In Germany, Syrians find mosques too conservative
reuters.com
reuters.com
It would be absolutely the right move, it would help moderate Muslims...and the outcry about "Islamophobia" would be off the charts.
Muslim countries don't allow missionaries, China also has a very big problem with them especially Catholic missionaries because the Catholic Church and the Pope would "supersede" the universality of the central government.
That seems like a difficult thing to prevent without affecting charities and 'good' institutions (eg. the Catholic church).
If you are going that route, you need to specifically target the bad ones, and extract them. However, even that's going to be a case of whack-a-mole, as they'll just go further underground and keep rebuilding.
Most people seem to have a problem with radical islam these days. It's the hot debate topic, and seems to be causing quite a stir in both Europe and now America. You could argue that it wouldn't be a problem if you allowed a much smaller amount of immigration. A small enough amount such that hateful individuals from the incoming group don't get a chance to ferment and consolidate power with other like-minded individuals once they arrive. Whether there is an unusual amount of such hateful individuals within a specific incoming group is not at all relevant save for using it in order to determine how much further you have to limit the entry amount in order for their concentration to stay low-enough for the host nation to be safe.
Unfortunately, this is a very unpopular opinion. You can't even have a reasonable discussion on the matter with opposing viewpoints without there being controversy and "racism" accusations flying.
South America on the other hand will have a big problem soon.
52% of British muslims want homosexuality made illegal.
16% of French Muslims support ISIS, 27% among aged 18-24.
31% of Belgian Muslims support ISIS.
47% of Quatar Muslims support ISIS.
37% of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.
36% of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/10/half-of-british-m...
http://europe.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-p...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540895/Young-British...
These are just a few polls, there are tons more online, and they are all full of crazy crazy numbers.
Islam is simply not compatible with the western values, and the left is refusing to acknowledge it.
Westerners are the most naive people on the planet now days, look at the US election, the pretend democracy, the constant bombing of civilians in the Middle East, the pathetic attempts at resolving climate change. Most people just pretend it's not happening. How about corporate tax evasion, what kind of scam is that?
Western governments have created these things by destroying the homes of Muslim people so they had to leave, and they believe they have a license to hate the west for the wars started in their homelands. Wars based on lies.
Western values are just not what they need to be, gay marriage is far from acceptable in a lot of major western counties.
If you know where I can find the book of western values and some good examples where they're being applied right now, I'd love to read it.
All I say it is not surprising
Before the west ever got there, the problems existed.
Also, don't pretend that the countries are not different because of the problems you listed. There is still a major difference in western countries compared to countries run by dictators all around the world. No amount of Trump or Tax evation can change that.
I know its easy to be synical, but lets not throw realism overboard completly.
Is that a joke ?
Also, nowhere did I claim the west created all the problems in the east.
The US has much to answer for on how ISIS came into existence but the Syrian Civil War more narrowly is a local situation.
The rebels might have been defeated faster if not for Western support but that about all that can be said.
You can of course go further back and blame France for the situation in Syria but it starts to be a futile argument.
It appears that much of the west is not compatible with western values.
But even in places where you can choose between many parties there's a really strict code that if you have any "Islamophobic" standpoints you will not be accepted by the "correct" parties. So you end up choosing between the one rightwing nutcase party or all the other ones that are in denial. The "cordon sanitaire" is a real thing. The majority of the political parties and seats in parliament reflect the opinion of a minority of the people nowadays.
I still can't vote for people like Le Pen or Wilders because I'm usually more progressive / liberal but I simply cannot and will not blame the people that do.
I want to live in a country where we can make a "Life of Brian" like movie about Muhammed, where women and gay people have equal rights not just in law but also within the community. If a multicultural, progressive society is too complex / modern / intimidating to stand there are plenty of other places to go and build your own life to your own believes.
They're hanging gay people in Saudi Arabia and Iran, I heard they're really welcoming countries and a paradise to live in.
If that's the thing that gets you off, go there.
I've seen an amazing amount of Muslim people just cope fine with Western society over the years so I'm sure it's not Muslims as a group, just the guys that went 11 on the scale of Westboro Baptist Church.
Facts are not crazy, though the context of some of the pools might be misinterpreted.
From what I see, Trump is not even close to the beheading, bombing, driving-trucks-through crowds religious fanatics, who are supported by large percentages of the followers of the same religion.
I'd like to see those same polls on evangelical Christians, or frum Jews, or again the general British public in 1966.
2) "Relatively liberal" Qatar is not, not compared to France or Belgium.
3) Don't care. The percentages of the radical supporters of the crazy/violent jihadists are still high among muslims.
