anyone who is attempting to defend this in any way really needs to rethink things. You can spout whatever anti-religious dogma you've picked up but this has nothing to do with religion, it is a concentrated attack on Muslim communities that stems from racism and xenophobia peddled by the state and the culture of Islamaphobia built by the West. Even if you want to deny that this is Islamaphobia and still see it as against 'nonsense beliefs' or something you have to remember that our role is not to just go out and attack religions like this, that is completely counter-productive. Religion will die when the social conditions that spawn religion die, not when states ban minarets or churches or whatever. This is a discriminatory action giving the state power to ban, rotten to the core, and something we should wholeheartedly oppose.

[RedStarOverChina]

I voted #3, but I didn't want to---The other options suck, as well. This is clearly an anti-immigrantion measure, as much as I'd like to see both the minarets and the crosses banned.

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't give a flying rat's ass about your so-called "religious freedom"...I would hate to see a minaret (almost as much as I would hate to see a cross) erected in my neighbourhood. But when it's something that's so obviously targeted against ethnic minorities, you know it's not about containing the religion as much as it is about "teaching those immigrants a lesson".

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well, the ban is actually against building new ones, not the ones that are already there- which kind of undermines your argument from a Swiss point of view.

The problem with Islam is while the rest of us may respect everyone else's freedom to practise religion Islam does not.

You're not really that stupid are you?

[9]

What absolute drivel, anyone defending this nonsense ought not be involved with the 'left' in any context. Presumably the same tools who are in this thread defending this atrocious racially-fueled bullshit would also, were it 1938, throw their hands in the air and cheer at the destruction of synagogues during Kristallnacht because "religion is nonsense". How thoroughly daft do you have to be to completely fail to notice that this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" and it has nothing to do with undermining "irrational ideas". Wake the fuck up.

[Robocommie]

the main part of any religion is that you are special and the rest will rot in hell.

That's a pretty silly thing to say since not every religion carries the concept of Hell, nor of salvation by faith.

[Robocommie]

What absolute drivel, anyone defending this nonsense ought not be involved with the 'left' in any context. Presumably the same tools who are in this thread defending this atrocious racially-fueled bullshit would also, were it 1938, throw their hands in the air and cheer at the destruction of synagogues during Kristallnacht because "religion is nonsense". How thoroughly daft do you have to be to completely fail to notice that this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" and it has nothing to do with undermining "irrational ideas". Wake the fuck up.

I'd give you a cookie if I could, comrade. You're absolutely right. There is a rising trend of Islamophobia in Europe, as in the United States, and much of it is due to racism and nationalism. There could be extremely dire human consequences in the future if the Left does not recognize this and mobilize against this xenophobia!

[Slán_Abhaile]

Smash all religions, as far as I'm concerned.

[ComradeMan]

Do you actually know anything about Islam, or are you just following the capitalist propaganda yourself.

Edit: Actually you can fuck off about "the rest of us", you deserve a punch.


I lived in an Islamic country for 3 years and studied Arabic.

[Dimentio]

the main part of any religion is that you are special and the rest will rot in hell.

Not paganism.

[AK]

I vote for the minarets - religious freedom. But I do not support any religion.

[ComradeMan]

I'll qualify the statements I've made by saying I wouldn't actually be all that keen on erecting ANY new religious structures until religion as a whole cleans up its act!!! That includes Southern Baptists, Hindu nationalists, phoney new agers the whole damn lot..... and so on.

[Andropov]

What absolute drivel, anyone defending this nonsense ought not be involved with the 'left' in any context. Presumably the same tools who are in this thread defending this atrocious racially-fueled bullshit would also, were it 1938, throw their hands in the air and cheer at the destruction of synagogues during Kristallnacht because "religion is nonsense". How thoroughly daft do you have to be to completely fail to notice that this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" and it has nothing to do with undermining "irrational ideas". Wake the fuck up.
Before any more so called leftists embaress themselves any more just read Apikoros's post again.
Its absolutely spot on.
Blabbering about why you dont support Religions hence why you support the removal of minarets ohh and you would vote the same for church's btw.
Bullshit.
Shows a complete lack of understanding in the context of this vote.
This vote is not a blow against established religions, this is quite evidently a vote against Islam and immigrants within Switzerland.
Voting to remove these minarets and saying it its because you hate religion is just tosh because it has nothing to do with Religion. The context of this vote is quite clearly a descriminatory measure as a whole and so voting to remove the minarets is another vote counted as an anti-islam vote because that is the context of the vote in Switzerland.

[bricolage]

Something that hasn't be discussed as much here but something I'd interested to hear people's opinions on is the fact that this was approved through a direct referendum. How does this reflect upon or affect upon the idea of direct democracy?

[Robocommie]

Something that hasn't be discussed as much here but something I'd interested to hear people's opinions on is the fact that this was approved through a direct referendum. How does this reflect upon or affect upon the idea of direct democracy?

I think it raises a very interesting, and hard to answer question, just where is the limit of a society's say in it's own affairs? I think this referendum is wrong, but it wouldn't be the first example of such. Prop 8 in California was a similar referendum that stripped people of rights. And imagine if the issue of slavery had been put to a referendum in the Antebellum South - just because a majority votes something into practice, does that make it right?

But this is a bit uncomfortable to ask because it makes one wonder about democracy and people's rights to represent themselves.

[ls]

I lived in an Islamic country for 3 years and studied Arabic.

Doesn't matter, people on this forum who have lived in/know a lot about North Korea who've come out with stuff like "homosexuality barely exists there" still can't just get away with saying idiotic shit like that, you are no exception, if you go to another country and learn a lot about it but evidently still hold a moronic perception then who can help you? You're a terminal shit-4-brains.

[mel]

Something that hasn't be discussed as much here but something I'd interested to hear people's opinions on is the fact that this was approved through a direct referendum. How does this reflect upon or affect upon the idea of direct democracy?

It doesn't, or rather, the result is exactly what you would expect from a population that has been educated and indoctrinated by the institutions within a capitalist system.

Direct democracy won't in itself give best results unless the majority of the population is properly conscious of the tools of capitalist division and exploitation. A huge part of the work of socialists is to raise this level of consciousness, such that mass action on the part of the working class towards socialism is possible.

To expect direct democracy to bring good results regardless of the dynamics, education, class consciousness, and revolutionary potential of the group being polled is to expect far too much, and is amaterial. In short, this doesn't reflect poorly on direct democracy, but on the capitalist system of institutional indoctrination that divides the international working class against itself on the basis of race, religion, sex, nationality, sexuality, gender or any number of other factors.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Islam as a religion (meaning what it says in the Q'uran) is hostile to non-muslims, yes. But that's the same with all other Abrahamic religions and some non-Abrahamic religions.
Religions almost always believe they are right and the rest is wrong and will probably be punished after life.
That's no problem, actually. It only becomes a problem if some lunatics decide to do "Gods work" and punish the "heretics" during life.

[Lyev]

I don't give a flying rat's ass about your so-called "religious freedom"...I would hate to see a minaret (almost as much as I would hate to see a cross) erected in my neighbourhood. But when it's something that's so obviously targeted against ethnic minorities, you know it's not about containing the religion as much as it is about "teaching those immigrants a lesson".

Why don't you care about "religious freedom"? I would love to see a Islamic minaret erected in my village, just as much as I'd love to see a synagogue, a church or a gurdwara. How can you be so intolerant? Who put you into a position to dictate what people do with their personal time? Sure, I'm against the religious fundamentalists who try and ram their religion down my throat; but I'm also against anyone that tries ramming their ideals down my throat, whether that be politics, religion or otherwise. Why is it even any of your business what other people do, or what they worship? Furthermore how do other religions even effect you? Or is it just for the sake of your petty intolerance? That you know better than the Christians and the Muslims who choose to believe?

[RedStarOverChina]

What absolute drivel, anyone defending this nonsense ought not be involved with the 'left' in any context. Presumably the same tools who are in this thread defending this atrocious racially-fueled bullshit would also, were it 1938, throw their hands in the air and cheer at the destruction of synagogues during Kristallnacht because "religion is nonsense". How thoroughly daft do you have to be to completely fail to notice that this has nothing to do with "freedom of religion" and it has nothing to do with undermining "irrational ideas". Wake the fuck up.
Chill, Spartacus. As if the ultimate goal of communism is to put a minaret on every city block.

Comparing the ban with Kristallnacht is not exactly an accurate comparison...No one's smashing Arab shops or mosques yet. The motivation behind the referendum is most certainly racism---and that is the problem that needs to be fought against. The ban is, at most, merely the symptom of the disease; on its own it's next to harmless. The racism behind it, however, will be a massive pain in the neck for the of many immigrants.

While I don't see why any leftist would want to defend the ban, it is equally unwise to go out of our way to suggest minarets should be allowed.

What will our slogans be?

"Minaretes o Muerte!"
"Religions of the world, Unite!"
"All power to the Mullahs!"
"Hasta Los Minaretes Siempre!"

Doesn't sound very sensible to me.

If we have to get involved, say "Ban the Cross as well!"

[RedStarOverChina]

Why don't you care about "religious freedom"? I would love to see a Islamic minaret erected in my village, just as much as I'd love to see a synagogue, a church or a gurdwara. How can you be so intolerant? Who put you into a position to dictate what people do with their personal time? Sure, I'm against the religious fundamentalists who try and ram their religion down my throat; but I'm also against anyone that tries ramming their ideals down my throat, whether that be politics, religion or otherwise. Why is it even any of your business what other people do, or what they worship? Furthermore how do other religions even effect you? Or is it just for the sake of your petty intolerance? That you know better than the Christians and the Muslims who choose to believe?
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/p_large_nY6J_46e100023d6a2d0e.jpg

[Lyev]

Chill, Spartacus. As if the ultimate goal of communism is to put a minaret on every city block.

Comparing the ban with Kristallnacht is not exactly an accurate comparison...No one's smashing Arab shops or mosques yet. The motivation behind the referendum is most certainly racism---and that is the problem that needs to be fought against. The ban is, at most, merely the symptom of the disease; on its own it's next to harmless. The racism behind it, however, will be a massive pain in the neck for the of many immigrants.

While I don't see why any leftist would want to defend the ban, it is equally unwise to go out of our way to suggest minarets should be allowed.

What will our slogans be?

"Minaretes o Muerte!"
"Religions of the world, Unite!"
"All power to the Mullahs!"
"Hasta Los Minaretes Siempre!"

Doesn't sound very sensible to me.

If we have to get involved, say "Ban the Cross as well!"

