NationStates Jolt Archive

This is very interesting for Turkey, who wants to be in the EU and this is something, IMO, that should give a favorable shadow of what Turkey will bring to Europe. Asia Minor has always been involved in European affairs and it makes sense for them to join. Not to mention, continents are a horrible method of division. So anyway, it sooms this Muslim nation wants to remain one of the few secular, democratic ones. And the Army backs them up as some other thread said I think. So go Turkish secularism! :D

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_demonstration)

ISTANBUL, Turkey - At least 300,000 Turks waving the red national flag flooded central Istanbul on Sunday to demand the resignation of the government, saying the Islamic roots of Turkey's leaders threatened to destroy the country's modern foundations.

Like the protesters — who gathered for the second large anti-government demonstration in two weeks — Turkey's powerful secular military has accused Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of tolerating radical Islamic circles.

"They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages," said 63-year-old Ahmet Yurdakul, a retired government employee who attended the protest.

More than 300,000 people took part in a similar rally in Ankara two weeks ago.

Sunday's demonstration was organized more than a week ago, but it came a day after Erdogan's government rejected the military's warning about the disputed presidential election and called it interference that is unacceptable in a democracy.

The ruling party candidate, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, failed to win a first-round victory Friday in a parliamentary presidential vote marked by tensions between secularists and the pro-Islamic government. Most opposition legislators boycotted the vote and challenged its validity in the Constitutional Court.

The military said Friday night that it was gravely concerned and indicated it was willing to become more openly involved in the process — a statement some interpreted as an ultimatum to the government to rein in officials who promote Islamic initiatives.

Sunday's crowd chanted that the presidential palace was "closed to imams."

Some said Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc was an enemy of the secular system, because he said the next president should be "pious."

In the 1920s, with the Ottoman Empire in ruins, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk imposed Western laws, replaced Arabic script with the Latin alphabet, banned Islamic dress and granted women the right to vote.

The ruling party, however, has supported religious schools and tried to lift the ban on Islamic head scarves in public offices and schools. Secularists are also uncomfortable with the idea of Gul's wife, Hayrunisa, being in the presidential palace because she wears the traditional Muslim head scarf.

"We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace," said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife. "We want civilized, modern people there."

The military, one of the most respected institutions in Turkey, regards itself as the guardian of the secular system and has staged three coups since 1960.

"Neither Sharia, nor coup but fully democratic Turkey," read a banner carried by a demonstrator on Sunday.

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting a large number of muslims would not like to live under Sharia law? You liberals and your political correctness.:rolleyes:




:p

Let us hope that they prevail.

I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting a large number of muslims would not like to live under Sharia law? You liberals and your political correctness.:rolleyes:




:p

Not all Turks are Muslim :rolleyes:

Not all Turks are Muslim.The vast majority is. And being Muslim does not mean one has to want to live under the Sharia. The vast majority of Europeans is Christian, but that really doesn't mean a whole lot. Secularism is a good thing, so why shouldn't Muslims pursue it?

Not all Turks are Muslim :rolleyes:

Yeah, only 99.8% are. How dare he forget about the remaining 0.2%? :rolleyes:

Yeah, only 99.8% are. How dare he forget about the remaining 0.2%? :rolleyes:

Damn you beat me to it.

According to my calculations, .2% is half that protest. Curious Inquiry loses*

Yeah, only 99.8% are. How dare he forget about the remaining 0.2%? :rolleyes:

LOL I must say, I am surprised the percentage is so large (confirmed, if that's the correct term, by the CIA World Factbook, no less.) Sorry, Fass. Zark is enough of a twit I just assumed he was wrong :D

Those Secular protesters are heros.

Those Secular protesters are heros.

Why do US posters have this tendency to subject the word "hero" to such an inflation as to reduce its value into nothing more than a null label? Because, really, if you think protesting in a country where protests are allowed is being a hero, then, well, I guess you still think Jessica Lynch and whatshisname are...

This is very interesting for Turkey, who wants to be in the EU and this is something, IMO, that should give a favorable shadow of what Turkey will bring to Europe. Asia Minor has always been involved in European affairs and it makes sense for them to join. Not to mention, continents are a horrible method of division. So anyway, it sooms this Muslim nation wants to remain one of the few secular, democratic ones. And the Army backs them up as some other thread said I think. So go Turkish secularism! :D

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_demonstration)
It's not that simple. While this protest is a good thing, the fight to preserve secularism is far from over. The elected ruling party is islamist (They say they respect secularism but they tried to criminalise adultery). Letting Turkey into the EU could actually end up giving more power to the islamists. This is because one of the main conditions of EU entry is reduced military influence in government, even though the military has always been the bulwark of secularism in the Turkish state.

Why do US posters have this tendency to subject the word "hero" to such an inflation as to reduce its value into nothing more than a null label? Because, really, if you think protesting in a country where protests are allowed is being a hero, then, well, I guess you still think Jessica Lynch and whatshisname are...
My term for hero is more of a generic title.
I thought the word "Hero" means a person who is willing to do something brave. Personally in that sort of definition, going to do public speaking when you have a fear of crowds is heroic. :D

I believe this is about Turkey, not the US.

Why do US posters have this tendency to subject the word "hero" to such an inflation as to reduce its value into nothing more than a null label? Because, really, if you think protesting in a country where protests are allowed is being a hero, then, well, I guess you still think Jessica Lynch and whatshisname are...

It's makes people feel better," Golly gosh gee, if that man can stand on his hands and butt-fuck a grizzly bear and be a hero, then I can be one too!"

It's makes people feel better," Golly gosh gee, if that man can stand on his hands and butt-fuck a grizzly bear and be a hero, then I can be one too!"You do what with a grizzly? :eek:

It's makes people feel better," Golly gosh gee, if that man can stand on his hands and butt-fuck a grizzly bear and be a hero, then I can be one too!"

Who would want to perform an act of bestiality on Grizzly upside-down?

Who would want to perform an act of bestiality on Grizzly upside-down?
Yeah, I'd sooner be face to face with it so I could kiss it.

Not all Turks are Muslim :rolleyes:

Sarcasm. Recognize it.

It's makes people feel better," Golly gosh gee, if that man can stand on his hands and butt-fuck a grizzly bear and be a hero, then I can be one too!"

Is he a hero for the buggering or the fact he escaped with his berries intact?

The protest is up to one million now. (http://www.yahoo.com/s/568959)

A hero is a person who does something out of their way that isn't a job.
A firefighter isn't a hero, but a random person who runs into a burning building to save people is.

I hope the protestors prevail. After all, it is common knowledge that church and state must remain separate.

I love Turkey. Where else do you find rabid secular militants? :D

A hero is a person who does something out of their way that isn't a job.

I saw some litter on the street yesterday so I picked it up and put it in the bin. Does that qualify me for a statue or only for a plaque?

I saw some litter on the street yesterday so I picked it up and put it in the bin. Does that qualify me for a statue or only for a plaque?

No, it's a trophy.

LOL I must say, I am surprised the percentage is so large (confirmed, if that's the correct term, by the CIA World Factbook, no less.) Sorry, Fass. Zark is enough of a twit I just assumed he was wrong :D

And how am I a twit, exactly?

