PDA

View Full Version : Muslims urged to vote to keep out extremist parties



Uthman
06-01-2009, 08:13 AM
Low turnout could lead to 'openly anti-Muslim parties winning seats in European parliament'.

Muslim scholars in Britain have urged the country's imams to stress the importance of local and European elections during their sermons, warning that a low turnout could lead to "openly anti-Muslim parties" gaining national and international prominence.

In a joint statement issued yesterday they called for imams to discuss the need to vote with their congregations as part of their khutbahs – the sermon delivered before Friday afternoon prayers. They said Muslims should go to the ballots on 4 June and "discharge their duty as responsible citizens".

"Participating in the democratic process is vital," the statement said. "As citizens we have a right to choose the people who represent us and to determine who gets to affect our daily lives. As Muslims, we have an obligation to join hands with others to elect those who will seek the common good.

"For the first time, openly anti-Muslim parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European parliament. They will join Islamophobes from continental Europe to further perpetuate their message of hate against Muslims."

Signatories to the statement include representatives from North London Central Mosque, Green Lane Mosque, Birmingham, and the Council of Muslim theologians.

The scholars said that some party leaders had described Islam as "a vicious, wicked faith" and "accused Muslims of all sorts of crimes".

"Their words have led to racist violence – if they get elected they will have public funding that will only amplify their vicious Islamophobia."

Muslims should exercise their vote and use the opportunity to vote for people who they felt would represent them and would discharge their duty "to seek the common good in a spirit of public service", the scholars said.

"It is a time to demand greater scrutiny of those who represent us."
They cautioned against feelings of complacency and disaffection brought on by the MPs expense scandal.

The statement follows a call by the Church of England's most senior clerics for voters to shun extremist parties whose "core ideology" was sowing division and hostility in Britain's communities based on race or creed.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the archbishop of York, John Sentamu, said it would be "tragic" if people reacted to the expenses scandal by rejecting mainstream parties and either not voting or voting for extreme groups.

Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
06-01-2009, 11:37 AM
Should Muslims vote for the sole reason of trying to keep out anti-Muslim parties?

Have we had this discussion before?
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 12:25 PM
Should Muslims vote for the sole reason of trying to keep out anti-Muslim parties?
yes but I peronally prefer to vote for better people rather than against bad people
Have we had this discussion before?
yes
Reply

Woodrow
06-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
Should Muslims vote for the sole reason of trying to keep out anti-Muslim parties?

Have we had this discussion before?
Just my humble personal opinion. We are obligated to overthrow and prevent tyranny. This is a jihad. A jihad is best fought with the most effective weapons. The weapons of the past are no longer efective and only lead to long time suffering with little change or just temporary change. The best weapon of today is paper bullets shot at or against specific targets. These paper bullets are votes. When used effectivly a vote is a very accurate bullet that hits only the specific target, with no collateral damage nor lose of innocent lives. A jihad with physical weapons is a war, an election can be a jihad, the only difference is the weapons used. A war is simply an election in which the votes are made of lead, steel and explosives. It is still an election. Why not use the sensible weapons and fight with ballots, not bullets. Ballots can be used by all Muslims, including the old and feeble. This allows us older frail members of the Ummah to be mujahidins in our own fashion and does not limit the honor to only the young and strong.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Uthman
06-01-2009, 02:55 PM
JazakAllah Khayr and thank you for the responses. Logically, I would tend to agree with both of you but naturally the Islamic view must come first. Can we find any guidance on the issue from the Qur'an and/or Sunnah? And what of those who say that it is haraam to participate in the democratic process?
Reply

convert
06-01-2009, 03:06 PM
the people of knowledge i have spoken to about this (i asked before last year's election) have said that when voting essentially amounts to bayyah (i.e. voting for a person), it is haraam but when voting on an issue (i.e. a bill to allow gambling) then you must vote.
Reply

Uthman
06-01-2009, 03:33 PM
Originally Posted by convert
the people of knowledge i have spoken to about this (i asked before last year's election) have said that when voting essentially amounts to bayyah (i.e. voting for a person), it is haraam but when voting on an issue (i.e. a bill to allow gambling) then you must vote.
JazakAllah Khayr akhee. This does make perfect sense in general circumstances but the circumstances here are specifically to prevent anti-Muslim parties from gaining power.

When discussing this issue, I usually quote Ibn Taimiyyah where he said:

"The Shari'ah has been revealed to obtain all possible benefits and to prevent as much harm as possible and reduce it. Its aim is to produce the best possible scenario from two good options if both cannot be achieved together, and to ward off the worst of two evils if both evils cannot be prevented."

Where Muslims are not in a position to make Hijrah, I wonder whether it would make sense from an Islamic point of view to vote with the intention of producing the best possible situation for the Muslims or warding off the worst possible situation.

Having said that, it is still impermissible to judge by other than what Allah has revealed and to do so is major kufr. Thus, to participate in the democratic process by voting is to contribute to the implementation of a Shari'ah other than the Shari'ah revealed by Allah. Can we really say that this could ever be allowed?

I really don't know.
Reply

Woodrow
06-01-2009, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by convert
the people of knowledge i have spoken to about this (i asked before last year's election) have said that when voting essentially amounts to bayyah (i.e. voting for a person), it is haraam but when voting on an issue (i.e. a bill to allow gambling) then you must vote.
Sadly many people do vote for the person and pay no attention to the political party the person is representing. The fact is in most countries you are not voting for a person although it is the name of a person that appears on the ballot. The person is only the spokesman for a party, the vote is actually electing an ideology

In the USA in the voting booths you can choose to simply vote a straight party ticket and need not even look at the names of the candidates.

While Americans may say they were voting for Obama or McCain, they were not voting for the person they were voting for the party the candidate spoke for.It is a mistake to vote for the person, your vote should be for the party you believe in no matter what you think of the person.



For example here in the USA while we elected Obama, it is not him who runs the Presidency, it is the Democratic party. If anything were to happen to Obama it would make no change in the government, as it would still be the democratic party in office and will be like that until the next presidential election no matter what happens to the person in office. It is the party that was elected to run the country, not a person.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 04:10 PM
I hear there's been a huge row in Britain over the MP's useless spendings. The smaller aprties are gaining votes because of it.
Reply

convert
06-01-2009, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Sadly many people do vote for the person and pay no attention to the political party the person is representing. The fact is in most countries you are not voting for a person although it is the name of a person that appears on the ballot. The person is only the spokesman for a party, the vote is actually electing an ideology

In the USA in the voting booths you can choose to simply vote a streight

While Americans may say they were voting for Obama or McCain, they were not voting for the person they were voting for the party the candidate spoke for.It is a mistake to vote for the person, your vote should be for the party you believe in no matter what you think of the person.



For example here in the USA while we elected Obama, it is not him who runs the Presidency, it is the Democratic party. If anything were to happen to Obama it would make no change in the government, as it would still be the democratic party in office and will be like that until the next presidential election no matter what happens to the person in office. It is the party that was elected to run the country, not a person.
im an american myself. what we have in an oligarchy here, same people run the show no matter what person/party is in power.

ive said it before: the only thing worse than a republican is a democrat.

p.s. i live near dc and the sheer scope of the cult of personality surrounding obama here is frightening
Reply

Woodrow
06-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by convert
im an american myself. what we have in an oligarchy here, same people run the show no matter what person/party is in power.

ive said it before: the only thing worse than a republican is a democrat.

p.s. i live near dc and the sheer scope of the cult of personality surrounding obama here is frightening
The same happened with Kennedy in the Irish/Catholic communities near Boston after he was elected. This was a case of the person outgrowing the party and ending up representing himself. The same may be true with Obama. I already see him straying from his party representation and turning his presidency into Obamaism. Mistake to elect on the basis of the person and not the party stand. It can be for the general good as it was with Kennedy or it can turn into something vicious like it did for Nixon and the 2 Shrubs. Obama may be betraying the people who wanted a democratic presidency and not Obamaism.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
Should Muslims vote for the sole reason of trying to keep out anti-Muslim parties?

Have we had this discussion before?
Salaam

Yes we have to vote for the greater good.

We have had this discussion before - but this looks like a serious threat to muslims in the UK.
Reply

ardianto
06-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Is it allowed to establish a new political party in UK ?.
Reply

KAding
06-01-2009, 06:09 PM
:cry:
Reply

Fishman
06-01-2009, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
:cry:
:sl:
Eh?
:w:
Reply

KAding
06-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Fishman
:sl:
Eh?
:w:
Well, it's just that I always find these discussions on here a bit depressing.

The real question always basically amounts to: "shall we participate?", "do we want to be part of this society or is it too corrupt/kufr for us to be involved?"

That this is even being discussed, let alone that many indeed do think it is haram to, say, vote, is just not something that makes me optimistic about the future. That is all.
Reply

crayon
06-01-2009, 06:33 PM
^I think a better way to phrase that would be "Does participating in this particular aspect of society go against my beliefs?". There's nothing wrong with participating in society (which is what the way you phrased it makes it sound like), just as long as it doesn't mean going against your religion.
Reply

Sampharo
06-01-2009, 07:34 PM
Just my humble personal opinion. We are obligated to overthrow and prevent tyranny. This is a jihad.
Subhanallah, Qalb el-Mo'men Daliloh (Heart of a believer guides him) :) The prophet -pbuh- was asked about kinds of Jihad and he said that one of the best is "A word of truth to an unjust ruler". This vote is your word of truth against electing bad rulers and representatives and definitely can be seen as Jihad based on the Hadith.

There is nothing specifically wrong with the democratic process of casting votes to follow majority opinions, unless it is to choose a person to lead which implies Bayaa, and that is not permissible to give to a non-muslim, yes that is known. But if the process is to choose an ideology that is less harmful to muslims, then it is a tool of itself to use and push off an evil person off your muslim brethren and your intentions are what guides you (innama al-aamalo benniyyat - Deeds are of intentions).

And God knows best, this is not a fatwa though. I need to check with my professors.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 07:56 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Uthmān
..... And what of those who say that it is haraam to participate in the democratic process?
see rep message
wasalam
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 09:01 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Well, it's just that I always find these discussions on here a bit depressing.

The real question always basically amounts to: "shall we participate?", "do we want to be part of this society or is it too corrupt/kufr for us to be involved?"

That this is even being discussed, let alone that many indeed do think it is haram to, say, vote, is just not something that makes me optimistic about the future. That is all.
Well actually if I was a Brittish I would prefer muslims there not to vote, neither integrate or participate.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:03 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Well actually if I was a Brittish I would prefer muslims there not to vote, neither integrate or participate.
good thing your from Mars then.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Well actually if I was a Brittish I would prefer muslims there not to vote, neither integrate or participate.
why don't you want them to integrate?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
why don't you want them to integrate?
It could be the phobia thats going around - the sheer panic:rollseyes
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
why don't you want them to integrate?
it will interfere with creation of 4th (led by Catholic Poles this time around) Reich
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
It could be the phobia thats going around - the sheer panic:rollseyes
If immigrans integrate there's no reason to panic.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 09:15 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
why don't you want them to integrate?
Because it would lead to legalization and implementation of the anti christian and anti european plan of multiculturalism.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
If immigrans integrate there's no reason to panic.
won't this make the "saint" fuhrer turn in his grave?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Because it would lead to legalization and implementation of the anti christian and anti european plan of multiculturalism.
whats the "plan of multiculturalism" and what do you mean by anti european?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Because it would lead to legalization and implementation of the anti christian and anti european plan of multiculturalism.
Integration is not the same as multiculturalism.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
If immigrans integrate there's no reason to panic.
well let them in first:D
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
well let them in first:D
We first need to integrate the ones already here.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Integration is not the same as multiculturalism.
yes but what does Amendeus mean by the "plan".
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
We first need to integrate the ones already here.
I thought you were pro Multiculturalism and wanted people to live by there culture?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I thought you were pro Multiculturalism and wanted people to live by there culture?
Yes, but I said I only support multiculturalism to a limited extent, a combiantion f both is ideal, people integrate and retain parts of their culture for a few generations, that's different than people living solely by their old culture, dreaming of an entirely new legal system imposed on their new home, supporting foreign countries over their new one, wearing the niqaab etc.
But that's off topic.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
whats the "plan of multiculturalism" and what do you mean by anti european?
Multiculturalism is an ideology coming from the same source as feminism,radical ecology, gay activism and earlier communism. The same people who support multiculturalism nowadays, 30 years ago were marching with the posters of Lenin, Pol Pot and Marx. Multiculturalism has same goal, but with different ways. And I call it as anti christian and anti european.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:24 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Yes, but I said I only support multiculturalism to a limited extent, a combiantion f both is ideal, people integrate and retain parts of their culture for a few generations, that's different than people living solely by their old culture, dreaming of an entirely new legal system imposed on their new home, supporting foreign countries over their new one, wearing the niqaab etc.
But that's off topic.
Yes it is...............................
Reply

