CMike
Well-Known Member
And you know this because?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Imams banned from charity event
- Thread starter Nerissa
- Start date
Zen Sensei
Member
Yes I agree. The cats says it all with a gracious dance I should say.A country's gotta do what a country's gotta do.
I couldn't agree more with you! I recently watched the Oscar Nominated "Dirty Wars" documentary by Jeremy Scahill. It opened my eyes and answered all of the questions I had about the present situation of the world.
I am so glad you brought this up. Muslims scholars throughout the world are being harassed and persecuted. You would think the case is different in Muslim countries. But that’s not true. Muslim scholars who speak and stand for truth are being imprisoned, tortured and even killed in Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam. So you wonder what’s going on. What threat do these individuals pose to the world? Well unlike what the media and the politicians want us to believe about Islam, this religion stands for justice and equality for ALL human beings regardless of their gender, race, color, nationality, social and economical status etc. These teachings appeal to ordinary people like you and me. But, the elites whose very existence depends on the man-made status quo would do anything to disgrace those who promote these teachings. So it’s clear. The elites, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, hate this message because it challenges their authority. If you doubt anything I just said, you can go and do your own research. Also try to find out what some famous individuals say about this religion: Yusuf Estes, Former Christian Priest; Dr. Bilal Phillips, Former Communist; Dr. Hakim Quick, Former Christian; Hussain Yee, Former Buddhist; Dr. Laurence Brown, Former Atheist and the list goes on and on.Good luck in finding an answer to your question my friend!
“Kind words and forgiveness are better than charity followed by injury.” -Qur’an, 2:263
“Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression” -Qur’an, 5:2[/QUOTE]
Brandywine
Member
I think in addition to the Imams that they denied access to, they should deport the ones that are already in the Netherlands. From then on, if they catch any in the country they should hang them.
Wow. Thanks much! And we are made to believe we live in a world where people will not be harassed or discriminated against due to their sex, race, color, religion and so on. Reading posts like yours make me realize I have been living in lala land. By the way, what do you suggest should be done to the natives of Netherlands who choose to become Muslims? Hang them too???
Gustav Bjornstrand
New Member
Years back in a debate with some folks on a forum like this, and when I voiced opposition to the second war on Iraq, I was asked: What then, if you would not engage in a total war, would you do, given that you recognize a threat? I said that if I had the power I would organize small, mobile attack units with very specific missions, which meant in my mind, of course, the targeting and killing of specific persons linked to enemy forces.
I was trying to imagine myself not so much as myself but as a person with a position in the system and with the role and the mission of defending the system. I had to answer, didn't I? And my answer had to be cogent and not simply whimsical. Myself, and I assume most of you too, have a luxury: To look out on all that is happening in the world from a non-complicit stance. Just an average person attempting to apply a moral ruler to events. What this also means is a person without ownership interest. It is 'ownership interest' that brings one into complicity and the lack of ownership interest allows one to have a clean and an pure moral stance. This is perhaps a Christian dilemma and one that has not at all been worked out fully.
I suggest that by and large a 'moral stance'---the hallucination that any of this conforms to what we understand as morality---is simply, and to use a military term, inoperative. Here is the test: The closer to the seat(s) of power, and the more ownership interest comes into play, the farther away from moral decision-making you will move. At a certain point the notion of morals vanishes and another equation takes precedence in decision-making. As Mr Chomsky often says, repeating Machiavelli of whom he seems a dedicated disciple, it is 'straight power principles' that determine many if not nearly all events and choices in our world.
Straight power principles.
I watched the documentary Dirty Wars and only speeded up a bit in the last 30 minutes. The idea is clearly presented in the first 15 minutes. It is not, I must say, a style of journalism that I have much respect for. The narrative that functions there will lead you to uncover certain facts, but it will not lead to 'truth'. It will scandalize you and frighten you, or disgust you, but it will not give you 'tools to live'. To live, here, requires in some senses a Machiavellian Handbook!
It is hard for me, having read possibly as many of 10 of Chomsky's books when at Uni, and having been a Believer, to have to say that, often but not always, when he associates himself with a cause alarm bells go off for me. I DO very much think he understand straight power principles and how they function in our world, he gets that right. But the folks who congregate to his temple of idealism, as it were, do not, and perhaps never will, understand something quite fundamental about our world and they seem to have no or very little 'ownership interest'.
This may sound like an apology for para-military force, or an excuse for abuse of power (and it is not---or perhaps it is?) but what interests me is the entire question of ownership interest. It seems that we MUST make decisions about what is or shall be our ownership interest in the systems of which we are a part, and we must be quote/realistic/unquote about what this means for us.
