Anti-Islamist politician Geert Wilders refused entry to Britain

[Pomak]

No, I was not suggesting that. However, as I said, the point is that the film been about the Bible, say (and an analogous version would be quite easy to do, should you be so minded), this would not have happened. I claimed merely that there is a common perception that a double standard exists, and IMHVO not without justification.

No, I do not believe Holocaust denial should be a crime. The reasons why are best explained by, and originate with, John Stuart Mill. You want chapter II.

I don't get the bible analogy, in the sense that Europe is at best only culturally Christian. Orthodox believers have been a minority for a while. (France for example has 10% church attendance)

As for the second part, doubt it would every happen. Its probably gona be on the books for a while.

 

[fairandbalanced]

Banning the guy with the funny hair only makes him a "martyr" and we have all seen what kind of mischief can come from that.


It serves to reinforce his claims of intolerance and puts an idea in the mind of future voters that maybe they should throw out the boys in power now before they further abridge their freedoms.


Perhaps it feels good in the now but I can't see how forward thinking Muslims in Europe could see this a good thing. It seems unequivocally bad for the prospects of Muslims in Europe from a strategic standpoint. Then there is the freedom of speech issue and the erosion of traditional Western European values. It seems a bad move for Britain too.

The only winner seems to be Geert. Oh well. There is always the Atlantic.

 

[paulo]

What everyone suddenly seems to of forgotten is.
"LORD AHMED" as he is called, who officiated this ban on Gilders.
Said, if he is allowed to come to the uk, he personally would MARCH AN ARMY OF MUSLIMS 10-000 STRONG, OUTSIDE THE DOORS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
He should be thrown out of parliament and incited for crimes against the state on them words alone.
What a despicable fool he is.
I hope in some way or another he is impeached.
Here's proof he said it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3317931/the-intimidation-of-the-house-of-lords.thtml

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/lord-ahmed-threatens-parliament-into.html

ANOTHER"VICTORY FOR ISLAM EH?"
AND YET ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR FREE SPEECH.
seriously this place needs sorting out 1 way or the other.
Muslims and Christians have never ever lived peacefully side by side.
What's going to change all or a sudden now?
I went to Birmingham a couple of months ago for the man city vrs aston villa game.
omg, spot the white man, spot the white man, and the black man lol.
And can some Muslim members of this board, comment on them links please?
Do you agree with what he said?

 

[Muezzin]

What everyone suddenly seems to of forgotten is.
"LORD AHMED" as he is called, who officiated this ban on Gilders.
Said, if he is allowed to come to the uk, he personally would MARCH AN ARMY OF MUSLIMS 10-000 STRONG, OUTSIDE THE DOORS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Reading comprehension:

'threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.

Quite a peaceful, litigious 'army', wouldn't you say?

He should be thrown out of parliament and incited for crimes against the state on them words alone.

Those.

What a despicable fool he is.
I hope in some way or another he is impeached.
Here's proof he said it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3317931/the-intimidation-of-the-house-of-lords.thtml

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3765

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/01/lord-ahmed-threatens-parliament-into.html

None of them say he wanted to bring an 'army' of Muslims.

ANOTHER"VICTORY FOR ISLAM EH?"
AND YET ANOTHER DEFEAT FOR FREE SPEECH.
seriously this place needs sorting out 1 way or the other.
Muslims and Christians have never ever lived peacefully side by side.

Please do not make me use the Facepalm.

What's going to change all or a sudden now?
I went to Birmingham a couple of months ago for the man city vrs aston villa game.
omg, spot the white man, spot the white man, and the black man lol.

Evidently, there are a lot of non-white and non-black Brummy football fans. If you want to see more white and black men, I suggest you pay more attention to the match next time.

And can some Muslim members of this board, comment on them links please?

Those.

 

[paulo]

Sorry i forgot the link about 10-000 muslims.
Here it is.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3344161/britain-capitulates-to-terror.thtml

 

[Muezzin]

Well, again, that's just commentary. This commentator says he wanted to 'lay siege' to Parliament, the other commentator in your first post said he wanted to prevent him entering the house, and that he threatened legal action.

If you can provide a link to his verbatim quote, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. Right now, exactly what he said is unclear, and seems to depend upon what point the commentator is trying to make.