I saw some litter on the street yesterday so I picked it up and put it in the bin. Does that qualify me for a statue or only for a plaque?

OMG! You're fucking hero!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hero! Hero!!!!!!!!!!@111one!!!

Why do US posters have this tendency to subject the word "hero" to such an inflation as to reduce its value into nothing more than a null label? Because, really, if you think protesting in a country where protests are allowed is being a hero, then, well, I guess you still think Jessica Lynch and whatshisname are...

You're a hero for posting that.

The protest is up to one million now. (http://www.yahoo.com/s/568959)

A hero is a person who does something out of their way that isn't a job.
A firefighter isn't a hero, but a random person who runs into a burning building to save people is.

I think it's when they go beyond what they're supposed to do, so a firefighter that fights a fire while beating up a robber, well that's heroic.

And unless these people have 'Professional Protester' as their job titles, they're heroic as well.

You're a hero for posting that.
No that's not beyond Fass's normal duties.

Very good!

May be some hope yet for the turk!

Religious Fundamentalists should be resisted even to the point of kill them.

This is very interesting for Turkey, who wants to be in the EU and this is something, IMO, that should give a favorable shadow of what Turkey will bring to Europe. Asia Minor has always been involved in European affairs and it makes sense for them to join. Not to mention, continents are a horrible method of division. So anyway, it sooms this Muslim nation wants to remain one of the few secular, democratic ones. And the Army backs them up as some other thread said I think. So go Turkish secularism! :D

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070429/ap_on_re_mi_ea/turkey_demonstration)
Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

Apparently not all the people want it, because 300,000 screaming secularist militants make quite a convincing argument. :p

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

I don't think all muslims support union of religion and state.

Religious Fundamentalists should be resisted even to the point of kill them.

Oh, the irony, it burns!

Apparently not all the people want it, because 300,000 screaming secularist militants make quite a convincing argument. :p

Nah, Soviestan has a point. The democratic majority did elect the Islamist government. By a landslide, IIRC.

It is telling that this protest is taking place in Westernised, liberal Istanbul, and not the much more provincial capital, Ankara. The people protesting are almost exclusively from the West, and have very little in common with their rural compatriots.

However, I do think that there should be measures in place to protect people from democracy. And that is what this rally is about.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

Protests would suggest that the people DON'T want it.

Oh, the irony, it burns!

I like the spicy taste, myself.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

Because:

1- The rights of the non-muslims have to be upheld as well. Democracy, not tyranny by majority.

2- People don't seem to want Islamic law. Surprisingly, they CAN be muslims without wanting to force it upon others. Well, not surprisingly, because ALL TRUE MUSLIMS KNOW RELIGION IS NOT TO BE FORCED, AS SAID IN THE QURAN, THE BOOK YOU CLAIM TO KNOW MORE THAN JACK SHIT ABOUT.

3- I remember FULLY WELL you supporting the ICU when the people in Somalia DID NOT want Islamic law. So it's pretty clear you could not care ANY LESS about what the majority wants. You're the one that defended a group that KILLED people for not praying 5 times a day, REGARDLESS OF RELIGION.

4- Preventing religion from forcing its way where it shouldn't be in order to join a group that will benefit Turkey isn't really sad.

5- Bills of Rights exist to protect the 0.2%. You live in America. Shortly after 9/11, the "majority" wanted muslims to be held in concentration camps. If you think the "majority" matters so much in Turkey, it matters in America as well. Guess where you'd be typing from right now if the "majority" ruled the way you just suggested it should?

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.


Or instead we could change a few words...

"Why? The country (USA) is 99.8% christian yet the government must vow not to bring christian law even if the people want it....The whole thing is sad really"

So, it's terrible for christians in the USA to want a religious government, but it's ok for the the Turkish moslems???

Sigh.

Do any of you not see the contradictions here at all?

5- Bills of Rights exist to protect the 0.2%. You live in America. Shortly after 9/11, the "majority" wanted muslims to be held in concentration camps. If you think the "majority" matters so much in Turkey, it matters in America as well. Guess where you'd be typing from right now if the "majority" ruled the way you just suggested it should?

He wouldn't be typing at all, like we'd give them computers to complain to the rest of the world about being locked up.

Secularism for the fucking win. Next step, a healthy dose a social liberalism.

He wouldn't be typing at all, like we'd give them computers to complain to the rest of the world about being locked up.

I'm aware, but I decided to "dance" a little to mark the point. Adds style.

Because:

1- The rights of the non-muslims have to be upheld as well. Democracy, not tyranny by majority.

2- People don't seem to want Islamic law. Surprisingly, they CAN be muslims without wanting to force it upon others. Well, not surprisingly, because ALL TRUE MUSLIMS KNOW RELIGION IS NOT TO BE FORCED, AS SAID IN THE QURAN, THE BOOK YOU CLAIM TO KNOW MORE THAN JACK SHIT ABOUT.

3- I remember FULLY WELL you supporting the ICU when the people in Somalia DID NOT want Islamic law. So it's pretty clear you could not care ANY LESS about what the majority wants. You're the one that defended a group that KILLED people for not praying 5 times a day, REGARDLESS OF RELIGION.

4- Preventing religion from forcing its way where it shouldn't be in order to join a group that will benefit Turkey isn't really sad.

5- Bills of Rights exist to protect the 0.2%. You live in America. Shortly after 9/11, the "majority" wanted muslims to be held in concentration camps. If you think the "majority" matters so much in Turkey, it matters in America as well. Guess where you'd be typing from right now if the "majority" ruled the way you just suggested it should?

You sound like a neocon.

You sound like a neocon.

No, I don't. Because several points SHOW on my post that I'm not one.

1- I know Islam well enough to know it's not the crap neocons and fundies believe it to be.

2- I don't favor tyranny by majority.

3- I could make the same point against a fundie Christian if I changed a few words, and I'd STILL agree with it.

4- I know why bills of rights exist.

Nice bait, though.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.What the fuck are you talking about? And who do you think you are speaking for? Surely not the Turks.

No, I don't. Because several points SHOW on my post that I'm not one.

1- I know Islam well enough to know it's not the crap neocons and fundies believe it to be.

2- I don't favor tyranny by majority.

3- I could make the same point against a fundie Christian if I changed a few words, and I'd STILL agree with it.

4- I know wht bills of rights exist.

Nice bait, though.

You want to tell another country what to do when it is not your business. That is neoconservatism. And yes, it was nice bait.

What the fuck are you talking about? And who do you think you are speaking for? Surely not the Turks.

Sure he is. 300,000 is .4% of the population. The people want an Islamic Gov't. Well maybe not the Kurds but that is a different story.

You want to tell another country what to do when it is not your business. That is neoconservatism. And yes, it was nice bait.

So essentially everyone here who chastises United States social and foreign policy is neoconservative? Right...

Sure he is. 300,000 is .4% of the population. The people want an Islamic Gov't. Well maybe not the Kurds but that is a different story.

Actually, the amount of protesters was up to over a million.

So essentially everyone here who chastises United States social and foreign policy is neoconservative? Right...

If they chastise the U.S. social policies then you could say that. It is the basis of the neoconservative philosophy. If you don't think it's so bad then maybe you learned something. If you are against their foreign policy then that is a little more complicated b/c you could be against how the U.S. is treating other countries and that could be your business.