So jumping right to the chase I would say: better, much better, a focussed, nimble, surreptitious fighting-force, even one that makes mistakes and kills the wrong people, horrible though that is, but that eliminates operatives who oppose a given nation's interests ... than an all-out war that kills tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands, as in Iraq.
Funny though how we start to speak in geopolitical terms, isn't it? That we---the world's innocents---mimic this lingo and start to see the world in this way.
And here is another wild jump: It is quite possible, and despite what I said in my first post, that it is 'good' and 'necessary' to completely confront and even in numerous senses to destabilize the very core of the Islamic belief-system by forcing it into so-called modernity. And if this is so, though I do not propose that some supernatural agency is directing these events, it may be *best* to render the core tenets of a militant Islam ... inoperative.
It is fine to speak of a 'religion of peace' that sees all men as equal. It sounds lovely. But when you really think about it it is a kind of absurdity to imagine that what we term 'the world' (people generally, us) have ever or will ever resolve, voluntarily, to act as peaceful agents of peace. (When has the world been 'peaceful', I ask?)
People act from their interest-base and their interest-base is usually rather different from their idealism-base. And we are 'good' (if we are good) because we have been coerced to be good, or to act well. Perhaps I am totally mistaken, or perhaps I have been badly indoctrinated, but I remember being influenced by Nietzsche's arguments in Genealogy of Morals that we are all outcomes of long and intense processes of 'punishment' (social control, restriction, shaming, etc.) which has led to the creation of the fine, upstanding and decent citizen of today. We are outcomes of long periods of coercion. And what coerces is a value-hierarchy which is part of a social system. And we are ALL outcomes of religious moulding-processes.
And so, to make a long story short, it is not impossible for me to imagine that the brutality of attack on some of the 'recalcitrant' cultures which resist the modernized processes that we value---if we value them, and if, say, you value your clitoris or your girlfriend's clitoris to name one rather acute example! I mean the values that we define, because definition is in a very real sense a form of violence, and those that we administer which must be brought to bear on even those who resist. That is how value-systems function!
I know that is terribly problematic. To whom do we grant 'authority'? When are we permitted to act on our own value-set? How do we authorize ourselves? Quo warranto?
Last edited:
Nerissa
Wanderer
I've been trying to find an English source for guys, but I can't find any. If you happen to know Dutch, you can read this.
Basically, what is says is that the imams have been banned because of the social unrest it would have caused. Like I said, many civilians started demonstrating against the event, and this is the main reason their visa's were cancelled. They had controversial views, but there was no evidence they had any ties to terrorist groups or were here to start any trouble. It was mainly done to ease people's feelings. People are scared, and the authorities want to make them feel like they are doing something.
What, in your opinion, were their most controversial views?
Praising Bin Laden as Muhammed Hassan did, the Egyptian preacher.
Calling jews descendents of "apes and swines" and enemies of Islam.
Muslim apostates should be put to death = Islamic law.
Homosexuals caught in the act should be put to death = Islamic law.
The thing however is that these are previous statements of the guys involved and normally one is ought to have a radical opinion as long as he does not incite to violence. The preachers would say "the Islamic position is that apostates should be put to death, but that is left to an Islamic state to implement". And of course, "if you are a good and true Muslim you only want to be ruled by Islamic law in an Islamic state".
Lets just call it radical opinions that are not necessarily violent but are however completely akin to Western liberal values.
CMike
Well-Known Member
Your own link stated that they were banned because of input from counter terrorism, thereby indicating that they were a threat to national security.
That is a good reason to not get a visa.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I do not think people should be killed for converting to Islam or be killed for leaving Islam. However, Islamic law recognizes death for the latter. So if you support executions for apostasy, you have no real basis to oppose executions for conversion to Islam.
You just stated your opinions about Muslims and Islam that you have probably heard from the mainstream media including CNN, BBC and Foxnews. I won’t even go into discussing whether or not these “accusations” are true, but I would like you to think about something. Why do think these views matter to the west anyways? Do you really believe that our leaders care if someone praised Bin Laden or if they called the Jews descendants of "apes and swines" or if they put someone to death? I don’t think so. If I told you that the US, with full support from the UN and the west, has killed thousands of innocent civilians in bombings and drone strikes post 9/11, will you still believe the west cares about the life of an apostate or a homosexual? I don’t think so. Then what is it about these scholars and their teachings that the west fears so much? Do their teachings somehow threaten the interests of the elites/politicians?
I know some of the preachers myself, used to be Muslim and speak Arabic. So no "Western media" for me. Sorry. I know Muhammed Hassen fairly well and his views on a number of issues.
