Independent Kurdistan...

Independent Kurdistan


  • Total voters
    0
That's too bad. If you would all move so as to live more closely together, enough to form a majority in the neighborhood, perhaps Thirdwatch will help you write a petition for an independent Muslim state so that you can have sharia law.

yeah!!

now ur comment was sarcastic and very rude, but hey, if they all got together, it was muslims only, and they wanted to, in a small area (like a gated community lol) i wouldn't mind!
 
that actually would be a good idea though for the west. have "shariah settlements" where muslims could live under shariah in that specific area. but they could be near cities and all, so the muslims could work and all. and shariah would only be in that settlement, and not in the work force and all (unless the buisiness is in the settlement lol.) and if any muslim didn't want to live under shariah, and wanted to live the true american dream, they could move out of the settlement! lol that would be a cool idea though. they have jewish settlements like that in palestine (only the jews can't work out of the settlement.)
 
That's too bad. If you would all move so as to live more closely together, enough to form a majority in the neighborhood, perhaps Thirdwatch will help you write a petition for an independent Muslim state so that you can have sharia law.

Strangely, within the gated communities such as here at Iron Rock, it is possible for Muslim families to live a sharia style life with no interference. There are clothing restrictions as to minimum of clothing that may be publicaly worn, no public usage of alcohol, no loud music no unsolicited going from door to door for any purpose. No uncontroled activities for the kids. I can foresee a time when some of these gated communities will be predominatly Muslim. Especialy some of the newer ones that are being built. It will just be a matter of time before some investors see that a gated community geared towards Muslim life styles would be a very profitable investment.
 
Strangely, within the gated communities such as here at Iron Rock, it is possible for Muslim families to live a sharia style life with no interference. There are clothing restrictions as to minimum of clothing that may be publicaly worn, no public usage of alcohol, no loud music no unsolicited going from door to door for any purpose. No uncontroled activities for the kids. I can foresee a time when some of these gated communities will be predominatly Muslim. Especialy some of the newer ones that are being built. It will just be a matter of time before some investors see that a gated community geared towards Muslim life styles would be a very profitable investment.


lol you predict some wierd things.. some that i could never see happening. :shade:
 
lol you predict some wierd things.. some that i could never see happening. :shade:

I've seen stranger happen. I've seen individual homes in Oklahoma declare themself to be Native American Reservations and not under federal jurisdiction. The native Americans do have the right to establish reservations and live under tribal law. I do not know if any still do, but for a long time the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma was under tribal law and not US Federal and the same with the Caddo Reservation here in Livingston Texas. The precedent is there that an Islamic community can exist under Sharia law without violating Federal law. On a looser basis the Amish and the Mennonites do it.
 
I've seen stranger happen. I've seen individual homes in Oklahoma declare themself to be Native American Reservations and not under federal jurisdiction. The native Americans do have the right to establish reservations and live under tribal law. I do not know if any still do, but for a long time the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma was under tribal law and not US Federal and the same with the Caddo Reservation here in Livingston Texas. The precedent is there that an Islamic community can exist under Sharia law without violating Federal law. On a looser basis the Amish and the Mennonites do it.

hah i never thought of that, but true. i would't mind if there were "islamic reserves" lol as long as they didn't force me to live there (i am gay.)
 
hah i never thought of that, but true. i would't mind if there were "islamic reserves" lol as long as they didn't force me to live there (i am gay.)

You know I think the idea of gated communities with the regulations being designed for certain religious beliefs is probably right around the corner. Of course I also predict the ACLU moves to stop it, especially if the first ones are fundamentaist Christian communities.

But, what if one already lived in a gated community which over time became predominately, in our present senario, Islamic. Thirdwatch, if you lived in that "islamic reserve" don't you think that you would have been forced against your will, even if there was a clear majority that sought it? This is one of the reasons that I am against the idea of letting ethinc minority groups elect to form new and independent countries wherever they find themselves in the majority. Because there will still be minorities within their midst and the codifying of laws for the benefit of the majority accomplishes no more justice than existed before, it just changes to whom the injustice might be applied. And further, iin narrowing defined societies that are intentionally set up around ethnic homogeney, societal pressures to preserve rights for any minorities present are much more likely to disappear than they would in societies with larger and more divergent cultural variance amongst its population.
 