 

[fairandbalanced]

Well, again, that's just commentary. This commentator says he wanted to 'lay siege' to Parliament, the other commentator in your first post said he wanted to prevent him entering the house, and that he threatened legal action.

If you can provide a link to his verbatim quote, I'd be happy to share my thoughts. Right now, exactly what he said is unclear, and seems to depend upon what point the commentator is trying to make.

Perhaps the writer engaged in a bit of verbal inflation, but how exactly would 10,000 Muslims stop Geert Wilders from speaking at Parliament if there were not at least some implied threat of violence? They would not be permitted in the dabate chamber, would they? Were they going to lock arms and surround the building in some kind of Ghandian protest, with flowers in their hands and beautific smiles on their faces?

The way I see it from across the Pond, a barely concealed threat of violence caused the government to buckle at the cost of free speech.

 

[Muezzin]

Perhaps the writer engaged in a bit of verbal inflation, but how exactly would 10,000 Muslims stop Geert Wilders from speaking at Parliament if there were not at least some implied threat of violence? They would not be permitted in the dabate chamber, would they? Were they going to lock arms and surround the building in some kind of Ghandian protest, with flowers in their hands and beautific smiles on their faces?

Who says they wanted to prevent him entering Parliament? A commentator. Where is the man's verbatim statement?

The way I see it from across the Pond, a barely concealed threat of violence caused the government to buckle at the cost of free speech.

In the absence of the man's verbatim statement, that view is the product of hearsay.

Same goes for certain critics of the views of Mr Wilders himself - one cannot criticize a viewpoint without examining it.

 

[Thinker]

The controversy and publicity worked for me in so far as it caused me to find and watch the video on UTube. For those who haven't seen it, it consists of clips of the 9/11 and other bombings interspersed with verses (purporting to come) from the Qur’an. I'd be interested to know from anyone here who can say whether or not the Qur’anic verses were accurately recorded?

And, I would have liked to have seen someone from the Muslim community produce something showing that the verses were not accurately recorded or explaining how they are out of context (if that is the case).

 

[Pomak]

The controversy and publicity worked for me in so far as it caused me to find and watch the video on UTube. For those who haven't seen it, it consists of clips of the 9/11 and other bombings interspersed with verses (purporting to come) from the Qur’an. I'd be interested to know from anyone here who can say whether or not the Qur’anic verses were accurately recorded?

And, I would have liked to have seen someone from the Muslim community produce something showing that the verses were not accurately recorded or explaining how they are out of context (if that is the case).

Most of it was, partially mistranslated and incomplete quotes. I mean, if i was morally bankrupt i could dig out quotes of Jesus(or some humanist philosophers) and superimpose them on on footage of the Bosnian war or Chinese/Russian crimes against humanity. And call it a "documentary".
****
"Quran is just that, a book, Islam is what muslims understand the quran+sunnah to be". So really if this guy is "criticizing Islam then he needs to understand what muslims understand these verses to mean. Which he doesn't.

 

[fairandbalanced]

Most of it was, partially mistranslated and incomplete quotes. I mean, if i was morally bankrupt i could dig out quotes of Jesus(or some humanist philosophers) and superimpose them on on footage of the Bosnian war or Chinese/Russian crimes against humanity. And call it a "documentary".
****
"Quran is just that, a book, Islam is what muslims understand the quran+sunnah to be". So really if this guy is "criticizing Islam then he needs to understand what muslims understand these verses to mean. Which he doesn't.

I understand your point but it seems to me not all Muslims have the same "understanding" of what the Quran and the Hadith mean.

Exhibit one...that embarassing episode in Sudan with the Teddy Bear named Muhammed.

Shall I go on?

 

[Pomak]

I understand your point but it seems to me not all Muslims have the same "understanding" of what the Quran and the Hadith mean.

Exhibit one...that embarassing episode in Sudan with the Teddy Bear named Muhammed.

Shall I go on?

Sigh seems like you didn't get it. Islam is the understanding of the words on paper(quran and hadith) because words on paper always need interpretation.

I'll give you an example, in the bible there are verses about jesus spreading conflict as well as peaceful verses. It not possible for an outsider to take one verse (and his understanding of it) and call that "christianity", Christianity would be how Christians understand that verse.