And yeah, good luck finding polls of the Christians/jews where half of them who want to murder those who quit their religion.
And further, your version of western values is only supported by a minority of the population, similar to the numbers for Muslim population you quote. And yet somehow both set of minorities represent the entire population.
If you squint hard enough, the world can seem round and flat.
Try again.
Western governments, media and institutions then rant and rave against human rights but tip toe around the Saudis and instead dismantle other regimes in the region inimical to the Saudis throwing millions of lives in the middle east into chaos and leaving gaping power vacuums for extremists to fill.
And then simultenously spend billions of dollars building surveillance states at home making a mockery of our own commitment to democracy to deal with the fallout of the Saudi financed spread of wahhabism.
There is something extremely rotten at work here unless one supposes our foreign policy apparatus is naive.
Oil is a terrible explaition for most of whats going on. Oil serves as a backdrop why the US originally got in the region. However, you can explain nothing that happens short term by pointing to oil.
Even people's social media feeds can be tweaked to change people's views enmasse,not saying they are, but it's a real possibility.
I stopped reading "The Guardian", Facebook and most main stream media sites and my mental health is much better for it.
There is a serious war going on in which innocent civillians are dying and we don't actually, fully understand why, but it's being funded with our tax money. We need to wake up.
I honestly believe the current implementation / configuration of western democracy in the west has been failing us for far too long, the system needs a major overhaul.
The war in Syria and Iraq is financed by a hole variaty of countries, organisation and people. ISIS gets money not from Saudi Arabia but by taxation.
I have also stopped reading mainstream media on these subjects. Fortunatly you can still find experts on these subjects, writting articals, blogpost or give talks.
By the way, you're right, I'm not saying it's entirely funded by the west, but those weapons are coming from somewhere.
Do local players have fighter jets, drones etc ?
> By the way, you're right, I'm not saying it's entirely funded by the west, but those weapons are coming from somewhere.
Yes they do, but there are a lot of actors in play, the west are just one of the players, and not the biggest one. Western weapons get resold quite a bit as well.
The Syrian war is so complex because the huge amount of local, regional and global actors. All have different goals and values. Almost all regional and global actors provide some form of assistant to the groups they prefer. Often in the form of money or weapons of course.
I would say in all of the West was comparatively hesitant in doing to much. Mostly because they like non of the people fighting and those they like, some of their allies don't like. The US for example, would love to support the PYD (even more), but Turkey essentially says PYD=PKK and the US has the PKK on the terror list.
It seems that even most Foreign policy experts are highly unsure how to handle the current situation.
> Do local players have fighter jets, drones etc ?
No, but most fighting is not done with fighter jets and drones. Also, regional players, such as Jordan, Turkey, Iran and so on DO have fighter jets. The US could of course stop selling jets to Jordan but that would not change the current situation very much. Plus it would have many other effects.
In my opinion the hole ME policy should be rethought but that needs a larger context.
They carefully don't mention the country: That would be the Bushs' Saudi Arabia.
Middle-class Pakistani parents here are more fundamentalist and repressive than say Pakistani middle-class parents .
"We" always assumed they would eventually adapt to our lifestyle within a few generations but the opposite is actually happening.
There is no clear reason why this is specifically happening with them and not to earlier waves of immigrants like Spanish, Italians or Greeks.
But also the Islamic world as a whole was much more modern 40 years ago. Photos of pretty girls in mini skirts in Kabul or Teheran really look alien now.
I would argue that it was alien even back then. The pictures often see are Shah's elites not common people of Iran by any means, they were still mostly conservative Muslim. Forced westernization and humiliation of muslims was one of the reasons Shah was kicked out.
I'm not sure how I could provide a "citation" for a vague and judgment-based claim, other than to encourage you to read up on the history of the region in the 20th century and decide for yourself.
Yes. Because that's what kept extremism in check. Same with Libya and Iraq
You see this in other places too. (American Irish Catholics are more conservative than modern Irish Catholics, for instance.)
With muslim guestworkers arriving in the 50's it was clear that theses guests weren't staying for long and subsequently a) muslim religious institutions weren't (for a long time) included in this "state-collects-the-moneys"-Scheme and b) thus it was welcomed that they'd be financed and run by foreign institutions.
In the result you typically have mosques that are either exclusive on grounds of ethnicity (eg the mosques run by the turkish state)* or inclusive on grounds of the interpretation of islam (sadly the Saudi funded radicalist ones are very inclusive).
* since interpretation often is a cause of dispute within regions you can have more inclusive interpretations like the Alavites that are usually ethnically homogenic.
