|
Post by penguinfan on Dec 27, 2009 20:40:29 GMT
Oh, I definitely agree with you that there is bias and, sometimes, outright distortion when it comes to surveys, especially when it comes to the beliefs of Muslims when people conducting these surveys have their own outside agenda to push. You may have noticed that the authors of one such survey (it was actually compiled into a book), Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito, recently came into the limelight in the blogosphere over the shoddy and, quite frankly, controversial methods they used to gauge extremism in the Muslim world. To put it diplomatically, the two authors 'cooked the books' by taking liberties in changing the criteria they used in their own survey of Muslims from past surveys. Many bloggers and commentators noticed their dishonest methodology and called them out for it, for example one such review of their book points out the following: sandbox.blog-city.com/dr_esposito_and_the_seven_percent_solution.htmBut what does this have to do with the two surveys quoted in this thread? Well, it turns out that none other than Dalia Mogahed was once again the co-author of the survey you decided to quote from - ignoring the other surveys on British Muslims conducted over the years, no less. So, I guess one must choose which survey posted above was actually more prone to author bias. Indeed, Esposito and Mogahed did have their agendas beforehand and it was exposed. It's unfortunate that Dalia still is running surveys from a formerly reputable organization, but I guess that's more of the same when it comes to political correctness.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 27, 2009 21:10:33 GMT
The only substantial criticism is about the "7% figure", the rest is ad hominem and smear tactics: "Well, they weren't "moderates" by 2006 standards. The 3's were neither "moderates" nor "radicals," and the 4's were "radicals." But this year, they've all been upgraded to "moderate" class, because they didn't "completely justify" 9/11. Whether they largely justified it, or half-justified it, they're all "moderates" now." The change as Dalia explains frequently is that the definition of "political radicalisation" is not narrowed or restricted to a single item, the justification or non-justification of 9/11; as Mogahed said, the 7% were different in terms of other criteria too e.g. they used politics as the main reason for 9/11 being "completely justified" while the others used religion to explain why it was not "completely justified" (although understandable and explainable in light of foreign policy); similarly the 7% were mostly educated and affluent in comparison to the 93% who were not; in terms of "religiosity" however they were both statistically identical. So one peice of data is not taken in isolation, but "political radicalisation" is seen to be due to the combination of multiple opinions and a political orientation. Yet even these 7% are not as would be the stereotype; like the other 93% most believe a move towards democracy (which America is hampering in many Muslim countries) would be in the interests of Muslims. The findings also revealed that Muslims across the world want neither secularism nor theocracy. They want freedom, rights and democratisation. At the same time, however, they claim that society should be built upon religious Islamic values and that the shari'a (Islamic law) should be a source of law. Simply put, the majority of Muslim women and men want rights and religion, and they don't see the two as being mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 27, 2009 21:21:08 GMT
Well the rest of us see Sharia law as being incompatible with freedom. I do not think Non Muslims should be second class citizens or women should be punished for rape.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 27, 2009 21:33:52 GMT
Well the rest of us see Sharia law as being incompatible with freedom. I do not think Non Muslims should be second class citizens or women should be punished for rape. Nor do most Muslims today. The Pakistani and Nigerian laws on rape have been severely criticised by many ulama as being based on a wrong understanding of classical fiqh opinions (but unfortunately the ulama no longer have the political sway they used to). E.g. Zaid Shakir succintly wrote "In a somewhat related issue, it should be noted that in three of the four Sunni schools of law, as is the case with all of the major Shiite schools, pregnancy is not a proof of fornication, as the possibility of rape exists in such a case. Therefore, if a single woman were to become pregnant, according to the overwhelming majority of Islamic jurists, there is no basis for punishing her. In the few well-publicized instances where a pregnant woman has been threatened with a punishment, the minority opinion of the Maliki School of law was unjustly evoked, as occurred in Nigeria[1], or criminal malfeasance occurred as is the case in Pakistan[2]." www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/islam_and_honor_killings/ For a detailed critique based on classical fiqh, see: www.karamah.org/docs/Zina_article_Final.pdfAs for shariah, a good place to start is Feldman's article: No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word “Shariah” conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more? How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorized torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of Shariah, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.In fact, for most of its history, Islamic law offered the most liberal and humane legal principles available anywhere in the world. Today, when we invoke the harsh punishments prescribed by Shariah for a handful of offenses, we rarely acknowledge the high standards of proof necessary for their implementation. Before an adultery conviction can typically be obtained, for example, the accused must confess four times or four adult male witnesses of good character must testify that they directly observed the sex act. The extremes of our own legal system — like life sentences for relatively minor drug crimes, in some cases — are routinely ignored. We neglect to mention the recent vintage of our tentative improvements in family law. It sometimes seems as if we need Shariah as Westerners have long needed Islam: as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good.
