Muslims urged to vote to keep out extremist parties

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uthman
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 235
  • Views Views 23K
Zafran said:
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.
Click to expand...
The UK voted the BNP and the UKIP not because of the parties themselves but becase they wnated Brown and the labour to lose.
 
Muezzin said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glo said:
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!!
Click to expand...

That's so true...



Zafran said:
are you from holland - how bad is there for Muslims?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Güven said:
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.
Click to expand...

salaam

Insh Allah it will be ok down there.

peace
 
Suomipoika said:
Or just maybe the ignorant common man has valid reasons to pick the least horrible option among the train wrecks of current policies.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that the party is currently best known for scapegoating (oh, sorry, exposing a hidden threat), I seriously doubt that.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Muezzin said:
Considering the fact that the party is currently best known for scapegoating (oh, sorry, exposing a hidden threat), I seriously doubt that.
Click to expand...

I know. As long as the major parties do the same, people will keep channeling their frustration and valid criticism to the only alternatives.
 
Zafran said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Argamemnon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 -
 
Last edited:
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
 
Whatsthepoint said:
The UK voted the BNP and the UKIP not because of the parties themselves but becase they wnated Brown and the labour to lose.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Glo aren't you worried one bit about the future of Europe as a Christian secular continent?
Click to expand...
If you explain what you mean by 'Christian secular' continent, then perhaps I can try to answer your question ...
 
Last edited:
Zafran said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zafran said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top