Uthman
06-01-2009, 09:25 PM
Having thought about it, our 'Ulema seem to be encouraging us to vote in order to keep out the openly anti-Muslim parties so I'm not going to contradict the people who have knowledge.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 09:26 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Multiculturalism is an ideology coming from the same source as feminism,radical ecology, gay activism and earlier communism. The same people who support multiculturalism nowadays, 30 years ago were marching with the posters of Lenin, Pol Pot and Marx. Multiculturalism has same goal, but with different ways. And I call it as anti christian and anti european.
Sieg Heil!
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Multiculturalism is an ideology coming from the same source as feminism,radical ecology, gay activism and earlier communism. The same people who support multiculturalism nowadays, 30 years ago were marching with the posters of Lenin, Pol Pot and Marx. Multiculturalism has same goal, but with different ways. And I call it as anti christian and anti european.
what do you mean by anti-european??? and people who support multiculturalism are not all feminists,radical ecologists, gay activist and earlier communist - most of those ideas and people who did that are dead anyway - its a gross genralisation.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
Having thought about it, our 'Ulema seem to be encouraging us to vote in order to keep out the openly anti-Muslim parties so I'm not going to contradict the people who have knowledge.
the BNP won't win in a million years and the entire Muslim community voting someone else can only lose them one seat, according to the surveys they'll get three I think.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:29 PM
and multiculturalism has no goal its a product of different cultures comming togather in the same place.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
the BNP won't win in a million years and the entire Muslim community voting someone else can only lose them one seat, according to the surveys they'll get three I think.
I think thats what people said about the Nazis - and then the next few years they were fighting a war and systematically killing minorities.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:33 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
and multiculturalism has no goal its a product of different cultures comming togather in the same place.
Multiculturalism does not have a goal, you are completely correct, however, it can be used to suit one's goals, some say the global Muslim conspiracy is to populate Europe with Muslims (by means of immigration and higher birth rates) and turn it into an Islamic state.
That's not what I think btw.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I think thats what people said about the Nazis - and then the next few years they were fighting a war and systematically killing minorities.
It's different and the BNP are not planning to kill anyone.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
Sieg Heil!
It needs much bad will to find nazi friendly attitude in my words, especially that I dont see difference between national socialism and international socialism, both children of anti christian French Revolution.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
It needs much bad will to find nazi friendly attitude in my words, especially that I dont see difference between national socialism and international socialism, both children of French Revolution.
what do you mean by anti european????
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It's different and the BNP are not planning to kill anyone.
The nazis didnt at the stage of the BNP.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 09:36 PM
one of the Nazi termites namely "Whatsthepoint" sent me a "warning", via neg rep, to "Stop it!" (posting in this thread?)
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:37 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Multiculturalism does not have a goal, you are completely correct, however, it can be used to suit one's goals, some say the global Muslim conspiracy is to populate Europe with Muslims (by means of immigration and higher birth rates) and turn it into an Islamic state.
That's not what I think btw.
you always bring this up though even though you claim not to think like that:rollseyes
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:38 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The nazis didnt at the stage of the BNP.
Yes they did, Hitler did.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
one of these Nazi termites namely "Whatsthepoint" sent me a "warning" to stop (posting in this thread?) via neg rep
Yes, it was an advice and a revenge for a neg rep you unjustly gave me in another thead:D
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Yes they did, Hitler did.
The BNP have the idea that the UK is only for white people - they want anybody who isnt white to go back where they come from - I'm always confused with that especially if the people were born in the UK and have nowhere to go. - Hitler had the idea of sending the Jews to madagascar - nothing about the gas chambers and starvation at the early points like the BNP - It all came later.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
you always bring this up though even though you claim not to think like that:rollseyes
I'm against further Muslim immigration no matter what the reasons ebhind are, I just though I'd mention a particularly radical theory.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I'm against further Muslim immigration no matter what the reasons ebhind are, I just though I'd mention a particularly radical theory.
why are you just against Muslim immigration?
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what do you mean by anti european????
Actually I said it clearly in my previous post, but I can repeat. Multiculturalism is anti christian ideology coming from marxist and trockist line. After socialism, nazism and communism its another step of the same war lasting at least since 1789 and its goal is to devastate christian Europe and we will win as we did with communism and nazism, but again, unfortunately,it will come after much sufferings and victims.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:45 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The BNP have the idea that the UK is only for white people - they want anybody who isnt white to go back where they come from - I'm always confused with that especially if the people were born in the UK and have nowhere to go. - Hitler had the idea of sending the Jews to madagascar - nothing about the gas chambers and starvation at the early points like the BNP - It all came later.
The BNP are suggesting a cessation to all new immigration, the deportation of illegal aliens and legal ones with a criminal record, as well as providing "generous financial plans to help non-natives with their relocation".
What bothers me is that they are racist, my opposition o immigration is ideological.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Yes, it was an advice and a revenge for a neg rep you unjustly gave me in another thead:D
Ah! sorry! I thought you had converted over to them fully [ me red-faced ] so you are still only an anti-Muslim as opposed to fully fledged Nazi

wa salam
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Actually I said it clearly in my previous post, but I can repeat. Multiculturalism is anti christian ideology coming from marxist and trockist line. After socialism, nazism and communism its another step of the same war lasting at least since 1789 and its goal is to devastate christian Europe and we will win as we did with communism and nazism, but again, unfortunately,it will come after much sufferings and victims.
the last statemnet isnt vert christain

as i said before Multiculturalism doesnt have a goal - furthermore there is no such thing as "christain europe" - maybe some countries are if you could name them but most of the seem secular and dont want religion to play any role atleast in politics - By the way Nazism was allied with the pope in the concordat so it wasnt totaly anti christain as long as the chirstians kept religion out of politics.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
why are you just against Muslim immigration?
Because Muslims are the biggest as well as the fastest growing minority in Europe, because a significant percentage desires the introduction of shariah law in Europe, because the quran says Europe will be Muslim and radicals are braging about it.
Basically, Muslims are the only ones that are a potential threat to the European culture, liberal politics, as well as your ebloved multiculturalism. ahve you ever aksed yourself whether how an Islamic state treats other cultures?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
Ah! sorry! I thought you had converted over to them full[ me red-faced ] so you are still only an anti-Muslim as opposed to fully fledged Nazi

wa salam
I'm not an anti-Muslim. I am against Muslims being the majority or an influental voting group. When they're the majority, they can enjoy every benefit of multiculturalism they want. I do have some issues with the niqaab and some other things, but I have nothing against Muslims otherwise.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The BNP are suggesting a cessation to all new immigration, the deportation of illegal aliens and legal ones with a criminal record, as well as providing "generous financial plans to help non-natives with their relocation".
What bothers me is that they are racist, my opposition o immigration is ideological.

yes racist they are but once again you bring them up:D so I'm not sure if you agree with them again?

generous financial plans to help non-natives with their relocation".
THis sounds................:scared::phew
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
the last statemnet isnt vert christain

as i said before Multiculturalism doesnt have a goal - furthermore there is no such thing as "christain europe" - maybe some countries are if you could name them but most of the seem secular and dont want religion to play any role atleast in politics - By the way Nazism was allied with the pope in the concordat so it wasnt totaly anti christain as long as the chirstians kept religion out of politics.
See, thats' what I'm trying to protect, a secular Europe, where everyone can live their lives tehy way they want.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Because Muslims are the biggest as well as the fastest growing minority in Europe, because a significant percentage desires the introduction of shariah law in Europe, because the quran says Europe will be Muslim and radicals are braging about it.
Basically, Muslims are the only ones that are a potential threat to the European culture, liberal politics, as well as your ebloved multiculturalism. ahve you ever aksed yourself whether how an Islamic state treats other cultures?
There seems to be a mistake with the bold - the Quran does not say that????

There is no such thing as a Islamic state - thats a very modern term - there is Islamic governanace and other cultures can live with there own law, customs and "liberal politics" within the Islamic Shariah - You have seen the past ex Ottoman places are still heavily christain so is spain. - so pro Multicultralism:)
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 09:56 PM
European culture
what is this all about???
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
There seems to be a mistake with the bold - the Quran does not say that????

There is no such thing as a Islamic state - thats a very modern term - there is Islamic governanace and other cultures can live with there own law, customs and "liberal politics" within the Islamic Shariah - You have seen the past ex Ottoman places are still heavily christain so is spain.
It says Rome but many interpret it as Europe.
Only for Christians and Jews, and even if its other people as well, minorities have different rights than Muslims.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what is this all about???
the sum of cultures in Europe, as well as secularism, democracy, liberalism etc.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:00 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It says Rome but many interpret it as Europe.
Only for Christians and Jews, and even if its other people as well, minorities have different rights than Muslims.
No it doesnt not in the Quran

and no not only Jews and christians other faiths such as Hindus, Zorastrians, Buddhaists and all the other religions - Mugal India a good exmaple most are still hindus in India - what do you mean by different rights??
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
No it doesnt not in the Quran

and no not only Jews and christians other faiths such as Hindus, Zorastrians, Buddhaists and all the other religions - Mugal India a good exmaple most are still hindus in India - what do you mean by different rights??
Hadith then.
Yes, you're right, though I'm not sure whether the inclusion of those was pragmatic or absed on Islam. Anway, there's a ahdith that says a vast region in Arabia should be Islamic only, so its not equal for eevryone, definitely not multiculturalism. different rights, such as they can't build new religiosu objects, can't preach their faith publically etc, there's also good sides, for instance lower taxes.
Reply

Woodrow
06-01-2009, 10:08 PM
After reading the past few posts and learning a bit more about the BNP and it's supporters. I believe it is highly justifiable for the Muslims in the UK to do what is necessary to prevent the BNP from gaining power and at this point the best weapon to stop them is for Muslims to vote enmasse for any opposition party.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Hadith then.
Yes, you're right, though I'm not sure whether the inclusion of those was pragmatic or absed on Islam. Anway, there's a ahdith that says a vast region in Arabia should be Islamic only, so its not equal for eevryone, definitely not multiculturalism. different rights, such as they can't build new religiosu objects, can't preach their faith publically etc, there's also good sides, for instance lower taxes.
need clear, concise allegation/charges with references, in order to be able to respond correctly!
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 10:13 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
the last statemnet isnt vert christain

as i said before Multiculturalism doesnt have a goal - furthermore there is no such thing as "christain europe" - maybe some countries are if you could name them but most of the seem secular and dont want religion to play any role atleast in politics - By the way Nazism was allied with the pope in the concordat so it wasnt totaly anti christain as long as the chirstians kept religion out of politics.
I disagree with all the statements.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
need clear, concise allegation/charges with references, in order to be able to respond correctly!
All I'm saying is that an islamic state is not multicultural thy way modern Britain is.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Hadith then.
Yes, you're right, though I'm not sure whether the inclusion of those was pragmatic or absed on Islam. Anway, there's a ahdith that says a vast region in Arabia should be Islamic only, so its not equal for eevryone, definitely not multiculturalism. different rights, such as they can't build new religiosu objects, can't preach their faith publically etc, there's also good sides, for instance lower taxes.
Arabia - there are no minorities there and why would they want to go in the middle of the desert of arabia and live there?

exactly there are good sides. You can have religious debates and try to convert that way - but not what the missionrioes do. I'm also sure that religious places can only be built where religoius people live - theres no point building a religious place in arabia when nobody goes there? there rea over 10 million coptic christains in Egypt and Jews in Yemen and Iran would you believe and they have there own religious places.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
All I'm saying is that an islamic state is not multicultural thy way modern Britain is.
what about like the Ottoman empire - where many sects, religions and nationlaities lived and were heavily tolerated through the Millet system. No there is no such thing as Islamic state only Islamic Governance.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Arabia - there are no minorities there and why would they want to go in the middle of the desert of arabia and live there?