...
How is it that what so many Westerners see as the most unappealing and premodern aspect of Islam is, to many Muslims, the vibrant, attractive core of a global movement of Islamic revival? The explanation surely must go beyond the oversimplified assumption that Muslims want to use Shariah to reverse feminism and control women — especially since large numbers of women support the Islamists in general [that is, in Muslim countries] and the ideal of Shariah in particular.
Read the rest here: www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16Shariah-t.htmlRhetoric is often substituted for reality. Another example of Feldman's critique of the apparent amnesia of the West of its own tradition (and the shariah "as a canvas on which to project our ideas of the horrible, and as a foil to make us look good") is the fact the Native Americans did not have their right to religious freedom until 1978 - the First Amendment, it was argued, did not include non-citizens, and the indigenous peoples of the Americas were not true citizens.
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 27, 2009 21:45:02 GMT
Zameel
Tell me about the following the Muslim world
a.) open Christian Worship b.) New Christian Churches being made c.) Christian Seminaries
feel free to tell me about the Hindu, Jewish etc equivalent of the above too
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 27, 2009 21:55:25 GMT
here is another example of enlightened Sharia law in action www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/sharia-tightens-its-grip-on-banda-aceh-1850916.htmlTell me, why is this a police issue but for religious reasons. Zameel you miss the point on this. No one thinks Sharia is pure barbarism, but people are smart enough to realize it accords far less rights to both Muslims and Non Muslims then current Western Law. It is absurd to compare Sharia to say 17th century British law cause 17th Century British no longer exists. It is double absurd to justify abuse of liberty that is so prevalent in Sharia law by pointing out how in the past Western law allowed it. Two wrongs do not make a right and unlike Sharia, Western Law ended the abuses.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 28, 2009 0:31:16 GMT
It is absurd to compare Sharia to say 17th century British law cause 17th Century British no longer exists. It is double absurd to justify abuse of liberty that is so prevalent in Sharia law by pointing out how in the past Western law allowed it. Two wrongs do not make a right and unlike Sharia, Western Law ended the abuses. This is an important remark, as it reveals the major assumption that many non-Muslims in the West, consciously or unconsciously, adopt: that the shariah is static, unchanging and the same then and now. Some even think it is all-encompassing, so countries practicing "shariah" should share the same experience (anyone who knows anything about Islamic history will know how absurd such a claim is). Is shariah then the same as shariah now? Shariah now is confused and lost, because there are no official "keepers of the law" (ulama/fuqaha) as there were in premodern times. For many it's an identity issue, which results in "identity politics" and the loss of the true spirit of shariah (such is the case with fundamentalist groups). But for most in the Muslim world who seek "shariah" it is because shariah for them means "the rule of law" which would displace the despotic rulers that now rule over them. In the past shariah was interpreted by the ulama who had true political power as they controlled the masses and the rulers were fearful of revolts. In today's Muslim countries only in two societies do ulama have power - one is Iran where the mullahs and the ayatollahs rule but because they are not counterbalanced by the political rulers (as was in the past) there is a tendency towards despotism there too (but the American-run media certainly hypes up Iranian crimes); the other is Saudi Arabia where the ulama have only very limited power because the rulers are not all that interested in their subjects as all their wealth comes from petrodollars. Why did the traditional system of ulama-rulers counterbalance breakdown? One reason was precisely because the shariah was never thought to be a single "law" until the Ottoman reforms which adopted many legal concepts from the French in the 19th century and consequently codified law. This meant the ulama could be disposed of as keepers of the law. The second major reason was the introduction of foreign legal systems which was this very same "codified" form of law during colonialism, and as a result the piece-meal application of the shariah (without its holistic and total ideal), which led to some dramatic disadvantages for some groups (like women and non-Muslims) e.g. with non-Muslims who had total internal autonomy previously (as Thomas Arnold writes "the non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy, for the government placed in their hand the independent management of their internal affairs, and their religious leaders exercised judicial functions in cases that involved their co-religionists only"), this was lost with the European ideal of one rule for all, so many of their rights were lost. Amira Sonbol from Georgetown University also documents how the piece-meal application of the shariah following European norms led to women being disadvantaged also. "It is absurd to compare Sharia to say 17th century British law cause 17th Century British no longer exists". But "British law" still exists and if we were to essentialise "British law" as you do "shariah" then we would have to make such an absurd comparison. Nonetheless you are correct: the standards in 17th century should be compared like for like - was the shariah more humane than other legal systems in the 17th century? The work of Richard Bulliet and others show that it certainly was, and the legal reforms that occured in Europe during the 11th and 12th centuries were most probably an influence of Islamic views of justice and equality before the law (Marcel Boisard, "On the Probable Influence of Islam on Western Public and International Law", International Journal of Middle East Studies 11 (4): 429–50). As for "shariah" today, as I said it does not exist in the classical model - Feldman