But this is a western European country, with probably quite a high white, Christian population, and what with 9/11, 7/7 and the overtly demagogic mass media, the Islamic community in Switzerland is going to feel somewhat ostracized and victimized. Although lots of the terrorists in the west have been Muslim, there's obviously no corollary link between the majority of Islam and suicide bombing. However, if we say "Ban the Cross as well" we forget the situation. Islam is the victim in this. I think there's most definitely a link between the rise of Muslim terrorists and this ban; these people haven't voted because "all religion is shit" or whatever, they have voted because they feel scared and intolerant. There was no vote in Switzerland asking if people wanted churches banned, was there? Of course minarets should be allowed.

[ComradeMan]

Doesn't matter, people on this forum who have lived in/know a lot about North Korea who've come out with stuff like "homosexuality barely exists there" still can't just get away with saying idiotic shit like that, you are no exception, if you go to another country and learn a lot about it but evidently still hold a moronic perception then who can help you? You're a terminal shit-4-brains.


Your foul mouthed ranting serves nothing other than to expose you as someone who knows nothing other than knee jerk reaction at best.

Why is it automatically a race issue? This is about religion. This is about difficult choices and it also highlighs problems with democracy.

My problem with mosques in Europe, is that unlike in traditional islamic countries they are not regulated by any kind of islamic authority- just about anyone can rock up and call himself an imam and start preaching homophobia, intolerance, sexual discrimination and the like without any kind of control. That is why I would support an official islamic body in European countries before building new mosques etc. The minarets issue is just part of the whole difficulty.

On a more personal level, I have grave concerns about islamic teachings and values being in stark contrast to what people in Europe have fought and are still fighting to achieve after hundreds of years of witch hunts, persecutions and religious intollerance and would be concerned about their institutionalisation in any European country. I will qualify this by saying that I am all for secular states regardless of religion. The difference is that whilst some religious beliefs teach unceasing war on the infidel as part of their very scripture others do not, or have long since lost their power base.

[Andrei Kuznetsov]

http://www.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

[Robocommie]

Why is it automatically a race issue? This is about religion. This is about difficult choices and it also highlighs problems with democracy.Ah, so you believe that these things can exist without context, huh? "It's just about religion! Why do you have to make it about race?" You sound like a right winger complaining about people "playing the race card." If you don't understand the role of religion in culture and how attacks on minority religions are often motivated by xenophobia, then you don't understand the situation.



My problem with mosques in Europe, is that unlike in traditional islamic countries they are not regulated by any kind of islamic authority- just about anyone can rock up and call himself an imam and start preaching homophobia, intolerance, sexual discrimination and the like without any kind of control. That is why I would support an official islamic body in European countries before building new mosques etc. The minarets issue is just part of the whole difficulty.And who is going to form this "official Islamic body"? The state? Is this body going to be Sunni, or Shi'ite? And which sect of those two will it predominantly make up?



On a more personal level, I have grave concerns about islamic teachings and values being in stark contrast to what people in Europe have fought and are still fighting to achieve after hundreds of years of witch hunts, persecutions and religious intollerance and would be concerned about their institutionalisation in any European country.Hah, let me get this straight, you're telling me that you're afraid Islamic religion is going to undermine the European religious values of religious tolerance and freedom, after centuries of persecutions and Inquisitions and all manner of religious intolerance imposed by the state, and so your answer is to create an office of Inquisitor to police Islamic doctrine?

Seriously, how the fuck can you reconcile those two things in your mind?

[Robocommie]

While I don't see why any leftist would want to defend the ban, it is equally unwise to go out of our way to suggest minarets should be allowed.

What will our slogans be?

"Minaretes o Muerte!"
"Religions of the world, Unite!"
"All power to the Mullahs!"
"Hasta Los Minaretes Siempre!"

Doesn't sound very sensible to me.

Why not argue that the state has no right to legislate people's religion or morality? Oh shit, is that too liberal a value?

I guess if we just ban religion outright and start burning the Qu'ran and tearing down mosques, that will make those Islamic radicals think twice about being so angry and violent, though.

[LOLseph Stalin]

If they're going to ban Minarets, what about banning all other religious structures as well? This just seems like a blatent case of Islamophobia.

[Luís Henrique]

How does this reflect upon or affect upon the idea of direct democracy?

It doesn't. Referenda have nothing to do with direct democracy.

Luís Henrique

[Communist Pear]

I have several reasons for being against this ban:

1. It wasn't about the minarets, the party that started the referendum admitted that. It's about "stopping Islamisation" and making sure that the Muslims know they can't introduce sharia in Switzerland. (Their words, not mine)

2. Acts like these are dividing the working class. Hitler had the Jews as a scapegoat and now the right-wing populists have the Muslims.

3. If anything is done against religion (not something I would likely support) it should be done against all religion at once and clearly not against the people who believe in it. This was clearly done to scare the Muslims specifically.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

My problem with mosques in Europe, is that unlike in traditional islamic countries they are not regulated by any kind of islamic authority- just about anyone can rock up and call himself an imam and start preaching homophobia, intolerance, sexual discrimination and the like without any kind of control. That is why I would support an official islamic body in European countries before building new mosques etc. The minarets issue is just part of the whole difficulty.

There is no central governing body for Christianity either. Anybody can open up some protestant church and preach bigotry and hatred. And they do. Why is it that Muslims exclussively need regulation?

[Dimentio]

I'll be completely honest. It's hard for me to care about people's rights when it comes to "the right to believe in something completely idiotic." I know they have a right to do that, but when it comes to my "emotional" reaction, I actually find these kinds of circumstances hilarious.

Am I a bad person for feeling this way? I would've voted against a ban (if I voted at all), but I still really don't care at all in terms of my "personal reaction."

I agree that islam is an authoritarian, paternalistic and reactionary ideology. But to single out minarets is to promote the state's right to interfere with the faith not only of people, but of a particular group of people, i.e to conduct discrimination of a group of people based on chauvinism. This is not made to better the people, but to harass and taunt muslims for being muslims.

This is probably one of the more shameful referendums in recent European history. Childish and will only serve to create splinters which will be utilised by fascists to stir up the people against itself.

[ComradeMan]

Re the first point about religion and race, come off it please, to equate Islam with any specific race is rubbish and you know that, inasmuch as it is probably rubbish to equate any religion with a race other than perhaps, and disputedly, Judaism. It shows a blatant lack of understanding of the diverse nature of muslim communities in Europe- what you are doing inadvertently is to lump all muslims in together with a perhaps stereotypical idea of what constitutes a muslim immigrant in Europe- and if they were Bosnian they wouldn't really fall into that category easily anyway.

And who is going to form this "official Islamic body"? The state? Is this body going to be Sunni, or Shi'ite? And which sect of those two will it predominantly make up?

Exactly, who is going to form this kind of body? There were calls for such an Islamic council in Britain and I supported it, except this time it was the right started the hue and cry. You see? It is a minefield which is always going to be a nightmare in any state which does not at least have some kind of regulated islamic authority because of a long standing islamic tradition. By the way, these points about regulation were made to me by a Palestinian friend and reflect deep concerns that many moderate thinking muslims in Europe may have.

Hah, let me get this straight, you're telling me that you're afraid Islamic religion is going to undermine the European religious values of religious tolerance and freedom, after centuries of persecutions and Inquisitions and all manner of religious intolerance imposed by the state, and so your answer is to create an office of Inquisitor to police Islamic doctrine?

No, I am concerned that entrenched Islamic values do not respect things like gay rights, womens rights, freedom of speech, freedom of scientific experimentation and so on and are often aggressively opposed to them- as in the example of what happened in Denmark.

I am not saying that the values of equality and the like are exclusivively European nor did I say they were religious values. I don't think being pro-gay rights has been part of any religious dogma in Europe, not for at least the last 1400 years or so. Nor am I saying that Islam is the only belief system that may not share these values- but this issue is about Islam in Europe.

Stop putting words into my mouth, no one was talking about an inquisitor yet seeing as most muslim states have shariah police then it leaves one wondering.

I am not trying to reconcile anything nor did I ever state I had the answers but I was trying to discuss the issue without this knee-jerk and emotive mobbing.

There is one question I would like to pose however. No one has yet asked (here) why the majority of Swiss people who voted, voted against the minarets? Does that not at least lead us to ask what is wrong? Why? We need to analyse situations more deeply than blindly writing people off as racists straight away....

As for the other comments, well, sadly lacking knee-jerk reactions. To compare the minarets issue with Kristallnacht is about as crass as you can get. There is no similarity whatsoever.

The other assumption that is made here, is that all muslim immigrants are part of the proletariat. Is that really the case? Are all muslims in Europe immigrants to start with.... I think not, and secondly what is to say that these said immigrants are proletariat?

What I see people here doing, albeit inadvertently and perhaps with noble intentions, is stereotyping and pigeon-holing people according to the self-same precepts that the people they so despise offten proclaim.

[Communist Pear]

I just want to comment on a small part of your message, I don't have time to think/respond about/to the rest.


Are all muslims in Europe immigrants to start with.... I think not, and secondly what is to say that these said immigrants are proletariat?

No, not all Muslims in Europe are immigrant, but most Muslims in Western-Europe (the area in question) are. I don't understand why the immigrants wouldn't be part of the proletariat. They came here to work, how would you classify them?

[ComradeMan]

I just want to comment on a small part of your message, I don't have time to think/respond about/to the rest.



No, not all Muslims in Europe are immigrant, but most Muslims in Western-Europe (the area in question) are. I don't understand why the immigrants wouldn't be part of the proletariat. They came here to work, how would you classify them?

Are you really sure about that? In Britain, for example, and the Netherlands, there are 2nd and 3rd generation muslims. I would not class these peoples as immigrants, would you? They may come from an immigrant background... but it could be argued who the hell doesn't in one way or another?

Just because people work, does not make them de facto part of the proletariat does it? What about a successful businessmn, 2nd generation with a factory, or chain of shops- an employer- perhaps living in a middle-class suburb, driving a mercedes and going to the golf club (okay I'm stereotyping I know- but this is just an example!!!)

[Das war einmal]

I have not chosen any position. I am equally sick of islamophobes aswell as islamophiles

[Communist Pear]

Are you really sure about that? In Britain, for example, and the Netherlands, there are 2nd and 3rd generation muslims. I would not class these peoples as immigrants, would you? They may come from an immigrant background... but it could be argued who the hell doesn't in one way or another?
True, but what difference does that make anyway.