That a foreign nation runs Churches in a sovereign state is really laughable. It's of course always a means of political influence and thus what Saudi Arabia and Turkey does is directly comparable to what the Catholic Church did until the "Papal States" were dissolved.
There's actually an organized Muslim church in two states (Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat) that has managed to fulfil the requirements but they represent a minority sect (i.e. not Sunni or Shia -- approximately 35k members in all of Germany).
There's nothing preventing e.g. Sunnis from forming such an organisation, really.
I believe, but correct me if I'm wrong, it's precisely that they are often foreign run/influenced. If interpretations cause conflicts, these conflicts usually run along state lines (ie. Iran/Turkey). This plus language barriers (arabic vs. turkish vs. farsi etc.) create incentives to not be inclusive.
But I only said there wasn't anything from a legal perspective stopping them. If the various sects fail to cooperate with each other in ways that prevent them from fulfilling the requirements, that's on them, not on the government. It's not xenophobia, just old-school sectarian disputes.
For example the Evangelical church (EKD) is a federation of mostly Lutheran and reformed/Calvinist churches and they managed to agree on enough points to organize beyond their sectarian boundaries. But there are of course a lot of Evangelical or "free" churches that are not part of the EKD (nor affiliated with the Catholic church) and they of course don't get the same status.
The problem with understanding Muslim sectarianism in the West seems to be that we're so ignorant that we chalk about anything outrageous to religious differences with Christianity that we don't recognize basic distinctions like Islam vs Islamism, thinking any criticism of the latter would be a form of hostility to the former. We lump all "Muslims" together in one group (which some Muslim groups certainly know to use to their advantage) and then get confused when we find out they hate each other's guts (much like Protestants and Catholics have for a long time).
I guess there is hope the influx helps to rejuvenate and ground the expat Syrian culture.
Integration into the German society on the other hand is also a critical. Labeling does not help people to feel integrated and to step forward when needed. Like a few weeks ago when a terrorist cell with a bomb maker was found due to actions from that community. That took guts and trust from their side.
Galileo studied at the University of Pisa, which was created by Papal edict. He wanted to enter the priesthood when he was young.
In medieval times the Islamic world used to be quite keen on science and progress as well. It's only in modern times that Islam has become increasingly conservative and backwards (as in Salafism, which quite literally as about wanting society to be like it was in the day when Muhammad still lived) again.
Without the church, there would have been far less research (mostly happened within the church, mostly by order of the Vatican), we would have wiped out the scientific knowledge several times in history (mostly, but not exclusively during revolutions, when monasteries saved entire libraries containing scientific knowledge), and scientists have been explicitly wiped out as a matter of state policy several times, when again the church saved large numbers of them.
And that's ignoring that, even today, a university that doesn't originate within the catholic church, or is even still part of it (like my alma mater) is still not very common. Even today, at least organizationally, very significant amounts of scientific research still happen within the catholic church (as in the boss of the boss of the boss of the boss of the scientist is the pope). Today.
Honorable mentions go to several ecclesiastical orders, most famously the Jesuit priests.
Sadly, Christianity is the exception here. While, yes, most religions had their priests do some form of scientific research, most religions wiped out the scientific knowledge they amassed, rather than protecting and safeguarding it, famously the burning of the great library of Alexandria by one of the main sources of islam, caliph Omar (who for instance is the source of sharia, as in the law system called sharia) [1]
In my opinion this happens because in most religions there is no separation of church and state, like Christianity first had because of it's fights with the Roman Empire. This meant that the church could continue when the empire split, fell or otherwise had issues (and could remain popular when the state failed, as states inevitably seem to do), that the Catholic church had a constant and functional international organization from AD 200-300 onwards or so, and it remained functional and separate from states until ... well it's still going, isn't it ? And even today, neither faithful nor atheists would say that the catholic church is the state, anywhere except perhaps Vatican city (and even there, it's mostly the Italian and Swiss state). In most religions, when a revolution happened, the revolution was as much against the religion as it was against the state, meaning the priests were the first to get their heads chopped off and books burned. This is not to say that Christian priests escaped that fate every time, but often they did.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_...
You would have to prove that such curious people didn't gravitate towards the church instead of other place because _they were already_ financing such research, meaning, that the research wouldn't have happened in another place/group if the church didn't exist.
The best place to do science is one which takes nothing for granted, in which people is free to doubt event their own existence if their ratinalizations lead them to believe so; that's pretty much the opposite of religion and the church, where there is a bunch of dubious "facts" that cannot be doubt, such as "There is a God, God is smart, There was Jesus, He made some miracles".