describes it well. But does Islamic culture or law facilitate the abuse of human rights in Muslim countries today? Taking into account other factors, an objective and scientific analysis reveals that it does not: “The data have provided strong evidence supporting the assertion that government rooted in Islam does not facilitate the abuse of human rights, as the variable representing Islamic political culture was consistently statistically insignificant” (Islam and Human Rights: A Case of Deceptive First Appearances, Daniel Price, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 41, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 213-225). Through our media-led myopia however we often fail to see that supposed democratic ideals are worse human rights abusers than the worst of "Muslim" countries. For example, during its reign of terror in the eightees and early ninetees, Saddam’s Iraq was supported by the US but then a media-led smear campaign began in order to legitimise the future Gulf war (and the genocidal US sanctions in the 90s which led to an estimated million children dead). Norman Finkelstein at this time (1991) analysed the supposed human rights violations of Iraq and the war crimes with Israel and found that Israel’s crimes in terms of war crimes (killing unprovoked 20000 Lebanese in 1982 due to their “peace offensive"; ethnically cleansing a million people in 48 and 67; torturing and killing protestors during the intifada; Sharon ordering the murder of thousands of innocents at Sabra and Shatilla, inc women and children etc.) were in fact far worse and broke more international agreements (Israel and Iraq: A Double Standard, Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Winter, 1991), pp. 43-56). Tell me about the following the Muslim world a.) open Christian Worship b.) New Christian Churches being made c.) Christian Seminaries The more discriminatory laws with regards to non-Muslim minorities (dhimmis) in Muslim society were rarely enforced. The obligatory laws that if broken would violate the dhimma pact did not include the more discriminatory laws - they included: murdering Muslims, sabotage and treason, and blasphemy/open insults (mature debates like that between St John the Damascene and Muslim scholars were never discouraged). The Church's attitude to minorities (which were mainly Jews and pagans, and the Indians in the Americas) in premodern time was far far worse. A good easy-to-read (albeit lengthy) analysis which uses good source material: www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude/As Thomas Arnold observes with regards to the laws against building new churches by the legists, "like so many of the lucubrations of Muhammadan legists, these prescrip- tions bore but little relation to actual facts" (as the more discriminatory regulations were thought to be recommendations not obligations), and many example exists of new churches built during Muslim rule. Arnold offers several examples and says "the civil authority permitted the Copts to erect churches in the new capital of Cairo. In other cities also the Christians were allowed to erect new churches" (p. 66) feel free to tell me about the Hindu, Jewish etc equivalent If you're talking about the modern period, here are some examples: 1. the Gujurat massacres of Muslims in 2002 perpetrated by Hindu mobs and facilitated by the Hindu-nationalist government - the BJP 2. According to a Hindu MP, rape at certain times is fine: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/goa-mp-says-rape-after-midnight-not-a-crime-1843100.html3. The large Babri Masjid was destroyed by the BJP Hidutva to replace it with a temple 4. With regards to Jews, the Haredi Jews are exerting more and more influence on Israeli society much to the dismay of their secular counterparts - there was the recent shooting of gays, killing three (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/02/world/fg-israel-shooting2); there was also the attack on women who tried to worship at the Wailing Wall (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09356/1022781-82.stm?cmpid=news.xml). Most significant of all: Yaakov Neeman, Israeli Justice Minister, Says Jewish Law Must Become Binding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/yaakov-neeman-israeli-jus_n_384385.html). The Halakhic laws in fact are more restricting, and don't give women inheritance, property, divorce, or testimony rights (unlike the shariah). 5. There are also extremist Jews infiltrating Canada and America. E.g. Jews lobbied in New York to stop Christmas celebrations e.g. putting up trees, arguing it was not kosher (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3815175,00.html) 6. The violent Kahanist ideology (and the Jewish Defense League) is still present amongst extremist Jews. Baruch Goldstein's murder of dozens of Muslim worshippers in 1994 is still celebrated amongst some Jews today (who visit his grave and sing eulogies of him). Israeli settlers recently burnt Qurans and attacked a mosque (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6953281.ece) 7. And worst of all following ancient Jewish laws of war (as found in Joshua and Deuteronomy), an important Rabbi supported and funded by the Israeli government Yitzhak Shapiro believes it's fine to kill Arab women and children and there should be no mercy shown to them (just as was done at the start of this year in Gaza), if and when Israel believes they are in any way affecting Jewish hegemony of that land (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1126890.html haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128767.html - show no mercy, if you do, you'll be damned: www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128144.html ). These are just some examples. Reconstructionists and Dominionists of some American Christian theologians have infiltrated the mainstream Right and thus much of the population. Which is why in the 80s Joseph Kony's brutal terrorist campaign to install Biblical law in Uganda was supported by Americans; why an attempt to introduce death penalty in Uganda for gays was supported by American Christians; and why recently the Bible was used by jurors in America to decide a man should be executed www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18483 .