You know I think the idea of gated communities with the regulations being designed for certain religious beliefs is probably right around the corner. Of course I also predict the ACLU moves to stop it, especially if the first ones are fundamentaist Christian communities.

But, what if one already lived in a gated community which over time became predominately, in our present senario, Islamic. Thirdwatch, if you lived in that "islamic reserve" don't you think that you would have been forced against your will, even if there was a clear majority that sought it? This is one of the reasons that I am against the idea of letting ethinc minority groups elect to form new and independent countries wherever they find themselves in the majority. Because there will still be minorities within their midst and the codifying of laws for the benefit of the majority accomplishes no more justice than existed before, it just changes to whom the injustice might be applied. And further, iin narrowing defined societies that are intentionally set up around ethnic homogeney, societal pressures to preserve rights for any minorities present are much more likely to disappear than they would in societies with larger and more divergent cultural variance amongst its population.

that's why i think they should make little "islamic communites." instead of making a gated community shariah because it's 50% majority, make a whole new gated community, tell them if they want to live in shariah religious then they can move there, if not, then don't lol.
 
that's why i think they should make little "islamic communites." instead of making a gated community shariah because it's 50% majority, make a whole new gated community, tell them if they want to live in shariah religious then they can move there, if not, then don't lol.

If you stop and think of it, look at some of the types of communities that do exist and as long as they do not advocate a violent overthrow of the USA they are perfectly legal. we already do have numerous religious communes.

But, it probably would be best for us as Muslims to start one from scratch and develope it as a new community rather then try to establish majority rule in an existing community.
 
Great! So it seems like we are all agreed on the principle regarding the best way to develop a unique community in the USA. Now, can we figure out the best way to apply this same principle when certain ethnic minorities (who are not even always the majority view within their own ethnicity) seek to gain some special priviledge or redraw international boundaries to accomodate their special interests?
 
If you stop and think of it, look at some of the types of communities that do exist and as long as they do not advocate a violent overthrow of the USA they are perfectly legal. we already do have numerous religious communes.

But, it probably would be best for us as Muslims to start one from scratch and develope it as a new community rather then try to establish majority rule in an existing community.

make sure when you pick a state to take over it is far up north, with global warning the south of US gonna become pretty bad in about 50-100 years, dont make the same mistake as the mormons and pick a hot state like utah!

Abu Abdullah
 
after reading all of that i am so confused

i voted yes for an independant kurdistan..but i'm not so sure anymore
i don't have enough valid facts to make a truthful decision.

But if all the kurds are living in kind of the same region, wouldn't it be okay for them to cut themselves off and be a different country....i really don't know
 
after reading all of that i am so confused

i voted yes for an independant kurdistan..but i'm not so sure anymore
i don't have enough valid facts to make a truthful decision.

But if all the kurds are living in kind of the same region, wouldn't it be okay for them to cut themselves off and be a different country....i really don't know

maybe they can get independence from Iraq and all Kurds from Turkey, Iran, Syria, Armenia could migrate to the Kurdistan... and those who remains in Kurdish areas in Turkey, Iran etc must be faithful to their respective countries...
 
maybe they can get independence from Iraq and all Kurds from Turkey, Iran, Syria, Armenia could migrate to the Kurdistan... and those who remains in Kurdish areas in Turkey, Iran etc must be faithful to their respective countries...

Maybe. That would seem a reasonable solution.

Do you think those members of the PKK that currently live rather autonomously in Iraqi-Kurdistan and are crossing the border to commit acts of terrorism in their pursuit of a larger independent Kurdistan consisting of territory from Turkey too, would be willing to change their position and settle for that? How do you get them to see the wisdom in that?
 
Another thing to think about it. There is a difference between a subculture and a counterculture. How long before this minority community comes into direct conflict with the dominant culture? We think in terms of the dominant culture persecuting the minority, which is usually the case, but sometimes when a minority group directly challenges the sovereignty of the majority group that will also lead to conflict. Perhaps I'm being too sociological.
 
