Holy shit

I need some time to... regain my senses... after reading this

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

I read about this in the papers today, and.. what can I say?
It's a tragedy that someone can propose this at all, and be totally serious.
This is stupid, and for once my government is right.

But here's one thing you all should know, before you comment on this:
In Sweden people are extremly afraid to be called a racist. I mean, really afraid (at least in public, but we do have our fair share of actual racists too).
This fact, effects debates, and everyday-conversations, making it hard to have an open dialog about immigration, religion etc.
And it's not only the Swedes that know how easy it is to be considered a "racist" in Sweden, but also many of the young immigrants, grow up with the idea that anyone who speaks openly about the many problems concerning immigration, and cultural differences, is a racist.
It worries me, as the intigration-process is having quite a few worries here in Sweden. I hope it turns the other way soon.

btw: "Liberal" Lars Leijonborgs party isn't really liberal anymore. I consider them to be conservative.

___________________


Blog: http://nonlisted.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (Source) Ignoring the poorly thought out hate propaganda of the quoted Swedish politicians, I think that there are three obvious lessons that we should all take to heart here: 1: The hostile rhetorics of right wing parties are clearly the main obstacle to successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe. 2: It is only a negligible minority of Muslims in Western Europe that are Islamists. 3: The Swedish model of bending over backwards to the whims of immigrants, while lashing out at partners in the EU handling immigration in other ways, is obviously an ideal to be followed. Seriously, suggesting something like this is way beyond insane - and I'm shocked that people can be so out of touch with the society that they have chosen to live in. Flabbergasted, I guess...

What it shows is either a complete disregard or a complete incomprehension for everything Western ideals stand for. As well as a blatant unwillingness to want to understand or even care about them. Its also completely hypocritical and egocentric, telling everyone else to change without making changes themselves and placing their needs above the needs of their surrounding environment without so much as a thought of integration or adaptation.

Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

unbeliveable that someone could propose this. This type of thing really makes me mad I wonder what the response will be now that the Swedish government has rejected this with great agreement by me

quote:

Originally posted by InterMilan31 unbeliveable that someone could propose this. This type of thing really makes me mad I wonder what the response will be now that the Swedish government has rejected this with great agreement by me

I read an editorial that speculated that this was a deliberately extreme suggestion that was meant to pave the way for less radical ideas later on. E.g. if the same organization suggests something like enforced separation of men and women at state swimming pools in a month or two, they can claim that they are seeking a compromise, blame the government for being unwilling to enter a dialogue, and get something implemented that prior to this was totally out of the question.

quote:

Originally posted by hyped_Lp But here's one thing you all should know, before you comment on this: In Sweden people are extremly afraid to be called a racist. I mean, really afraid (at least in public, but we do have our fair share of actual racists too). This fact, effects debates, and everyday-conversations, making it hard to have an open dialog about immigration, religion etc. And it's not only the Swedes that know how easy it is to be considered a "racist" in Sweden, but also many of the young immigrants, grow up with the idea that anyone who speaks openly about the many problems concerning immigration, and cultural differences, is a racist. It worries me, as the intigration-process is having quite a few worries here in Sweden. I hope it turns the other way soon.

Well, it starts with you, the individual. If you harbour dissatisfaction with current integration or immigration policies you can voice it, and if you do not, you can defend the right of others to voice their reservations.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

My thoughts exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Of course when I refer to "them" I mean this Muslim Association. There are a lot of extremist Muslims and Muslim groups that give the greater population a bad name. Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them. Especially when everyone has their ears towards you waiting for you to say you don't.

That's perfectly understandable. But, this is what I disagree with:

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Though when the only people talking are your nut-bags and no one is actively voicing disagreement you can't blame anyone for assuming you agree with them.

Why are you assuming this? Just because no one is actively speaking out against it (or so it seems)? Did it ever occur to you that most moderates feel like they're targeted by "both parties" i.e. non-Muslims (not all of them ofcourse, but more than not) and extremists? And by targeted I mean, eigther directly targeted or having to face repressed distrust or/and hatred (which may seem very subtle to most but it very obvious if it's directed towards you, atleast it becomes obvious over time if you have to deal with it very frequently, sometimes on a daily basis).

To me, the only thing this reflects is a justification for a growing fear/prejudice. "We're just going to assume that you're all like this since a fraction of yall are."

And like I mentioned before (sort of, a while ago), "dissenting" voices don't get much publicity and are often silenced/not covered by the media. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to believe.