Actually, the amount of protesters was up to over a million.

So thats 1.4%. Not exactly a majority.

You want to tell another country what to do when it is not your business. That is neoconservatism. And yes, it was nice bait.

The neocons aren't the only ones that have opinions about other countries. One of the features that separate them from the rest of us is the desire to force said opinions.

As for the bolded part, well... You're making my job easier, really.

The neocons aren't the only ones that have opinions about other countries. They ARE the only ones that desire to force said opinions.

As for the bolded part, well... You're making my job easier, really.

So your argument is that if I do it then it makes you doing it and then calling people who do it bad okay? Neoconservatism is essentially the belief that your society is better. You can be a neocon w/o wanting force. You stated that they need to be secular when it is clear that that goes against their local culture. That is enough.

The main problem with Turkish secularism is that it tends to encourage Grey-Wolves style secular Turkish nationalism (think about the nationalists who shot Hrant Dink and blame Turkey's problems on a Greek-Armenian conspiracy).

Let us hope that religious fundamentalism is not superseded by something worse.

So thats 1.4%. Not exactly a majority.

Unless you have statistics, a million people protest indicates a lot. You can't assume 98.6% of the people disagree with them because they didn't show up, you'd have to bring statistics about that issue.

So your argument is that if I do it then it makes you doing it and then calling people who do it bad okay? Neoconservatism is essentially the belief that your society is better. You can be a neocon w/o wanting force. You stated that they need to be secular when it is clear that that goes against their local culture. That is enough.

That's clear? To whom? To the MILLION PEOPLE protesting it? Or you're simply assuming, without any basis, that these people are the ONLY ONES in favor of secularism? Do you know anything at ALL about their culture? The protests are a movement from within the country. And no, you can't be a neocon without wanting force, mainly because neocons believe in the notion of "manifest destiny".

Unless you have statistics, a million people protest indicates a lot. You can't assume 98.6% of the people disagree with them because they didn't show up, you'd have to bring statistics about that issue.

Since neither of us have statistics it seems that we have come to a problem. It is probably best to just allow their elections to tell us what they think. Who won those again?

If they chastise the U.S. social policies then you could say that. It is the basis of the neoconservative philosophy. If you don't think it's so bad then maybe you learned something. If you are against their foreign policy then that is a little more complicated b/c you could be against how the U.S. is treating other countries and that could be your business.

Umm.

So what your saying is if I don't like President Bush's policies on the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan, i'm a NeoCon?

I'm sorry but thats a load of hogwash. I consider myself a Socialist. I wish equal rights for everyone unlike Prez Bush, who wants to take away several different groups of people. THAT, sir, is a NeoConservative.

That's clear? To whom? To the MILLION PEOPLE protesting it? Or you're simply assuming, without any basis, that these people are the ONLY ONES in favor of secularism? Do you know anything at ALL about their culture? The protests are a movement from within the country. And no, you can't be a neocon without wanting force, mainly because neocons believe in the notion of "manifest destiny".

To the million Kurds protesting it? They are not a part of the mainstream culture as evident in Iraq. Maybe they should push for autonomy. So you are a neocon that is all talk?

Umm.

So what your saying is if I don't like President Bush's policies on the Wars in Iraq and Afganistan, i'm a NeoCon?

I'm sorry but thats a load of hogwash. I consider myself a Socialist. I wish equal rights for everyone unlike Prez Bush, who wants to take away several different groups of people. THAT, sir, is a NeoConservative.

Maybe you need to do a little more reading and a little less talking. Neoconservatism is the belief that democracy and freedom is superior to all others. They want equal rights for everyone. And if you would have read what I said then you would have read that being against a countries foreign policy is not neoconservatism.

Since neither of us have statistics it seems that we have come to a problem. It is probably best to just allow their elections to tell us what they think. Who won those again?

Funny how neocons couldn't care less about majorities when Chavez won the elections in Venezuela, yet you claim their importance now.

However, the President in Turkey is elected by the Assembly, NOT the people.

To the million Kurds protesting it? They are not a part of the mainstream culture

Says who? Do you have any evidence at all?

Maybe you need to do a little more reading and a little less talking. Neoconservatism is the belief that AMERICAN democracy and AMERICAN freedom is superior to all others. They want equal rights for everyone THAT'S AMERICAN. And if you would have read what I said then you would have read that being against a countries foreign policy is not neoconservatism.

Fixed. Neoconservatism is the belief that America is to follow a purported "manifest destiny", including but not limited to Christianity in public office and wanton invasion of foreign lands for resources, namely oil.

Funny how neocons couldn't care less about majorities when Chavez won the elections in Venezuela, yet you claim their importance now.

However, the President in Turkey is elected by the Assembly, NOT the people.

1) I'm not a neocon.

2) The assembly is elected by the people so they indirectly vote for the president. Even if you don't accept this it is more than you have.

The assembly is elected by the people so they indirectly vote for the president. Even if you don't accept this it is more than you have.

You who? Venezuelans? They vote for President. I'm Brazilian, I voted for President. Where do you think I live? Also, the Assembly was elected how long ago?

Fixed. Neoconservatism is the belief that America is to follow a purported "manifest destiny", including but not limited to Christianity in public office and wanton invasion of foreign lands for resources, namely oil.

It is not the Neoconservative position that gov't should be non-secular and that we should go to war for resources. It is non neoconservatives who have labeled them with those beliefs.

You who? Venezuelans? They vote for President. I'm Brazilian, I voted for President. Where do you think I live? Also, the Assembly was elected how long ago?

They are elected for 5 year terms. And I'm not defending neoconservatism at all. I'm just saying that you telling Turkey to be secular could be construed as that political ideology.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.
Well, Islamic Law creates horrible conditions for a large portion of the population. The rights of the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Just because Anti-Islamic sentiment runs high among the U.S. does not mean we should deport all Muslims.

BTW, Neoconservatism: 1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, politically allied with the Religious right, and disapproval of counterculture.
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, statesmen should have the ability to accurately distinguish friend from foe, protect national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

They are elected for 5 year terms. And I'm not defending neoconservatism at all. I'm just saying that you telling Turkey to be secular could be construed as that political ideology.

MANY things can be construed as ideologies they are NOT. QED.

I hope they keep the separation of church and state... or should I say religion and state... clear in the future. Good for Turkey. :)

MANY things can be construed as ideologies they are NOT. QED.

I merely stated that your comments sounded like neoconservatism. It appears that we don't have a disagreement at all.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

Why is it sad? Whilst some people are antsy about not being able to display signs of their faith I'd wager a majority of them still support the core idea of a secular government.

Actually a large amount of Turks do support joining the EU and support their country's secular ways (It helps that their saviour of the country was the one to implement them).

I am not sure about the kurdish people though (and that is bad considering they are about 25% of the population).

As it stands the effort to try to join the EU has allowed them greater prosperity than if they had to join other bloc, it has allowed them greater national security and a fair amount of prestige.

Or instead we could change a few words...

"Why? The country (USA) is 99.8% christian yet the government must vow not to bring christian law even if the people want it....The whole thing is sad really"

So, it's terrible for christians in the USA to want a religious government, but it's ok for the the Turkish moslems???

Sigh.

Do any of you not see the contradictions here at all?

