French headscarf ban recommended

[python3 0]

In my country, every sunday morning, you have a broadcast of each : catholic, protestant, muslim, bouddist (I hope I forgot no one)

And I particulary like when broadcasts propose to us some  calm debates about religious problems between spiritual leaders of different religions  

     

well im sure they try to find a middle ground to agree on and live together by. Not a bad idea

[SPQR 0]

well im sure they try to find a middle ground to agree on and live together by. Not a bad idea

Now I think you are starting to understand how our societies are different. And this does not mean we are less or more tolerent. Our history have us made others choice, however, because we don't want to forget the bloody past and we don't want to make the same mistakes.

We made these mistakes because we didn't want to find all the things we can share alltogether. anyone that didn't want to be like you was the enemy   . True for the catholics, true for protestants).

that why we made the choice (the French concept of Universalism was born during the XXVIII° century AD, and very slowly has developped) to create a community based on all the rights and duty we can share, leaving what can divide us for the private life.

However, the battle still goes on (against integrists of ALL kind, and fear and misunderstanding that put a hard brake to intregration, just because of the orign)

And for me, I'm pleased for having the opportunities to discuss with other cultures, discovering our differences and maybe our shared  points (hope sounds right   )

[python3 0]

no, dont worry spqr, it sounds perfect .

of course societies all over are different.

[SPQR 0]

no, dont worry spqr, it sounds perfect   .

of course societies all over are different.

And it is the differences that give interest to new meeting and new experiences

[denoir 0]

again, i am no expert on islam and modern science, so to show you the struggle within the religion and how the two can coexist and complement as you said denoir, here is a wonderfully long article. If you folks wanna argue bout the topic, please read the article, dont be scared by its length. I know, i was too . hmmm. if i could get this link working....Al Ilm

Interesting text - as a historical overview of what Islamic intellectuals and philosophers are thinking, but his conclusions are exactly the same as mine:

Mixing religion and science is intrinsically a problem. He also say, which I agree, that the strength of Western science comes from the now weak church that didn't try to impose it's restriction. The modernists (of Islam) thought this was a weakness but so far their model hasn't worked out and any science and technology that is developed in Islamic countries are directly western science and technology.

Quote[/b] ]But from the point of a humble scholar of the situation, I believe that the cultural crisis created by the successful introduction of Western science and technology, successful enough to bring about rapid cultural patterns of change, is going to continue to pose major problems for the Islamic world. The best example of that is what happened in Iran. Iran had without doubt, the most advanced program for the teaching of science and technology and the largest per capita number of scientists. It was the only country in the muslim world where alternative technology was already beginning to be discussed, but the cultural transformation brought about by the very success of the enterprise, besides all the other political problems that were involved * certainly contributed to the outcome of what happened in the late seventies. The government in Iran today, wants [very much] to go back to implement the very scientific programs and technological programs which were put aside during the ten years after the revolution. But I believe that the impact of the absorption of Western science and more than that, the application of technology, for science today, in the minds of muslim governments is not separated from application of technology, they are not simply interested in pure science. Pure scientists have a lot of trouble finding money for their work; it is the applied aspect which is emphasized. I think this [cultural dislocation] is going to, without doubt, continue until something serious is done.

I remember in 1983 when the Saudi government decided to found a science museum center in Riyadh, they contacted me and I went several times to Saudi Arabia and spoke to all of the leading people involved. I told them at that time, that a science museum could be a time bomb. Do not think that a science museum is simply neutral in its cultural impact. It has a tremendous impact upon those who go into it. If you go into a building in which one room is full of dinosaurs, the next room is full of wires, and the third full of old trains, you are going to have a segmented view of knowledge which is going to have a deep effect upon the young person who goes there, who has been taught about Tauhid, about Unity, about the Unity of knowledge, about the Unity of God, the Unity of the universe. There is going to be a dichotomy created in him. You must be able to integrate knowledge. ** I mention this to you as an example.

The problem [is] that with the increase of success of both the teaching of science and the technology, will bring with it a cultural dislocation [and] philosophical questioning which have to be answered especially at a time when the Islamic world does not want to play the role of a dead duck. There is not a moment in the history of Islam, when the muslims like the other great civilizations of Asia are trying to play the game of the West. The Islamic world wants to pull its own weight, wants to finds its own identity, and therefore this problem is going to be acute.