exactly there are good sides. You can have religious debates and try to convert that way - but not what the missionrioes do. I'm also sure that religious places can only be built where religoius people live - theres no point building a religious place in arabia when nobody goes there? there rea over 10 million coptic christains in Egypt and Jews in Yemen and Iran would you believe and they have there own religious places.
There always have been non-Muslims in Arabia, at least they are now and were before the rise of Islam. But the ahdith does say there shouldn't be any. Non-Muslim religious objects can only be renovated and no new ones built and I think it's illegal to try to convert Muslims, I'm not sure.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what about like the Ottoman empire - where many sects, religions and nationlaities lived and were heavily tolerated through the Millet system. No there is no such thing as Islamic state only Islamic Governance.
I'm certain the ottoman islamic governance didn't sponsor diversity programmes and non-Muslim dawah stalls weren't allowed.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
There always have been non-Muslims in Arabia, at least they are now and were before the rise of Islam. But the ahdith does say there shouldn't be any. Non-Muslim religious objects can only be renovated and no new ones built and I think it's illegal to try to convert Muslims, I'm not sure.
again, as before, I ask you to post them
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I'm certain the ottoman islamic governance didn't sponsor diversity programmes and non-Muslim dawah stalls weren't allowed.
No but as i said Debates are allowed and the Islamic Governace can and has tolerated multiculturalism and diversity for over 1000 years in History - as bro Dorster said produce the hadiths about arabia?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
again, as before, I ask you to post them
Book 019, Number 4366:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Book 019, Number 4366:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.
what books so we can check them?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
No but as i said Debates are allowed and the Islamic Governace can and has tolerated multiculturalism and diversity fro over 1000 years in History - as bro Dorster said produce the hadiths about arabia?
ottoman Dhimmis had towear special clothes, couldn't ride a horse, couldn't marry a Muslim woman, couldn't inherit from Muslims, couldn't testify against a Muslim, couldn't inherit from Muslims, payed special taxes etc. In my book, that's not exactly multiculturalism.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:47 PM
These hadiths are in the context of Treason in war against the small muslim forces. Furthermore Umar ibn Khttab (ra) tolerated christains and Jews in Jerusalem and the coptic christains in Egypt - these hadith are only for the punishment of treason - now there are no minorities in Arabia anway who want to go there.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what books so we can check them?
The first Muslim book 19, the second Bukhari book 39 and the same one one also found in Muslim book 10.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
These hadiths are in the context of Treason in war against the small muslim forces. Furthermore Umar ibn Khttab (ra) tolerated christains and Jews in Jerusalem and the coptic christains in Egypt - these hadith are only for the punishment of treason - now there are no minorities in Arabia anway who want to go there.
there are millions of non-Muslims in Arabia, The Saudis are the only one who won't let them build religious objects.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
ottoman Dhimmis had towear special clothes, couldn't ride a horse, couldn't marry a Muslim woman, couldn't inherit from Muslims, couldn't testify against a Muslim, couldn't inherit from Muslims, payed special taxes etc. In my book, that's not exactly multiculturalism.
what book

and the ottomans did have a good system in that they allowed the non muslims to gocvern themselves and live there own lifes the way they wanted

coulndt testify against Muslims is a lie as many Jews and christains found the Ottoman courts more just then there own courts - furthermore Byzed the second accepted the Jews after they were thrown out of spain due to the Inquistion. Taxes - lower as you said in your own statement. The rest maybe for there own reasons i'm sure the Quran sunnah does not allow for the different clothes - the ottomans were far more tolerant then anything europe had at the time.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:53 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
there are millions of non-Muslims in Arabia, The Saudis are the only one who won't let them build religious objects.
are there why are they there anyway? millions how many? and where did you get this from - arabi isnt exacly the best model it is a regime - its a tyranny.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 10:56 PM
Ultimatley it was the best system around in the past atleast if you campare it to other places at the time - There is no reason why cannot be the best in the future - a multicultural and tolerant system under the shraiah just as non muslim came to the courts of the Muslims becasue they were fairer and more Just - it can happen again.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Book 019, Number 4366:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah's Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle, and the Muslims. Allah's Apostle intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's Apostle told them, "We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish." So, they (i.e. Jews) kept on living there until 'Umar forced them to go towards Taima' and Ariha'.
Ah! finally.

^^sam shamoun and other kafir run-hate sites often quote these to contradict Quran 29:46
http://islamawakened.com/Quran/29/46/

"And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing [Sc., "and are therefore not accessible to friendly argument": the implication being that in such cases all disputes should as priority be avoided. As regards religious discussions in general, **see 16:125.] - and say: "We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: or our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves."

problem for me here is 2 or 3fold
1) I need to gather all Ahadees on a given subject (I never had capacity or will to memorize all or even many) thus any quoted in English may be distortions either by kuffar like yourself or by deviants and monafiq infilterators within us)
2) that people in charge here will NOT give me a freehand to post as I need to, to defend the Holy Quran, last time I tried I got in to heap big trouble (one of them as per his sect, even said to me that a hadees can abrogate an ayat) so rather than be disabled from posting permanently, I'll leave it for one of "ahl-e-hadees" to writhe and wriggle explaining those (unless you can point me to a page number in an Arabic collection)

theses threads might be useful in explaining Islam based on Quran and Sahih (true) Sunnat e Rasul


Closed: Facts about the association of Islam with violence

Closed: Islam: The Middle Path

Faith and Morality: Two Interconnected Aspects of Islam

.................................................. .....................
**16:125 CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner- for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided.
.......................
in other words it is not our job to make you Muslim, you either takes it or leaves it as per Surat alkafiroon (The Rejecters/Hiders of Truth)
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 10:59 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what book

and the ottomans did have a good system in that they allowed the non muslims to gocvern themselves and live there own lifes the way they wanted

coulndt testify against Muslims is a lie as many Jews and christains found the Ottoman courts more just then there own courts - furthermore Byzed the second accepted the Jews after they were thrown out of spain due to the Inquistion. Taxes - lower as you said in your own statement. The rest maybe for there own reasons i'm sure the Quran sunnah does not allow for the different clothes - the ottomans were far more tolerant then anything europe had at the time.
they counquered countries, it was the only plausible way to keep them though people still revolted all the time. On the other hand I'm not sure they'd let new churches built in their pricipal territories.
Yes I said that but I my have been wrong. And apparently the quran doesn't prohibit dress codes for minorities.
They may have been, but modern multicultural Britain is more tolerant.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:03 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Ultimatley it was the best system around in the past atleast if you campare it to other places at the time - There is no reason why cannot be the best in the future - a multicultural and tolerant system under the shraiah just as non muslim came to the courts of the Muslims becasue they were fairer and more Just - it can happen again.
It was undoubtedly better than medieval Europe.
I don't want it happening in europe, that's all. You can have Somalia and the Swat valley.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:05 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
Ah! finally.

^^sam shamoun and other kafir run-hate sites often quote these to contradict Quran 29:46
http://islamawakened.com/Quran/29/46/

"And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing [Sc., "and are therefore not accessible to friendly argument": the implication being that in such cases all disputes should a priori be avoided. As regards religious discussions in general, see note on 16:125.] - and say: "We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: or our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves."

problem here that people in charge here will NOT give me a freehand to post as I need to, to defend the Holy Quran, last time I tried I got in to heap big trouble so rather than be disabled from posting permanently, I'll leave it for one of "ahl-e-hadees" to writhe and wriggle explaining those (unless you can point me to an a page number in an Arabic collection)

theses threads might be useful in explaining Islam based on Quran and Sahih (true) Sunnat e Rasul


Closed: Facts about the association of Islam with violence

Closed: Islam: The Middle Path
doorster
Faith and Morality: Two Interconnected Aspects of Islam
Were they expelled or not?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
they counquered countries, it was the only plausible way to keep them though people still revolted all the time. On the other hand I'm not sure they'd let new churches built in their pricipal territories.
Yes I said that but I my have been wrong. And apparently the quran doesn't prohibit dress codes for minorities.
They may have been, but modern multicultural Britain is more tolerant.
The tax is lower preety clearly - secodnaly most of things the Ottoman did were Far more tolerant and multicultural then anything in europe - people ran to Muslim courts - if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better - Its one of the reasons why Islam has a relatively tolerant and multicultureal history -Europe historcally has been less tolerant its a very modern phenomana for them (tolerance) the muslim lands were more tolerant.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Were they expelled or not?
It was under treason and war - but what about the Jewsih minorities in Jerusalem or coptics in Egypt - You cant just pick and choose - you have to see the whole context - far more tolerant in the past - can happen in the future atleast for its time.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It was undoubtedly better than medieval Europe.
I don't want it happening in europe, that's all. You can have Somalia and the Swat valley.
If the muslims were the most tolerant for over 1000 years - they can be the most tolerant again. - Not just in the medieval period but for over 1000 years.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The tax is lower preety clearly - secodnaly most of things the Ottoman did were Far more tolerant and multicultural then anything in europe - people ran to Muslim courts - if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better - Its one of the reasons why Islam has a relatively tolerant and multicultureal history -Europe historcally has been less tolerant its a very modern phenomana for them (tolerance) the muslim lands were more tolerant.
Why is it lower pretty clearly?
Europe in the past was bad but it got significantly better, the courts, everything and IMHO its the best the world has seen so far, but that's just an opinion.
the roman empire was multicultural as well at one point everyone residing in the empire was granted roman citizenship, making them equal to Romans, which was never the case in the ottoman empire where Muslims and Islam were favored no matter what you say. I don't see anything wrong in favoring the dominant culture or religion anyway.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 11:15 PM
Im afraid that this interesting topic is going too far from the subject.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:16 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
It was under treason and war - but what about the Jewsih minorities in Jerusalem or coptics in Egypt - You cant just pick and choose - you have to see the whole context - far more tolerant in the past - can happen in the future atleast for its time.
Did they expell the entire people or just those proven guilty of treason etc?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Im afraid that this interesting topic is going too far from the subject.
Well spotted.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Why is it lower pretty clearly?
Europe in the past was bad but it got significantly better, the courts, everything and IMHO its the best the world has seen so far, but that's just an opinion.
the roman empire was multicultural as well at one point everyone residing in the empire was granted roman citizenship, making them equal to Romans, which was never the case in the ottoman empire where Muslims and Islam were favored no matter what you say. I don't see anything wrong in favoring the dominant culture or religion anyway.

Thats not actually true the Romans didnt give citizenship to everybody - people had to revolt against them - they also had grades of citizenship - the Greeks were far worse also.

why is it lower becasue Muslims have to pay far more - Sadaqa, Zakat, normal tax etc

the non muslims only pay Jizya - thats it.

Yes your right the shariah was favoured Just like certain agendas or supprted in any civilisation/nation

All i'm saying is that the muslims were the most tolerant for 1000 years - europe doesnt have that history - its preety modern for them - The muslims could be the most tolerant once again.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:19 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Did they expell the entire people or just those proven guilty of treason etc?
they used there own law against them - as it should be done:D

whatever your law is you get Judged by it.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-01-2009, 11:23 PM
And the topic is....
Muslims vote against xenophobes in EU elections coming this week.I think that they should, I have no sympathy to racists, neo nazi, who only bring shame to the conservative and right wing groups.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Thats not actually true the Romans didnt give citizenship to everybody - people had to revolt against them - they also had grades of citizenship - the Greeks were far worse also.

why is it lower becasue Muslims have to pay far more - Sadaqa, Zakat, normal tax etc

the non muslims only pay Jizya - thats it.

Yes your right the shariah was favoured Just like certain agendas or supprted in any civilisation/nation

All i'm saying is that the muslims were the most tolerant for 1000 years - europe doesnt have that history - its preety modern for them - The muslims could be the most tolerant once again.
They did, I don't know which emepror was it, but every free man in the empire no matter of what ethnic background was granted citizenship. And people revolted against the Ottomans all the time too.
Yes, but sometimes certain taxes are higher than others.
Yep, and i hope you understand why I want Europe kept the way it is nowand not turn it into an islamic state.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
they used there own law against them - as it should be done:D

whatever your law is you get Judged by it.
What law was that?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
They did, I don't know which emepror was it, but every free man in the empire no matter of what ethnic background was granted citizenship. And people revolted against the Ottomans all the time too.
Yes, but sometimes certain taxes are higher than others.
Yep, and i hope you understand why I want Europe kept the way it is nowand not turn it into an islamic state.
There is no such thing as Islamic state - and the Romans had grades of citizenship - newly conquerd people were at the lowest as they were not truested while the old guard was on the top. No i dont understand why you dont want Islamic governance - your picking and choosing - look at teh whole pitcure its far better
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
What law was that?
what do you think?

back to the topic. Lets see how the votes go.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:29 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
And the topic is....
Muslims vote against xenophobes in EU elections coming this week.I think that they should, I have no sympathy to racists, neo nazi, who only bring shame to the conservative and right wing groups.
The BNP is out, but there's also UKIP, they claim to be moderate, non-racist and they oppose immigration as well as the EU.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what do you think?

back to the topic. Lets see how the votes go.
I don't know, tell me.
A week till the vote.
Reply

doorster
06-01-2009, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
And the topic is....
Muslims vote against xenophobes in EU elections coming this week.I think that they should, I have no sympathy to racists, neo nazi, who only bring shame to the conservative and right wing groups.
ok ... but who drove it of topic?
was it this >> http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...ml#post1159701

or maybe this reply below took it to where it isat now?
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Well actually if I was a Brittish I would prefer muslims there not to vote, neither integrate or participate.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I don't know, tell me.
A week till the vote.
TORAH

Yep we'll see what the outcome is going to be.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
TORAH

Yep we'll see what the outcome is going to be.
I figured it was the jewish law, but which law specifically?
And do you think its fair to expel an entire people because some were traitors etc? Even if it was their law.
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I figured it was the jewish law, but which law specifically?
And do you think its fair to expel an entire people because some were traitors etc? Even if it was their law.