Just because people work, does not make them de facto part of the proletariat does it? What about a successful businessmn, 2nd generation with a factory, or chain of shops- an employer- perhaps living in a middle-class suburb, driving a mercedes and going to the golf club (okay I'm stereotyping I know- but this is just an example!!!)
Okay, I'll specify it better: Working class, so working but not controlling the means of production. (Excluding exceptions like people who can't work and live on social security) What matters is that you can't stereotype the entire 2nd/3rd generation as bourgeois or proletariat. It is a mix, like the people who already lived in the country. 2nd/3rd generation proletariat still deserve our support, 2nd/3rd generation bourgeois still deserve our hate. I don't think there's a difference between people who immigrated and the rest. I might be missing your point though.

[ComradeMan]

True, but what difference does that make anyway.

Well I believe it makes an enormous difference. If you ever speak to immigrant peoples and then to people who are of 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant descent it might surprise you how mucb difference in attitudes, values and so on there are- especially when the "host" culture is so very different to the home "culture". What about asking someone who is of 2nd or 3rd generation descent and holds citizenship etc of the "new" country whether they like being described as an immigrant or not? It can be a very complex dynamic.

Okay, I'll specify it better: Working class, so working but not controlling the means of production.

Fair point- but then we are not talking about a religious grouping any more.

What matters is that you can't stereotype the entire 2nd/3rd generation as bourgeois or proletariat. It is a mix,

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier on in the thread. Some fairly blanket statements were made about muslim immigrants being part of the European proletariat....

....like the people who already lived in the country. 2nd/3rd generation proletariat still deserve our support,

What does 2nd and 3rd generation proletariat mean? I think this term might be a bit clumsy and unhelpful to the debate. Perhaps I am missing your point here.

2nd/3rd generation bourgeois still deserve our hate.

... hate is a strong word- Karl Marx was "bourgeois" and so were many other thinkers on "our" side, El Che came from a bourgeois background too... let's say "people who cling on to bourgeois values"- or let's drop the idea of bourgeois and say "capitalists". :D

I don't think there's a difference between people who immigrated and the rest.

.... I don't know, my family are of mixed immigrant descent on the Italian side, so I think there is a difference- albeit smaller in this case. But I don't think that you can say that just because people are "workers" in whatever their country of origin that they necessarily share the same values.

I might be missing your point though.

Aahh.... if only words were more precise and people could say exactly what they mean in all freedom... like Confucius' idea of changing words.:)
It's nice to have a calmer debate and you make some interesting points- these are difficult ideas to wrestle with and often the devil is in the details---- If I am not clear then it is my fault that you miss the point. I hope it is a bit clearer now.

[Communist Pear]

True, but what difference does that make anyway.

Well I believe it makes an enormous difference. If you ever speak to immigrant peoples and then to people who are of 2nd or 3rd generation immigrant descent it might surprise you how mucb difference in attitudes, values and so on there are- especially when the "host" culture is so very different to the home "culture". What about asking someone who is of 2nd or 3rd generation descent and holds citizenship etc of the "new" country whether they like being described as an immigrant or not? It can be a very complex dynamic.
So true, there are a lot of factors you have to take into account.



....like the people who already lived in the country. 2nd/3rd generation proletariat still deserve our support,

What does 2nd and 3rd generation proletariat mean? I think this term might be a bit clumsy and unhelpful to the debate. Perhaps I am missing your point here.

Okay, I'll specify it better the part of the 2nd/3rd generation of immigrants that are proletariat. It's getting late and I'm tired. :P



2nd/3rd generation bourgeois still deserve our hate.

... hate is a strong word- Karl Marx was "bourgeois" and so were many other thinkers on "our" side, El Che came from a bourgeois background too... let's say "people who cling on to bourgeois values"- or let's drop the idea of bourgeois and say "capitalists". :D

Fine, capitalists. :P



I might be missing your point though.

Aahh.... if only words were more precise and people could say exactly what they mean in all freedom... like Confucius' idea of changing words.:)
It's nice to have a calmer debate and you make some interesting points- these are difficult ideas to wrestle with and often the devil is in the details---- If I am not clear then it is my fault that you miss the point. I hope it is a bit clearer now.
Wouldn't the world be a better place if everybody would just get what other people were saying?

[MarxSchmarx]

Minarets are a form of reactionary propaganda that divide the working class. No more reactionary, to be sure, than crosses or statues of "national heroes", and much less reactionary than, say, a burning cross or flying the Swiss flag in public places.

Because minarets are to be singled out, this vote is absurd and reactionary. No doubt a strong majority of those that voted against the minarets were racist shit. But that sliver of the Swiss electorate that voted against minarets and would also vote against flying the Swiss flag (which after all has a cross) in public, well, that's much more nuanced.

[Andropov]

Chill, Spartacus. As if the ultimate goal of communism is to put a minaret on every city block.
A deliberate distortion of her arguement.

Comparing the ban with Kristallnacht is not exactly an accurate comparison...No one's smashing Arab shops or mosques yet.
Depends on where you go in Europe now.
There are numerous cases throughout Europe of race hate crimes against Muslims and Arabs as a whole.

The motivation behind the referendum is most certainly racism---
Agreed.

and that is the problem that needs to be fought against.
Absolutely.

The ban is, at most, merely the symptom of the disease; on its own it's next to harmless.
Not really.
It is a legal and judicial manifestation of a certain reationary and prejudiced current within Switzerland that could be indicitive of Europe as a whole with the rise of Islamophobia because of the West's Imperialist expeditions into Islamic Nations.

The racism behind it, however, will be a massive pain in the neck for the of many immigrants.
And now they will be greeted with even more manifestations of this racism by being singled out in a perjudiced referendum.

While I don't see why any leftist would want to defend the ban, it is equally unwise to go out of our way to suggest minarets should be allowed.
Of course Minarets should be allowed in this context.
Any material marxist perspective must look at each case individually.
And it is absurd to suggest that this vote is in any way progressive with regaurds the mental condition that is Religion.
It is as you stated a racist vote in a racist context and thus must be utterly opposed by all rational Leftists.

[RedStarOverChina]

Why not argue that the state has no right to legislate people's religion or morality? Oh shit, is that too liberal a value?

Actually, that's one of the central tenets of Liberalism.

Though I have my reservations about the effectiveness of state-sponsored socialist movements, I have no doubt that the state can and should be utilized once in a while to bring forth positive changes in people's attitude---Not that this specific change in Switzerland's constitution fits the description, though.


Of course Minarets should be allowed in this context.
Any material marxist perspective must look at each case individually.
Your entire argument boils down to "because the reactionaries support this, we must be against it".

Well, that's not good enough, not to mention it's hardly a Marxist perspective at all. As Marxists, we have things that we actually stand for; we can't just go against everything some reactionaries support. That makes for a very confusing worldview.


Suppose the reactionaries pass a bill that forbids Arabs from hitting their wives.

Are you going to march out there and argue that in this context, Arabs should be allowed to beat their wives?

A sensible Marxist would suggest: get this---forbid everyone from physically abusing his wife.

[Robocommie]

Actually, that's one of the central tenets of Liberalism.

Well, it's a tenet I have absolutely no objection to. In fact, I'd have to say it's something I'd have a serious problem with. Nobody should be given any kind of coercive power over the cultural practices or cultural beliefs or views of anyone else. That's totalitarianism, and no Socialist movement I wish to partake in will sponsor it. I've had plenty of negative experiences with religious people, and I've had plenty of positive ones, and being a spiritual person myself I have no desire to have any state body start making decisions about what kind of view of the universe is acceptable. As human beings, our right to decide that for ourselves is one of the most precious things we have.



Though I have my reservations about the effectiveness of state-sponsored socialist movements, I have no doubt that the state can and should be utilized once in a while to bring forth positive changes in people's attitude---Not that this specific change in Switzerland's constitution fits the description, though.

That's foolish, and probably immoral as well. The state always runs the risk, even in a Socialist society, of leaning into totalitarianism. It would be far too easy for any kind of state apparatus to find itself wanting to affect "positive" changes in people's attitudes for the benefits of the state, and not the working class.

The people must be fed and given their basic needs, and given every opportunity to educate themselves - but the moment the state begins taking on the form of a patriarchal educator, trying to direct the minds and thoughts of the citizenry, it becomes repressive, not liberating.

Besides, read through history and you'll see that nearly every attempt by a ruling power to stamp out religious practices have tended to reinforce them, or even radicalize them. Certainly, every single case regardless has been an ugly and sad story.



Suppose the reactionaries pass a bill that forbids Arabs from hitting their wives.

Are you going to march out there and argue that in this context, Arabs should be allowed to beat their wives?

A sensible Marxist would suggest: get this---forbid everyone from physically abusing his wife.

Ah yes, because bans on architecture and bans on domestic violence certainly are similar.

[Andropov]

Your entire argument boils down to "because the reactionaries support this, we must be against it".
No its not at all.
Dont distort my arguement, what I said was this....

Of course Minarets should be allowed in this context.
Any material marxist perspective must look at each case individually.
And it is absurd to suggest that this vote is in any way progressive with regaurds the mental condition that is Religion.
It is as you stated a racist vote in a racist context and thus must be utterly opposed by all rational Leftists.

Well, that's not good enough, not to mention it's hardly a Marxist perspective at all.
Of course its a Marxist perspective.
Bu judging the material context of this vote it is clearly a descrimanatory and reactionary vote so hence endorsing it would be endorsing persecution against a vulnerable minority.

As Marxists, we have things that we actually stand for; we can't just go against everything some reactionaries support.
Yes of course.
And you think that any blow against a Religion be it descriminatory or not is some form of endorsement of Marxism, or a progressive step for Marxism?
That shows a complete lack of Marxist analysis of the context of this vote which is integral on whether we should support this vote or not.
Immature in the extreme.

That makes for a very confusing worldview.
Lazyness, pure and utter lazyness.
Of course we judge each individual situation from a material marxist perspective.
To go along the lines of "Religion bad, so any blow against Religion is to be supported" is bonkers.
If its confusing you then id advise you rethink your political affiliations.
If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Suppose the reactionaries pass a bill that forbids Arabs from hitting their wives.
In that case it must be analysed in its individual context.
Now what is the context of this vote, flesh out this hypothetical situation for me?

Are you going to march out there and argue that in this context, Arabs should be allowed to beat their wives?
Read above.

A sensible Marxist would suggest: get this---forbid everyone from physically abusing his wife.
No.
A sensible marxist would understand the context of the situation, the terrain in which this vote falls and then decide on their decision using a material marxist analysis.
Not some blanket template that can be applied to every situation.
Lazy politics, immature politics, and certainly not marxist politics.