Secondly, I believe that [a] very major crisis [is being] set afoot by the very application of modern technology, that is the environmental crisis. [This crisis is] of course global. You cannot say, `I am drawing a boundary around my country, I do not want the hole in the ozone zone, [to make] the sun shine upon my head'. You have no choice in that. Because of that, and because of the fact that Islamic countries, like Buddhist countries, like Hindu countries, will always eat from the bread crumbs of Western technology in the situation of the world today, more of an attempt is made towards the direction of alternative technologies. [This] began in Iran in the seventies, and thank God, is still going on a little, and [in] other places [like] Eygpt where a little [attempt] to spend some of the energy of society towards alternative technology [is being made]. [All of] which also means to try to look upon science as the mother of technology in somewhat of a different way.

[python3 0]

yes, well i felt that this article gave a good overview of the struggle going on between religion and science. So i hope they find a middle ground to work on. well, see they are not developed in the islamic countires. they are just brought in from western countires.

Then he gives the good example of iran, which shows that it is how man chooses to apply the religion that may cause difficulty. The moderates are trying to run Iran now and restart many of the programs thrown away by the fundamentalists.

Quote[/b] ]they are not simply interested in pure science

Like ive been saying the current administrations fear the people gaining too much power through knowledge, and that is why technology is imported. Now with terrorism they realize society must be left to advance.

Quote[/b] ]Pure scientists have a lot of trouble finding money for their work; it is the applied aspect which is emphasized

mmm, more examples of the lack of committment to science by the gov't, not by the religion.

Quote[/b] ]The problem [is] that with the increase of success of both the teaching of science and the technology, will bring with it a cultural dislocation [and] philosophical questioning which have to be answered especially at a time when the Islamic world does not want to play the role of a dead duck. There is not a moment in the history of Islam, when the muslims like the other great civilizations of Asia are trying to play the game of the West. The Islamic world wants to pull its own weight, wants to finds its own identity, and therefore this problem is going to be acute.

well, he sees that the problem will be acute, so ill take it that these countries will stay semi-secular and still be based on islam. Its how my country is running the show. They just need to put more effort into education.

[python3 0]

well, its a good thing to see that people here actually read what you recommend. Some other people dont read and comment on the article anyway. They only read like 1 sentence.

[digitalcenturion 20]

first off, i have to say i got bored at reading this argument at page 10 or some such. Anyways, i wanted to add my 0.02€.

Who are you muslims to come to OUR countries and demand YOUR values to be accepted? What in the world do you think makes that your right? Consider what would happen if any of us europeans would come down to say Iran and start demanding you to give us all kinds of special treatment just because we have some god-given extra-holy super-religion with Allah and his prophet and whatnot. We'd probably get stoned in the first street corner.

These are OUR lands. Adapt to OUR ways, or go back to Craplakistan. That is my take. We have fought for our countries and built them. You come here, seeking employment and shelter. And we, in our benevolence, allow you shelter and a democratic country, and also social benefits, free education and more. Stuff that were quite out of your reach where you came from. And you still do not have the common courtesy to comply to our rules. Everything has a price, and i suggest you pull your heads out of your asses and pay. You are better off without your oppressive religion any day.

I'll probably get called all kinds of names for this. Racist springs to mind. But bear in mind i didnt go for the usual "come here and take our jobs".

[ralphwiggum 6]

don't bother posting here anymore.

[Scorpio 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who are you muslims to come to OUR countries and demand YOUR values to be accepted? What in the world do you think makes that your right?

Er? I don't think the word demand comes into this. It is a solid right to have freedom of belief and worship. Didn't they note that in your country's constitution?

Quote[/b] ]Consider what would happen if any of us europeans would come down to say Iran and start demanding you to give us all kinds of special treatment just because we have some god-given extra-holy super-religion with Allah and his prophet and whatnot. We'd probably get stoned in the first street corner.

Whoever demanded special treatment? We are all created equal. Didn't they teach you that aswell? If you went to live in Iran, you probably won't get 'special treatment' in schools as they don't have the wealth to do that. They treat you equaly and allow you to have freedom of worship and belief. That's what matters.

Quote[/b] ]These are OUR lands. Adapt to OUR ways, or go back to Craplakistan.

Excuse me? Are you the king of your country? Thought not...

Quote[/b] ]That is my take. We have fought for our countries and built them. You come here, seeking employment and shelter. And we, in our benevolence, allow you shelter and a democratic country, and also social benefits, free education and more.

And we thankyou for that. We try to repay you out of our deepest respect.

But don't you think that a small girl that came from say Iraq to the UK to start a normal life and follow her religion and goals with subtlety deserves her basic rights?

Quote[/b] ]And you still do not have the common courtesy to comply to our rules.