Not really, quite a lot of the basic laws of U.S.A and many european countries was from christian law. Eventually it evolved out of that but there are still some traces there.

The real difference is whether the religion is the primary force for election. I have a christian centre-left winger as a shadow government and a christian centre-right government. Now that wouldn't be too bad I do think that it gerts to be a problem if they start trying to warp law to their own religious beliefs (such as all federally funded parenthood hotlines here are now run by religious groups whowill never suggest abortion).

Oh, the irony, it burns!


It isn't ironic at all.

It isn't postmodern academic head-cloud-land where all positions are equal. Opposing oppressive religious fundamentalists, the ones who are wrecking lives and countries right now at this instant around the world - even to the point of killing them - is categorically different because it is right rather than wrong.

A jew on the train to Auschwitz who gets the idea to kill a guard and escape isn't "being ironic" just because the Nazi guard also wants to kill him.

It isn't ironic at all.

It isn't postmodern academic head-cloud-land where all positions are equal. Opposing oppressive religious fundamentalists, the ones who are wrecking lives and countries right now at this instant around the world - even to the point of killing them - is categorically different because it is right rather than wrong.

A jew on the train to Auschwitz who gets the idea to kill a guard and escape isn't "being ironic" just because the Nazi guard also wants to kill him.

I think even perfectly moral actions such as the one you describe can be ironic. Why don't you?

A jew on the train to Auschwitz who gets the idea to kill a guard and escape isn't "being ironic" just because the Nazi guard also wants to kill him.

He might be Ironic if he said "wow, that's a fine regime I live under" though.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

I agree with Soviestan. There might be 1 million liberal turks that want a securlar nation, but the rest of the nation wants shariah law.

Honestly, what muslim wouldn't want to live under shariah law? Its God's perfect law for Muslims to live by.

I agree with Soviestan. There might be 1 million liberal turks that want a securlar nation, but the rest of the nation wants shariah law.

Honestly, what muslim wouldn't want to live under shariah law? Its God's perfect law for Muslims to live by.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

Please tell me you're being sarcastic?

I'm not. Why should I be? You can ask every muslim on earth, and 99.999999999999999999999% would say they want to live under shariah law.

As far as my other point, the deal with a majority of the turks wanting an Islamic state, then so be it. They want it, then they have it. You must realize that because we look out for minority view points and problems here, it doesn't mean that it works that way else where.

Seriously, the banned sisters from wearing the hijab. that's fucking ridiculous.

I agree with Soviestan. There might be 1 million liberal turks that want a securlar nation, but the rest of the nation wants shariah law.

Honestly, what muslim wouldn't want to live under shariah law? Its God's perfect law for Muslims to live by.

Because, obviously, only the people that were willing to take to the streets and protest publicly are the people who favor a secular government.

I agree with Soviestan. There might be 1 million liberal turks that want a securlar nation, but the rest of the nation wants shariah law.

Honestly, what muslim wouldn't want to live under shariah law? Its God's perfect law for Muslims to live by.


That's assuming all Muslims interpret their faith the same way though - and assuming that all Muslims interpret Shari`a law the same way.

Just because a massive percentage of the Turkish population identify themselves as Muslim, it doesn't necessarily follow that they want to live in an Islamic state. Or, they may want to live in an Islamic state, but disagree about what Islamism implies. I'm guessing there's a fair amount of people in both of these categories.

Use Palestine as an example; Hamas may have won the election, but the majority of people still voted for secular Fatah party members, PFLP members, and independants. The vast majority of Palestinians are also Muslim. So they either don't want to live under Shari`a law, or take issue with the Hamas interpretation of it (an oversimplification though, of course - but my point is that the majority of Palestinians, even many of those who voted Hamas, are what could be called 'secular Muslims').



Actually a large amount of Turks do support joining the EU and support their country's secular ways (It helps that their saviour of the country was the one to implement them).



I suppose one could call Attaturk the 'savior' of the Turks... But the system that he put in place can hardly be called 'just'. Turkey is a state founded on ethnic prejudices - just ask the Armenians and Kurds who've experienced (and continue to experience) varying degrees of fairly severe repression for the better half of a century.

The way that the Turkish government uses the ethnic, secular state, is almost like a religion in itself. They govern by a kind of 'ethnic, secular law', where they've imposed wide ranges of restrictions on massive portions of the population. The banning of the hijab in certain institutions is an example of this; they've banned expression of the Islamic faith, while imposing their own 'secular religion', so to speak. In this way, that the Turkish secular nationalist politicians have integrated their belief system and worldview (not to mention a bitterly dicriminatory one...) into the political system, just as much as any Islamist politician would have integrated his or her beliefs into the political system.

So, even if the frontrunner here has some kind of shady, Islamist, past, the secular nationalist regime isn't exactly one worthy of praise...

I'm not. Why should I be? You can ask every muslim on earth, and 99.999999999999999999999% would say they want to live under shariah law.

As far as my other point, the deal with a majority of the turks wanting an Islamic state, then so be it. They want it, then they have it. You must realize that because we look out for minority view points and problems here, it doesn't mean that it works that way else where.

Seriously, the banned sisters from wearing the hijab. that's fucking ridiculous.I don't have any statistics to back me up on this, but...

Typically, less than 30% of immigrant Muslims in EU countries, wants rid of secular society to some extent. Typically, those people's views are about as similar to those of the average Turk, as Fred Phelp's to your own.

The Hijab thing is, of course, ridiculous, but those and similar symbols are used by Islamists to cause a fuss. It's no different from the "kill the police before they kill you" painted on the back of my jacket in nice, big letters.

One of the main reasons Ataturk's pretty much the saint of Turkey, is because he freed (or tried to anyway) his peoples from religious oppression. It's not something a majority wants a return to. As I said, I don't know where to find any statistics on this, but I'm confident the number of subversive orthodox religious nutters, are about the same as in the US.

The relative popularity of the Islamists these days, is mostly to do with tensions between different religious groups, the Kurds, EU foreign policy, and the extensive reforms of the Turkish economy and legal system, which threatens traditional patriarchal 'special status', is seen as a threat to the national identity (and Turkey is highly nationalistic), and massively screws the already screwed parts of Turkey (mainly the rural south). The Islamists promise nice, easy solutions to all of this, and a lot of people are buying into it - just like in the rest of Europe, where fascist populist parties are more popular than they have been since WWII, not because people think fascism is a good idea, but because the parties promises nice, easy solutions to social problems and the scary consequences of globalisation. It's the same fucking thing.

Yours and Sovie's claim is so fucking absurd that if it came from anyone else, I'd think it racism. I know that's not the case when it's the two of you, but seriously.. Time for a reality check, eh.

Why? The country is 99.8% Muslim yet the government must vow not to bring Islamic law even if the people want it. They even ban sisters from wearing the Hijab. And for what, joining the EU? The whole thing is sad really.

I love Islam, but some parts of it need to get out of the Middle Ages.

I don't have any statistics to back me up on this, but...

Well, ill get some #'s for you soon ;)

Typically, less than 30% of immigrant Muslims in EU countries, wants rid of secular society to some extent. Typically, those people's views are about as similar to those of the average Turk, as Fred Phelp's to your own.