[Robocommie]

Re the first point about religion and race, come off it please, to equate Islam with any specific race is rubbish and you know that, inasmuch as it is probably rubbish to equate any religion with a race other than perhaps, and disputedly, Judaism. It shows a blatant lack of understanding of the diverse nature of muslim communities in Europe- what you are doing inadvertently is to lump all muslims in together with a perhaps stereotypical idea of what constitutes a muslim immigrant in Europe- and if they were Bosnian they wouldn't really fall into that category easily anyway.

It would be rubbish to associate Islam with any specific race, but it sure as hell isn't rubbish to recognize the role that religious identity plays in ethnic identity, and how attempts to alienate and demonize the members of a minority religion in fact is very much like racism. It's xenophobia, plain and simple, and supporting this kind of attitude is supporting the worst kind of chauvinism.

I think it's funny that you're taking umbrage at how I'm going to lump the many diverse Muslim communities of Europe into a single stereotype, and yet you're the one arguing that Muslims are dangerous and need to be repressed to protect European culture.



Exactly, who is going to form this kind of body? There were calls for such an Islamic council in Britain and I supported it, except this time it was the right started the hue and cry. You see? It is a minefield which is always going to be a nightmare in any state which does not at least have some kind of regulated islamic authority because of a long standing islamic tradition. By the way, these points about regulation were made to me by a Palestinian friend and reflect deep concerns that many moderate thinking muslims in Europe may have.You don't recognize the fact that any such council, if given state authority, would literally be an office of Inquisition responsible for declaring mosques heretic or orthodox? This is why I have a really hard time taking you for your word about the values of Europe, because your solutions are even more hostile to those supposed values than building a million minarets.



No, I am concerned that entrenched Islamic values do not respect things like gay rights, womens rights, freedom of speech, freedom of scientific experimentation and so on and are often aggressively opposed to them- as in the example of what happened in Denmark.

Well where the fuck are all those moderate Muslims and their concerns now? Wouldn't they be just as problematic with their entrenched Islamic values? Maybe you should do those moderate Muslims a favor and stop arguing that Islamic values are reactionary values, since that's exactly what groups like the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood say.

I mean seriously man, would you read a little more? Try looking at what Muhammad actually said about the way women should be treated? Try reading a little about the scientific golden age that the Islamic world was in at a time when Europe was in anarchy? You're making a mockery of history by suggesting that the fundamentalist forms of Islam preached by extremist clerics is somehow the eternal hallmark of Islamic civilization - as if any religion or culture has ever had "entrenched" values!



Stop putting words into my mouth, no one was talking about an inquisitor yet seeing as most muslim states have shariah police then it leaves one wondering.

I am not trying to reconcile anything nor did I ever state I had the answers but I was trying to discuss the issue without this knee-jerk and emotive mobbing.
Oh don't give me that, you've very clearly been advocating exactly that and right from the start you've been crowing the exact same message spouted by people like Pim Fortuyn.



There is one question I would like to pose however. No one has yet asked (here) why the majority of Swiss people who voted, voted against the minarets? Does that not at least lead us to ask what is wrong? Why? We need to analyse situations more deeply than blindly writing people off as racists straight away....Hah, you know they had voted in favor of segregation in the American South. Should we have asked ourselves what was wrong with black folks, instead of just blindly writing people off as racists.

Don't pretend to merely be wanting to inquire as to the truth, innocently, when you know damn well what you think the answer is.



The other assumption that is made here, is that all muslim immigrants are part of the proletariat. Is that really the case? Are all muslims in Europe immigrants to start with.... I think not, and secondly what is to say that these said immigrants are proletariat?I don't suppose the Swiss are concerned about all the Muslim bankers, doctors and executives who have been moving in lately.



What I see people here doing, albeit inadvertently and perhaps with noble intentions, is stereotyping and pigeon-holing people according to the self-same precepts that the people they so despise offten proclaim."I'M not intolerant, you're the ones who are intolerant for calling ME intolerant!"

[narcomprom]

It was in the 1970s when the Swiss stopped lobotimizing and sterilising the gypsies and had given their women their the right to vote. Kanton Immerhoden granted it only 1990, after being forced by the central government.

The naturalisation process is also regulated by the community - you must be voted into being Swiss which effectively bars all muslim and balkanian Swiss from ever gaining any rights.

So much for wisdom of the crowds, their common sense and the merits of instant direct democracy, dear anarchists.

[ComradeMan]

It would be rubbish to associate Islam with any specific race, but it sure as hell isn't rubbish to recognize the role that religious identity plays in ethnic identity, and how attempts to alienate and demonize the members of a minority religion in fact is very much like racism. It's xenophobia, plain and simple, and supporting this kind of attitude is supporting the worst kind of chauvinism.

Firstly, no one is talking about supporting- there is a sense of evaluating the why's and wherefores of an argument. Now, I don't agree that there is de facto a link between religion and race in this day and age and certainly not with a "world" religion like Islam that counts many races amongst its followers, only 20% being "Arab"- unlike the common stereotype. There is no real ethnicity involved in Islam even in countries where it has been the historical norm.

I think it's funny that you're taking umbrage at how I'm going to lump the many diverse Muslim communities of Europe into a single stereotype, and yet you're the one arguing that Muslims are dangerous and need to be repressed to protect European culture.

No, I did not say that Muslims are dangerous. Here we go again, I expressed grave reservations at the values eschewed by Muslim doctrine(s). I was not talking about protecting European culture anywhere, if such a thing as European "culture" actually exists, I was merely expressing the point that whether we like it or not many Islamic values are in confilct with the ideals people here would espouse as is demonstrated in Islamic nations in law and custom.

You don't recognize the fact that any such council, if given state authority, would literally be an office of Inquisition responsible for declaring mosques heretic or orthodox? This is why I have a really hard time taking you for your word about the values of Europe, because your solutions are even more hostile to those supposed values than building a million minarets.

I don't believe it would be, Inquisitor is a Catholic concept, I don't think it helps to start taking terms and applying them randomly. The Islamic body would merely make sure that people calling themselves Imams were actually entitled to do so. However, I think this is a different argument to be honest. Be careful with the comment about the values of Europe- I meant that values in Europe, things that many people hold dear such as equality and freedom of speech for example.


Well where the fuck are all those moderate Muslims and their concerns now? Wouldn't they be just as problematic with their entrenched Islamic values? Maybe you should do those moderate Muslims a favor and stop arguing that Islamic values are reactionary values, since that's exactly what groups like the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood say.

It was someone else who brought up the idea of the minarets being reactionary. There are plenty of moderate Catholics but it doesn't stop people attacking Catholicism and its "establishment" as a value system- very often without the hue and cry I have seen here. The problem with the concept of moderate muslims is a theological one. Some (not me) might argue theoretically that a modern muslim is a lapsed muslim, some would not. There are voices calling for reform in the Islamic world however.


I mean seriously man, would you read a little more? Try looking at what Muhammad actually said about the way women should be treated? Try reading a little about the scientific golden age that the Islamic world was in at a time when Europe was in anarchy? You're making a mockery of history by suggesting that the fundamentalist forms of Islam preached by extremist clerics is somehow the eternal hallmark of Islamic civilization - as if any religion or culture has ever had "entrenched" values!ù

I have posted on the other Swiss thread- which parts would you be interested in, the one about how to beat your wife perhaps? Or about women not looking a man in the face because they are subordinate?

I don't like the use of the word anarchy- we have never really had it in Europe!:) Certainly not in the Middle Ages.

As for the glories of the past, well we could also talk about the slave trade in Africa in which Islamist expansion had a role. We could also talk about the marvellously tolerant Kingdom of Sicily under the Norman kings where religions were respected and valued, or we could talk about the sacking of Constantinople, and we could go on tit for tat about the pros and cons of issues in history until the cows come home. The fact of the matter is we are talking about 2009.

Oh don't give me that, you've very clearly been advocating exactly that and right from the start you've been crowing the exact same message spouted by people like Pim Fortuyn.

Strawman argument. I am not sure what you mean by "crowing", I understand it to mean gloating and there is certainly nothing to gloat about here.

Hah, you know they had voted in favor of segregation in the American South. Should we have asked ourselves what was wrong with black folks, instead of just blindly writing people off as racists.

No because that is not the same situation- different time, different place, different issues and above all this is more about religion than race.

Don't pretend to merely be wanting to inquire as to the truth, innocently, when you know damn well what you think the answer is.

If I knew what the answer were and had a solution I would not have posted the thread in the first place with a poll (which is not unanimous I hope you notice).

I don't suppose the Swiss are concerned about all the Muslim bankers, doctors and executives who have been moving in lately.

I don't suppose they are either- did I ever say I held out a special candle for the Swiss State?

"I'M not intolerant, you're the ones who are intolerant for calling ME intolerant!

Not quite what I meant:-

1. Tolerant sounds like a nice word- typical liberal unspeak. If you analyse the word it has a veiled and nasty streak to it. You tolerate things you dislike you just don't actively attack them. I am not keen on the word tolerant, but that is a different issue.
2. I did not say that people who choose to attack me and other for allegedly being intolerant are de facto intolerant. What was meant was their "defence" for want of a better word was based on some fairly negative and generalised stereotypes of Muslim communities in Europe.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Epilogue:-
Let's rule a line under this one shall we?

As we can see it's a divisive issue and there are many different views. Going by the poll at the top we can see that the majority view is by far that the minarets should be allowed. The other votes are divided in the minority but represent a chunk of opinion here- 30.43% . I would have been interested to see what the different opinion voters respective different opinions were seeing as they didn't vote "yes".

I have also learnt some things I did not know before and my views have developed as a result. I would also like to thank the comrade who brought some new facts about Buddhism to my attention too.

I still have my reservations about Islamic values and their compatibility with leftthinking principles and am concerned at their being institutionalised (as much as I would be if it were any other religion to be honest) however I will concede my previous lack of knowledge on the seeimngly "right wing" nature of the Swiss State and if certain things that have been presented here do suggest an unpleasant and worrying trend in Switzerland.

Perhaps it would be interesting to start a thread in which belief systems were analysed from varying Marxist/Libertarian/Left points of view.

[Tyrannosaurus Che]

I voted for the minarets. I don't like any religions, but minarets are not the most offensive thing about Islam, so this ban is moronic.

[counterblast]

My reason for voting against the ban was not on the poll.

This was not an act of "religious intolerance"; this was purely an act of racism. The ban was enacted to preserve the "white European way of life", by criminalizing non-white non-"traditional" European ways of life (which in this specific scenario just happens to be religious in nature).

[ComradeMan]

My reason for voting against the ban was not on the poll.