We adhere to your 'rules'...except when they are beyond the upmost stupidity, in this case for example. And mind you, your people would do just the same. I don't see why you have to attack the muslims instead of your own people or other refugees.

If you were a refugee, my friend, you would feel very very differently to the situation.

Quote[/b] ]You are better off without your oppressive religion any day.

Oppresive? Do some historic research.

[Pipski 0]

Who are you muslims to come to OUR countries and demand YOUR values to be accepted?

And if you're born in France and choose to convert to Islam? Or is that alright, it's not Muslims you hate, just foreigners? Plank.

[Acecombat 0]

OMG i dont answer here for some time and you all go over the top

I see some more very wierd theory's being built up about how Islam cant manage science , i'll answer them after i eat up something i am eating atm

m21 man or whoevers the one with the eagle avatar plz dont bring those examples of persecution about how church threw the book on people who said the earth was round , you can tell that to a christain not to python or me , we are plainly discussing about how Islam as a religion supports Science in every manner possible.

I'll post my reply to the other comments later.

Cheers

[GoOB 0]

Weren't the Islamic scocieties a bit more advanced during the middle ages than the Christian ones? To my understanding "Islamic" doctors or doctors taught in Islamic countries were very sought after during the crusades. And they were fairly peaceful to boot.

[Acecombat 0]

Hmm denoir you missed the point?

Why are you bringing in a multi cultural society? We are talking about a scientific society right?

There is simply no reason why this isnt possible , its very much possible ( i am speaking on behalf of ISLAM that is not everyother religion) IF our standard of education is raised judging by the current standards its low because of basic educational facilities being at a low grade and not because of RELIGION? Whre did you folks cook up this idea from?

Quote[/b] ]To take a trivial example: Islam doesn't allow the use of alchohol while Catholicism requires you to drink wine when you take the communion. A country that has its laws based in Islam would prohibit all import of alcohol - since it's usage is a violation of the scripture. Which wouldn't make the Catholics too happy.

Ofcourse Islam doesnt allow beer/wine afetr all a thing which intoxicates your mind and doesnt allows you to think clearly and responsibly how can it be any good , beer isnt allowed in a Islamic country because of the various problems it causes its not banned because christains or secularists drink it , even if a muslim wants to he cant drink it here because its the rule if one drinks then he spreads this vice all around and sooner or later this practise will settle in as a common practise therefore its better not to have it in the first place. I mean dont we all as babies get injections to be immune for hepatitis and other diseases ? Better be safe then sorry.

If Beer is allowed and other stuff then i assume more westerners who were relctant to come here would freely come OK NO PROBLEM with me fine come here , but then the consumption of beer will increase too with their arrival , in other words we might see more crimes related to beer/wine instigated actions like , Stupid car accidents , possibl murder , rape etc etc i can carry this list on.

Just a few days ago i read of a woman filing a law suit on bar because she trashed her car got her armed torned off her body. Her claim is that the bar gav her too many drinks , FFS woman you asked for it so they gave it to you.

End of this argument

Quote[/b] ]Don't you think it's a double standard that you advocate the sharia as a basis for the legal system in a country while at the same time loudly complaining when we enforce elements of our culture in our countries?

Nope the sharia doesnt ban you from practising your religion etc etc you can work as you please go wherever you want full freedom (ofcourse our country doesnt allow it because of insecure bas*** ruling here) sharia is a perfectly legal system AND a non-muslim IIRC has the authority to choose which way he wants to be prosecuted like in a islamic court or his own religious court (BUT iam not too sure on this i am not a legal expert hehe).

The thing we are complaining here is about a scarf , S-C-A-R-F i dont know how damaging it is to your culture or anything in Europe as much as Beer would be here , the worse that could happen is some of the european women might actually learn to cover their body's properly

Quote[/b] ]Edit: On the science thing - yes it's a hindering factor. Remember, we used to burn our scientists here in Europe becuase they used to say silly things like "the earth is round". That period was called the "dark ages" for a good reason - after the fall of the roman empire, there was virtually no serious development in Europe for several centuries.

Once again youre showing ME a MUSLIM examples of a christain culture which didnt even follow christainity as it should be.

Do i have to remind you that Arab scientists were the ones who made scientifical progress when the europeans were learning how to fling a rock over a castles wall

Arab scientists during ISLAMS golden age made break through progresses in Chemistry , Mathematics (algebra for example) , Physics and Medicine plus arts etc etc.

If it werent for Arabian advancements in maths specifically european advancements in tech would have been 500 years behind today. We would all probably be riding horses today

Quote[/b] ]Incidnetally, Islam is about as old now as Christianity was during the dark ages. (A point brought up by a good muslim friend of mine).