:rolleyes:

The Hijab thing is, of course, ridiculous, but those and similar symbols are used by Islamists to cause a fuss. It's no different from the "kill the police before they kill you" painted on the back of my jacket in nice, big letters. Except, one instance its part of a persons religion, and is part of a obedient lifestyle, where as the other is used to promote violence and civil dis obedience

One of the main reasons Ataturk's pretty much the saint of Turkey, is because he freed (or tried to anyway) his peoples from religious oppression. It's not something a majority wants a return to. As I said, I don't know where to find any statistics on this, but I'm confident the number of subversive orthodox religious nutters, are about the same as in the US.

but there is religious oppression if good muslims want to obey the Qur'an, but can't, because the state bans certain things.

The relative popularity of the Islamists these days, is mostly to do with tensions between different religious groups, the Kurds, EU foreign policy, and the extensive reforms of the Turkish economy and legal system, which threatens traditional patriarchal 'special status', is seen as a threat to the national identity (and Turkey is highly nationalistic), and massively screws the already screwed parts of Turkey (mainly the rural south). The Islamists promise nice, easy solutions to all of this, and a lot of people are buying into it - just like in the rest of Europe, where fascist populist parties are more popular than they have been since WWII, not because people think fascism is a good idea, but because the parties promises nice, easy solutions to social problems and the scary consequences of globalisation. It's the same fucking thing.

You equate a return to the kaliphate and sharia law to fascism? Thats a little absurd. Again, one is the obedience to a religion, where the other is intent on hurting some group in some way.


Yours and Sovie's claim is so fucking absurd that if it came from anyone else, I'd think it racism. I know that's not the case when it's the two of you, but seriously.. Time for a reality check, eh.

I think absurd is trying to make an argument without any support, and equating apples and oranges, which you seem to have done.

I suppose one could call Attaturk the 'savior' of the Turks...

That is what he is recognised as in Turkey.

But the system that he put in place can hardly be called 'just'. Turkey is a state founded on ethnic prejudices - just ask the Armenians

That genocide in progress was horrible, though the hierachy of it were of the old regieme.

and Kurds who've experienced (and continue to experience) varying degrees of fairly severe repression for the better half of a century.

Though with the kurds it is more about trying to assimilate the kurds, hence trying to stamp out kurdish seperatism and trying to homogonise them to be more inline with a turkish state, rather than a seperate one.

They have been granted some more autonomy but the Turkish central government can be worried at times, epsecially with the kurdish terrorist groups (one of which kills teachers).

The way that the Turkish government uses the ethnic, secular state, is almost like a religion in itself.

..... How?

They govern by a kind of 'ethnic, secular law', where they've imposed wide ranges of restrictions on massive portions of the population. The banning of the hijab in certain institutions is an example of this; they've banned expression of the Islamic faith, while imposing their own 'secular religion', so to speak.

...... It is a secular nation-state (hence the attempts to homogonise turkish culture into the kurdish areas to prevent seperation). That means a seperation of the state and religions. In Turkey's case it is not merely the seperation of state organisations and religious organisations, it is the seperation of the state and any elements of religion (or kurdish beliefs).

In this way, that the Turkish secular nationalist politicians have integrated their belief system and worldview (not to mention a bitterly dicriminatory one...) into the political system, just as much as any Islamist politician would have integrated his or her beliefs into the political system.

How is it discriminatory other than not being allowed to show your religion in public areas and displaying kurdish semi-nationship?

They did what they thought they had to so they could intergrate into europe better after WW1.

So, even if the frontrunner here has some kind of shady, Islamist, past, the secular nationalist regime isn't exactly one worthy of praise...

I don't like nationalism (especially the ultra kind) but the secular centrist and left and some centre right and right parties want to join the EU. That can be seen as nationalis but not ultranationalist.

I'm not. Why should I be? You can ask every muslim on earth, and 99.999999999999999999999% would say they want to live under shariah law.

As far as my other point, the deal with a majority of the turks wanting an Islamic state, then so be it. They want it, then they have it. You must realize that because we look out for minority view points and problems here, it doesn't mean that it works that way else where.

Seriously, the banned sisters from wearing the hijab. that's fucking ridiculous.

Ok, put your self in my position. You know very well that apostasy is punishable in Sharia law, I'm an apostate living in a Muslim country. Do you think that Sharia law is fair to someone in my position? I dislike much of the Quran, but if you are a Muslim you should understand the following verse. "Lakum dheenakum Valiyadheen".

Ok, put your self in my position. You know very well that apostasy is punishable in Sharia law, I'm an apostate living in a Muslim country. Do you think that Sharia law is fair to someone in my position? I dislike much of the Quran, but if you are a Muslim you should understand the following verse. "Lakum dheenakum Valiyadheen".

I am not a muslim. Did you convert to another religion, such as Christianity, or Judaism? If so, you might be a little more safe, as you'd be a person of the book.

Besides, i'll use the arguement that everyone else uses, if you don't like it, then move.

Well, ill get some #'s for you soon ;)Nice. Any other homework you want to do for me? :p:rolleyes: I don't know how to interpret that. Care to elaborate?Except, one instance its part of a persons religion, and is part of a obedient lifestyle, where as the other is used to promote violence and civil dis obedienceBoth are used as vehicles of civil disobedience. There's no difference, nor do anyone try to hide the fact. The only reason it's not obvious to you, is because you lack a frame of reference.

On a side note, seeing your eye-rolly thingy above, it's somewhat surprising to me you failed to pick up on the sarcasm of the latter. The only groups I advocate violence against, are militant orthodox religious people & militant neo-Nazis. And both are a matter of self-defence, rather than any innate desire to inflict harm on assholes.but there is religious oppression if good muslims want to obey the Qur'an, but can't, because the state bans certain things.It's both right and wrong. The Turkish state does ban a hell of a lot of things. Freedom of speech/expression is severely limited in the country (speaking ill of the political system is punishable by up to several years of prison, for example).

That said, when and where Muslim symbolism has been allowed, or at least not actively stamped out, Islamists have gone to extreme lengths to cower everyone into adopting their shit, and civil opposition to that shit is dealt with rather extremely by Islamists. They typically (try to) operate through a combination of methods similar to those employed by Jehovah's Witness' and Swedish neo-Nazis.You equate a return to the kaliphate and sharia law to fascism? Thats a little absurd. Again, one is the obedience to a religion, where the other is intent on hurting some group in some way.One is total obedience to a minority, with zero tolerance of diversity and dissent. The other is total obedience to a minority, with zero tolerance of diversity and dissent. Any difference you imagine, is just that; imagined.

That said, Islam in Turkey isn't anything like that of, for example, Iran. People are, in general, only very slightly more orthodox than the average euro-Christian, and just like in the rest of Europe, the vast majority of Turks frown on orthodoxy. I've said it before, but it's worth repeating; the peoples aren't significantly different from other peoples of southern Europe. Social values and behaviour are near identical.I think absurd is trying to make an argument without any support, and equating apples and oranges, which you seem to have done.I don't mean any offence, but I think you're too ignorant of the subject to have an opinion. I don't know that it'll help you any, but Zaman (http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/) is one of the major Turkish newspapers. Might help you get a better understanding of things.

I am not a muslim. Did you convert to another religion, such as Christianity, or Judaism? If so, you might be a little more safe, as you'd be a person of the book.