This was not an act of "religious intolerance"; this was purely an act of racism. The ban was enacted to preserve the "white European way of life", by criminalizing non-white non-"traditional" European ways of life (which in this specific scenario just happens to be religious in nature).

Do you really think so? I think that the no vote probably includes many viewpoints including distasteful racists ones no doubt. But I cannot believe that the 57.5% of the 54% turnout are all de facto rabid racists.

I see that there is a fundamental split here between those who see this as a race issue (solely) and those who see this as a religious issue.

But this act did not criminalise anything, so let's not go overboard with the hyperbole here. Earlier on people used the rhetoric of anti-Semitism in Europe in the 1930's. Now to separate Jewish religion from Jewish race is difficult yet I feel it ought to be pointed out that there is an enormous and essential difference here.

The Nazi legislation against Jews was primarily based on racial grounds and not on the belief system itself, Judaism was secondary in the matter. Later on in Italy the laws that were passed were the leggi razziali, i.e. race laws and not religious laws. The Nazis persecuted the Jews not because of their religion but because of their race- let's get that straight. Even people who might not be considered Jews by the Israeli law of return (which is based on Orthodox Judaism) were classed as Jews by the Nazis because of their genetic heritage. Jews who no longer even espoused Judaism as their religion and who may have converted or been atheists were still viewed as Jews by the Nazis whereas Karaites were largely excluded from the Nazi anti-Semitism on racial, not religious grounds.

The holocaust was not theological persecution but racial persecution.

In the case of Switzerland I feel that it is a clash of ideologies and if racism is involved, which it is no doubt on certain quarters, it is secondary to the matter in hand. There is no apartheid being implemented here against Muslims, there is no hue and cry and smashing up of shops, there is no rounding people up and there is no law being passed forbidding people's expression of their religion other than that Swiss people have voted against the construction of new minarets because for whatever reason they may be concerned about Islam and this is the issue that needs to be addressed. If a significant number are concerned about Islam then they must be concerned about the values inherent in Islam especially considering that most of the Muslims in Switzerland come from Kosovo, Bosnia and Turkey and are arguably European/Caucasian in race.

I am not defending Swiss racism, the original point was more to do with the dynamic between ideologies/theologies that has come to a head in Switzerland but is to be seen throughout the world and the problem with plebiscite in general.

[9]

Do you really think so? I think that the no vote probably includes many viewpoints including distasteful racists ones no doubt. But I cannot believe that the 57.5% of the 54% turnout are all de facto rabid racists.

It doesn't matter if some well-intentioned but ignorant people were in favor of this measure. Plenty of ignorant people are well-intentioned. Maybe Martin Luther's intentions in drafting "The Jews and Their Lies" were good deep-down. Maybe by advocating the burning of Jewish schools and synagogues, the confiscation of their possessions and land, their removal from society and forcible placement onto labor camps he was merely hoping to frighten the Jews into embracing Christianity because he was psychotic and genuinely believed Christianity was the only way Jews could redeem themselves. I wonder how many of the six million Jews slaughtered in the Holocaust would have given half a shit about Martin Luther's intentions when the Nazis moved to put his treatise into action.



I see that there is a fundamental split here between those who see this as a race issue (solely) and those who see this as a religious issue.
In keeping with my analogy, would you consider Luther's writing on Jews to be a race issue (solely) or a religious issue? Is "Jewish" a race? Has persecution of Jews historically (Crusades, Inquisitions, etc. etc. etc.) been a race issue or a religious issue? What difference does it make? Is persecuting innocent people under the guise of religion more justifiable to you? (<a rhetorical question; the answer is quite evident from your posts, which is funny coming from a Christian)

As is the case with the Swiss referendum, Luther's racism against Jews was grounded largely in religion. It's still racism, regardless of whether it superficially deals with religion.

For the record, I am not suggesting this law is somehow the start of some kind of Muslim Holocaust. But persecution against the Muslim population in the West is gaining increasing steam, and I think a clear and instructive parallel can be drawn between the persecution of Muslims in the West and the historical persecution of Jews, claiming justification on the basis of religion rather than explicitly race (and indeed, "Jew" is no more a racial classification than "Muslim" is - there are black Jews, Latino Jews, white Jews, Asian Jews, Arab Jews, etc.).



But this act did not criminalise anything, so let's not go overboard with the hyperbole here. Earlier on people used the rhetoric of anti-Semitism in Europe in the 1930's. Now to separate Jewish religion from Jewish race is difficult yet I feel it ought to be pointed out that there is an enormous and essential difference here.

The Nazi legislation against Jews was primarily based on racial grounds and not on the belief system itself, Judaism was secondary in the matter. Later on in Italy the laws that were passed were the leggi razziali, i.e. race laws and not religious laws. The Nazis persecuted the Jews not because of their religion but because of their race- let's get that straight. Even people who might not be considered Jews by the Israeli law of return (which is based on Orthodox Judaism) were classed as Jews by the Nazis because of their genetic heritage. Jews who no longer even espoused Judaism as their religion and who may have converted or been atheists were still viewed as Jews by the NazisThis is nonsense. What do you mean its based on Orthodox Judaism? The Israeli Law of Return is very much in line with the Nuremburg Laws which dictated who was considered "Jewish" or "mischlinge" by the Nazis; it is a racial law, not a religious one. I am an atheist born to two ostensibly-religious Jews (my parents can really now be considered atheists as well, for all intents and purposes) from the Conservative (Masorti) denomination of Judaism. In spite of the fact that I am an atheist, I am entitled by the Law of Return to citizenship in Israel. Moreover, if I have children with a Gentile, and my children also have children with Gentiles, their children would still be permitted to take up residence in Israel under the Law of Return solely because of the fact that I am 'ethnically' Jewish. In other words, a single 'ethnically'-Jewish grandparent is sufficient to qualify someone for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, so clearly, it is a matter of "race" rather than religious observance.

[ComradeMan]

This is nonsense. What do you mean its based on Orthodox Judaism? The Israeli Law of Return is very much in line with the Nuremburg Laws which dictated who was considered "Jewish" or "mischlinge" by the Nazis; it is a racial law, not a religious one.

Firstly the Law of Return was amended in 1970 in order to make it more inclusive and bolster the numbers no doubt. The original Law of Return relied on the halakhic definition of a Jew but was not really specific.

Jewish converts to other religions were excluded. see the Rufeisen Case, 1966 and the Population Registry Laws of 1972. Messianic Jews depsite Jewish ancestry are excluded from the Law of Return as are people of Jewish blood who have converted to other religions. Of course, people can lie their way through this no doubt. Now under the Nazis, people who were of Jewish extraction but had converted to other religions were still considered Jews whereas under modern Israeli law they are not. Here is the difference.

So whereas the Israeli Law of Return acknowledges the racial dimension it also works on a theological basis which is the opposite to the Nazi definition. A point in hand being the debate around the Karaites, who were excluded by the Nazis on racial grounds and to whom there was much opposition within orthodox Israeli circles to allowing Karaites to emigrate under the Law of Return, this was eventually overruled on the grounds of their religious belief and tradition

You will also know that the Chief Rabbinate in Israel plays the main role in deciding who is Jewish and who is not that can affect all aspects of life and you will also know no doubt that should I choose to emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return my Jewish status would have to be decided by an Orthodox rabbi. The return of the Beta Israel from Ethiopia also met with resistance from the poskim did it not? But the overriding factor (in days before DNA testing etc) was religious tradition, was it not?

I am not denying that there are inevitably going to be similarities in the definition of the question "Who is a Jew"? Seeing as we seem to be so perplexed shall we quote Maimonides for instance? But you have to acknowlegde that the Nazis were purely racially motivated whereas modern Israel often places more emphasis on the theological aspect.

[ComradeMan]

To Lex Luther, thank you for that article which presents are far more even handed view of this complex issue. A few points I would like to discuss.

For centuries, the peoples of Europe have defined their continental identity against the threat of Islam. So much so that it is hard to imagine a European identity that does not have Islam as its foil.

- The peoples of Southern and Eastern Europe probably far more. Britain and France less so, two nations which long has contacts with the greater Islamic world. I don't think you can compare attitudes in say Scandinavia with attitudes one might find in Greece, or Cyprus. However the article seems to acknowledge this here:-

There are, of course, good historical reasons for this.
From the eighth century Europe was in fact surrounded by Muslims to the East and South, who ruled much of the Eastern continent for the next millennium.
---
Of course, except in the wildest dreams of jihadists, Europe will not be taken down by Muslim swords today. But for right-wing fear mongers, the contemporary Muslim threat is just as nefarious, only the weapon is different.

This is also a problem- unfortunately the jihadists have perhaps become the most visible and vociferous- with the fall-out from terrorist attacks and various manifestations of extremism such as in Denmark there is bound to be a negative image. Perhaps it may be argued that as Zionists may be held responsible in part for the rise in anti-Semitism so too the jihadists and fanatics are also responsible in part for the rise in islamophobia. You could argue that the jihadists have provided concrete propaganda material for righwing fearmongers.

Indeed, as Muslim women live in Europe, learn the languages, get educated and join the workforce, they become more "European" - or more accurately, like women globally, who, if they have the resources and freedom to control their reproduction, choose to have smaller families.

This does not however answer the problem of honour killings and the many Muslim women whose rights under European laws are not respected whatsoever. There are numerous cases and some couragious Muslim women have spoken out about this too. We can't just brush this under the carpet.


Either way, it is clear that Europe is going to become more Muslim in the coming decades. The question is whether in the process it will become more Islamic - that is, publicly religious and impacted by Muslim religious symbols and practices - and which version of Islam will define the emerging European Islam.

I think this is where the article hits the nail on the head. The problem that I believe most people have is not one of inherent islamophobia directed against muslim peoples but rather at the fear of the implementation of Islamic laws- such as the Shariah debate in Britain. I draw your attention to the following article:-

http://www.muslimparliament.org.uk/MuslimManifesto.pdf

I would like to draw your attention to two articles here

2. Muslims living under the protection of a non-Muslim State must obey the laws of that State, so long as such obedience does not conflict with their commitment to Islam and the Ummah. Other minorities in Britain, notably Jews and Roman Catholics, do the same.

3. There are laws on the British Statute Book that are in direct conflict with the laws of Allah; these relate to such matters as usury, abortion, homosexuality, gambling, sale and consumption of alcohol, and the abolition of capital punishment; Muslims can neither agree with nor condone any part of a legal and social agenda which so flagrantly violates the laws of nature as well as of God.

Now when this is the official line of what is represented as being a fairly moderate group, so moderate in fact that its head Dr Siddiqui continues to support the fatwah placed by the Iran's spiritual leader on Salman Rushdie.