So whats the point? Need i remind the downfall of christainity was brought about by a few corrupt individuals who deliberatley changed their scriptures and even added a whole lot to it what wasnt christainity.

This thing hasnt happened to islam The Quran has been the same for 1400 years it wont change since people have memorized it by hearts Arabs have been able to safe guard it from any change and now muslims across the globe know the Quran by heart , as long as the basic code of religion is still there it has nothing to bring its downfall except the people who dont follow it properly might perpetuate its downfall. We are all witnessing this phenomenon when we see countries such as iran , Saudi Arabia , Lebanon etc etc nearly everyone.

Quote[/b] ]I remember in 1983 when the Saudi government decided to found a science museum center in Riyadh, they contacted me and I went several times to Saudi Arabia and spoke to all of the leading people involved. I told them at that time, that a science museum could be a time bomb. Do not think that a science museum is simply neutral in its cultural impact. It has a tremendous impact upon those who go into it. If you go into a building in which one room is full of dinosaurs, the next room is full of wires, and the third full of old trains, you are going to have a segmented view of knowledge which is going to have a deep effect upon the young person who goes there, who has been taught about Tauhid, about Unity, about the Unity of knowledge, about the Unity of God, the Unity of the universe. There is going to be a dichotomy created in him. You must be able to integrate knowledge. ** I mention this to you as an example.

I dont see the point here care to explain , i can go to a museum and still dont come home half retarded thinking OMG this has ruined my belief.

The Quran supports as i said previously many theorys that modern day science has brought up like the aliens etc etc.

Quote of the week:

Quote[/b] ]first off, i have to say i got bored at reading this argument at page 10

Thankfully you dropped it at page 10 , now we know how advanced your reading/researching skills are.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]The secular world is not an alternative to religion. The secular world is the things we see through direct observation. An apple falls to the ground because of gravity, not divine intervention. Your car drives because it has an engine, regardless if you are a muslim, a christian or a jew. The secular is the universal and denying it is only self-destructive. You can have a religious belief, no problem - but it's not an alternative - it's a complement.

Once again wrong denoir.

When a apple falls to the ground i know gravity made it fall , but whos the individual behind the creation of the whole damn universe in the first place    , according to religion GOD. In other words its a human perspective of understanding how the world in which he lives works , gravity made the thing fall to theground ofcourse  

What the heck does secular is the universe means    , we arent denying anything here denoir you are denying that theirs a GOD as far as i can , me as a muslim isnt denying any scientifically proven research so far  

Scientific research COMPLIMENTS your belief in religion and improves your understanding of how the world works.

Quote[/b] ]Science must increase our faith. It is wrong for anyone to close their eyes to what is right in front of them.  For a Muslim the evidence of dinosaurs and fossils is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah.

Adapted from the Book: What Islam is All About By Yahiya Emerick

Qurans scientific facts

*That site still isnt a one covering various aspects very widely its just covered up some , i will hopefully find some more if onlu my windows hadnt deleted my favs folder i would still have the other ones i knew once.

Go there and read i will post more sources if you want.

Just a few excerpts for here:

For a Muslim, then, the evidence of dinosaurs, trilobites and ancient algae is not a threat to our beliefs. Rather, it is a confirmation of the power of Allah. As Allah said, "He has created horses and mules for you to ride and show; and He has created other (creatures) that you don’t know." (16:8)

"Allah created every creature from water. Of them are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for He has power over all things. We have indeed sent signs that make things clear and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight way." (24:45-46)

For example, there is a section of verses where Allah mentions that during the process of human development, there is a stage where we were an ‘Alaq in the womb. (96:1-5) The word literally means, "a clinging thing." But no one knew in past centuries how that could be part of the process of growth for a fetus

I'll editthis and add more quotes from the quran:

The Qur’an instructs Muslims to engage in science with expectation that “signs in the earth and heavens and in your own self†will be comprehensible to them.

"Do not these unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, then We split them and made every living thing from water (Qur’an 21:30)."4

It also refers to the expanding universe:

"And it is We who built the universe With [Our creative power]; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it (Qur’an 51:47)."5

Lets when did our modern day secular scientists found this OUT ?