Its there law and they wanted to be judged by it so they were - thats preety fair. They accepted it too.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:36 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Its there law and they wanted to be judged by it so they were - thats preety fair. They accepted it too.
Are you reffering to the part about fruit?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Are you reffering to the part about fruit?
I;m refering to there law and sa'd applyied there law as they accepted the Judgment.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I;m refering to there law and sa'd applyied there law as they accepted the Judgment.
Where does it say their law was applied?
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Where does it say their law was applied?
In the commentries its well known.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
In the commentries its well known.
Ok.
funny, i've just realized the hwdithe I posted were no the ones I was referring to earlier.
Here they are:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar." - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another. - Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 18, Number 2905

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:

Narrated Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.")
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Ok.
funny, i've just realized the hwdithe I posted were no the ones I was referring to earlier.
Here they are:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ismail ibn Abi Hakim that he heard Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz say, "One of the last things that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said was, 'May Allah fight the jews and the christians. They took the graves of their Prophets as places of prostration . Two deens shall not co-exist in the land of the Arabs.' " - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.17

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula."

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab searched for information about that until he was absolutely convinced that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said, 'Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,' and he therefore expelled the jews from Khaybar." - Malik's Muwatta, Book 45, Number 45.5.18

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: people of two different religions would not inherit from one another. - Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 18, Number 2905

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288:

Narrated Said bin Jubair:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.")

Hmmm no Bukhari or Muslim for the first hadiths - Need to know which pagans they actually were and what they did - the context of the hadith - like who were the foreign delegates and why give gifts to them.
Reply

Güven
06-01-2009, 11:56 PM
even though it's interesting to see you guys debate.

but can you people stay on topic please...

why don't you guys open up a thread about this? : )
Reply

Zafran
06-01-2009, 11:58 PM
Salaam

ok we'll go back to the topic.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-01-2009, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Güven
even though it's interesting to see you guys debate.

but can you people stay on topic please...

why don't you guys open up a thread about this? : )
Eh, no, all this was a product of my procrastination, I'm gonna actually learn now.
I've grown to like Zafran though, his replies are quick and consice.:thumbs_up
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-02-2009, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Hmmm no Bukhari or Muslim for the first hadiths - Need to know which pagans they actually were and what they did - the context of the hadith - like who were the foreign delegates and why give gifts to them.
It seems to me it refers to pagan in general, but that the english translation.
Reply

Zafran
06-02-2009, 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Eh, no, all this was a product of my procrastination, I'm gonna actually learn now.
I've grown to like Zafran though, his replies are quick and consice.:thumbs_up
thanks same to you about your replies :peace:
Reply

Zafran
06-02-2009, 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It seems to me it refers to pagan in general, but that the english translation.
There must have been a reason for it
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-02-2009, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
There must have been a reason for it
Well, perhaps he just wasn't that fond of pagans and multiculturalism...
Anyway I'm going to bed.
Reply

Zafran
06-02-2009, 12:19 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Well, perhaps he just wasn't that fond of pagans and multiculturalism...
Anyway I'm going to bed.
actually it was due to the threat the pagan posed to the muslim community.

Furthermore once again your picking and choosing - you also need to see how the non muslims of Jerusalem and Egypt were treated they were allowed to practice there religion - so clearly this isnt against multiculturalism as the muslim world as been multicultured for over 1000 years and still is today
Reply

Woodrow
06-02-2009, 02:35 AM
ATTENTION K-MART SHOPPERS AND LI POSTERS

THIS AISLE IS BECOMING QUITE CLUTTERED WITH SPILLS. PLEASE RETURN TO AISLE 7 AND ASK ABOUT MUSLIM VOTERS, SHOULD THEY OR SHOULDN'T THEY?


Any further spills in this aisle will result in a store closure as the thread is becoming too hzardous for kittens, babies and other peaceable creatures.
Reply

Sampharo
06-02-2009, 05:53 AM
What happened here?! I leave this for a nap and come back with seven pages already?

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Ok, ok let's get back on topic. Hey Woodrow, I checked with my professors and they say it is absolutely fine to vote for the better candidate who will be a better option for Muslims or at least a lesser evil. They said unless you join his party support efforts and with intention vote for him because you "like" him, it is ok.

I found this post online also to support:

"
The process of voting in non-Muslim democratic countries is not based on religious ideologies neither are elections won and lost on the basis of religion. As such, a candidate that stands up in an election does not promise to implement the laws of Islam or any other religion for that matter.

Normally a candidate promises the public better services and facilities. These services may also be connected to a particular religion, like promising Muslims financial assistance for the construction of Masjids, and so on.

Therefore, to vote a particular candidate or party in non-Muslim countries will be permissible and not considered a sin or Kufr. When one votes for a party, it does not necessarily mean that one agrees completely with their beliefs and ideologies, rather the intention is that the candidate (or party) will be of help to the whole community.

In light of the above, it becomes clear that to vote in itself is not something that is impermissible. However, the following should be kept in mind.

Voting in a way is giving a testimony in favour of the person/party whom one is voting. The way false testimony is a major sin, to vote in favour of a candidate that one knows is not worthy will also be unlawful and a major sin.

Allah Most High says:

“Allah commands you to render back your trusts to those whom they are due.” (Surah al-Nisa, 58)

He also says:

“When you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned.” (al-An’am, 152)

And:

“And shun the word that is false.” (al-Hajj, 30)

Bearing false testimony has been considered one of the major sins. Imam Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) included bearing false testimony in his famous book al-Kaba’ir, and then related the following Hadith:

“Shall I not inform you of the greatest sins (akbar al-kaba’ir): Associating partners with Allah (shirk), disobedience to parents, bearing false witness and speaking falsehood.” (Sahih al-Bukhari)

When one is giving his vote, he is actually giving testimony on the fact that the candidate (or party) is trustworthy in his beliefs and actions, and better than the other candidates.

In a situation where there is no worthy candidate (as in non-Muslim countries, where at least the ideologies and beliefs of the relevant parties are contrary to the teachings of Islam), then the vote should be given to the one who is the better and more trustworthy than the other candidates.

Therefore, to give a vote on the purely basis of personal connections, family relationship, and the like (when one is aware that the one given the vote is not worthy) will be considered impermissible.

Vote should be given to the candidate that one believes will give people their rights, prevent oppression, and so on.

At times, voting becomes necessary. Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:

“If people see an oppressor and don’t prevent him, then it is very likely that Allah will include all of them in the punishment.” (Sunan Tirmidhi & Sunan Abu Dawud)

Therefore, if you see open oppression and transgression, and despite having the capability of preventing this oppression by giving your vote, you don’t do so, then in the light of this Hadith you will be sinful.

In another Hadith it is stated:

“If a believer is being humiliated in front of a individual, and he despite having the capability of preventing this humiliation, abstains from doing so, Allah will him humiliate him (on the day of resurrection) in the presence of all the creation.” (Jam al-Fawa’id, 2/51)

In conclusion, voting is not something that is impermissible. If it is thought that a particular candidate or party will be of benefit to the general public in their day-to-day affairs, then the vote should be given to him. And by voting a particular party, it will not be considered that one agrees with all their ideologies and beliefs.

And Allah knows best



Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK
Reply

Dawud_uk
06-02-2009, 07:46 AM
:sl:

this is actually a very serious issue for the muslims, and people broadly fall into three camps.

1. there is nothing wrong with voting.
2. voting and democracy are not allowed but the reasons of necessity and preventing a greater evil is allowed.
3. is totally not allowed, some going as far as to declare it to be kufr.

as with all things in islam, it is upon those who disagree with a matter to bring their proof to show it is not allowed.

so when i first came into the deen, and understood very little (i still only understand a little) i thought voting was fine, to confuse things most imams (who are not always learned) said was ok and encouraged people to vote for this party or that party depending on what promises had been made to local muslim leaders or as i found out later who had paid bribes to certain committee members.

later i began to understand the place of shariah, to be educated a little on Allah's law and the means and purpose of it then democracy seems a little silly so i left it alone.

but still to declare something haram or kufr needs some strong daleel from the ulema, so at least point i refrained from saying that even though in the uk there was a big debate at the time as the respect party was getting big.

the problem is there have been very few instances simular to this in islamic history, it was unthinkable for them to rule by other than the shariah of Allah, even if the amir was a fasiq, still the ruling system would be shariah.

so what is like secular democracy?

most scholars i have listened to have said communism is haram, indeed is kufr. why and why are the objections to communism like the objections to secular democracy?

because it involves ruling by other than Allah has revealled. which Allah swt declares to be kufr, and associating a partner with Allah in his exclusive right to legislate (surah Yusuf)

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the
disbelievers."
[Surah Maa`idah 5:44]

indeed one of the names of Allah is al-Hakam, as he is the one who rules and gives legislation to mankind.

So if this is an exclusive right and attribute of Allah then to give this right to other than Allah is an act of idolitry just as the jews and christians following their priests and rabbis is a form of idolitry as they forbid the halal and enjoin the haram upon the people as per when Allah said in the Quran,

Adiyy ibn Haatim (a former Christian before his Islam) reports that he heard the Prophet (saws) read: They took their scholars and monks as lords othher than Allah... Surah At-tauba: 31 He said to the Prophet (saws): We never used to worship them. The Prophet (sas) said: "Did they not forbid that which Allah allowed and you likewise forbid it and they allowed that which Allah forbade and you likewise allowed it? He said: Yes. The Prophet (sas) said: "That is your worship of them."

So now we should see and understand that voting for secular democratic parties is a form of kufr and shirk, indeed probably the biggest shirk in todays world and one which has infected the muslim ummah since the collapse of the last remnents of the islamic state.

still some ulema argue that although it forbidden to vote, if it saves muslims lives by ending a war etc then is allowed, as necessity overrules prohibition.

but even this argument has weaknesses as the necessity is something personal, someone holding a gun to your head and people cannot find an example of the ulema in the past applying this to a whole community.

the only example that has been found works against the argument, as it is when some of the muslims were captured by the romans in the time of umar ibn al-khattab and the roman leader offered one of the sahabah marriage to his daughter, freeing of all the other prisoners and sharing in his rulership with him if he left islam, to which he refused.

so if it was understood from the manhaj of the salaf that a statement of kufr was allowed to save another muslims live, then the sahabah would acted this way but they refused, and from my what ulema and students of knowledge have taught me this proves that even the argument of necessity is no defence for taking part in democracy, though because such people are doing so with the correct intention, understanding democracy to be kufr they have not committed kufr themselves.

i used to have some good articles on this matter on my old pc before it died on me but i will try to find something from the ulema on this issue rather than posting from our own desires and understandings not what the ulema have informed us from the Quran and sunnah.

:sl:
Reply

Uthman
06-02-2009, 09:16 AM
:sl:

Brother Dawud and Sampharo have both provided what appear to be opposing views, but both are backed up with dalaa'il. It also appears that there is no 'Ijmaa from the scholars on the issue so it doesn't seem as though we are any closer to reaching a conclusion. We do have a fair few of our scholars urging us to vote for these European elections though.

Originally Posted by Dawud
i used to have some good articles on this matter on my old pc before it died on me but i will try to find something from the ulema on this issue rather than posting from our own desires and understandings not what the ulema have informed us from the Quran and sunnah.
It should be possible to retrieve the memory from inside the CPU...

But please do try find something from what the 'Ulema have said. JazakAllah Khayr.

:w:
Reply

Sampharo
06-02-2009, 10:28 AM
Allow me to bring this debate to a clearer phase for the benefit of the readers here to make an educated decision rather than just exchange arguments.

Dawud, You said a few things that need clarification. Perhaps you wish to disagree, but considering yourself saying you know little about Islam I hope you will accept, or if you don't accept then I would urge you for references:

most scholars i have listened to have said communism is haram, indeed is kufr. why and why are the objections to communism like the objections to secular democracy?

because it involves ruling by other than Allah has revealled. which Allah swt declares to be kufr, and associating a partner with Allah in his exclusive right to legislate (surah Yusuf)
As for communism, according to the Abdullah Ibn Baz (well known, but just in case he is the head of Islamic sciences department and Mufti of Saudi Arabia), communism is kufr not because it is ruling by other than Islam, for that is not specifically kufr to start with, but because communism specifically bans Islam, its application requires the closure of mosques and forbiddence from any religious activity, and following it by necessity requires its members to becoming an athiest. Even though it has adjusted the announced doctrine in Arab countries, it stayed true to them at home and considered its application to be gradual. Here is an online link for the four page statement: http://d1.islamhouse.com/data/ar/ih_...mic_makkah.pdf

Democratic process, as in voting, especially when it is separate from Western democracy as a government system does not have any doctrine against practicing religion, and even though secular governments use democracy as a governing system and has secular code of law, it does not mean that if you voice your opinion or cast a vote for an administrator you are by necessity adopting democracy as a personal philosophy and "abondoned" Islam.