It's all very well pointing to the Beth Din (Jewish Courts) but there are many differences. For example it is a crime for a Mulsim to convert to another religion under Shariah law- would that then be implemented? What about the blasphemy laws that were finally scrapped in the UK in 2008 with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Would there be calls to reimplement them to sanction punishments against those who dared criticise Islam?

What about homosexual rights? It is the same Shariah law that states that homosexual activity is illegal with the prescribed penalties including the "death penalty for sodomy" in the following countries Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. What about women's rights? To take one example instances of rape under some authorities of Sharia law require for an allegation to be validated, victims must have four Muslim-male witnesses to the crime or else the victim herself may risk being charged with fornication or adultery for which the punishment is stoning to death in some countries if I am not mistaken.

I acknowledge that the far right have jumped on this issue, as they usually jump on any issue that serves their racist ends. However I still don't believe, especially in Switzerland a country with a high standard of living, traditional neutrality and high level of education that the no vote was a purely racially motivated vote ipse dixit. I believe that their are other genuine fears and conceptions that need to be addressed in the fall out to this event.


As a footnote- I would like to add this quote:-

In a public gathering in 1998, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the ruling Islamist party and current Prime Minister of Turkey, recited: “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...

And also note- that in view of the historical symbology of minarets:-

Regarding the introduction of minarets they were an originally an act of borrowing an icon from Christian religious structures and using it to declare Islam’s supremacy over Christianity, the "arch-enemy" of Islam. Al-Walid I, in 712, constructed the Al-Aqsa mosque, fitted with a dome (of central Asian origin). The dome was constructed using remains of a destroyed church in Asia Minor. Thereafter, minarets began to be added on mosque-tops all over the world. Minarets are not in anyway essential to the Islamic religion and were at first criticised by Mulsim purists, they are in themselves a reactionary and triumphalist symbol of Islamic conquest.

[counterblast]

Do you really think so? I think that the no vote probably includes many viewpoints including distasteful racists ones no doubt. But I cannot believe that the 57.5% of the 54% turnout are all de facto rabid racists.

You don't honestly think I am suggesting 57% of the Swiss population are rabid hate-mongering neo-Nazis do you?

Of course they aren't. Racism is not a dichotomy, where you either are completely racist or not racist at all. Racism is subtle, and more times than not goes completely unidentified (or in this case misidentified) by those who harbor racist views. Academia touting liberals are among some of the most racist folks out there.





I see that there is a fundamental split here between those who see this as a race issue (solely) and those who see this as a religious issue. Let me be more clear; this is a cultural issue, not a religious one. Were the nature of this ban to stop the oppression caused by religion, this would be a ban on religion, not on minarets. While religious in nature, both minarets and mosques are cultural symbols, historically identified with the middle east and north Africa by Europeans ever since European fixation with orientalism in the 17th & 18th centuries...

As the advertisements and billboards surrounding this issue suggest (eg; one commercial portrayed an Imam shouting at a muslim woman, while a billboard portrayed minarets as missiles), this is yet another attempt, not to question Islam or the oppressive nature of religion; but to "other" and essentialize those who do not conform to "traditional European traditions".



There is no apartheid being implemented here against Muslims, there is no hue and cry and smashing up of shops, there is no rounding people up...
Genocide, segregation, and physical violence are not the only manifestations of racism.
The dispossession of culture and enforced nationalism, are forms of racism too.

[ComradeMan]

So, you plan to keep spouting far right propaganda about "Shariah" and random quotes from the Turkish Prime Minister and ignore neoliberalism which the article I posted points out as the crux of the issue?



Typical anarcho-liberalism if you ask me.

So because one article states that neoliberalism is the cause and you choose to ignore all the other factors involved you are right and I am wrong. Most of the sources I have taken information from were Islamic and written by the "moderate" Muslims that others have mentioned.

[ComradeMan]

You don't honestly think I am suggesting 57% of the Swiss population are rabid hate-mongering neo-Nazis do you? Of course they aren't. Racism is not a dichotomy, where you either are completely racist or not racist at all. Racism is subtle, and more times than not goes completely unidentified (or in this case misidentified) by those who harbor racist views. Academia touting liberals are among some of the most racist folks out there.

-Agree there.

Let me be more clear; this is a cultural issue, not a religious one. Were the nature of this ban to stop the oppression caused by religion, this would be a ban on religion, not on minarets. While religious in nature, both minarets and mosques are cultural symbols, historically identified with the middle east and north Africa by Europeans ever since European fixation with orientalism in the 17th & 18th centuries...

This is where I differ, having also lived in an Islamic country. The minarets are a) not an essential part of Islam- which would then I suppose undermine "technically" the accusations of Islamophobia b) not as innocently symbolic as they are purported to be, and this is something that I learned from Muslims. The Erdogan comment may be directly related perhaps to the Swiss propaganda and the whole rhetoric of "bayonets" etc.

As the advertisements and billboards surrounding this issue suggest (eg; one commercial portrayed an Imam shouting at a muslim woman, while a billboard portrayed minarets as missiles), this is yet another attempt, not to question Islam or the oppressive nature of religion; but to "other" and essentialize those who do not conform to "traditional European traditions".

What is traditionally European about a secular state in which voluntary euthanasia is legal? That certainly isn't very traditional or "Christian" at all! I think it is a cop out to use this idea of the European "other", there are now numerous different ethnic minorities in Europe from a multitiude of backgrounds and belief systems. The proplem is with what people perceive as the institutionalisation of Islam. Do you really believe there would have been a no vote for a Hindu or Buddhist temple? If not why?

Genocide and physical violence are not the only manifestations of racism. The dispossession of culture and enforced nationalism, are forms of racism too.

You are right- but where are they intrinsically evident here? No one is enforcing anything on anyone here. People are saying no to the addition of something they do not want. But what we all seem to be missing here, and what I am trying to get at is the "why" behind this all.

[counterblast]

This is where I differ, having also lived in an Islamic country. The minarets are a) not an essential part of Islam- which would then I suppose undermine "technically" the accusations of Islamophobia b) not as innocently symbolic as they are purported to be, and this is something that I learned from Muslims. My accusations are not of "Islamophobia" but of discrimination against Eastern culture.

The "importance of minarets" to the religion of Islam is neither here nor there, the fact is, they are distinctly Eastern in origin.



The proplem is with what people perceive as the institutionalisation of Islam. Do you really believe there would have been a no vote for a Hindu or Buddhist temple? If not why?Institutionalization of Islam, in Sweden?! Please elaborate.

As for the latter question, you're once again viewing racism as a false dichotomy. I cannot and will not speculate the outcome of a vote on Buddhist/Hindu temples, because the attitudes of the Swedish majority towards those cultures it is irrelevant in calculating their attitudes towards those from the Middle East/North Afrika.


Just because someone in America is biased against Afrikan-Americans, it does not follow they are necessarily biased against Mexicans.





You are right- but where are they intrinsically evident here? No one is enforcing anything on anyone here. People are saying no to the addition of something they do not want.Your logic is completely lacking. A majority forcing their ideas down the throats of a minority; is enforcing something.

[Delenda Carthago]

I voted the third but I think that Swiss people had any right to deny anything they dont like.Islam on basis is a fontamentalist religion and Swiss people have every right in the world to choose if they want the minarets in their hoods or not.Freedom for indeterminism.

[ComradeMan]

So, you don't think economic factors come into play here?

In the country with the 3rd highest standard of living in the world and with a muslim minority of 5% I don't see how economic factors are relevant here.


Why the "moderate" is scare quotes? Do you mean to say that "moderate" Muslims are a myth?

Because "moderate" is qualitative not quantitive and thus difficult define.

PS. "scare quotes" - never heard that before.

[ComradeMan]

My accusations are not of "Islamophobia" but of discrimination against Eastern culture.

In response to the accusation of Islamophobia that has been made here and in general in the press. It could be argued that owing to the largely European origin of Swiss muslims this is not really about Eastern Culture- to which I would also underline the idiocy of the SWP propaganda.

The "importance of minarets" to the religion of Islam is neither here nor there, the fact is, they are distinctly Eastern in origin.

Well they aren't really if you study Islamic history...

Institutionalization of Islam, in Sweden?! Please elaborate.

We are talking about Switzerland, not Sweden. Perhaps we've all lost the thread here a bit.

As for the latter question, you're once again viewing racism as a false dichotomy. I cannot and will not speculate the outcome of a vote on Buddhist/Hindu temples, because the attitudes of the Swedish majority towards those cultures it is irrelevant in calculating their attitudes towards those from the Middle East/North Afrika.

1. Why do you keep saying Sweden? We are talking about Switzerland.
2. Well, seeing as the argument has been raised that this is a Euroecentric and xenophobic vote directed at those perceived to be Europe's others I was seeking an example of "others" within in a European context.
2. Most of the Muslims in Switzerland are from Bosnia, Kossovo and Turkey and not of Middle-Eastern of North African decent.

Just because someone in America is biased against Afrikan-Americans, it does not follow they are necessarily biased against Mexicans.

I agree


Your logic is completely lacking. A majority forcing their ideas down the throats of a minority; is enforcing something.

The logic in your statement is lacking for someone could turn around and say that a minority coercing the majority and enforcing something on them is still enforcing something.

[ComradeMan]

Firstly, Switzerland does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the neo-liberal establishment of Europe. Secondly high living standards for whom? Since the past two decades, statistics have shown that because of neo-liberalism, living standards for workers have been reducing and welfare measures have been cut. The ruling class would like to blame this on immigrants and social-chauvinists (like yourself) and far right elements grab such opportunities to divide the working class.

"The Swiss Confederation and the cantons together finance additional support for the destitute out of general revenues. Overall, the level of social welfare spending is substantial, accounting for more than one-fourth of total expenditures, and care and services are among the best in the world." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/577225/Switzerland/257007/Health-and-welfare

Take a look the GNI coefficient stats and the HNI too.


Ah, the word game. We could play this all day. It is a common tactic of far right anti-Islam activists to claim that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam and that Islam can only exist as a political ideological system. However, as Marx said, "Religion is the opium of the masses".

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I was the one who used the term moderate in the first place. Moderate is one of those feel-good words that everyone bands about these days without actually stopping to think what it means. Neocons and neoliberals would probably describe themselves as moderate in that they are not the Ku Klux Klan and the modern BNP is certainly far more moderate than it used to be, oh, and I suppose Mussolini was a moderate when compared to Hitler, and that modern fascists are moderate in that they no longer (overtly at least) propose the final solution. Moderate is a word that says little other than the value-judgement of the individual using the word- hence my use of the "inverted commas".