Creation/Evolution:

The Qur’an states that man as a species was created through a gradual process. It states:

"Seeing that He (Allah) created you in successive stages†(Qur’an 71:14)6

Centuries before Darwin, when the West was in the Dark Ages, the Muslims believed that the appearance of humans was not an instantaneous event but a gradual process in which humans were derived from earlier forms. Ibn Khaldun, a Muslim scholar, wrote 500 years before Darwin that man belongs to the animal kingdom.:

"...[M]an belongs to the genus of animals and that God distinguished from them by ability to think, which He (Allah) gave man and through which man is able to arrange his actions in an orderly manner."7

He further states:

"One should look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner to plants and animals...The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after the world of monkeys. This is as far as our physical observation extends."8

The last sentence of the above quote shows that Muslims reached these conclusions by observations.

Now bring on the darwinism too .

I see many of us here are very unEDUCATED on what the Quran says , even as muslims i see an averge muslim uneducated in what the quran says.

I hope every ONE of you now belives ISLAM doesnt inhibits SCIENTIFIC progress so i dont wanna hear any stupid jokes on it either and those who posted some know what i mean

[Acecombat 0]

Here i urge you all to visit this site is particular:

Harun Yahyas site fileld with various articles concerning Islam and science

Be sure to check the indexc on the right and choose what aspect you wanna read up on  

Quote[/b] ]Some Thoughts on Evolution from an Islamic Perspective

Author unknown

In his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin proposed in 1859 that species were not created independently, but evolved from one another, primarily by natural selection. Many religious scholars, from many religions, have declared this to be heretical, as life on earth did not just happen and evolve accidentally, but was created by God. In this editorial, I will argue that the concept of evolution is not heretical, nor antithetical to the concept of divine creation.

Let's leave Darwin aside for the moment, and consider physics theory. Physicists have proposed over the centuries various theories, some of which we still believe today, and some which are no longer accepted. For example, scientists now believe that it is not chemically feasible to change lead into gold, or to build a perpetual motion machine that produces more energy than it consumes (too bad, huh?).

For example, Newton's Law of Gravity states that any two object exert a gravitational force on each other; this force is what keeps you glued to the earth, and what keeps the earth revolving around the sun. (Legend has it that Newton thought of this when an apple fell on his head: "Ow! My head! Hey maybe it's because any two objects exert a gravitational force of attraction on each other, and the direction of the force is along the line joining the objects, and the magnitude of the force is proportional to the product of the gravitational masses of the objects, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them!") The amount of this force is dictated not only by the masses of the objects and the distance between them, but also by a gravitational constant, specifically, 6.67x10-11 NM2/Kg2. If this value were bigger, like 10, we'd all be crushed against the surface of the earth, and the earth would immediately go crashing into the sun. Scientists believe that this value, as well as the law of gravity, have been the same pretty much forever; it's just the way the universe is. Scientists who believe in God say that God in his wisdom created the universe with these laws and constants; scientists who don't believe in God say that it all just happened.

Newton's law helped to explain one of the theories of his predecessor, Galileo, who stated that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. When Galileo said this, the Catholic Church disagreed. Actually, during the trail of Galileo for heresy in 1615, Cardinal Bellarmine claimed that "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." But Galileo was just stating how the planets moved, not who created them and set them in motion. (The Vatican eventually reversed its decision, and decided to agree that the earth indeed revolves around the sun, in 1992). Today it is generally accepted that Galileo was right about the earth and the sun. Some physicists believe that our solar system was created and set in motion by God, some say it just happened by accident; we won the cosmic lottery, so to speak.

*I never knew vatican reversed its decision :P

The point is that physicists and other scientists have been proposing theories for a while, sometimes they right, sometimes they are way off. The same is true for chemists and biologists. Now Darwin has proposed that species variated through evolution: that is, random mutation and natural selection. Many religionists have declared this heresy, they say because God created life on this earth, in less than a week. I'm not saying that Darwin is correct in the his theory, he might be proven wrong someday by future scientific efforts, but from the scientific knowledge we have today, the idea of evolution seems plausible. I believe that if in fact life evolved out of single-celled creatures in the ocean, then you can believe that it was by accident, or due to God's design. I don't believe that the universe was necessarily created in six 24-hour periods. Maybe it was, and God could certainly do it if He wanted to, but I believe that in arguing whether the universe, the earth, and life on earth took billions of years to happen, or if it all happened in a single lightning bolt from a divine finger, is just arguing over the mechanism by which God created them.

In the Qur'an, the reader is encouraged to reflect on the universe and its creation, and as the Islamic world grew, a scientific and cultural renaissance flourished, among Arabs, Turks, Persians, and others. In fact, much of Europe's renaissance later relied on the Muslims' scientific achievements in physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy. Muslims investigated their known universe as a means of worship, to understand God's wisdom and power in his ability to design and produce such things as the solar system and the human body. In my opinion, and God knows best, Darwin's theory of evolution is simply another theory to describe a natural phenomenon, just like the law of gravity. To a Muslim scientist, it points to a simple and graceful design that has tremendous consequences.