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 28, 2009 1:35:07 GMT
Zameel
You don't get it do you.
As of now a person has far more freedom under Western Law then they have under Sharia Law, whatever incarnation it takes.
Western Law is religion neutral, Sharia law assumes that Muslims are in some way superior to non Muslims. That is just the nature of Sharia and speaking for myself I do not want to be a second class citizen, regardless of how second class I am. In the eyes of Western Law my religion is my business alone, it neither makes me a first class citizen or a second class citizen.
Lets say I was a Christian, Hindu etc, which system do you think I would prefer to live under? The answer is obvious
Western Law does not punish consenting sex between adults, Sharia does. Which one do you think offers more freedom.
Let's say I was homo sexual, which system would I prefer to live under? The answer is obvious.
Western Law treats the genders equally before the law, Sharia is patriarchal. If I was a women , under which legal system would I prefer to exist. The answer is again obvious.
I am not claiming current Sharia law is complete barbarism but from the perspective of human rights it is completely inferior to current Western Law. It is patriarchal at best and it considers non Muslims to be second class citizens at best.
People are not stupid Zameel and they know what is before them. Everyone knows you cannot build a Church, Temple etc in Muslim Countries with a possible exception of Turkey. I can build a church in India, or Europe etc. The reason is these areas are religiously neutral.
Honor killings Zameel. These if they are punished are punished lightly. Acid attacks on women are rarely punished. While all societies have people who prey upon women, no society is so ambivalent as is Muslim society.
Ahh Zameel I think you mis qouted me.
I said "feel free to tell me about the Hindu, Jewish etc equivalent"
I was looking for their places of worship.
So with the possible exception of Turkey, tell me where in the Muslim worlds exist non Muslim religion engaging in the following activities
a.) open construction of new religious buildings b.) seminaries c.) open worship and evangelicalism
Don't go go back to the 14th century for an explanation, don't blame Colonialism, don't say hey you did that in the 12 hundreds etc. If you think Sharia is so compatible with freedom give us some current example. If you think it is equal to Western law in terms of freedom, show us all the open activities of other religions in the Islamic World going on without persecution be it by the citizens or the government.
Hint Zameel. If Muslims want freedom for themselves, they should grant it to non Muslims. And not the freedom of being a second class citizen.
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Dec 28, 2009 15:31:05 GMT
Right, because Muslims who mostly justify, as opposed to totally justify mass murder of civilians, are moderates.
Good point.
Please provide a link or source as to where Mogahed says this.
Cool - so every American republican and Israeli voter is a moderate, because they believe in democracy by casting their vote.
Nice to see your logic is in full swing here.
Have you read the book? One reviewer points this exact problem out that the book makes. The book doesn't distinguish between Muslims who want Western style liberal democracy from a Hamas style democracy - where democratic concepts, such as the freedom to criticize Muhammad and Islam, along with a clear separation between religion and state is enforced.
I would not consider Muslims who believe in a democracy that fuses Islam into the constitution, along with severe restrictions in freedom of speech (not to mention a strong support for terror attacks against non-Muslim civilians) to be moderates by any abuse of the word.