....Muslims migrate to the European countries not because they want to convert the Christian Europeans into Islam, but in search of wealth and a a sustainable standard of living.

Who ever said that all these Muslims were coming to Europe to convert the Europeans who you assume to be Christians. If one were to take a hardline Christian attitude to Switzerland, a state that flourishes on "usury", is secular and allows euthanasia you might find that orthodox or "hardline" Christianity would take just as dim a view as "hardline" Islam. This is not about Christians-vs Muslims in some kind of B-rate American Western in which we have good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats. Add to this 27% of Switzerland declared itself to be atheist.

You may say "Why can't they find that in their home countries?". They cannot since their home countries are all client states of imperialist nations where there are appalling standards of life for most workers. That is the only reason they migrate.

No I don't. In fact I have no problem with immigration whatsoever. I fully acknowledge the hypocritical stance of the West when it comes to immigration. I draw your attention to the fact however that many Swiss Muslims do not come from stereotypical developing world nations to start with.

How would you like it if Protestant England banned Catholic churches?

Non sequitur. No one is banning mosques nor forbidding Islam.

Also, the presence of extremist elements are an indication of the amount of oppression they have experienced at the hands of the western imperialists.

So now you acknowledge extremist elements? Is that not a point in itself for concern? But I suppose it's all right to be an extremist anyway as long as it's not a BNP extremist or a Zionist extremist? Come off it, all forms of extremism are dangerous. I also draw your attention to the complaint that was made by Swiss Mulisms about "foreign" imams coming to preach at the Grand Mosque of Geneva and using this for anti-semitic invective and hate speech.

Of course Switzerland has not directly taken part in such oppression, but the Swiss ruling class is very much part of the world capitalist system and they have massive interests in preserving the existing order to continue the exploitation of both European workers and the imperialist domination of Third World countries.

So the country that has probably benefitted more from "shadowy" bank accounts and in which probably every tin-pot dictator, crook and international criminal has had a secret bank account has not directly taken part in such oppression?

Now, let me get some things straight here...

1. I deplore all forms of persecution against any human being.

2. I respect the right of everyone to pracitse their own religion- as long as it does not impinge upon the basic and internationally recognised human rights of others.

3. I personally have no time for any form of organised religion- in my opinion they are all forms of coercive mind control- so this is not some holy crusade in the name of a personal religious belief.

However...

4. I reserve the right to express my concern in a peaceful and as non-offensive manner as possible and criticise any doctrine or ideology that I feel may be contrary to basic values of human rights. I base my reservations on my own experiences, acquaintances and also the writings of many other commentators such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasrin, Wafa Sultan, The Quilliam Foundation, Walid Shoebat (ex-PLO),Magdi Allam, Zachariah Anani, Ahmed H. al-Rahimm, Maajid Nawaz, Bassam Tibi and so on- on a personal note this is why I take exception to being accused and flamed as a racist by some who may not ever have even heard of these people, if I am mistaken then I apologise too-

5. Do I not have the right to express concern when I read Saudi sheikh, Ba’d bin Abdallah al-Ajameh al-Ghamidi, state in reference to the Jewish people, "The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places … is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam—which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam.” Or a 1996 Hamas publication says that today’s Jews are bestial in spirit, and this is a manifestation of the punishment of their forefathers. Or when in January 2007, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas stated, "The sons of Israel are mentioned as those who are corrupting humanity on earth,” referring to Qur’an 5:64.

Am I not entitled to express outrage at the following? And question the ideology behind it? :-

http://europenews.dk/files/Islam_Hitler_anti-semitsm.png

[Kayser_Soso]

Walid Shoebat was long ago exposed as a fraud. Wafa Sultan is a joke.


On the matter at hand- I voted for the minerets, not so much out of concern for freedom of religion but because as most people clearly saw- this is a targeted attack against immigrants. My only objection to the building of a mosque(I LIKE minerets by the way), would be if there was any state funding for it. So long as everything is paid for by the worshippers, and so long as Imams do productive work for the community, I would not object even in a theoretical socialist society to the building of a mosque.

[ComradeMan]

Walid Shoebat was long ago exposed as a fraud. Wafa Sultan is a joke.

So that's two on a longer list... :) Shoebat is controversial for the veracity of his claims but what have you got against Sultan?

On the matter at hand- I voted for the minerets, not so much out of concern for freedom of religion but because as most people clearly saw- this is a targeted attack against immigrants.

Well, I think it is more complex than that- but we'll agree to differ.

My only objection to the building of a mosque(I LIKE minerets by the way), would be if there was any state funding for it. So long as everything is paid for by the worshippers, and so long as Imams do productive work for the community, I would not object even in a theoretical socialist society to the building of a mosque.

Neither would I. Hence my reservations about Imams and my call for some kind of organisation, a call also echoed by Swiss Muslims in Geneva recently- for which I was accused of trying to impose some kind of Grand Inquisitor ( a role formerly held by the present Pope if I am not mistaken):).

There is of course the fact that "recognised" religious groups get tax relief in Switzerland, this came to a head when Switzerland did not recognise Scientologists....

[Kayser_Soso]

Walid Shoebat was long ago exposed as a fraud. Wafa Sultan is a joke.

So that's two on a longer list... :) Shoebat is controversial for the veracity of his claims but what have you got against Sultan?

Shoebat is controversial because he makes shit up, and has been caught in his lies many times. Sultan is an apologist for imperialism. Why is it surprising that there are many "ex-Muslims" or "liberal Muslims" who the imperial media machine can trot out at will? A large portion of the Middle East was once colonized, and naturally the imperialists could always find local Muslims or Arabs who would support the occupiers in some way.

In principle secularism is great yes, but the fact is these people are apologists for countries such as the US, which is not secular enough by a long shot. And what about secular Turkey, which has been a military dictatorship for years, occasionally using religion when it suited them(to suppress communists)?

[ComradeMan]

Sure. But do you deny that there is a recession currently and are you sure that welfare is not going to go down in times of recession?

Have you evidence to prove this is part of the vote in Switzerland? Swiss unemployment is actually down on last year.

Of course its a value judgement from the socialist/Marxist perspective. We'd like religion to be restricted to a strictly private affair. But this would be possible in a socialist society with a dictatorship of proletariat.

Non sequitur- you challenged me on my use of "moderate" and I explained.

However there is no such situation now. What we have is immigrants being discriminated against by a neo-liberal government that has every reason to divide the citizens in order to facilitate their rule over them.

Not really, the government did not really impose anything here. Swiss direct democracy does not work like that and there are major calls within the Swiss government to overrule this vote anyway.

Yeah. And when the Nazis started the Jewish people to wear yellow stars, they were just "expressing outrage" at "Jewish extremism", by which they meant that the Jews were about to take over the world. If you cannot see this move of banning minarets as a slippery slope towards a repeat of the old brutality, you must be an Islamophobe, simple as that.

Of course after Hitler had written Mein Kampf and his feelings towards the Jews were well known. I don't think there is any way you can compare the two. You are using hyperbole in order to cover the lack of facts and stats I am afraid.

That's right. Today there is no Islamic imperialism unlike Western/Zionist imperialism which is oppressing Muslims in most places of the world.

So the labour movement that is currently oppressed in Iran is a victim of Western/Zionist imperialism? Come off it.

But this is totally beside the point as this discussion is about a bourgeois state banning a religious place of worship in the atmosphere of increasing Islamophobia and imperialism. We have the American imperialists calling their imperialist war "A War on Terror" which can be seen by any fool to be nothing but a "War on the Third World" to gain resources and markets and thereby increase their profits.

This is a tangent argument. What logic is this? Because US Imperialism and Capitalism is bad, I have no qualms about saying this, it does not de facto mean that anyone and eveyrone who is perceived to be against them is beyond reproach. The Taliban were on the CIA payroll for years and Saddam bought his weapons from Europe!!!

Ayan Hirsi Ali and people of her type are just plain stupid liberal tools in the hands of imperialism. Most of the bullshit spewed by such types should be seen as working in favor of imperialism and as a justification of imperialist wars.

Yeah, yeah, because they might suggest some unpalatable truths to you. So we write off people who were born in a culture, brought up in a culture and speak out against its defects (as any culture has) and face great danger and persecution in the process for no real gain of their own- That's great logic, so by your logic any voice that comes from within the Islamic world and calls for reform is now an instrument of imperialism? Great- so much for emancipation and empowerment in many Islamic nations then.


The reason why you are a social-chauvinist is because beside claiming to some kind of "anarchist", you indirectly serve imperialism by repeating their propaganda.

Your logic is flawed because if I were to apply the same to you, you could be denounced as a theist from a Marxist point of view. Afterall this whole debate is about religion and not really about workers' industrial rights. Would Karl Marx have supported the minarets, along with any other kind of religious institution for that matter?

[ComradeMan]

Shoebat is controversial because he makes shit up, and has been caught in his lies many times. Sultan is an apologist for imperialism. Why is it surprising that there are many "ex-Muslims" or "liberal Muslims" who the imperial media machine can trot out at will? A large portion of the Middle East was once colonized, and naturally the imperialists could always find local Muslims or Arabs who would support the occupiers in some way.

In principle secularism is great yes, but the fact is these people are apologists for countries such as the US, which is not secular enough by a long shot. And what about secular Turkey, which has been a military dictatorship for years, occasionally using religion when it suited them(to suppress communists)?


I have no doubt there are many cases, but we can't write people off- If every time there is a voice for reform in the Islamic world we are now to write people off as in the pockets of the Western Imperialists where will that lead? Anyway, I don't buy all of it.

I reckon the US wanted its Saddams and Talibans as well- brutal dictatorships that suppress freedom movements buy arms and keep the prices of the raw materials down. The US goes to war if they are "naughty" and stop playing by the US rules, but they are still by and large US created.

I have often wondered... My country supports another country, its policies are unpopular at home so to bolster my position I fund a group that causes outrages here and there against my ally and then I can justify my foreign policy at home- by saying I am defending my ally from evil terrorist.... It's all a very murky world out there and politics makes the strangest of bedfellows.

[Kayser_Soso]

I have no doubt there are many cases, but we can't write people off- If every time there is a voice for reform in the Islamic world we are now to write people off as in the pockets of the Western Imperialists where will that lead? Anyway, I don't buy all of it.


We can certainly write off Shoebat because he is a proven liar. As for the others, such as Sultan, they are not interested in real reform, but rather advancing the idea that the West is somehow more just, more civilized than the Islamic world. It justifies Western imperialism to "civilize" the barbarians.