Besides, i'll use the arguement that everyone else uses, if you don't like it, then move.

Well my country is 100% Islamic by constituition, so it doesnt really matter wether your'e Christian, Jewish or atheist. Either you will be put in jail or be forced to give up your citizenship or recant. But I'll answer your question anyway, I'm now an atheist. and I have no intention of leaving my friends and family behind, I dislike Islam because of Muhammad and hold no grudge against any other Muslim, thereforeI dont dislike living among them. I repeat my question. Would Sharia law be fair to someone in my position? It's already unfair on non-Muslims as it is, and the last thing they need is Sharia law implemented to excacerbate the situation even further.

You sure don't have much religious fundamentalism in Turkey, but it gets replaced with an equally zealous nationalism in the Turkic race. Your talking about a country with laws that it's illegal to be unpatriotic or to denigrate 'Turkishness'.

I am not a muslim. Did you convert to another religion, such as Christianity, or Judaism? If so, you might be a little more safe, as you'd be a person of the book.

Besides, i'll use the arguement that everyone else uses, if you don't like it, then move.

I see. And, of course, 99.99999999999999999 % of Christians would like to live under Fred Phelps law. And, again of course, if you don't like it, move.

I don't buy it. Were you that insane rather than merely trolling, I would take notice and have humiliated you repeatedly months ago.

Well my country is 100% Islamic by constituition, so it doesnt really matter wether your'e Christian, Jewish or atheist. Either you will be put in jail or be forced to give up your citizenship or recant. But I'll answer your question anyway, I'm now an atheist. and I have no intention of leaving my friends and family behind, I dislike Islam because of Muhammad and hold no grudge against any other Muslim, thereforeI dont dislike living among them. I repeat my question. Would Sharia law be fair to someone in my position? It's already unfair on non-Muslims as it is, and the last thing they need is Sharia law implemented to excacerbate the situation even further.

Especially since it would also be unfair to many MUSLIMS, as sharia would push a given interpretation of Islam (Sunni, shia, wahhabi) rather than merely "islam".

I see. And, of course, 99.99999999999999999 % of Christians would like to live under Fred Phelps law. And, again of course, if you don't like it, move.

I don't buy it. Were you that insane rather than merely trolling, I would take notice and have humiliated you repeatedly months ago.

http://maniacmuslim.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13174, here i did a little poll on a more moderate western muslim site, i did a similar one not too long ago on a more conservative one, and Ill try to post that one soon.. It shows here that only 3 have negated so far, (one being me, so really only 2) leaving about 91% in favor of living under shariah law(with out my vote, itd be more like 95ish, right?).
Now, i can ask a question on pointed towards christians, about living under fred phelps laws and I'm sure not even 1% would answer yes. Stop being ridiculous. You make it seem as if sharia is bad, and to say that muslims want to live under it, is equally bad. If I were muslim, i'd love to live under it.

Well my country is 100% Islamic by constituition, so it doesnt really matter wether your'e Christian, Jewish or atheist. Either you will be put in jail or be forced to give up your citizenship or recant. But I'll answer your question anyway, I'm now an atheist. and I have no intention of leaving my friends and family behind, I dislike Islam because of Muhammad and hold no grudge against any other Muslim, thereforeI dont dislike living among them. I repeat my question. Would Sharia law be fair to someone in my position? It's already unfair on non-Muslims as it is, and the last thing they need is Sharia law implemented to excacerbate the situation even further.

Well, if you live in a nation, you must obey its laws, or suffer the consequences. That's about as fair as it gets.

Well, if you live in a nation, you must obey its laws, or suffer the consequences. That's about as fair as it gets.
[insert Godwin here]

I had a look at the thread. They're all saying they would want to live under 'properly implemented' sharia. This implies to me that they'd love to live in a state that agreed with all their own beliefs as a Muslim, which I'm sure most people would. Now, sharia in practice... uh... no. Like all theocracies, it fails badly, as you can see by looking at most of the Middle East.

Regardless, forgive me if I don't see a forum poll as an accurate representation of Muslims.

Because, obviously, only the people that were willing to take to the streets and protest publicly are the people who favor a secular government.the Key question is.
Do most of them want a Pro-Islam Gov?

If they do.. I see absolutely no problem..
and if they dont... I see no problem either.

just vote accordingly.

[insert Godwin here]

I had a look at the thread. They're all saying they would want to live under 'properly implemented' sharia. This implies to me that they'd love to live in a state that agreed with all their own beliefs as a Muslim, which I'm sure most people would. Now, sharia in practice... uh... no. Like all theocracies, it fails badly, as you can see by looking at most of the Middle East.

Regardless, forgive me if I don't see a forum poll as an accurate representation of Muslims.

Well who'd want to have a bastard running shariah as they see fit. There is a common belief in islam that the muslim should not try to interpret the Qur'an any way other than its written. So, there can be a literal practice of Sharia.

The reason that the middle eastern societies fail, is because they are not implementing the law, the way that the Prophet Mohammed prescribed. Like how medieval christian europe was made of fail, because they mistinterpreted the words of Christ to further their own agenda. Middle Eastern dictators don't care about their people, which goes against Islam in sense, as you put Allah first, then the Ummah(or muslim people), and then the PoB, and so on. So taking care of a fellow muslim is high on the priorities list, but yet they don't heed it.

Anyways, I could give the same poll to muslims worldwide, and the results would be very similar. In fact, don't you remember that its become a problem in places like Australia, where those wanting to live under sharia were being shooed out of the nation?

Use common sense. Islam=submission to God's will and law. God's law is in the Qur'an and practiced through sharia law. Any Muslim wanting to live a good muslim life, 9/10 will desire to live under sharia.

Again, you guys make sharia law out to be the devil, and make it seem that by me saying the obvious that i am some sort of islamophobic bigot or something. In fact, I think quite highly of my muslim friends, more so than some people in my own faith, and even my own family.

http://maniacmuslim.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13174, here i did a little poll on a more moderate western muslim site, i did a similar one not too long ago on a more conservative one, and Ill try to post that one soon.. It shows here that only 3 have negated so far, (one being me, so really only 2) leaving about 91% in favor of living under shariah law(with out my vote, itd be more like 95ish, right?).
Now, i can ask a question on pointed towards christians, about living under fred phelps laws and I'm sure not even 1% would answer yes. Stop being ridiculous. You make it seem as if sharia is bad, and to say that muslims want to live under it, is equally bad. If I were muslim, i'd love to live under it.

Do you know what sharia is like or are you just talking out of that part of you proctologists study?

Well, if you live in a nation, you must obey its laws, or suffer the consequences. That's about as fair as it gets.

Ah, but wait. Earlier on you stated that it was unfair that Turskish women are not allowed to wear the veil, by the token being espoused in your above post they should not be complaining since they are only being forced to obey the law. Why then are you complaining? Just make it easier on yourself by admitting that your'e a self contradicting fascist. That or a very, very hungry troll.

See, I have no intention of being punished for having different beleifs from a religious majority. If individual Muslims want to follow the requirments of Sharia law fine, but why does it need to be enforced by the government on all its citizens whe Muslims can simply do whats halal and refrain from haram activities individually. You and I both know that the only effect Sharia will have is that it will punish people who do not live up to their religious duty. Kinda hard for an apostate.