The other thing is that each single scientist that the Church killed may have discovered something even bigger had they not been killed, perhaps setting back science for decades or even centuries; and an even worse outcome was fear, because they inserted fear from then on in all researches of the same subject, for example I wouldn't have dare to say the earth gravitates around the sun the years after Galileo was killed; so you would have to "calculate" if what they did for science was bigger than what they did against it.
There were and are plenty of places beyond the reach of the church, and whilst I wouldn't go so far to say research didn't happen at all there, there was far, far less. The more fundamental the research, the less of it happened. There was a distinct tendency for research to be military related outside of the church.
Even so the main problem with research outside of the church wasn't so much whether it happened or not, but only very few cultures managed to keep the knowledge over time, never mind kept teaching the knowledge over time (not a single atheist culture did so successfully, despite many attempts, the Greek philosophers' culture got lucky because it was embraced by the church, and even among the original philosophers most were not atheists). You could say that only Christian/western civilization, and to a much lesser but nonzero extent Islamic culture (although that was mainly preserved in Christian monasteries as well). When science is not preserved, it cannot be built up, which means it never gets to be really advanced.
What makes these religions special is their resiliency (atheism has been shown by history to be seriously lacking in resiliency), combined with the freedom that existed within them. Firstly, science doesn't happen if it's not tolerated. Secondly, a culture that doesn't stay alive cannot build up scientific knowledge over time. Either will prevent significant scientific development. Scientific research doesn't help anyone if it's destroyed every time a harvest fails, which was the more common case, and such an environment means the knowledge doesn't stay alive, and can't be built upon. Christianity did not just not destroy Greek and Roman philosophy and science, but embraced, preserved and taught it, adding on to it over the centuries until eventually it accelerated. Islam, while it never tolerated muslim scientists to any great extent, had the dhimma system, where they let large groups of non-muslims contribute to society through trade, and this left mostly non-muslim groups that practiced science alive, some important ones as slaves to a court somewhere, who managed to get the knowledge back into the west where the church preserved it. But importantly: science in islamic lands died out. The communities teaching science to their kids dwindled to nothing. All traces of it, and certainly the teaching of it, disappeared from all islamic lands.
Keep in mind that Christians certainly destroyed all scientific knowledge in parts of the world on a regular basis (every century or so). What kept Christian science alive is that the church, and in particular monks, would re-divide the knowledge back into the areas where it got destroyed. The most famous example of this work is the painstaking copying of entire libraries by hand, and sending them to other monasteries.
I think given history there's an extremely solid case there would be no modern science without the church, or at the very least, it'd have taken millenia more to get there.
What scientists get taught in school is only a very tiny part of the equation that got us to modern science, and frankly, doesn't appear to be a very important part.
Religion and science are not opposed. Claiming otherwise comes, at the very least, as not well informed.
Sorry to nitpick, but science isn't verifiable, it's falsifiable. Also, there are religious people who'd agree with your characterisation of faith and there are others who wouldn't.
If you want it in an academic sense, then you could say that authentic biblical faith is always on the basis of the historical method.
For example, see Luke writing to Theopilus:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."
And see Paul writing to the early Corinthian church:
"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."
"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Catechism of the Catholic Church.)
Which is exactly what science is not.
And if all your faith and your preaching depends on the actual historicity of an impossible event, to which you seek no further explanation than something equivalent to "it's magic" (and no further interpretation but "then it means we're right"!), then of course this attitude is very far from being compatible with science.
And if it is original to Hebrews 11, then what does the phrase "assurance of things hoped for" mean in context if it does not have the same sense as 1 Corinthians 15 or Luke 1?
When you speak of "an impossible event", what do you mean exactly?
And when you say "impossible", then according to what logic?
Are you saying that it is impossible for God (should he exist) to raise the dead?
Are you saying that it is impossible for the dead to be raised because you presuppose that God does not exist?
Or are you saying that it is impossible in the sense that we have very few occurrences of such an event and therefore it must be impossible?
Well, they believe it because somebody told them to. Then, if you're asking why that formulation and not another one, then yes, it comes from Hebrews 11. But even if that passage justified the Catholic one, wouldn't that just shift the question: if they believe so and so because it comes from Hebrews 11, then why do they believe in Hebrews 11?
I mean "impossible" in natural terms, according to the believers themselves. If it were possible, but just a rare occurrence, then it wouldn't justify building a whole faith system on it, don't you agree? For a Christian the resurrection must have happened despite being impossible: the impossibility it's exactly where it derives its value from. The impossibility is cherished, treasured.