As for Surat Yusuf, I need secondary sources regarding this, because direct quotation from the Quran needs that. I would like to see you publish the interpretation of that Yusuf Surat verses from Ibn Kathir or Qurtubi mean, and include the opinion of some of the greater Imams, like any of the four math-habs or Ibn Taymeyya or Al-Thahabi or Al-Albani. That way we can know the different opinions regarding these verses.

"And whoever does not rule by what Allaah revealed, then these are the disbelievers." [Surah Maa`idah 5:44]
Why only a quarter of the verse?! The full verse reads: "Verily, it is We who bestowed from on high the Torah, wherein there was guidance and light. On `its strength did the prophets, who had surrendered themselves unto God, deliver judgment unto those who followed the Jewish faith; and so did the [early] men of God and the rabbis, inasmuch as some of God's writ had been entrusted to their care; and they [all] bore witness to its truth. Therefore, [O children of Israel,] hold not men in awe, but stand in awe of Me; and do not barter away My messages for a trifling gain: for they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth/disbelievers !"

According to Ibn Kathir AND Al-Qurtubi, this verse and its statement of "deniers of the truth" is specifically regarding the jews. As per Ibn Kathir, the jews came to the prophet with an adulterer who was married, and they were saying: "if the prophet says to punish by lashing, we say yes and look like good followers of that prophet, but if he says to stone him, we will say no and not do it". And when they came the prophet said bring out your torat, and when they did, he said you need to stone him, as not only in Islam but also in your torat, to which the men lied and said it is not in the torat. WHen they were asked to open the torat to where it is the man covered the verse with his hand, and the prophet -pbuh- who couldn't read or write was guided to push his hand and point right to it.

Al-Qurtubi says to the letter: قوله تعالى {ومن لم يحكم بما أنزل الله فأولئك هم الكافرون} و{الظالمون} و{الفاسقون} نزلت كلها في الكفار؛ ثبت ذلك في صحيح مسلم من حديث البراء، وقد تقدم. وعلى هذا المعظم. فأما المسلم فلا يكفر وإن ارتكب كبيرة.
Translation: The verse "they who do not judge in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high are, indeed, deniers of the truth/disbelievers" and "unjust" and "faseqoon" all came down in the mushrekien only, and it was proven as well in Sahih Muslim, as for muslims who do that they are not kufar even if they commit a great sin"

Additionally, this shows NECESSARILY that there needs to be God's judgement and Shariah already applied in order to make denying it an act of great sin. As per the condition in the UK has no Islamic shariah, and no Islamic candidate, there is no act of hiding anything or choosing to judge by something other than God's will. That is the basis by which many scholars also have found that even if this verse applies great sin or disbelief on the ones who do it, it is necessary that it happens against a possible Islamic option. That does not exist in secular Western countries.

indeed one of the names of Allah is al-Hakam, as he is the one who rules and gives legislation to mankind.

So if this is an exclusive right and attribute of Allah then to give this right to other than Allah is an act of idolitry just as the jews and christians following their priests and rabbis is a form of idolitry as they forbid the halal and enjoin the haram upon the people as per when Allah said in the Quran,

Adiyy ibn Haatim (a former Christian before his Islam) reports that he heard the Prophet (saws) read: They took their scholars and monks as lords othher than Allah... Surah At-tauba: 31 He said to the Prophet (saws): We never used to worship them. The Prophet (sas) said: "Did they not forbid that which Allah allowed and you likewise forbid it and they allowed that which Allah forbade and you likewise allowed it? He said: Yes. The Prophet (sas) said: "That is your worship of them."
Fail to see the relation with this topic.
So now we should see and understand that voting for secular democratic parties is a form of kufr and shirk, indeed probably the biggest shirk in todays world and one which has infected the muslim ummah since the collapse of the last remnents of the islamic state.

still some ulema argue that although it forbidden to vote, if it saves muslims lives by ending a war etc then is allowed, as necessity overrules prohibition.
Did not see that especially as the correct interpretation was presented from the original books.

Finally, I would like to bring "due weight" into the picture. The scholars who agree that voting in secular countries to choose an administrator who is better for the muslims is absolutely permissible are: Islamic Sciences Department of Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar Al-Sharif in Egypt, The Islamic council of Malaysia as well as the one in Indonesia, and the Dar Al-Iftaa of ENgland, not to mention the one in the US as well as almost all official academies and universities. The only scholars that I heard of who said it's haraam are either those in the villages of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, or the advisors of Jamaa Islamiyya in Egypt before the elections, saying that to vote for anyone other than their own candidae is shirk because there is an Islamic candidate. Regardless of that being an obvious ruse, even if considered, there are no Islamic candidates in the UK elections, and ignoring a procedural process under claim that it violates one's belief in God has been told by well learned scholars to be mostly a political move to quell people's objections to rebelling fighters who claim to be looking towards applying Shariah.

So the golden question is: Who is the source of your fatwa that says casting a vote even for an administrative position is outright kufr? You may of course to choose individual names, but to cut short the response of who these people are, it would be preferable if you could from the beginning mention official institutions and councils please.
Reply

doorster
06-02-2009, 01:22 PM
...
Reply

Uthman
06-02-2009, 02:05 PM
:sl:

If brother Dawud can bring an opposing view of some 'Ulema with daleel then this will be worth considering. Otherwise, the evidences provided by brother Sampharo seem to be most correct.

:w:
Reply

Sampharo
06-02-2009, 04:43 PM
Jazakom Allaho Khairan. All the source opinions of course are those of the great scholars and teachers we study from. Glad it was of help, and I too benefit from every debate.
Reply

Uthman
06-03-2009, 10:21 AM
UK Muslims, the BNP, and EU Elections

By Euro-Muslims Editorial Desk

Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?

On June 4, European Muslims in 27 countries can take an action on obstacles challenging their integration process and play a role in countering the extreme right wing's danger in Europe through making well-versed choices on the European Parliamentary elections.

Seventy two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be representing the British electoral region in the European Parliament for the upcoming five years (2009-2014).

Leading Muslim Scholars, coming from diverse backgrounds and schools of thoughts, have urged British Muslims to "vote in the European elections, as xenophobic, extremist right wing parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European Parliament," in a statement that was issued on May 28.

Although the scholars' statement did not refer literally to the British National Party (BNP) as one of the leading "Islamophobic, racist, and fascist parties in the UK," another statement that was issued by "Unite against Fascism and MCB" has made it clear.

It is worth mentioning that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have urged British citizens not to vote for far-right BNP as a reaction to the rising anger over MPs' expenses in a joint statement that they declared on May 24, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops. They also mentioned that "the BNP fostered fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or ethnic background." In the context of IslamOnline.net (IOL) European Muslims Page's coverage to IOL, we have invited the BNP's press office and the MCB to a Live Debate on IOL seeking a healthy bilateral debate. Albeit the BNP couldn't make it to the Live Debate, they sent IOL an official rebuttal of the MCB/ British Muslims' accusations claimed above. On the other hand, Inayat Bunglawala, MCB's spokesman and an advisor on policy and research at ENGAGE, was the guest of an online session, entitled Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?, He replied to many IOL audience's questions on the far-right parties in Europe and the impact of their presence in the European Parliament on the integration process of Muslims in Europe.

We are presenting the BNP's statement here below and you can read Bunglawala's full Live Session by clicking here.

The BNP's Statement

The British National Party bears no animosity towards individual members of the Muslim faith. There are probably many issues that we as Nationalists agree with the Muslim peoples of the world. For example, we have consistently condemned the west's attacks on Muslim counties such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not believe that our country should be trying to force Muslim countries to adopt western systems of democracy by force of arms. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed by the British and American governments. We believe that in this country, Islam should take issue with the main party's bloody policies in the Middle East, which the British National Party had nothing to do with. We see these wars as merely attempts to secure the Middle East oil and protect Israeli Interests.

We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.

However we do recognize that British born Muslim extremists have been further radicalized due to British foreign policy in the Middle East and uncontrolled immigration from counties sending radicalized Muslim clerics to preach hate on our land.

Regards,
John Walker
BNP Press Office

Source:IslamOnline

Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 10:54 AM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
UK Muslims, the BNP, and EU Elections

By Euro-Muslims Editorial Desk

Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?

On June 4, European Muslims in 27 countries can take an action on obstacles challenging their integration process and play a role in countering the extreme right wing's danger in Europe through making well-versed choices on the European Parliamentary elections.

Seventy two Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be representing the British electoral region in the European Parliament for the upcoming five years (2009-2014).

Leading Muslim Scholars, coming from diverse backgrounds and schools of thoughts, have urged British Muslims to "vote in the European elections, as xenophobic, extremist right wing parties have a very real chance of gaining national prominence by winning a seat in the European Parliament," in a statement that was issued on May 28.

Although the scholars' statement did not refer literally to the British National Party (BNP) as one of the leading "Islamophobic, racist, and fascist parties in the UK," another statement that was issued by "Unite against Fascism and MCB" has made it clear.

It is worth mentioning that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, have urged British citizens not to vote for far-right BNP as a reaction to the rising anger over MPs' expenses in a joint statement that they declared on May 24, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops. They also mentioned that "the BNP fostered fear and division within communities, especially between people of different faiths or ethnic background." In the context of IslamOnline.net (IOL) European Muslims Page's coverage to IOL, we have invited the BNP's press office and the MCB to a Live Debate on IOL seeking a healthy bilateral debate. Albeit the BNP couldn't make it to the Live Debate, they sent IOL an official rebuttal of the MCB/ British Muslims' accusations claimed above. On the other hand, Inayat Bunglawala, MCB's spokesman and an advisor on policy and research at ENGAGE, was the guest of an online session, entitled Will UK Muslims kick the BNP outside the European Parliament?, He replied to many IOL audience's questions on the far-right parties in Europe and the impact of their presence in the European Parliament on the integration process of Muslims in Europe.

We are presenting the BNP's statement here below and you can read Bunglawala's full Live Session by clicking here.

The BNP's Statement

The British National Party bears no animosity towards individual members of the Muslim faith. There are probably many issues that we as Nationalists agree with the Muslim peoples of the world. For example, we have consistently condemned the west's attacks on Muslim counties such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We do not believe that our country should be trying to force Muslim countries to adopt western systems of democracy by force of arms. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims have been killed by the British and American governments. We believe that in this country, Islam should take issue with the main party's bloody policies in the Middle East, which the British National Party had nothing to do with. We see these wars as merely attempts to secure the Middle East oil and protect Israeli Interests.

We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.

We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.

However we do recognize that British born Muslim extremists have been further radicalized due to British foreign policy in the Middle East and uncontrolled immigration from counties sending radicalized Muslim clerics to preach hate on our land.

Regards,
John Walker
BNP Press Office

Source:IslamOnline

What exacrly do you find objectionable in their statement, Uthmān?
PS: now i have to copy your name, everytime i wan't to use it!:skeleton:
Reply

Banu_Hashim
06-03-2009, 11:02 AM
So, has everyone posted off their vote ?
Reply

Uthman
06-03-2009, 11:18 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
What exacrly do you find objectionable in their statement, Uthmān?
I don't have a problem with most of what is written in the statement although I don't know how much of it is true. I do find the following part questionable:
We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.
I think it's disingenuous to say that they merely wish to put the Christian population first. In the past, they have demonstrated their opposition to Islam and Muslims quite clearly and I think this is the reason why the Muslim Council of Britain oppose them.

Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
PS: now i have to copy your name, everytime i wan't to use it!:skeleton:
Sorry! :D

I don't mind if you call me Osman. I'll let you do that as a token of our friendship. :thumbs_up
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 11:23 AM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
I don't have a problem with most of what is written in the statement although I don't know how much of it is true. I do find the following part questionable:
We believe the Muslim Council of Britain should put its own extremists in order before having the audacity to accuse the British National party of extremism for merely wishing to put the host Christian population first.
I think it's disingenuous to say that they merely wish to put the Christian population first. In the past, they have demonstrated their opposition to Islam and Muslims quite clearly and I think this is the reason why the Muslim Council of Britain oppose them.

Sorry! :D

I don't mind if you call me Osman. I'll let you do that as a token of our friendship. :thumbs_up
I agree. What is your view of the UKIP?
When I change my name to unpronouncable gibberish, you'll have the same privilige, friend!
I'm rather touched now!
Reply

Uthman
06-03-2009, 11:46 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
What is your view of the UKIP?
I haven't exactly studied their policies in detail but I don't have any particular objections from a Muslim point of view. I don't know whether independence from the European union is the best way forward for the UK. Obviously, that would cut off the open-door immigration policy that is currently in place which could be a good thing. Because of their immigration stance, they are probably a good alternative to people who can't bring themselves to vote BNP. Anyway, if you're asking me as a Muslim then I don't specifically object to them since I don't see them as an anti-Muslim party.

Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
When I change my name to unpronouncable gibberish, you'll have the same privilige, friend!
I just prefer the original arabic spelling as opposed the the Turkish version.

But in case you're interested, some nicknames given to me by Non-Muslim friends include Ozzy, Ozzinator and Osmosis.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-03-2009, 12:05 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by BNP statement
We believe in keeping Britain an overwhelmingly Christian country, and do not believe Islam should become a dominating religion within our Land. Would any Muslim country in the world accept Christianity taking over as a dominating religion?. In many Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims for practicing their faith.
1) The BNP are blatantly anti-Islamic: ''we don't want islam to become a dominating religion within our land'' ---> Horsecrap; you cannot stop that (unless you partake in the fun-for-all-ages that is genocide). Then they go on and mince words in the following sentence by using the all to familiar table-turner: what if christians took over an Islamic country. Well pal:
[A] That's a different argument; your first point was about a dominant religion, your connecting argument was about taking over a country...
[B] If you meant taking over a country with your first point (and simply forgot to write that...yeah right): the UK is a democracy and would allow for that eventuality. Don't blame muzzies for using the system. Additionally, most muslim countries are Theistic and thus WOULDN'T allow for the eventuality of another theological regime other than the present one. In which case the argument falls to pieces.

2) England is NOT a Christian country. It is a secular democracy. The BNP are making an apples vs orange argument.

3) The bolded bit; why would they mention this? Other than to stir up trouble. Muslims are killed in the UK for practicing their faith....BNP obviously being the two-faced clowns they are don't tell you that.

So me personally have a big problem with the BNP: they are two-faced (several years back they hated jews and sided with certain muslims, present day it is the direct opposte ---> bandwaggon jump much?) and racist; you can see it in their actions and their statements.

Edit: Cannot be asked to do full statement pwnge. This excerpt is enough for now.
Reply

Zafran
06-03-2009, 12:10 PM
Salaam

Muslims get killed and persected all over the place - typical BNP giving a oneside argument

peace.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by Uthmān
I haven't exactly studied their policies in detail but I don't have any particular objections from a Muslim point of view. I don't know whether independence from the European union is the best way forward for the UK. Obviously, that would cut off the open-door immigration policy that is currently in place which could be a good thing. Because of their immigration stance, they are probably a good alternative to people who can't bring themselves to vote BNP. Anyway, if you're asking me as a Muslim then I don't specifically object to them since I don't see them as an anti-Muslim party.

I just prefer the original arabic spelling as opposed the the Turkish version.

But in case you're interested, some nicknames given to me by Non-Muslim friends include Ozzy, Ozzinator and Osmosis.
:D
I'm gonna call you Ozzy!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 12:24 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:

1) The BNP are blatantly anti-Islamic: ''we don't want islam to become a dominating religion within our land'' ---> Horsecrap; you cannot stop that (unless you partake in the fun-for-all-ages that is genocide).
You can limit immigration and encourage relocation.
Reply

aamirsaab
06-03-2009, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
You can limit immigration and encourage relocation.
Limit immigration isn't going to stop Uk-born muslims from having lots of babies. :D
Encourage relocation...well, if they are offering to foot the bill then I won't say no, but I will be expecting something grand. Like 8.9 billion in sterling. *insert evil and/or psychotic laughter here*

In any case, their overall goal is still blatant discriminatory and they are not getting my vote.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Limit immigration isn't going to stop Uk-born muslims from having lots of babies. :D
Encourage relocation...well, if they are offering to foot the bill then I won't say no, but I will be expecting something grand. Like 8.9 billion in sterling. *insert evil and/or psychotic laughter here*

In any case, their overall goal is still blatant discriminatory and they are not getting my vote.
We can solve that but makinf 2 babies the only affordable option for a averaage couple, thus preserving the british nation as well as keeping minorities at their curent percentage.
Besides financing hijras and that, they also want to cut foreign aid to every country except those accepting british immigrants.
You're right though. vote the UKIP instead!
Reply

Amadeus85
06-03-2009, 02:22 PM
[QUOTE=aamirsaab;1160733]

the UK is a democracy and would allow for that eventuality. Don't blame muzzies for using the system. Additionally, most muslim countries are Theistic and thus WOULDN'T allow for the eventuality of another theological regime other than the present one. In which case the argument falls to pieces.

2) England is NOT a Christian country. It is a secular democracy. The BNP are making an apples vs orange argument.
That only proves my latest observations that we would have to change the political system in future , because democracy doesnt give the guarantee of the eternal existance of christian civilization in Europe. Unlike monarchy or christian dictatorship ala Franco or Salazar. I think that in about year 2030 Europeans will notice the dangers of democracy nowadays and they would prefer to sacrifice democratic system and choose a system that will guarantee order,tradition and our culture.
Reply

KAding
06-03-2009, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
That only proves my latest observations that we would have to change the political system in future , because democracy doesnt give the guarantee of the eternal existance of christian civilization in Europe. Unlike monarchy or christian dictatorship ala Franco or Salazar. I think that in about year 2030 Europeans will notice the dangers of democracy nowadays and they would prefer to sacrifice democratic system and choose a system that will guarantee order,tradition and our culture.
What alternative to liberal democracy are you proposing exactly :phew. And with 'our culture' are you speaking about the majority 'non-believing' culture or the minority 'practicing Christian' culture?
Reply

جوري
06-03-2009, 06:21 PM
Ghettos and camps on the outskirts..
what else is there of course?

all the best
Reply

doorster
06-03-2009, 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
That only proves my latest observations that we would have to change the political system in future , because democracy doesnt give the guarantee of the eternal existance of christian civilization in Europe. Unlike monarchy or christian dictatorship ala Franco or Salazar. I think that in about year 2030 Europeans will notice the dangers of democracy nowadays and they would prefer to sacrifice democratic system and choose a system that will guarantee order,tradition and our culture.
What alternative to liberal democracy are you proposing exactly . And with 'our culture' are you speaking about the majority 'non-believing' culture or the minority 'practicing Christian' culture?
"monarchy or christian dictatorship ala Franco or Salazar"
Reply

doorster
06-03-2009, 06:26 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Ghettos and camps on the outskirts..
what else is there of course?

all the best
No, Impractical

Ghettos and camps in the inner cities so that they can be walled in Gazza style
Reply

Zafran
06-03-2009, 06:51 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
What alternative to liberal democracy are you proposing exactly :phew. And with 'our culture' are you speaking about the majority 'non-believing' culture or the minority 'practicing Christian' culture?
Yes well said it is worry people think like that:phew
Reply

Zafran
06-03-2009, 06:52 PM
Franco is that the same guy who allied with Hitler during the civil war and then treid to wipe out the Islamic heritage of Spain. Very Intresting.
Reply

KAding
06-03-2009, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by doorster
"monarchy or christian dictatorship ala Franco or Salazar"
Personally I think he is leaning towards some kind of illiberal system, where it becomes illegal for Muslims to build mosques, for them to proselytize openly, for people to convert away from 'official' religion, etc...

But to get there he'll have to abolish liberal democracy, in other words our fundamental rights and voting.
Reply

جوري
06-03-2009, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Personally I think he is leaning towards some kind of illiberal system, where it becomes illegal for Muslims to build mosques, for them to proselytize openly, for people to convert away from 'official' religion, etc...

But to get there he'll have to abolish liberal democracy, in other words our fundamental rights and voting.

It is very difficult for Muslims to convert anyone, especially during these times.. people who convert do so on their own accord.. Islam and Muslims has become synonymous with terrorism.. thus I don't see how that would fix the problem..

secondly you don't need a mosque for any of your prayers, you can have a mosque even in someone's house, so again I fail to see how that will fix the problem?..

in order for Europe to be what it wants to be homogeneous, christian etc, they will actually have to adopt Islamic ideals in order to do so..
and you are right, all those things that Muslims are mocked for would be exactly the sort of things adopted..

No alcohol, no porn, no homosexuality, no apostasy, yes to marriage and children etc..
Europe should forgo the circuitous route and adopted Islamic ideals from the get go then?

all the best
Reply

Zafran
06-03-2009, 07:26 PM
salaam

Pure irony realy.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It is very difficult for Muslims to convert anyone, especially during these times.. people who convert do so on their own accord.. Islam and Muslims has become synonymous with terrorism.. thus I don't see how that would fix the problem..

secondly you don't need a mosque for any of your prayers, you can have a mosque even in someone's house, so again I fail to see how that will fix the problem?..

in order for Europe to be what it wants to be homogeneous, christian etc, they will actually have to adopt Islamic ideals in order to do so..
and you are right, all those things that Muslims are mocked for would be exactly the sort of things adopted..

No alcohol, no porn, no homosexuality, no apostasy, yes to marriage and children etc..
Europe should forgo the circuitous route and adopted Islamic ideals from the get go then?

all the best
This was the European ideal for 2 millenia, we have been on the 'hedonistic route' for the past few decades.
Reply

جوري
06-03-2009, 07:47 PM
and hedonism isn't working is it-- and Christianity wasn't working either for entirely different reasoning.. they figured this is better, but it is only superficially better..

I love an Italian belvedere or in the south of france and good times as much as the next guy, but one week a year is different than all year round.
Life isn't paradise.. Europeans after a Homogeneous identity need a major shift their priorities
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-03-2009, 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
and hedonism isn't working is it-- and Christianity wasn't working either for entirely different reasoning.. they figured this is better, but it is only superficially better..

I love an Italian belvedere or in the south of france and good times as much as the next guy, but one week a year is different than all year round.
Life isn't paradise.. Europeans after a Homogeneous identity need a major shift their priorities
Why wasn't Christianity working?
Reply

جوري
06-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Why wasn't Christianity working?

You have to think about that one a little..

same for Judaism by the way

for instance, why would a Muslim population less than 20 yrs old have vast empires extending from the far east to the Iberian peninsula, while a Jewish population walking along side their messenger get lost in the desert for forty years?.. we are not even talking empires, we are talking about a few miles stretch of land.

To answer your question it will have to border on something that you don't believe in, and I don't want to turn world affairs into a comparative religion.

all the best
Reply

Amadeus85
06-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
What alternative to liberal democracy are you proposing exactly :phew. And with 'our culture' are you speaking about the majority 'non-believing' culture or the minority 'practicing Christian' culture?
You are talking about something that is present and Im talking about something that belongs to eternity. You worry about Your country as much as Your life is going on there, and I think what my country will be in next 300 years.
Reply

جوري
06-03-2009, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
You are talking about something that is present and Im talking about something that belongs to eternity. You worry about Your country as much as Your life is going on there, and I think what my country will be in next 300 years.

I don't think anything will happen to Poland or Romania or like places for obvious reasons.. people usually seek immigration where there is some economic stability .. if you work as an engineer in your country and make 1/8 of what you'd make in a western country, then you'd want to move there, if you make as much in Poland or Romania as you'd in your home country, then what is the point in moving there?

Poland's economic conditions play a major role in its homogeneous population, and judging by how many pols I have see here in the U.S, I believe they seek immigration for the same reasons that Muslims from poor countries do..

I don't think you have to worry about your nationalistic and religious identity any time soon.. perhaps your people's ability to procreate and survive should then move up on the agenda..

all the best
Reply

glo
06-04-2009, 07:03 PM
I hope you are out there casting your votes. You have until 10 pm this evening!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-04-2009, 08:29 PM
Originally Posted by glo
I hope you are out there casting your votes. You have until 10 pm this evening!
Already? We vote on sunday.
Reply

Amadeus85
06-04-2009, 08:52 PM
We too, lots of conservaties are coming to Brussels ho ho ho.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 12:20 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
We too, lots of conservaties are coming to Brussels ho ho ho.
The league of polish families to me is just as bad as the french sharia party...
Reply

Amadeus85
06-05-2009, 12:31 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The league of polish families to me is just as bad as the french sharia party...
LPR doesnt exist anymore, their members went to Ganley Decland's Libertas. There are also two small social democratic parties (SLD and PPR), two small right wing (UPR and PR) , one big consevative (PIS) and one big liberal consevative (PO).
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 12:35 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
LPR doesnt exist anymore, their members went to Ganley Decland's Libertas. There are also two small social democratic parties (SLD and PPR), two small right wing (UPR and PR) , one big consevative (PIS) and one big liberal consevative (PO).
Who will you vote for, if its not too intrusive?
Reply

Amadeus85
06-05-2009, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Who will you vote for, if its not too intrusive?
Actually I dont know yet for sure, I will choose between PO(Civil Platform), PiS(Law and Justice) and PR(Right of the Res Publica).
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 03:46 PM
The Dutch posted their results early (acting against the European spirit according to the Comission), Geert Wilder's Freedom party finished second with 4 seats.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 05:04 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The Dutch posted their results early (acting against the European spirit according to the Comission), Geert Wilder's Freedom party finished second with 4 seats.