I believe that God created our universe and fashioned it according to his design. I disagree with the religionists that claim that The Origin of Species is heresy, because it neither asserts nor negates the participation of God in our creation. However, I also disagree with others who assert evolution like it's some irrevocable dogma. It's just a theory

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]m21 man or whoevers the one with the eagle avatar plz dont bring those examples of persecution about how church threw the book on people who said the earth was round , you can tell that to a christain not to python or me , we are plainly discussing about how Islam as a religion supports Science in every manner possible.

We were having a debate about the problems between science and religion in general (Especially Christians, as they seem to be the religion that tries to most regulate/strong-arm science), not science and Islam.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]m21 man or whoevers the one with the eagle avatar plz dont bring those examples of persecution about how church threw the book on people who said the earth was round , you can tell that to a christain not to python or me , we are plainly discussing about how Islam as a religion supports Science in every manner possible.

We were having a debate about the problems between science and religion in general (Especially Christians, as they seem to be the religion that tries to most regulate/strong-arm science), not science and Islam.

Yes but then youre generalizing all religions , next time write exclusively that i havent included islam in this list

I hate it when people say religions inhibit scientific reasearch and by that they usually include every religion including Islam which is a purely a false allegation.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Why are you bringing in a multi cultural society? We are talking about a scientific society right?

I think the thing was to compare science in a secularistic country and a country wich takes religion as a law.

Quote[/b] ]There is simply no reason why this isnt possible , its very much possible ( i am speaking on behalf of ISLAM that is not everyother religion) IF our standard of education is raised judging by the current standards its low because of basic educational facilities being at a low grade and not because of RELIGION? Whre did you folks cook up this idea from?

I am not speaking in behalf of any religion here, when im saying that a religion can slow down develpement of a country and the quality of teaching in public schools.

Quote[/b] ]Ofcourse Islam doesnt allow beer/wine afetr all a thing which intoxicates your mind and doesnt allows you to think clearly

Howcome it allows hashis for example? or Khat?

Quote[/b] ]If Beer is allowed and other stuff then i assume more westerners who were relctant to come here would freely come OK NO PROBLEM with me fine come here

Let me tell me something, westerners can survive without beer for long time. And if I go to a vacation somewhere, I wouldnt probably drink a lot of alcohol, becouse that I can do home also.

Quote[/b] ]PROBLEM with me fine come here , but then the consumption of beer will increase too with their arrival , in other words we might see more crimes related to beer/wine instigated actions like , Stupid car accidents , possibl murder , rape etc etc i

Are you basing that argument on facts/statistics or just assuming a causality, what may not be there?

Quote[/b] ]Just a few days ago i read of a woman filing a law suit on bar because she trashed her car got her armed torned off her body. Her claim is that the bar gav her too many drinks , FFS woman you asked for it so they gave it to you.

This can be only in USA if I guess it right

Quote[/b] ]Nope the sharia doesnt ban you from practising your religion etc etc you can work as you please go wherever you want

Is this the same law that allows a theafs arm to be cutten?

Quote[/b] ]the worse that could happen is some of the european women might actually learn to cover their body's properly

In here you are again assuming that you are right, and that your religion and habits are better than others. Europe has no problem with skin, why should it? it is a natural thing, created by "insert gods name here" Sex has come out from the closet into the society, and I dont see that as anything bad.

Quote[/b] ]The Quran supports as i said previously many theorys that modern day science has brought up like the aliens etc etc.

I really wouldnt call aliens "modern day science"

[Acecombat 0]

Sorry turms no time to counter your post but nearly most of your argument is wrong. I'll let python or scorpio answer it since i dont have time now.

Quote[/b] ]Howcome it allows hashis for example? or Khat?

ITdoesnt FFS quit these false allegations already i am pissed off already at listening to lies again and again

Quote[/b] ]I really wouldnt call aliens "modern day science"

PLEASE READ MY POSTS I EDITTED JUST NOW AGAIN

[Longinius 1]

The simple fact of the matter is that western cultures, like Sweden for example, is slowly destroying itself by changing into something different. It is changing because it is the basic Swedish belief that everyone has a right to their own opinions and life styles. This of course has always been under the assumption that most Swedes adhere to the Swedish culture.