[Wanted Man]

4. I reserve the right to express my concern in a peaceful and as non-offensive manner as possible and criticise any doctrine or ideology that I feel may be contrary to basic values of human rights. I base my reservations on my own experiences, acquaintances and also the writings of many other commentators such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasrin, Wafa Sultan, The Quilliam Foundation, Walid Shoebat (ex-PLO),Magdi Allam, Zachariah Anani, Ahmed H. al-Rahimm, Maajid Nawaz, Bassam Tibi and so on- on a personal note this is why I take exception to being accused and flamed as a racist by some who may not ever have even heard of these people, if I am mistaken then I apologise too-

I have heard of some of them (Ayaan Hirsi Ali most obviously), and others are quite easy to look up. I can only think of two entries on that list who are not utter neocons, pro-zionists, fraud "former terrorists" or other people who are completely unreliable when it comes to this subject. I guess it's pretty easy to develop these ideas when these people are your political influence.

[Led Zeppelin]

Just a note: Ayaan Hirsi Ali was one of the most extreme anti-Islam (read; anti-Muslim) bigots you could find in the Netherlands, before Wilders stood up to take her place after she left for a Conservative Think Thank in the United States.

Oh, and calling her a "liberal" is factually accurate; she was a top member of the right-wing Liberal party in this country. Any "leftist" agreeing with her stance on Islam has put himself on the other side of the line, sorry to say.

[ComradeMan]

Was Stalin Islamophobic then?

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed from the previous attitudes that had been expressed by Lenin. Mosques were closed throughout Islamic Central Asia under the USSR. Imams and religious leaders were persecuted, Islamic schools (essential parts of Islamic civilisation) were closed down and Waqf's were banned.

Helene Carrere d’Encausse, The National Republics Lose Their Independence, in Edward A. Allworth, (edit), Central Asia: One Hundred Thirty Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Duke University Press, 1994.

I hope people here are familiar with the arabic term Itjihad and the modern movements within the Islamic world that seek to reform from within and that are often persecuted and also the legacy of the Al Mu'tuzilah schools of thought?

[Kayser_Soso]

Was Stalin Islamophobic then?

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed from the previous attitudes that had been expressed by Lenin. Mosques were closed throughout Islamic Central Asia under the USSR. Imams and religious leaders were persecuted, Islamic schools (essential parts of Islamic civilisation) were closed down and Waqf's were banned.

Helene Carrere d’Encausse, The National Republics Lose Their Independence, in Edward A. Allworth, (edit), Central Asia: One Hundred Thirty Years of Russian Dominance, A Historical Overview, Duke University Press, 1994.


Islam enjoyed a resurgance during the Great Patriotic War just like Orthodoxy(which was far more dangerous given the situation I would say). Stalin did not persecute Muslims out of Islamophobia, defined as the irrational hatred of Muslims and a belief in some clash of civilizations started by Islam. The Soviet policy on religion was that it was a personal matter, and the state promoted atheism. Of course the religious authorities in almost all faiths of the Russian Empire were having none of that, and as a result, they were punished. The Orthodox Church mainly supported the Whites, as did the Buddhists(one of the bloodiest, most barbaric and anti-Semitic White generals was a Buddhist), and the radical Muslims rose up in the Basmachi revolts. Some Muslim groups like the Volga Tatars and Bashkirs were very pro-Bolshevik however, as Tatarstan was the center of the Jadid movement, a movement to promote tolerance and liberalization in Islam.

[ComradeMan]

Right, this subject is evolving as it the issue is so recent. Let's take stock of a few facts copied and pasted before we continue.

Islam in Switzerland

Main Mosque
Geneva-Iman Yahya Basalamah.

According to the Confederate census of 2001, a total number of 310,807 Muslims were living in Switzerland which made up 4.26% of the total population In 2009 there were an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, accounting to around 5% of the total population.

Most Muslims in Switzerland are from former Yugoslavia (56.4%; especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia and the Sandžak region) and Turkey (20.2%)


Pro-Minaret camp


Catholic bishops- see Swiss Bishops Conference
The Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities
Association of Evangelical Free Churches and Communities in Switzerland; Swiss Evangelical Alliance
Old Catholic Church in Switzerland
Covenant of Swiss Baptists
Salvation Army
Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Switzerland
Orthodox Diocese the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Serbian Orthodox Church in Switzerland
Anglican Church in Switzerland.
Revue de Droit Suisse
Members of the Swiss government and international law experts.
Contra-Minaret Camp

The Egerkinger committee i.e Swiss People's Party and the Federal Democratic Union- obviously the right wing in Swiss politics.
Feminists: The Times (UK) cited support of the minaret ban by "radical feminists" who oppose the oppression of women in Islamic societies. The Times further reported that Swiss women supported the ban, in pre-election polling, by a greater percentage than did Swiss men.

Politics makes strange bedfellows :confused:. Of course, it's hard to tell what the exact make up of the Swiss no and yes votes was but from these stats and facts we can perhaps see that:-


far from being a Judaeo-Chrisitan and European Chauvinistic vote against a perceived non-European belief system, the pro-minaret camp mostly fall into the category of traditional Judaeo-Christian European religionists
the majority of Swiss Muslims are "European" Muslims, so stereotypical racism to Middle-Eastern, N.African and Asian peoples may not be relevant here.
there is of course a righwing dimension to the vote
feminism may have a role in the vote

[Led Zeppelin]

Was Stalin Islamophobic then?

When Joseph Stalin consolidated power in the second half of 1920s, his religion policy changed from the previous attitudes that had been expressed by Lenin. Mosques were closed throughout Islamic Central Asia under the USSR. Imams and religious leaders were persecuted, Islamic schools (essential parts of Islamic civilisation) were closed down and Waqf's were banned.

Erm, if you think my answer to this would be in defense of Stalin's policy as opposed to Lenin's, you clearly haven't read any of my posts.

However, the fact that you swing from Ayaan Hirshi Ali (extreme right) to Stalin, who some here consider to be a socialist which is why you brought him up after bringing up the former, proves that you're merely trying to score points here rather than come up with a coherent argument. You're clutching at whoever seems to agree with your position, even though they're from all over the ideological spectrum, and why? Because you want to point to them and say; "See! They share my position! It must be respectable and valid!"

Again, if you had read any of my posts on this forum you would have known that such "arguments" don't work on me.

Oh and as for the minaret-ban; anyone who supports that is simply deluded if they think that they're serving the socialist cause with it. Picking out one religion to target while not targeting others in the same way is not progressive, and such things should not be aided by socialists. That's like saying that we should have supported the Nuremberg Laws or other laws which put limits on practicing the Jewish faith because they seriously undermined the Jewish religion, while of course giving all others a pass. Don't be so stupidly absurd and hopelessly naive.

And any serious person knows that if that referendum was about getting rid of Church-towers as well as the minarets it would have never passed, unless hell froze over.

[Wanted Man]

Right, this subject is evolving as it the issue is so recent. Let's take stock of a few facts copied and pasted before we continue.

Islam in Switzerland

Main Mosque
Geneva-Iman Yahya Basalamah.

According to the Confederate census of 2001, a total number of 310,807 Muslims were living in Switzerland which made up 4.26% of the total population In 2009 there were an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, accounting to around 5% of the total population.

Most Muslims in Switzerland are from former Yugoslavia (56.4%; especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Republic of Macedonia and the Sandžak region) and Turkey (20.2%)


Pro-Minaret camp


Catholic bishops- see Swiss Bishops Conference
The Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities
Association of Evangelical Free Churches and Communities in Switzerland; Swiss Evangelical Alliance
Old Catholic Church in Switzerland
Covenant of Swiss Baptists
Salvation Army
Federation of Evangelical Lutheran Churches in Switzerland
Orthodox Diocese the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Serbian Orthodox Church in Switzerland
Anglican Church in Switzerland.
Revue de Droit Suisse
Members of the Swiss government and international law experts.
Contra-Minaret Camp

The Egerkinger committee i.e Swiss People's Party and the Federal Democratic Union- obviously the right wing in Swiss politics.
Feminists: The Times (UK) cited support of the minaret ban by "radical feminists" who oppose the oppression of women in Islamic societies. The Times further reported that Swiss women supported the ban, in pre-election polling, by a greater percentage than did Swiss men.

Politics makes strange bedfellows :confused:. Of course, it's hard to tell what the exact make up of the Swiss no and yes votes was but from these stats and facts we can perhaps see that:-


far from being a Judaeo-Chrisitan and European Chauvinistic vote against a perceived non-European belief system, the pro-minaret camp mostly fall into the category of traditional Judaeo-Christian European religionists
the majority of Swiss Muslims are "European" Muslims, so stereotypical racism to Middle-Eastern, N.African and Asian peoples may not be relevant here.
there is of course a righwing dimension to the vote
feminism may have a role in the vote


And? It looks like you're listing a bunch of factoids, and then draw completely subjective conclusions from them in order to appear fair and balanced. However, you shouldn't bother, because it's largely irrelevant.

[Guerrilla22]

Walid Shoebat is not "ex-PLO" he's been a christian his entire life and made up a story about being a former terrorist to try to gain credibility and make money doing speaking appearances.

[ComradeMan]

The funny thing is that these facts and stats have not really contributed to my opinion whatsoever.

If I were a Swiss citizen and had been voting in the genuine referendum I would have voted against any ban on minarets but equally would have hoped to have been able to express my grave concerns about certain facets of Islam in Europe.

The point about Stalin was merely in response to other points raised. It was not meant as a serious debate on Stalin's ideological point of view towards Islam.

The facts and stats were merely to show what irony there seems to be in the whole siituation and also to show that, contrary to what some have stated, this is not in my opinion a case of Christians v Muslims nor "white" Europeans v Middle-Eastern people.

Shoebat may be telling the truth, he may be lying or he may be out of his mind, but he was not the only one on my list. It is interesting to note how some may pick at one or other detail but conveniently avoid speaking of the rest.

[Kayser_Soso]

The point about Stalin was merely in response to other points raised. It was not meant as a serious debate on Stalin's ideological point of view towards Islam.

And it was not a good point because first of all, this suppression of Islam began before Stalin was voted into his position in the party, as the Basmachi uprising began around the same time as the Civil War, and went hand in hand with suppression of other religions who chose to fight rather than embrace a secular state and give up their power over people.

Have the Muslims of Switzerland declared a jihad on the government, and engaged in an armed insurgency?




Shoebat may be telling the truth, he may be lying or he may be out of his mind, but he was not the only one on my list. It is interesting to note how some may pick at one or other detail but conveniently avoid speaking of the rest.

When someone readily believes a source that easily debunked, people naturally focus on it and wonder why.