They do care when it happens inside their own countries and societies. The question they ask themselves now in the Netherlands is "are we willing to let preachers visit our country and preach a form of Islam that is fundamentally in conflict with values we consider to be of fundamental importane in our society such as freedom of religion". The anwser is NO.
Hard to say but thats foreign policy and geopolitics. Lives of non-Western citizens count a litle bit less there. Those preachers going to their own countries to espouse views that are fundamentally in conflict with their own values is a problem that people are increasingly aware of now. Some years ago that was still kind of different. But times change.
Would these so called scholars endorse pro-LGBT activist to give speeches in Egypt or Saudi Arabia on topics such as why homosexuality should actually not be foridden by law? No they would never accept that and they would argue "its against our cultural and religious values to espouse such as ideas". The same goes for Western countries trying to ban those scholars that hold opinions that are fundamentally in conflict with values most Westerners consider to be fundamental human rights.
Nerissa
Wanderer
You do realize that this is the point I was trying to make when I started this thread? There‘s so much hatred and it's only getting worse. You're attacking all Muslims and you're judging them. Their mistrust against the western world grows and the divide between us will only radicalize more people. It's a circle and I feel like we keep spiralling further down.
Gustav Bjornstrand
New Member
I don't have a great deal to go one here as I am not Dutch. But I have a few Dutch friends who have given some insight into Dutch politics and Dutch attitudes generally. It seems to me safe to say that generally the Dutch are one of the most tolerant and progressive polities and that given the Dutch situation---one requiring cooperation in their physical situation---a hard, exclusive attitude toward Muslim immigrants is almost an impossible stance to take. To have such an attitude requires turning against one's essential dutchness.
It turns against a fundamental grain in the Dutch themselves, a social attitude that has been inculcated for generations. Geert Wilders, who Nerissa I think was referring to earlier, has attempted to stir up alarm, animosity and resentment/resistance to the Muslim 'invasion' of Europe through fear and anxiety about the presence of non-assimilating Muslim populations in the Netherlands and in Europe (and the USA). In point of fact---again based on what little I know---the Dutch are not capable right now of forming a coherent opposition to the Muslim presence. A Dutch friend of mine has told me that in his opinion all the stirred-up fear is a false fear: The pressures of assimilation, and the pressure of modernity in a polity such as the Netherlands, if not in this generation then in the next, will succeed in assimilating and neutralizing whatever 'threat' the Muslim religion or general philosophy poses to the Dutch polity. The notion that Islam will 'take over' Europe is thus a false notion. (I question his certainty on this point, myself. But I also think that modernity, in all its 'corrupting force', is already acting as an acid on the fundaments of Islam, and Islam is in reaction).
It seems likely though that attitudes are shifting, likely as a result of the events in France and a more 'realistic' analysis undertaken within the various power-structures of Europe, to be confrontative and not---as is typical---passive and 'classically liberal'.
I have a sense that at a popular level---not that the mass man can ever be trusted---but that at a popular level, which is an intuitive or 'brute' level (the level of feeling and 'common sense') there will be much more resistance to a non-assimilating Muslim population in Europe generally. And eventually it will move in the direction of more intense efforts to assimilate them. This means, basically, a concerted effort to overcome and defeat them at an ideological level. It is at its core an ideological question. And it is in ideology that the 'first violence' becomes visible.
Last edited:
Gustav Bjornstrand
New Member
The question is:
Can we learn to hate constructively? Can we channel our hatred and our intolerance in a productive and also a non-hysterical and non-brutish way? Can we arrive at a 'reasoned hatred' where what we hate is truly the object of our hate and not our projection of ourselves onto the hated object?
Can we actually, and intelligently, arrive at true discernment that does not become quietism and does not retreat from activity in the world?
A better question is:
What do we hate? Something that we are "told to hate" or that which we decide to hate using our "own" logic and intelligence and not for the purpose of promoting someone else's agenda.
I am sorry to hear that you left Islam. Perhaps you saw some horrible acts from some Muslims or the wrong interpretation of some verses of the Book that made you arrive at this conclusion. Everyone's experience is different and I think sharing my own story might help you see another side of the picture. I accepted Islam about five years ago after much struggle and confusion in my life. I will be honest with you. Being a woman and a feminist, I used to absolutely hate this religion because I thought it only commanded its followers to stone women and beat them up. I thought it was a brutal and barbaric religion that had no application in today's world. However, by the guidance and mercy of my Creator I met some learned Muslim men and women who introduced me to the truth. I found peace after becoming a Muslim. Like I said, everyone has a different story so I can't compare yours to mine. However, I heard a statement a while ago that made perfect sense and I thought I should share it here: "Islam is NOT what you see SOME Muslims do. Islam IS what ALL Muslims are supposed to do." Peace to you.