With increased immigration, that has been badly intigrated into Swedish society, this has of course led to changes. And now, many Swedes don't recognise Sweden any more, it is not what it used to be. Walking the streets of Malmo today (one of Swedens largest cities), you will see more immigrants than Swedes. Once darkness hits, you will amost only see immigrants, and Swedish youngsters, because most are afraid to go out. This is the complete opposite of what Sweden means to most Swedes.

This creates tension, anxiety, fear and problems. It has very little to do with foreign religion, and everything to do with changes in the culture. To some extent, this could be caused by foreign religion, but I dont think so. I think it is directly related to failed integration.

You cannot just take people in and expect them to adapt without giving them 100% support. So we mainly have ourselves to blame, and it is up to us to solve it. Its not solved by creating laws against this or that, because that just creates even more problems. It is solved by making sure integration works, that those who move here to become Swedish citizens also become Swedes and not just people in Sweden.

[python3 0]

Weren't the Islamic scocieties a bit more advanced during the middle ages than the Christian ones? To my understanding "Islamic" doctors or doctors taught in Islamic countries were very sought after during the crusades. And they were fairly peaceful to boot.

thats the point iw as trying to make that islam is compatible with science, and does not prohibit its study

[Pukko 0]

I have not read the article about Muslim science yet (or the last posts here), but have printed it out and will read it later. But now I instead post a probably quite long and controversal (or indeed for some pathetical, but this kind of reasoning may contain more substance than meets the eye at first) post. I primary felt the need to write it after reading the quotes from denoir below, and thought about PM'ing him instead since this can be quite personal. But I'll do my best not to be offensive in writing a post anyway, since I recon this can be of some value for others too.

A multicultural society is only possible if

1) The society focues on the things the different cultures have in common and redirect the rest to the private domain

2) One culture is dominant and forces the other cultures to adapt to their standards

This is about the definition of MONOculturalism I'm afraid. The word mulitculuralism sounds good, but in practice the western world is very monocultural. Or rather our entire planet is presently very monocultural through what is usually called Eurocentrism - indeed a 'dominant culture'. And I'm afraid that kind of ideal is the very core of rasism, and also the core of the very 'alturisitc' reasoning (or defence/excuse) behind the colonisations.

It all comes down to 'essentialism'. To view cultures as of an essential character, like this culture is like this and that culture is like that; like cultures are 'real' - that you could almost 'take' on them. Instead of viewing cultures as 'processes'; blurry, constantly changing phenomenons based on constantly evolving social interactions.

Europe have more or less defined the global reality (read Eurocentrism) through the modernity project (to big parts the scientific victory over religion (the 'enlightment' ) discussed on the last pages, starting mid 16ht century). This Eurocentrism have produced gigantic amounts of 'scientific truths' about the 'cultures' that our plantets humans lives 'within'. One can argue that this eurocentrism has contained many non-western cultures in their evolving processes. But not only has it stopped different cultures own 'natural' processes, it has more importantly changed them into something else, by promoting the scientific truths about them as being inferior, uncivilised, natural people to the degree that they have been forced to look upon/concieve themselves in that way. That in contrast to Europes superior, civilised and 'cultural' people. This is also where the alturistic parts of colonisation comes in, to help those poor undeveloped people to develop. But as we all know, that has not been practised in reality; the Europeans and their 'western' colonies have been very addicted to keep their superiority. Some may argue that it is human nature to preserve ones superiority when opportunity is given, I don't. Don't agree on everlasting dogmas about human nature that is, as hopefully will become clearer below.

I know that many things that I have written in the piece obove is exaggerated and incorrect, but gives a general picture without spending too many hours typing. And that will do as a background, from now on I will write about science, from the still quite taboo 'postistic' perspective.

Quote[/b] ]The secular world is the things we see through direct observation. An apple falls to the ground because of gravity, not divine intervention. Your car drives because it has an engine, regardless if you are a muslim, a christian or a jew. The secular is the universal and denying it is only self-destructive. You can have a religious belief, no problem - but it's not an alternative - it's a complement.

This is a very essentialistic view when applied on social phenomenons, aka positivism; a perspective that has mostly been eliminated from social/cultural sciences during the last decades. Ok, you are probalby quite aware of this denoir, and I dont think it really applies to you in any grater extent after reading most of your other posts here. But I'm still surprised to be reading this from you.

I would call the opposite of essentialistic - 'reflexivistic'. Indeed relativistic if you want. In natural sciences the essentialistic view is quite acceptable (and I recon that you denoir are 'aware' of postmodern-quantum physics; I dont knom much about it, but recon its primary a postmodern experiment to push the limits. On the other hand I think ordinary quantum physics seems all relativistic enough already). In social/cultural sciences it is not (feminism for example is in its core quite much a postmodern scientific phenomenon, questioning the man's essentialistic superiority).