But obviously you do. And you're performing some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to cover up for Dalia's unscrupulous tactics when it comes to cooking the numbers to make it seem that the vast majority of Muslims are moderates.
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 28, 2009 16:15:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Dec 28, 2009 18:01:59 GMT
Yet another example of both Zameer and Dalia selectively citing surveys to fit their prejudices. I must say, I'm no longer surprised at how Dalia could manipulate raw data to make Muslims who support terrorism against civilians 'moderates' considering that now she cites polls that only fit her beliefs that Muslims are really just as moderate as everyone else. Too bad that Zameel has uncritically lapped this up, no less. Really? Because an opinion poll from 2002 showed that a strong minority of Muslims from Pakistan support suicide bombings against non-Muslim civilians in order to defend the honor of Islam. That's also ignoring what else the poll you cited reveals - that nearly half of Pakistanis have 'faith' in Osama bin Laden. Of course, believing the results of the survey, one would once again have to put their blinkers on. Do you really mean to tell me that Pakistanis, on average, are more 'moderate' in their views than Indonesians (86% of Pakistanis supposedly object to terrorism compared to 76% of Indonesians)? Further, Dalia fails to address the context in which the survey was taken - when the Taliban and other Islamist movements began their wave of suicide bombings against Pakistani military and civilian targets. Maybe the context could have been important. But don't worry, neither Zameel nor Dalia will bother to consider that dropping support for terrorism could have anything to do with the fact that Pakistanis were beginning to take a taste of their own medicine. Now, let's look at the pew polls over the years to see if Muslim rejection of suicide bombings is the result of honest to goodness belief that it's just wrong or because Muslims, since the Iraq War in 2003, have borne the brunt of Muslim terrorism: Look at Pakistan, for instance. 33% of Pakistanis in 2002 support suicide bombings against civilian targets to defend Islam, in 2004, that percentage slightly increases to 41%(!). The number decreases to 25% in 2005 - when suicide bombings against Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan were now common and, finally, the last survey shows that only 14% of Pakistanis support suicide bombings against civilians targets. So, what happened? Did Pakistanis suddenly become enlightened and reject the militant teachings of Islam, or is the more logical explanation, that Pakistanis, tired of terrorism against their cities, decided to no longer support terror attacks since terrorism was now directed against themselves, applicable here? Personally, I'll take the latter explanation rather than the former. What about you, Zameel? Care to explain why 33% and 41% of Pakistanis 'changed their minds'? How about Jordan's population - a strong minority and then a majority of Jordanians supported suicide bombings against civilians, then that support plummeted to a mere 25%. Could it be the Amman bombings perchance? No, I'm sure it's because most Muslims are 'really' moderates after all. And here is another survey on Pakistanis, testifying to just how 'moderate' they are: pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=265I personally thought this quote was eye opening: unfavorable opinion of al Qaeda has jumped from 34% to 61% in the last year.(That means 66% of Pakistanis held a favorable view of al Qaeda or were ambivalent on the terror movement - at least, until Muslim terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda began targeting Pakistan and other Muslim countries) But hey, maybe Dalia and Zameel are right. Perhaps a small percentage of Muslims are extremists - after all, only a vast majority of Pakistani Muslims support stoning and the killing of apostates (a majority also recently held a favorable view of al Qaeda and the Taliban). Once again, this is an example of the tactics that most people, who I would say possess a degree of 'common sense', could easily see through. But I guess I must have forgotten about the likes of Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito, who both believe that Muslims who mostly justify the September 11th attacks, want to live under a theocracy (where you can vote for your mullah) and strongly support harsh penalties - such as murdering apostates and stoning adulterers, is indeed a sign of 'moderation'.
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Dec 29, 2009 20:20:49 GMT
Kind of says it all
|
|
|
Post by zameel on Dec 31, 2009 12:05:40 GMT
To test our objectivity and prejudice, I think it's a good idea to see whose hostility to whom in Europe makes it into recent news, so we can monitor the accuracy of our predictions [me: Muslims want to be integrated and loyal, and the isolation they feel comes from suspicion and hostility from the outside; and penguinfan: the opposite - I also request that there be no ridiculous fearmongering of potential hostility or of internal problems which is only for the purpose of confirming one's prejudices]: --------------------------------------------- www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/4823085.Cradley_Heath_mosque_burnt_to_the_ground_by_arsonists/A fire engulfed the Cradley Heath Mosque and Islamic Centre in Plant Street on Boxing Day destroying the building and the religious countless books inside.