EDIT: Another thing I don't like about this attitude is that it already assumes guilt of a cetain quality/whatever, not just for an individual, but an entire group of people, somehow need to clear their name for. That's FUCKING BULLSHIT!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Apr-29-2006 at 08:16

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That's perfectly understandable. But, this is what I disagree with: Why are you assuming this? Just because no one is actively speaking out against it (or so it seems)? Did it ever occur to you that most moderates feel like they're targeted by "both parties" i.e. non-Muslims (not all of them ofcourse, but more than not) and extremists? And by targeted I mean, eigther directly targeted or having to face repressed distrust or/and hatred (which may seem very subtle to most but it very obvious if it's directed towards you, atleast it becomes obvious over time if you have to deal with it very frequently, sometimes on a daily basis). To me, the only thing this reflects is a justification for a growing fear/prejudice. "We're just going to assume that you're all like this since a fraction of yall are." And like I mentioned before (sort of, a while ago), "dissenting" voices don't get much publicity and are often silenced/not covered by the media. I don't understand why this is so fucking hard to believe. EDIT: Another thing I don't like about this attitude is that it already assumes guilt of a cetain quality/whatever, not just for an individual, but an entire group of people, somehow need to clear their name for. That's FUCKING BULLSHIT!

As you say, you've raised these points before. While I certainly empathize with your predicament, and would even concede your point that it is unfair to expect each and every Muslim to distance himself from radicals, I have a couple of reservations about the details of your argument. Primarily, I do think that the 70000 members of the Muslim organization refered to in the article have an obligation to speak out, or leave the organization. When you elect a board of people as representing your interests, and these turn out to be radicals, others will and can (justifiably) assume that you agree with these views - unless you distance yourself from them, that is.
Moreover, if you identify yourself as a Muslim, and you feel misrepresented by the "official" faces of Islam (such as CAIR and Hizbu-Tahrir), you must create your own face of Islam and display it to the world or failing that back existing vocal moderates. It doesn't suffice to say "well, Muslim X have already distanced himself from radical idea Y, so there's no point in reiterating it", when so many Muslims are being vocal about their support of radicalims (e.g. in Denmark more people are members of Abu Laban's organization than Democratic Muslims). An example from another world is back when the Cartoon crisis escalated beyond control. Quite a lot of Danes disagreed with the publication (finding it to be a childish provocation) and the handling of foreign protests by our government. This disagreement resulted in several campaigns where people signed reconciliatory statements apologizing to Muslims on behalf of Denmark. These people felt that they were being misrepresented and thus established a visible alternative representation. By doing so they obtained the right to feel offended by people lumping all Danes into one big group of Islamophobic cartoonists.
Finally, your statement that moderates are simply not allowed their time in the spotligth is highly debatable. At least in Europe large parts of the media is left-leaning and are just dying to disprove the negative image of Islam. (The Democratic Muslims organization in Denmark has been getting much attention in the media since being founded earlier this year for example.) However, I decided to test your thesis, and went through CAIR's web-site (assuming that CAIR are moderates?). Surprise surprise, not one of their numerous press releases from the last couple of months denounce radicalism. The closest call is condemnation of the violence directed against Christians by Muslims in some Islamic countries, and the call for release of the Afghani Christian. The far majority of press releases are about talks, shows, books, and other materials educating westerners about the life and time of Muhammed. As a convinced agnostic I don't care about this - I want to know if I can live side by side with Muslims in the same society. And to be convinced of that I need to know that in the case that Muslims constitute 51% of the population I'm still going to live in a secular liberal society.
Investigating further, I searched their site for their views on Sharia (lots of hits), but apparently all CAIR has to say about that is things like: "Sensationalism Shrouds Debate on Sharia" and "Muslim Leaders Liken Sharia To Canada's Arbitration System", conveniently sidestepping actually commiting themselves to either supporting or rejecting introduction of Sharia in the west. Contrast that with the Danish Democratic Muslims, which among their six founding principles have "separation of state and religion" and "opposition to capital punishment". You may also contrast it with the Muslim Canadian Congress' press releases, which include "Don't be silenced by extremists", "MCC questions motives behind demand to ban debate on religion", and "Using a cartoon crisis to promote a conservative Muslim agenda". These people are clearly distancing themselves from fundamentalist medieval thinking, and the press do carry the message forward.
So, in short, if you want me to be convinced that the media silences moderate voices, then you'll have to point me to some press statements that have been ignored by the media.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic (Source) Ignoring the poorly thought out hate propaganda of the quoted Swedish politicians, I think that there are three obvious lessons that we should all take to heart here: 1: The hostile rhetorics of right wing parties are clearly the main obstacle to successful integration of Muslim immigrants in Europe. 2: It is only a negligible minority of Muslims in Western Europe that are Islamists. 3: The Swedish model of bending over backwards to the whims of immigrants, while lashing out at partners in the EU handling immigration in other ways, is obviously an ideal to be followed.