I would therefore claim that the essentialistic/positivistic scientific contributions (read dogmas) to the social/cultural field are no better than the old cristianity. Maybe even worse.

But we still do live in a time when essentialistic thinking is reality. In such a time I have to agree that it can even be selfdestructive to 'question the universal'. But I'm afraid its even more selfdestructive to follow it in the long run - because the mind is fixed.

It is very important however when talking about relativism or more generally the postmodern angle, that it is about value relativism. The fact that postmodernism is often concieved as 'reality' relativism is thar in the long run it is often impossible to separate 'values' from 'reality'. Take feminism for example (and no, I dont support more extreme feminsits), questioning the 'reality' of the man's superiority over women. It has been scientifically proven many times, but in the long run its very value-laden. Or why not the white man's superiority over the 'coloured', and everyone else - it has been scientifically proven many times. The distinction between natural science and social/cultural science is also very blurry, but as I said - essentialistic thinking have got at least some 'worthyness' in natural sciencies, while in social/cultural sciences it has about none. Even 'universal' values like 'human rights' are in a global perspective very problematic.

In my conception it is not as dangerous or impossible with a more refelxive approach towards social/cultural issues as many believe. Take this forum for example, sharing different views and reflecting over them is often the very core, especially in threads like this one. An IMO utopical society strongly influenced by reflexive thinking is probalby also characterised by 'ineffective communication'. But that need not to be a problem with the technological base we now have (and continues to develop, creative developing is also very reflexive), but rather a nessecity for humanity to survive itself IMO. We now live in a very essentialistic time, characterised by 'effective communication'. Effective through the use of fixed value laden binary oppositions like white/black, man/woman, rational/irrational, developed/simple, productive/lazy and to some extent even still good/evil etc.

Or more more 'correctly', we probably now live in a breaking time between the essentialistic and relativistic/reflexivistic. Maybe one even can believe that its a natural evolution step. All living creatures probably needs some structure and comfort with the world around them, as a basis of some kind of identity. Religion was, and still to some degree is, fundamental for this. In the 'secular world' essentialistic science has taken that role instead, and developed society quite a bit too. Now I would argue that the next step is towards a more reflexivistic/relativistic world. Utter wisdom has been said to be to realise that there are no 'reality'. Maybe mankind is about to grow collectively wise enough for that in our time. But to live in the breaking point between the essentialistic and relativistic/reflectivistic thinking hurts alot, thats for sure. And thats also probably a big reason why we in our time have problems to cope with our 'reality' - burnout, displacement etc.

This reflexivism/relativism is IMO what the general (since it has many faces) taboo perspective (and impossible to really define) of postmoderrnism is about. I remember at the last WTO meeting the G21 (21 '3rd world countries' united) standing up and demanding to be takien seriously. IMO postcolonial theory has probably a big part to play in these nations rising from their earlier essentialistic inferiority (essentially incapable, lazy, undeveloped). They have in some way deconstructed the disourses that tells them to keep low and shut up (not because the western world has really told them to, but because they temselves lived within these western essentialistic discourses that tells them that they are incapable etc. ). And thats an example that gives me hope  

Ãœber and out

Pukko

[python3 0]

Quote[/b] ]And you still do not have the common courtesy to comply to our rules.

it has not become law yet, it is a recommendation. There are 5 million muslims in france. Only 2000 or less weaqr the veil in france. Is 2000 people a real threat. Are all 5 million criminals. It is obvious you are the one lacking courtesy by insulting our religion. We have not insulted your nation, so why insult us? If it becomes law, then they must follow it. That is the bottom line. We are merely discussing, i see dicussion is no longer a valid method to communicate ideas.

Quote[/b] ]These are OUR lands. Adapt to OUR ways, or go back to Craplakistan

how mature. craplakistan. grow up buddy.

Before commenting on our religion, go read up on it, we dont go making blind comments about European law and society.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes but then youre generalizing all religions , next time write exclusively that i havent included islam in this list    

I hate it when people say religions inhibit scientific reasearch and by that they usually include every religion including Islam which is a purely a false allegation.

It (Religion) did for many years in Europe, and when I was posting we were mainly talking about how Christians have done a great job inhibiting scientific progress over the years. We were going kinda OT, not really talking about Islam. I haven't studied Islam that much, so I wouldn't know much about its attitude toward science. But with most religions, I think that the problem is the people who interpret the religion, not the religion itself.