The Nazis are coming back!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The Nazis are coming back!
We'll see in 60 years..
Reply

Suomipoika
06-05-2009, 06:42 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The Nazis are coming back!
There is something to ponder for everyone how some of the most liberal and openminded countries like Denmark and Netherlands see parties like Geert Wilder's gaining popularity rapidly and how the trend is similar in many (most?) EU countries.
Reply

glo
06-05-2009, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Suomipoika
There is something to ponder for everyone how some of the most liberal and openminded countries like Denmark and Netherlands see parties like Geert Wilder's gaining popularity rapidly and how the trend is similar in many (most?) EU countries.
I think it is a sign that people feel their own culture is threatened, and also perhaps a sign that liberal politics have not been successful.

It is a very worrying trend!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:01 PM
Originally Posted by glo
I think it is a sign that people feel their own culture is threatened, and also perhaps a sign that liberal politics have not been successful.

It is a very worrying trend!
It is, though the apparent good side is that it may mean new anti-immigrational legislaton will be introduced into the law and it's also a clear message for the current governments that they have been doing wrong. Thats the case in the UK too, 4 secretaries have stepped down and Brown is considering it.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It is, though the apparent good side is that it may mean new anti-immigrational legislaton will be introduced into the law and it's also a clear message for the current governments that they have been doing wrong. Thats the case in the UK too, 4 secretaries have stepped down and Brown is considering it.
The reality is that there could be a low turn out - we'll find out on sunday - so many people actually may not vote at all to show that they arnt happy.
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Suomipoika
There is something to ponder for everyone how some of the most liberal and openminded countries like Denmark and Netherlands see parties like Geert Wilder's gaining popularity rapidly and how the trend is similar in many (most?) EU countries.
Scapegoating works in any culture...
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
We'll see in 60 years..
it could happen anytime - the Germans didnt believe it in the 1920s when they were having a hednostic time - 1930 just in 10 years the Nazis entered from a small party to a real force.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Scapegoating works in any culture...
I agree. The history of european scape goating though shows a major sign of danger.
Reply

Karina
06-05-2009, 07:12 PM
I used my vote and I voted GREEN PARTY... :thumbs_up

I know, I know, maybe a "lost" vote but at least it wasn't a vote in favour of the BNP or Conservatives....

Besides, I care too much about the environment and the prospect of peace, I think I had to follow my heart and go where my principles lie.....

:hmm:
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I agree. The history of european scape goating though shows a major sign of danger.
Yep, and letting more immigrants in will only increase the risk of something bad happening.
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Karina
I used my vote and I voted GREEN PARTY... :thumbs_up
You know which party's very existence surprised me when I saw the balot paper?

The Christian Democratic Party.

Seriously, has anyone ever heard of these guys?

Anyway, I just chuckled and moved on.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Scapegoating works in any culture...
I agree, but Muslims themselves are to blame as well, mainly the radical ones.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:15 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
You know which party's very existence surprised me when I saw the balot paper?

The Christian Democratic Party.

Seriously, has anyone ever heard of these guys?

Anyway, I just chuckled and moved on.
Christian democracts are very common in continental Europe. Ehre biggest party in Germany, the Netherlands.
Reply

Karina
06-05-2009, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
You know which party's very existence surprised me when I saw the balot paper?

The Christian Democratic Party.

Seriously, has anyone ever heard of these guys?

Anyway, I just chuckled and moved on.
Yeah I saw that and my eyes skimmed right past them!! Don't know anything about them, but then again, who does??
Reply

The_Prince
06-05-2009, 07:16 PM
well we live in a globalized world now, hence if Muslims start getting massacred in Europe then be sure none Muslims around the world and in Muslim countries wont be having a nice time, they will be getting the same treatment. hence i think its in the best interests of europeans to make sure such a scenario doesnt happen in the first place, :) Muslims arent the Jews of the Nazi era.
Reply

Karina
06-05-2009, 07:17 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Christian democracts are very common in continental Europe. Ehre biggest party in Germany, the Netherlands.
Oh well that's answered my question then!!

:bump1:
Reply

Suomipoika
06-05-2009, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Scapegoating works in any culture...
The irony.
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Suomipoika
The irony.
Because Mr Wilders' party is known best for its sweeping economic reform proposals, its plans for employment, enterprise, health care and free parking. It's not at all blatantly exploiting ignorance in order to foster hatred, nor jumping on any bandwagons. Wear a ribbon!
Reply

glo
06-05-2009, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Christian democracts are very common in continental Europe. Ehre biggest party in Germany, the Netherlands.
Originally Posted by Karina
Oh well that's answered my question then!!

:bump1:
The Christian Democratic Union is indeed a long-standing party in Germany. It was founded after WWII.
In political terms it is probably most similar to the Conservatives in the UK or the Republicans in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...Union_(Germany)

It's the first time I have seen a Christian Democratic Party on the EU election sheet.
It seems a very recent party here in the UK.
I actually tried to find out what their political views were ... but I didn't get too far ...
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Christian democracts are very common in continental Europe. Ehre biggest party in Germany, the Netherlands.
Oh. You learn something new every day.
Reply

Rabi'ya
06-05-2009, 07:37 PM
:sl:

even more confusing to me was the party called "no2eu" I have never heard of them in my life. I asked my mum AFTER I'd voted and she said they put a leaflet through her door.

Seems to me a lot of these parties are very secretive when it comes to giving info out glo. The only party who gve me some decent info and actually keep us very well informed in my area - they send out newsletters every few weeks - got my vote :)
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:40 PM
There was a contravery with the UKIP, their party was listed inside the folded sheet of paper and they're threating to demand the elections be invalidated.
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Rabi'ya
:sl:

even more confusing to me was the party called "no2eu" I have never heard of them in my life. I asked my mum AFTER I'd voted and she said they put a leaflet through her door.
The UKIP leaflet made me laugh.

They boast about the fact that none of their candidates are professional politicians.

It's like boasting you've never been to medical school and offering to perform brain surgery.
Reply

Musaafirah
06-05-2009, 07:42 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
There was a contravery with the UKIP, their party was listed inside the folded sheet of paper and they're threating to demand the elections be invalidated.
Well on the sheet I voted on, the UKIP was clearly shown.
Anyways, I knew nothing about them. Just did the same as Rabi'yah.
Reply

Güven
06-05-2009, 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The Dutch posted their results early (acting against the European spirit according to the Comission), Geert Wilder's Freedom party finished second with 4 seats.
oh my , I should have expected that.

I didn't vote because I forgot about it AND I didn't had the smallest Idea who I should have voted. I also know that many people didn't vote either.


Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) are still number one.

PVV( Geert Wilders) however did it better than I expected.

but I doubt he can accomplish a thing though.

Let's see what he is going to do in the Local Elections , next Year.
Reply

glo
06-05-2009, 07:48 PM
Originally Posted by Güven
oh my , I should have expected that.

I didn't vote because I forgot about it AND I didn't had the smallest Idea who I should have voted. I also know that many people didn't vote either.


Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) are still number one.

PVV( Geert Wilders) however did it better than I expected.

but I doubt he can accomplish a thing though.
That's why it is important for as many people as possible to vote!!

Sometimes you don't vote because you want a particular party to get into power, but because you want a particular party not to get into power!!
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by Güven
oh my , I should have expected that.

I didn't vote because I forgot about it AND I didn't had the smallest Idea who I should have voted. I also know that many people didn't vote either.


Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) are still number one.

PVV( Geert Wilders) however did it better than I expected.

but I doubt he can accomplish a thing though.

Let's see what he is going to do in the Local Elections , next Year.
are you from holland - how bad is there for Muslims?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:50 PM
Originally Posted by glo
That's why it is important for as many people as possible to vote!!

Sometimes you don't vote because you want a particular party to get into power, but because you want a particular party not to get into power!!
Glo aren't you worried one bit about the future of Europe as a Christian secular continent?
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 07:51 PM
Originally Posted by glo
That's why it is important for as many people as possible to vote!!

Sometimes you don't vote because you want a particular party to get into power, but because you want a particular party not to get into power!!
I agree thats why people vote most of the time - in reality in the UK there isnt much of a difference between the big parties anyway.
Reply

Rabi'ya
06-05-2009, 07:52 PM
:sl:

not UKIP it was another party called no2eu
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I agree thats why people vote most of the time - in reality in the UK there isnt much of a difference between the big parties anyway.
The UK voted the BNP and the UKIP not because of the parties themselves but becase they wnated Brown and the labour to lose.
Reply

Suomipoika
06-05-2009, 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Because Mr Wilders' party is known best for its sweeping economic reform proposals, its plans for employment, enterprise, health care and free parking. It's not at all blatantly exploiting ignorance in order to foster hatred, nor jumping on any bandwagons. Wear a ribbon!
Or just maybe the ignorant common man has valid reasons to pick the least horrible option among the train wrecks of current policies. Perhaps the reason why voters vote for these parties are something entirely different than the simple easy answer, scapegoating.
Reply

Güven
06-05-2009, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by Glo
That's why it is important for as many people as possible to vote!!

Sometimes you don't vote because you want a particular party to get into power, but because you want a particular party not to get into power!!
That's so true...



Originally Posted by Zafran
are you from holland - how bad is there for Muslims?

Yes and It's not THAT bad but there A LOTS of people who have NO idea what Islam is all about, Lots of Nazi's also , Geert Wilders followers etc.

But Alhamdullilah , Muslims can practise their religion freely.

Geert Wilders made it worse by declaring war against Islam though.

If he comes in Power then I don't know what will happen, but I'm not a fan of the other parties either.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 08:00 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The UK voted the BNP and the UKIP not because of the parties themselves but becase they wnated Brown and the labour to lose.
are the results out............
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Güven
That's so true...






Yes and It's not THAT bad but there A LOTS of people who have NO idea what Islam is all about, Lots of Nazi's also , Geert Wilders followers etc.

But Alhamdullilah , Muslims can practise their religion freely.

Geert Wilders made it worse by declaring war against Islam though.

If he comes in Power then I don't know what will happen, but I'm not a fan of the other parties either.
salaam

Insh Allah it will be ok down there.

peace
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 08:01 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
are the results out............
No, but the polls are.
Reply

Muezzin
06-05-2009, 08:03 PM
Originally Posted by Suomipoika
Or just maybe the ignorant common man has valid reasons to pick the least horrible option among the train wrecks of current policies.
Being ignorant and common makes this party the least horrible option?

Perhaps the reason why voters vote for these parties are something entirely different than the simple easy answer, scapegoating.
Considering the fact that the party is currently best known for scapegoating (oh, sorry, exposing a hidden threat), I seriously doubt that.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
No, but the polls are.

they are voting for the tories not BNP or UKIP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8081729.stm
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 08:08 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
they are voting for the tories not BNP or UKIP

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8081729.stm
I didn't say the UKIP and the BNP would win, I said a lot of people woted them so the labour would get less. Both the UKIP and the BNP based their campaign on labour mistakes.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 08:13 PM
[QUOTE=Whatsthepoint;1162112]I didn't say the UKIP and the BNP would win, I said a lot of people woted them so the labour would get less. Both the UKIP and the BNP based their campaign on labour mistakes.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that - otherwise those parties wouldnt realy have a leg to stand on.
Reply

Suomipoika
06-05-2009, 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Considering the fact that the party is currently best known for scapegoating (oh, sorry, exposing a hidden threat), I seriously doubt that.
I know. As long as the major parties do the same, people will keep channeling their frustration and valid criticism to the only alternatives.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-05-2009, 08:24 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I agree with that - otherwise those parties wouldnt realy have a leg to stand on.
that depends on where you're standing.
Reply

Argamemnon
06-05-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The tax is lower preety clearly - secodnaly most of things the Ottoman did were Far more tolerant and multicultural then anything in europe - people ran to Muslim courts - if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better - Its one of the reasons why Islam has a relatively tolerant and multicultureal history -Europe historcally has been less tolerant its a very modern phenomana for them (tolerance) the muslim lands were more tolerant.
LOL, I don't see that happening. Most Muslims are not even tolerant against their own Muslim brothers and sisters, let alone kafirs. If I, as a Muslim, say that growing a beard is not compulsory in Islam (which it isn't) and that the majority of Islamic scholars are wrong, all of you are going to be hostile to me, or accuse me of being a heretic. Moreover, someone might even attempt to kill me, if we lived in an Islamic state. There is no respect for human life in Muslim societies, no respect for individuals and no freedom of speech.
Reply

Zafran
06-05-2009, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
LOL, I don't see that happening. Most Muslims are not even tolerant against their own Muslim brothers and sisters, let alone kafirs. If I, as a Muslim, say that growing a beard is not compulsory in Islam (which it isn't) and that the majority of Islamic scholars are wrong, all of you are going to be hostile to me, or accuse me of being a heretic. Moreover, someone might even attempt to kill me, if we lived in an Islamic state. There is no respect for human life in Muslim societies, no respect for individuals and no freedom of speech.
Salaam

1 - there is no such thing as a Islamic state - there is such a thing as Islamic governance.