Another thing to think about it. There is a difference between a subculture and a counterculture. How long before this minority community comes into direct conflict with the dominant culture? We think in terms of the dominant culture persecuting the minority, which is usually the case, but sometimes when a minority group directly challenges the sovereignty of the majority group that will also lead to conflict. Perhaps I'm being too sociological.

No, I don't believe so. That is indeed what the present problem is in Turkey. There are Kurds in the Turkish military (all Turkish citizens are required to have a term of military service) and the Kurdish "freedom fighters" fight them. Kurds and Turks, as a rule, get along in Turkey. But the PKK has become a major terrorist problem as they are not satisfied with the status quo and not achieving a change by other means, have now resorted to terror.
 
Maybe. That would seem a reasonable solution.

Do you think those members of the PKK that currently live rather autonomously in Iraqi-Kurdistan and are crossing the border to commit acts of terrorism in their pursuit of a larger independent Kurdistan consisting of territory from Turkey too, would be willing to change their position and settle for that? How do you get them to see the wisdom in that?

Well it isn't as bad as having Greece demanding control of Syria, Turkey, Cyprus, and all other lands that were once controlled by Greece.

I mean let's face it, if Kurdistan is made, and there are those here that will fight to destroy it (like Israel). Then what about other countries that lost their territory as well like Persia, Greece (as the Byzantine Empire), Italy (as the Roman Empire), Germany (under the Nazi Regime), Turkey (as the Ottoman Empire), Russia (as the Soviet Union), France (as the French Empire under Napoleon), Britain (as the British Empire), Spain (as the Spanish Empire), Denmark (as the Scandinavian Empire, which controlled most of Northern Europe), Saudi Arabia (under the Caliphate), Mongolia (under the Mongolian Empire established by the ruthless Gengis Khan), United States (when it had direct and open control over Germany, Japan, Mexico, Phillipines, and practically the entire pacific ocean), Mexico (when it had control over Texas, California, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Guatemala), Japan (when it had control over most of the Pacific and the Coastal areas around the Pacific), and Serbia (when it was once Yugoslavia).

Besides, why should an area highly dominated by Kurdish people be under the rule of a foreign entity. It is like having the Egyptians still under the rule of the British Government. Do you want that to happen again?

Or what if the United States hadn't acted into WWII against Germany? What do you think would have happened to the muslim communities? You'd wouldn't even exist, because your parents or grandparents would have been killed half of a century ago. But what I am saying is that you shouldn't so easily target against segregation and the formation of new countries. There is no logic in it, unless they supported slavery or some other practice that you could reasonably dispise. Like for instance, Zionism is the continual removal of non-Jews from the Canaan region and the growwing expansion of Israel territory. So it is reasonable to dislike Israel since it harbors Zionism. But Kurdistan doesn't seek to remove anyone or ban Islam. A great majority of Kurds are muslim, therefore why whould they spread such a practice?

I say let Kurdistan be and perhaps in the future we can see a more united Middle East, once people stop trying to attack one another or limit the freedom one group of people can express.
 
I've seen stranger happen. I've seen individual homes in Oklahoma declare themself to be Native American Reservations and not under federal jurisdiction. The native Americans do have the right to establish reservations and live under tribal law. I do not know if any still do, but for a long time the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma was under tribal law and not US Federal and the same with the Caddo Reservation here in Livingston Texas. The precedent is there that an Islamic community can exist under Sharia law without violating Federal law. On a looser basis the Amish and the Mennonites do it.

Federal law applies to Native Reservations.
 
Federal law applies to Native Reservations.

Yes, that is true but it is supposed to be the agreed upon laws in accordance with the treaty that the tribe has with the USA.
 
On the issue of Native reservations and tribal law. There are quite a few reservations that live under tribal laws and constitutions. The Lakota reservation in Pine Ridge is a good example. Federal law does apply for felony crimes, like murder. During the 1970's, the American Indian Movement was causing trouble with the tribal council and supporting Native rights nationwide. The federal government didn't get really involved, except for the CIA and FBI COINTELPRO programs. I think it was COINTELPRO...somthing like that. Anyway, 2 FBI agents were killed on the reservation, and the U.S. government had the right to enter the reservation and fight AIM.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top