It is the second time in five years that the building has been targeted by arsonists and police are hunting the culprits.
The West Midlands Fire Service first reported that the blaze on Plant Street had destroyed 'industrial units' in Plant Street but when the smoke cleared it became obvious the building was a mosque.
The mosque was a thriving part of the community with 400 worshippers using it and classes of children being taught there. --------------------------------------------- www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1238213/This-England-On-trail-English-Defence-League.html In the worst incident, a mob of 30 white and black youths is said to have surrounded Asian students near City University in central London and attacked them with metal poles, bricks and sticks while shouting racist abuse. Three people - two students and a passer-by who tried to intervene - were stabbed.
...
Professor Matthew Goodwin, an expert on far-right organisations who has advised the Home Office, says that the police are right to monitor the EDL and to take them seriously.
'(The EDL) is now well-organised and not just a minor irritant. It has become a rallying point for a number of different groups and to have them marching through sensitive areas is a major concern.'--------------------------------------------- www.rnw.nl/english/article/doctor-turns-away-woman-wearing-veilOn Christmas day, a family doctor in Utrecht refused to allow a woman into his surgery because she was wearing a niqab, or burqa. The 23-year-old woman had brought her baby to see the doctor. The three-month-old child had diarrhoea and had not drunk for several hours, a situation which is potentially dangerous in young baby. However, the doctor refused to see the woman because she was wearing Islamic dress, with her face covered.
The Equal Treatment Commission confirmed it has received a complaint from the woman, following a report in the newspaper AD. A spokesperson said the commission would definitely be dealing with the complaint, as a GP provides a service and should not refuse to see a woman on the ground of her religious expression. According to the commission this is the first time such a case has been reported. The woman has also lodged a complaint with the GP's practice and the medical disciplinary tribunal.--------------------------------------------- www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/world/europe/28marseille.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1When he travels abroad, to New York, Barcelona or Algiers, Mr. Mammeri said, “I’m French; I feel French. But in France, in Marseille every day, you have these same questions, repeated stupidly: what about the burqa, the mosque, terrorism.”
An 11-city study of Islam in Europe by the Open Society Institute, published this month, found that 55 percent of Muslims believe that religious discrimination has increased in the last five years. Muslims are nearly three times as likely to be unemployed as non-Muslims and live more poorly, the study said, but it also found that most Muslims feel a strong connection to their current homelands and want to live in mixed communities.
In Marseille, the study found, 55 percent of Muslims and 68 percent of non-Muslims have a fairly or very strong sense of belonging to their city.
Still, the planned mosque, costing about $33 million, is not welcomed by everyone. Local politicians of the far-right Regional Front have vainly filed lawsuits trying to block construction of what they consider an effort to create an alternative landmark to compete with the city’s cathedrals.
At the Grand Bar Bernabo, a gritty cafe near the site of the new mosque, an older man who refused to give his name said, with a thin smile, “I’m going to bomb it when it opens.” Asked why, he said: “There are a lot of them already, and this will bring more of them, and there will be trouble.”
|
|
|
Post by krkey1 on Dec 31, 2009 15:42:42 GMT
so we cannot use the correct explanation now Zameel.
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Dec 31, 2009 16:25:52 GMT
Alright, I'll bite: Ok, let's do this. You seem to be working under the belief that racism against Muslims is the root cause for alienation and/or radicalism. I won't bother to respond to this hypothesis or even post stories of Muslims vandalizing Jewish centers and Synagogues in Britain or of Muslims in London harassing churchgoers, for instance (your only retort would be to post more articles, I would imagine). If poverty, racism and discrimination causes radicalism and alienation, as you say, then we should see similar feelings of Muslims in France who are as radical or alienated or extremist as their British counterparts, right? Well, let's look at the survey: Does the above support your hypothesis that French Muslims share the same views as British Muslims? Do you have surveys (or just common sense explanations) that French Muslims are just as, or more radical than their British coreligionists? Or perhaps you believe that French Muslims actually face less discrimination or are better off, on average, than British Muslims? Furthermore, are there concerns of radicalism amongst Britain's other minority/immigrant communities, such as Sikhs, Hindus (or even Britain's mostly Muslim Kurdish population)? And yes, I know you could probably google an honor killing carried out by a Sikh or something, but do you have reason to believe Sikhs or Hindus in Britain are planning terror attacks against the British state or are in any way as extremist as many of Britain's Muslims are?
|
|