Ah, but wait. Earlier on you stated that it was unfair that Turskish women are not allowed to wear the veil, by the token being espoused in your above post they should not be complaining since they are only being forced to obey the law. Why then are you complaining? Just make it easier on yourself by admitting that your'e a self contradicting fascist. That or a very, very hungry troll. Shit, i did contradict myself. :(

actually i am neither, i'm just a bad arguer. I'd think everyone would know that by now, but you all still play with me!


See, I have no intention of being punished for having different beleifs from a religious majority. If individual Muslims want to follow the requirments of Sharia law fine, but why does it need to be enforced by the government on all its citizens whe Muslims can simply do whats halal and refrain from haram activities individually. You and I both know that the only effect Sharia will have is that it will punish people who do not live up to their religious duty. Kinda hard for an apostate.

I think if sharia law was implemented as with the 1st caliphate, where PoB where allowed to live by their own laws, as long as they respected the islamic laws, then things would be okay, no?

I think if sharia law was implemented as with the 1st caliphate, where PoB where allowed to live by their own laws, as long as they respected the islamic laws, then things would be okay, no?

As an occultist - therefore not a "person of the book" - I say no.

Shit, i did contradict myself.

Actually i am neither, i'm just a bad arguer. I'd think everyone would know that by now, but you all still play with me!

Sorry, I just found it heinous that you would think it fair for someone to be executed for not having proper religious beleifs.

I think if sharia law was implemented as with the 1st caliphate, where PoB where allowed to live by their own laws, as long as they respected the islamic laws, then things would be okay, no?

Under the first caliphate apostates were executed. I already told you that I am not a person of the book, I do not have religious beleifs. And what your'e saying only applies to people who already were POB to begin with, if a Muslim converts to any other religion including another talmudic faith, the punishment would be exactly the same. I assume you've heard of Abdul Rahman, who converted from Islam to Christianity and faced the death penalty for it. As of right now, I can only be jailed till I recant, or lose my citizenship and be forced to go live in another country. So why would I want Sharia in its pure form unless I had a death wish. Also, Abu Bakr, Umar, Umayyad and Ali all beleived in spreading Islamic borders by force. I have a copy of Sahih Bukhari in my room right now, so we can debate this if your'e unconvinced of my statement. This is probably a politically incorrect thing to say, but the vast majority of Muslims today are better people than Muhammad and the first caliphs.

Also, Zilam have you considered the economin consequences involved in implementing Sharia law. I come from a tiny Mulsim nation, with little natural resources so we rely mostly on tourism. 70% of the revenue we get from Tourism is from the sale of alcohol to foreigners. Since Sharia law explicitly forbids the sale of alcohol it would destroy our economy.

What about a female workforce? Under Sharia law a woman must not be in the same area as a non-Mahram man, making certain jobs hard for them. Nurses can't be around male patients etc. Forget going to mixed universtities and such.

And finally, since we currently follow a Western banking system, switching to Sharia would force us to completely revamp the banks since interest rates are haram. The truth is, Sharia law would bring down the whole economy and unfairly lower the living standards of non-Muslim minorities, who want nothing to do wit Sharia.

I think if sharia law was implemented as with the 1st caliphate, where PoB where allowed to live by their own laws, as long as they respected the islamic laws, then things would be okay, no?

So the people who aren't of the book are pretty much screwed, basically. Great.

Actually, I think the issue is not so much whether Muslims want to live under Sharia law but whether they'd want to implement it in their country of residence. To use a bad analogy, I'd love to be the supreme ruler of Earth. However, I wouldn't try to pursue that, both because it's impractical and probably immoral. Unless I could get away with it. But anyway, Sharia law is law for Muslims, which most of them probably would enjoy. However, all theocracies discriminate against a particular belief system, which is, well, bad. I believe that Muslims would be tolerant enough to realise that Sharia law is only just in a country where every person is a Muslim. (and as Heikoku said, Muslims of exactly the same denomination)

I believe that Muslims would be tolerant enough to realise that Sharia law is only just in a country where every person is a Muslim. (and as Heikoku said, Muslims of exactly the same denomination)

I come from such a country (By law anyway) and I still dont think it would be fair, since it discriminates against apostates, women and such. Nobody here wants it anyway, so not much of a problem

I come from such a country (By law anyway) and I still dont think it would be fair, since it discriminates against apostates, women and such. Nobody here wants it anyway, so not much of a problem
Well, like I said in the context of the other thread I suspect it looks like they intend to fudge Sharia law by getting rid of most of the discrimination and keeping the 'Sharia' tag, but you're probably right.

By the way, where are you from? I thought you were Malaysian.

By the way, where are you from? I thought you were Malaysian.

I live in Malaysia currently. I'm not sure you've heard of the country, but I'm from the Maldives.

I live in Malaysia currently. I'm not sure you've heard of the country, but I'm from the Maldives.
I've heard of the Maldives! :mad:

Just curious, I'm Chinese-Malaysian y'see.

Also, Zilam have you considered the economin consequences involved in implementing Sharia law. I come from a tiny Mulsim nation, with little natural resources so we rely mostly on tourism.

Where do you live?

EDIT: I live in Malaysia currently. I'm not sure you've heard of the country, but I'm from the Maldives.

I always thought Maldives was in Indonesia (that is pretty bad on my part). Sucks to my knowlege of south-east asia.

EDIT DONE

So the people who aren't of the book are pretty much screwed, basically. Great.

Actually, I think the issue is not so much whether Muslims want to live under Sharia law but whether they'd want to implement it in their country of residence. To use a bad analogy, I'd love to be the supreme ruler of Earth. However, I wouldn't try to pursue that, both because it's impractical and probably immoral. Unless I could get away with it. But anyway, Sharia law is law for Muslims, which most of them probably would enjoy. However, all theocracies discriminate against a particular belief system, which is, well, bad. I believe that Muslims would be tolerant enough to realise that Sharia law is only just in a country where every person is a Muslim. (and as Heikoku said, Muslims of exactly the same denomination)

I'd never want to be supreme ruler due to the person who came after me most likely would abuse that power not in benefit of 99.99% of the people.

Just look at Iran. They generally aren't too annoyed at the theocracy of their country but most of the younger generations are annoyed at the lack of foreign media and want a more reformed government than the current hardliner one.

I've heard of the Maldives!:mad:

Much apology. I like feeling exotic y'see.:D

Just curious, I'm Chinese-Malaysian y'see.

Ah, what do you feel about the Lina Joy case taking place over here. Or the Malaysian governments inability to recognise the right of a Mulsim to convert to another faith, or lose faith altogether? I feel that apostasy is an issue in need of serious discussion within the Muslim world.

Originally posted by Soleichunn Where do you live?

I live in Malaysia for studying purposes, but I'm originally from the Maldives which is the country I was alluding to in the post you quoted.

Much apology. I like feeling exotic y'see.:D



Ah, what do you feel about the Lina Joy case taking place over here. Or the Malaysian governments inability to recognise the right of a Mulsim to convert to another faith, or lose faith altogether? I feel that apostasy is an issue in need of serious discussion within the Muslim world.