2 - The only times Muslims ruled over europe was in three places i believe - andalusi (spain) - eastern europe (Ottoman) and sicily - which i know little about. The first two places at there time were arguable the mot tolerant places in europe - with relatively peaceful co existence.

3 - Muslim socities need to be educated in there own world view - looking at your post i see that many people dont even know what the world view is - if your going to be talking about beards - then clearly you wont get anyway.

Muslims historcally have been tolerant of each other - such as ikthliaf (differneces of opinion) but you have to have proof for your differneces and not whims and desires.

4 - I'm not sure what you mean by Muslim socities because the arab world is acting arab - pure nationalism has effected that part of the world - they worship there tribe more then the deen. They can stick to there flags - also Tyrants run the show down there and supress the masses - they cant be overthrown simply because they have to many powerful friends eg America -
Reply

The_Prince
06-06-2009, 02:08 AM
in the UK the BNP havent gained much at all. the only place where right wingers have had success is in Holland, which is a tiny country, and a country where Muslims have already established themselves, so doesnt really matter much. Holland is going to have quite a larger Muslim population soon, large enough to make change and have strong influence, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. i
Reply

Trumble
06-06-2009, 06:23 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The UK voted the BNP and the UKIP not because of the parties themselves but becase they wnated Brown and the labour to lose.
Maybe the Euro elections will be different but based on the Council elections I don't think that's actually true, or at least any more than their and their predecessors vote is/was usually a 'protest' vote against whoever happens to be in office. The UKIP vote has always been founded more on the 'little Englander' attitude than anything.

I was actually very encouraged by the BNP vote, or lack of it. Despite the recession, MP expense scandal and all the rest it seems even the protest votes didn't go their way, which has to be a good thing. The old, racist attitudes are slowly dying.
Reply

glo
06-06-2009, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Glo aren't you worried one bit about the future of Europe as a Christian secular continent?
If you explain what you mean by 'Christian secular' continent, then perhaps I can try to answer your question ...
Reply

KAding
06-06-2009, 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
The tax is lower preety clearly - secodnaly most of things the Ottoman did were Far more tolerant and multicultural then anything in europe - people ran to Muslim courts - if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better - Its one of the reasons why Islam has a relatively tolerant and multicultureal history -Europe historcally has been less tolerant its a very modern phenomana for them (tolerance) the muslim lands were more tolerant.
Compared to Europe at that time it was indeed quite tolerant. But compared to todays standards we can most certainly not speak of it being as being "tolerant".

The fact is that as a non-Muslim you couldn't proselytize, publish your own religious works or openly practice your faith. It also also true that there were heavy restrictions on building new churches or even repairing existing ones, that their testimonies were less valuable in court than the testimonies of Muslims, that they could not marry Muslims. I am also not convinced that Jizya tax was indeed lower, in many cases it clearly was not and was even used to induce non-Muslims to convert to Islam. From a democratic point of view it is also true that non-Muslims can't have any serious say in the affairs of the state, simply because it is doctrinally absurd to allow non-Muslims a say in how to run an Islamic state.

I am sure few Muslim today would accept such restrictions. IMHO such measures would be deemed oppressive in nature.

You also say "- if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better". But how so? Islamic law on how to deal with non-Muslims is what it is, there is only so much leeway you have in interpreting it.
Reply

Güven
06-06-2009, 12:04 PM
^ KAding, May I ask who you voted for? : )
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-06-2009, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
2 - The only times Muslims ruled over europe was in three places i believe - andalusi (spain) - eastern europe (Ottoman) and sicily - which i know little about. The first two places at there time were arguable the mot tolerant places in europe - with relatively peaceful co existence.
The Balkans never witnessed peaceful coexistence during the Ottoman times and is today the poorest part of Europe.
Islamic spain was better than the most of Europe, but worse than today in terms of tolerance etc, Kading didn't mention non-Muslims were ordered to wear special clothes according to their religion.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-06-2009, 12:38 PM
Originally Posted by glo
If you explain what you mean by 'Christian secular' continent, then perhaps I can try to answer your question ...
what we have today, multicultural, multireligious, mutli world view etc society. You can be a devout Muslim, a devout atheist, black, gay, lesbian whatever.
Reply

KAding
06-06-2009, 01:22 PM
Originally Posted by Güven
^ KAding, May I ask who you voted for? : )
Not Wilders and the PVV if that is what you are asking :p. That guy has gone completely nuts.

No, I voted for the VVD (the free-market liberals). These were European elections, so I tried to keep EU issues in mind. I am somewhat skeptical about the European Union, I think Europe needs to focus on economics and open borders. I don't want a Europe that decides issues that could just as easily be arranged locally. For example, I do not want to the EU to decide on moral issues (for example same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia) or social issues (minimum wage, maternity leave, social benefits, immigration).

And I consider myself fairly libertarian (I'm highly individualistic and belief that everyone has a personal path to happiness, there is no one-size-fits-all solution). So I ended up at the VVD. I also generally sympathize with D66, but for this election they were way too pro-European for my liking.

Are you Dutch also Güven?
Reply

KAding
06-06-2009, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The Balkans never witnessed peaceful coexistence during the Ottoman times and is today the poorest part of Europe.
Islamic spain was better than the most of Europe, but worse than today in terms of tolerance etc, Kading didn't mention non-Muslims were ordered to wear special clothes according to their religion.
The thing is. Islam clearly was progress on so many points compared to what we had here in Europe back then or what was the norm in pre-Islamic Arabia. But there have come things after Islam which were even better thought out and better suited to changing society. And there will most likely be political solutions and social orders that are better than what we have now.

<faith mode>I believe in human progress. Slowly but surely we are going forward. Slowly and surely we are refining our moral codes, we are on a path to abolishing slavery, abolishing interstate war, abolishing tyranny, abolishing poverty, improving political rights, animal rights, women rights, etc... We'll never find a perfect order, and we take steps back occasionally, but I think we're clearly better off now in so many ways compared to a century ago or a millennium ago.</faith mode>
Reply

Güven
06-06-2009, 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Not Wilders and the PVV if that is what you are asking :p. That guy has gone completely nuts.

No, I voted for the VVD (the free-market liberals). These were European elections, so I tried to keep EU issues in mind. I am somewhat skeptical about the European Union, I think Europe needs to focus on economics and open borders. I don't want a Europe that decides issues that could just as easily be arranged locally. For example, I do not want to the EU to decide on moral issues (for example same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia) or social issues (minimum wage, maternity leave, social benefits, immigration).

And I consider myself fairly libertarian (I'm highly individualistic and belief that everyone has a personal path the happiness, there is no one-size-fits-all solution). So I ended up at the VVD. I also generally sympathize with D66, but for this election they were way too pro-European for my liking.

Are you Dutch also Güven?
Yes Im a "Turkish Dutchmen" :D

no I was just asking :P

I agree, VVD has good plans for the EU but it's a shame that the PVV got more votes.

I would have voted for the D66 though and they did it well in my opinion.

I hope they do better in the local elections next year.
Reply

Muezzin
06-06-2009, 02:21 PM
If they haven't already, British readers can check local election results on this interactive map.
Reply

Zafran
06-06-2009, 03:01 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
Compared to Europe at that time it was indeed quite tolerant. But compared to todays standards we can most certainly not speak of it being as being "tolerant".

The fact is that as a non-Muslim you couldn't proselytize, publish your own religious works or openly practice your faith. It also also true that there were heavy restrictions on building new churches or even repairing existing ones, that their testimonies were less valuable in court than the testimonies of Muslims, that they could not marry Muslims. I am also not convinced that Jizya tax was indeed lower, in many cases it clearly was not and was even used to induce non-Muslims to convert to Islam. From a democratic point of view it is also true that non-Muslims can't have any serious say in the affairs of the state, simply because it is doctrinally absurd to allow non-Muslims a say in how to run an Islamic state.

I am sure few Muslim today would accept such restrictions. IMHO such measures would be deemed oppressive in nature.

You also say "- if that happend in the past it can easily happen in the future but far better". But how so? Islamic law on how to deal with non-Muslims is what it is, there is only so much leeway you have in interpreting it.
actually the Jizya tax was rarely used to convert people - furthermore Jews actually achieve high staus jobs under the Islamic governance (NO such thing as state) Spain and the Ottoman empire are good places to look at that and even the former Jewish houses of fez show that they were economically preety well of.

Many Jewish minorities actually went to Muslim courts rather then there own even though they had there own Jewsih courts - which clearly shows a sense Justce actually existed at the time.

Also non muslims actually governed themeselves in majority Jewish, christain areas especially under the Ottomans - they were actually left alone to create there own courts and law systems - ofcourse they had to pay the relativley low Jizya (check the millet system).

Finally Muslims have been a very tolerant and more tolerant then any other cultures for over 1000 years historically - they can easily live up to there historical legacy once again - we need positive thinking and the legacy the muslims actually left in europe which is preety tolerant one.
Reply

Zafran
06-06-2009, 03:09 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The Balkans never witnessed peaceful coexistence during the Ottoman times and is today the poorest part of Europe.
Islamic spain was better than the most of Europe, but worse than today in terms of tolerance etc, Kading didn't mention non-Muslims were ordered to wear special clothes according to their religion.
specific areas such as the Caucaus christains and the Jews under Muslim rule were actually left to there own courts and way of life - They are not perfect system but were way better then anything at the time.

And your statement

during the Ottoman times and is today the poorest part of Europe.
Your forgetting something huge - Your forgetting about the soviet union/civil wars so if you want to look at the Balkans today its not directly because of the Ottomans - you just missed a huge junk out of history- the Ottomans were far more tolernat then the soviets.

I'm sure there were periods of relativley peacful co existence under the Ottomans in the Balkans - to say never is an exaggertaion. the reality is that the muslims that ruled parts of europe were far more tolerant then anyone at the time - It certainly can happen again but as i said better.

Not all were ordered to wear specific clothes some even chose there own cultural, religous clothes so they could keep the heritage.
Reply

Argamemnon
06-06-2009, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I'm sure there were periods of relativley peacful co existence under the Ottomans in the Balkans - to say never is an exaggertaion. the reality is that the muslims that ruled parts of europe were far more tolerant then anyone at the time - It certainly can happen again but as i said better.
Could you clarify what you mean by "it certainly can happen again". Are you suggesting that we (Muslims) should try and invade Europe and force our rule on them?
Reply

Zafran
06-06-2009, 06:06 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Could you clarify what you mean by "it certainly can happen again". Are you suggesting that we (Muslims) should try and invade Europe and force our rule on them?
Nobody is saying that - If Islam has had a preety tolerant history then it can clearly become a tolerant and dynamic civilisation once again thats what I'm saying. What do you mean invade europe???? there are muslims citizens in europe we are part of europe now.........until the Nazis come back.
Reply

Rabi'ya
06-07-2009, 09:47 PM
:sl:

WHAT IS HAPPENING!!!!????
Reply

Amadeus85
06-07-2009, 09:51 PM
I have voted today. But I predict that the frequence in Poland will be no bigger than 20%. People seem not to care about EU parliament despite loud media promotion.
Reply

Rabi'ya
06-07-2009, 10:19 PM
:sl:

im watching the results for UK come in via BBC and its appalling!!! How can these kind of parties be winning so many votes. people need to realise the possible future outcomes of voting in this way. :( I think i'm going to go to sleep and hope tomorrow is a better day
Reply

Amadeus85
06-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
what we have today, multicultural, multireligious, mutli world view etc society. You can be a devout Muslim, a devout atheist, black, gay, lesbian whatever.
Actually neither You nor me have this in our countries. Would You like Your country to be as multicultural, multiracial and multireligious as for example England, France or Holland?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-08-2009, 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by Amadeus85
Actually neither You nor me have this in our countries. Would You like Your country to be as multicultural, multiracial and multireligious as for example England, France or Holland?
Technically we have more foreigners than Britain but they're better integrated. I'd like it to be more liberal on certain issues, from what I can tell, the Nethrlands is closest to being an ideal country in that context, apart from the high number of immigrants of course.
Reply

bil_sal
06-16-2009, 12:52 PM
I honestly think that the muslims who didnt vote in the recent EU elections share the blame for the rise of the far right parties. I posted on my blog about this issue and the rise of the BNP. Please check it out here and here
Reply

Whatsthepoint
06-16-2009, 03:00 PM
Originally Posted by bil_sal
I honestly think that the muslims who didnt vote in the recent EU elections share the blame for the rise of the far right parties. I posted on my blog about this issue and the rise of the BNP. Please check it out here and here
Even if every egligible Muslim in the UK voted they wouldn't make much too much difference.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 10:14 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-06-2007, 03:13 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2006, 05:57 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-16-2006, 06:29 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 11:20 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!