As for the Sudan thing, its got more to do with post-colonialism i think rather than religious interpretations. ( i think a black muslim school teacher would of been able to name the teddy and not get into trouble. The problem at the moment is that there are both muslims and non muslims who view the world in a "us vs them" mindframe. aka clash of civilizations theory)

By the way i am not saying that all interpretations are nice and fuzzy, heck no, but rather i am saying that an outsider can't make a judgment on what is Islam based on his interpretation of a bunch of letters.

http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/the-anthropology-of-islam/

^ explains it a bit better

 

[fairandbalanced]

Sigh seems like you didn't get it. Islam is the understanding of the words on paper(quran and hadith) because words on paper always need interpretation.

I'll give you an example, in the bible there are verses about jesus spreading conflict as well as peaceful verses. It not possible for an outsider to take one verse (and his understanding of it) and call that "christianity", Christianity would be how Christians understand that verse.

As for the Sudan thing, its got more to do with post-colonialism i think rather than religious interpretations. ( i think a black muslim school teacher would of been able to name the teddy and not get into trouble. The problem at the moment is that there are both muslims and non muslims who view the world in a "us vs them" mindframe. aka clash of civilizations theory)

By the way i am not saying that all interpretations are nice and fuzzy, heck no, but rather i am saying that an outsider can't make a judgment on what is Islam based on his interpretation of a bunch of letters.

http://marranci.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/the-anthropology-of-islam/

^ explains it a bit better

Oh, I think I understood exactly what you were saying. I am not as dumb as I look. Let me pose this theological question:

If varying interpretations of Islamic writings (sorry if that is not the right word but that seems a safe term) are equally valid, then how can there be only one Islam?

As for outsiders not possessing the capacity to understand Islam or even make the simplest judgements I find that troubling on two fronts.

1) It is vaguely...no it's concretely offensive to non Muslims.

2) Your latter point is what Joseph Heller called a catch 22. Even when those who profess to be Muslim invoke their belief in Islam as a justification for their actions (let's say a fatwa on Rushdie), no non-Muslim can voice a criticism as they lack the intellectual ability or the spiritual awarenes (or whatever the defect is) to understand Islam. Even worse, the "target" is always moving as one set of believers can always claim that a different set of believers have got it wrong and do not represent the "true Islam". It seems to me issuing a global call for the murder of an apostate either is or isn't theologically sound. After all, we are not talking about beard trimming or something.

 

[Pomak]

If varying interpretations of Islamic writings (sorry if that is not the right word but that seems a safe term) are equally valid, then how can there be only one Islam?

Traditionally the attitude was that each (legitimate) reading of the quran and sunnah was right with the chance of being wrong.

As for one Islam, well in once sense there is only one (from the human perspective) where everyone agrees. For example everyone agrees on the basics. (fasting, hajj, prayer, zakat(charity), shahada(testimony of faith))

Beyond that its an issue of partial disagreement.

But from a wholistic perspective there is the attitude that for every possible action, there always one right action. So always one interpretation is right. But we don't know for sure which one it is, and usually those that say they are right, are in fact wrong.

2) Your latter point is what Joseph Heller called a catch 22. Even when those who profess to be Muslim invoke their belief in Islam as a justification for their actions (let's say a fatwa on Rushdie), no non-Muslim can voice a criticism as they lack the intellectual ability or the spiritual awarenes (or whatever the defect is) to understand Islam. Even worse, the "target" is always moving as one set of believers can always claim that a different set of believers have got it wrong and do not represent the "true Islam". It seems to me issuing a global call for the murder of an apostate either is or isn't theologically sound. After all, we are not talking about beard trimming or something.

Lets take the fatwa on Rushdie. It was done by a Shia scholar, who frankly had some ulterior motives for it. But i get what your getting at and its basically that Islam post 1924, is like this. And the only time its going to change is if there is a central political authority in Islam again(aka Khalifate) but i don't see that happening any time soon.

As for the criticism part, well i don't have an issue with non Muslims criticizing the interpretation. (based on their worldview). For example a chap from Saudi thinks that marriage at 10 is dandy idea, i don't have an issue with non muslims making the argument that 10 y.o. is a bit young. But when non muslims start calling muslims "a bunch of pedos", that is overstepping that line.