I live in Malaysia for studying purposes, but I'm originally from the Maldives which is the country I was alluding to in the post you quoted.
Should have clarified. Both parents are Chinese-Malaysian but born and bred in Australia, though I've been back several times. Depressingly westernised here. Well, I think that not recognising the right of anyone to convert is stupid, but I'm a liberal atheist so I would. :p

Well, I think that not recognising the right of anyone to convert is stupid, but I'm a liberal atheist so I would.

Well, to be fair their not allowed to convert (not sure if "convert" is the right word) from Islam to atheism either lol. I'm an atheist too btw, I'm a little curious as to why this forum has such a large atheist majority, poster wise.

Well I'm an atheist.

Protests would suggest that the people DON'T want it.

There was a protest today in LA for immigration reform and giving undocumented people more rights. However they don't represent the majority of Americans. Simply because a group is loud, doesn't make them a majority.

Or instead we could change a few words...

"Why? The country (USA) is 99.8% christian yet the government must vow not to bring christian law even if the people want it....The whole thing is sad really"

So, it's terrible for christians in the USA to want a religious government, but it's ok for the the Turkish moslems???

Sigh.

Do any of you not see the contradictions here at all?
If the US really was 99.8% Christian and the people wanted a Christian theocracy, who am I to stop them? there's no contradiction.

Well, Islamic Law creates horrible conditions for a large portion of the population.
In what way?

The rights of the minority must be protected from the will of the majority.
The rights of the minority are protected under Islamic law. Just look at history. Years ago in Christian Europe Jews had no rights under Christian rule while Jews under Muslim control had a great deal of rights. The idea that minorities aren't protected under Islamic law is simply false.

If the US really was 99.8% Christian and the people wanted a Christian theocracy, who am I to stop them? there's no contradiction.

Except neither the US nor Turkey are countries designed around pure democracy, rather, around liberal democracy, meaning: Majority rules with minority rights.

Although Turkey isn't particularly liberal, although it bears far more elements of liberal democracy than pure democracy.

Ok, put your self in my position. You know very well that apostasy is punishable in Sharia law, I'm an apostate living in a Muslim country. Do you think that Sharia law is fair to someone in my position? .

Thats like saying laws against murder is unfair to people who want to commit murder. yet we don't get rid of those laws simply because .0001 percent of the population doesn't like it or thinks it's unfair. Islamic law is no different.

the Key question is.
Do most of them want a Pro-Islam Gov?

If they do.. I see absolutely no problem..
and if they dont... I see no problem either.

just vote accordingly.

If you don't see the problem with a theocracy, even a popularly implemented theocracy, then you are either ignorant of or ignore history.

Also, Zilam have you considered the economin consequences involved in implementing Sharia law. I come from a tiny Mulsim nation, with little natural resources so we rely mostly on tourism. 70% of the revenue we get from Tourism is from the sale of alcohol to foreigners. Since Sharia law explicitly forbids the sale of alcohol it would destroy our economy.

not if you make the proper adjustments to your economy to match the new needs of the country.

What about a female workforce? Under Sharia law a woman must not be in the same area as a non-Mahram man, making certain jobs hard for them. Nurses can't be around male patients etc. Forget going to mixed universtities and such.
So train male nurses, not exactly difficult.

And finally, since we currently follow a Western banking system, switching to Sharia would force us to completely revamp the banks since interest rates are haram. The truth is, Sharia law would bring down the whole economy and unfairly lower the living standards of non-Muslim minorities, who want nothing to do wit Sharia.
No, all that would be needed is a change in the economy and taking it in a new direction. If Islamic economic policies were put into place it wouldn't hurt the economy.

Good for them.

Religious fundamentalism, legal or illegal, popular or unpopular, democratically implemented or undemocratically implemented, must be opposed every step of the way with every reasonably proportionate means available.

It is in virtually any manifestation devastating to human welfare and lethal to human freedom.

Under the first caliphate apostates were executed. I already told you that I am not a person of the book, I do not have religious beleifs. And what your'e saying only applies to people who already were POB to begin with, if a Muslim converts to any other religion including another talmudic faith, the punishment would be exactly the same.
These laws are put into place to be a deterent and to keep people in strong Iman. You can turn away from Islam, just keep it to yourself and don't say so publicly and try to cover the truth from the believers, thus taking us away from the path Allah swt has given us.

I assume you've heard of Abdul Rahman, who converted from Islam to Christianity and faced the death penalty for it. As of right now, I can only be jailed till I recant, or lose my citizenship and be forced to go live in another country.
and so you admit its a good deterent?

Also, Abu Bakr, Umar, Umayyad and Ali all beleived in spreading Islamic borders by force.

No. They brought Islam peacefully and showed people the truth. However the ruling classes and so on saw Islam as a threat and fought them. They had no choice but to take up arms in defence.

There was a protest today in LA for immigration reform and giving undocumented people more rights. However they don't represent the majority of Americans. Simply because a group is loud, doesn't make them a majority.
Those people protesting? They're right. The majority is wrong. That can happen.

If the US really was 99.8% Christian and the people wanted a Christian theocracy, who am I to stop them? there's no contradiction.

You're a muslim that would be executed by said theocracy the second it came into place. Well, you CLAIM TO BE a muslim, but that's besides the point as I, an occultist, also would be executed the second it came into place in my country.

THAT is why democracy isn't tyranny by majority. THAT is why bills of rights exist. Much as you seem to be willing to shoot yourself in the foot (as you're in the minority in the US), I cannot let you. It affects ALL religious minorities, whatever they are, everywhere.

Thats like saying laws against murder is unfair to people who want to commit murder. yet we don't get rid of those laws simply because .0001 percent of the population doesn't like it or thinks it's unfair. Islamic law is no different.

Yes, it is. Because not following Islamic law doesn't harm anyone, and murdering someone harms that person. And because you would be the first one to cry foul should a Christian say what you just said about the US and replace the word "Islamic" with "Christian" law. Furthermore, for the Nth time, the Quran doesn't approve forcing Islam on people, so you're being, once again, NOT a muslim when you claim Islam should be forced on people. Majority or not.

Heh.

and so you admit its a good deterent?

A good deterrent?

How DARE you?

Look at yourself, a supposed muslim with access to the internet, demanding respect yet acting as if disagreeing with your worldview should be a crime! Muhammad fled religious prosecution and you claim it should now be practiced in his name, against the words of the book you claim to follow! Deterrents are to crime, not to non-orthodoxy. You can't even argue a point about the religion you follow with your lips with someone that studied it as PART of his studies, with me, I, that know more about Islam than you do while you claim to be a muslim and I make it clear that I'm not one. The Quran itself says Islam shouldn't proselytize. The Quran itself says other religions, if harmless, should be respected. Yet here you are, not in Allah's name, but in YOUR name, demanding the blood of unbelievers. As if you had the right to speak in the name of any god at all! I studied more religions than you can PRONOUNCE, let alone UNDERSTAND, and I don't think I have the right to speak for God! Yet here you are, claiming to believe in a god, paying lip service to Him, yet contradicting what he said in the Holy Book you claim to know anything about!

Do yourself a favor and learn about what Muhammad actually wrote before further humiliating yourself, the supposed muslim, in front of people like me, that only have working knowledge about Islam and YET know more about it than you do.