Contrast now with a scientific attitude. It has happened? Therefore it's possible and (until further understanding) it doesn't prove anything except its own possibility. And understanding means discovering the mechanical, reproducible and predictable nature of the process. Any aspect that is not mechanical, reproducible and predictable will have to be ignored by the scientific inquiry. Even if it contains the right answer.
That is not the definition of scientific inquiry, or you would be ruling out most of the sciences.
As for Hebrews 11, that chapter does in fact give examples of authentic biblical faith, as opposed to "blind faith". In other words, people (everyone from patriarchs and prophets to prostitutes) acting on the basis of what God said and did in history (often their own recent past). As a chapter by itself, Hebrews 11 is enough to show that faith is always on the basis of the historical method, not on the basis of wishful thinking. And Hebrews is not the only book in the Bible. The Bible has much to say that defines authentic faith.
To come back to the resurrection, if I understand you correctly, then you are saying that the fact of the resurrection proves its possibility (incredulous as it is) and nothing more. In other words, God himself would still have to speak to give meaning to the event of the resurrection? That is the Bible's claim. You can examine it should you choose to, on the basis of the historical method according to disciplines such as textual criticism etc. which are not opposed to scientific inquiry.
And this is all at least part of the reason why some people who took the Bible seriously, started taking the world around them seriously. That at least, is the history for founding fathers of science such as Johannes Kepler (a protégé of Melanchthon, himself a protégé of Luther).
What is your name? I am sure you would want to take science seriously. I wonder if you have ever taken the Bible as seriously, like people like Luther did? With a fresh pair of spectacles?
Of course debates can go on forever, but I think that religion and science are indeed opposed, it just happens that some individuals can do excellent science while keeping religion safely confined to a corner of their brains (and the other way round, maybe).
Religion is about faith, science is- well, not. Religion starts with believing in something without adequate proof (by definition, or it would be science). Science looks for the proof of everything. Religion searches for unexplainable things, to be used as a proof of an immutable knowledge; science searches for unxplainable things to prove that the existing knowledge is wrong, and by modifying it, make them more explainable.
You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?
* Algebra
* Alcohol
* Alchemy (root origin of chemistry)
* Algorithm
* Azimuth
... You will note I haven't even gotten past the first letter of the alphabet yet.
Want to go back to the greeks and see how many of those were borrowed from them?
Or how about the fact that "Arabic Numerals" were borrowed from India?
Information changes hands all the time.
These things were not brought by Islam, anymore than Judaism somehow brought us nuclear fission and relativity because the likes of Teller, Oppenheimer and Einstein were Jews.
As an analogy, I wonder if it would be accurate to say that electricity was brought by a given religion even though some of its most major developments happened in territories where that religion prevails.
Yeah, though so.
On another, if you change it from "Islam" (as in religion) to "islamic cultures" (from Northern Africa to Middle East to Indonesia), your argument would still stand.
And on a third hand, there are only so much countries on the edge of technological progress. South america, while being mostly christian, doesn't produce many technological revolutions either. But again, although it's not especially rich or safe region, there aren't many terrorists from South America to US and Europe either.
Sorry, I seem to have lost track writing this comment. I know a lot of perfectly valid and logical arguments for both sides of this debate, and yet I have no idea who's "right".
May be we should move to a more specific question from the general "is Islam evil or not" theme?
"Chinese alcohol predates recorded history. Dried residue extracted from 9,000-year-old pottery implies that early beers were already being consumed by the neolithic peoples in the area of modern China. Made from rice, honey, grapes, and hawthorn, it seems to have been produced similarly to that of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alcoholic_beverages#An....
You're aware that alcohol is nothing more than letting something rot for a while by mistake ie fermentation (rice, grapes, corn etc)? Algebra was invented by Greeks and Egyptians, same for algorithm (Euclyd anyone?) etc. The Islamic world built on top of that and helped improved it and that was awesome, but they did not invent any of these fields. I'm from Muslim Syrian origin myself so it's not like I wouldn't enjoy my ancestors taking all the credits for these fields but this is simply not true.
Borrowed the word, sure (or at least, borrowed the term "the blue", al-qahoul, relating to an alcohol-based dye used in makeup at one point). Borrowed the thing? Islam bans its production and consumption.
And salafists ( Saudi Arabia ) is sponsoring a lot of mosques and thus have a say in the one who preaches there.
This is an important point. Going further, things like Trump brand politics of demonizing outsiders and newcomers fuels this need to emphasize born-in-identity.
I am not.
No, literally. I am not joking. This is not a metaphor.
From this perspective the example you gave does only good for the survival of the whole.
Ditib runs almost all trukish-speaking mosques in Germany. (But those are probably not the mosques the Syrians were complaining about)