Assuming you are being sarcastic here I still have to comment on the last one which I think is a huge problem for Sweden.

As hyped_Lp pointed out, Sweden got HUGE problems with their PC obsession, it is by no means okay to criticize the immigration policies, cause if you do you are a racist even though your intentions are the complete opposite (kind of like you are not allowed to criticize the welfare society either ). Naturally since the debate is very limited this has lead to even worse policies, and I would say we have a ticking bomb here waiting since a lot of swedes are seeing themselves as above every other "race", and also value their traditions/culture which they think is the only and best way which must be kept to every price.

Anyhow, to me it seems obvious that the only reason why the social democrats critized this is because they touched another holy cow here - the equality between men and women - something which is even more holy and not in any way up for discussion.

Hopefully the 17th of september we will see some change

quote:

Originally posted by hyped_Lp btw: "Liberal" Lars Leijonborgs party isn't really liberal anymore. I consider them to be conservative.

I wouldn't consider them liberal either, but they are even less conservative than they are liberal imo (except perhaps some of their school proposals and some of their immigration policies which are kind of conservative)! What makes you think they are conservative? I'd say they are more like the social democrats if anything...

Last edited by St_Andrew on Apr-29-2006 at 11:53

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Primarily, I do think that the 70000 members of the Muslim organization refered to in the article have an obligation to speak out, or leave the organization. When you elect a board of people as representing your interests, and these turn out to be radicals, others will and can (justifiably) assume that you agree with these views - unless you distance yourself from them, that is.

While I do agree with your point I still think it is important to point out that the umbrella organisation for all the Muslim organisations in Sweden actually strongly condemmed this proposals and emphasized the need that everyone should have equal laws and saw the proposal as something deeply worrying, something that got wide media attention here in Sweden.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew While I do agree with your point I still think it is important to point out that the umbrella organisation for all the Muslim organisations in Sweden actually strongly condemmed this proposals and emphasized the need that everyone should have equal laws and saw the proposal as something deeply worrying, something that got wide media attention here in Sweden.

I found the following, which I guess is what you're talking about?

quote:

Many Swedish Muslim leaders distanced themselves from Aldebe's demands, saying they had little support among Sweden's estimated 400,000 Muslims. "He is lucky if he speaks for 70 of his members," said Abd al Haqq Kielan, an imam who heads the Swedish Islamic Society, one of five national Islamic organizations. Kielan called the proposals "absurd," adding that they would lead to "a sort of Mullah-rule that people are scared of." "If you open the gate for separate laws for different minorities, where will it end?" he said. "We have to have one law for all citizens. That is so obvious that I don't understand how he can come up with such an idea."

(Source)
which can only be said to be a most positive thing (only question left is who really speaks on behalf of the Swedish Muslims?), but I'm a little puzzled by your statement that *the* umbrella organization has condemned this, as according to euro-islam.info the organization suggesting this strange change of law, the SMR, *is* the umbrella organization of umbrella organizations in Sweden:

quote:

There are three organizations on a national level that are supported by the government through the Commission for State Grants to Religious Communities. They are all umbrella organizations for local communities and they organize about 75 % of all Muslim communities in Sweden. They are not clearly divided by ethnicity nor by religious affiliation. There are also other national organizations that do not receive support from the government. Among these are a Bosnian organization, a Muslim youth organization and a strictly Shia organization. All co-ordinate local activities, form discussion groups or groups to deal with specific questions like adult education, marriage licenses, burial details or visiting the sick or imprisoned. The Förenade Islamiska Församlingar i Sverige (FIFS, United Islamic Communities in Sweden) was formed in 1974 to fill the need among the Muslim communities for an umbrella organization. This need was engendered by the state support structure, which presupposes a national organization to distribute economic support to the different local communities. Thus FIFS organized all kinds of Muslim communities, including Shia and Sunni of multiple ethnicities. The only exceptions are the Ahmadiyyas, who maintain a separate organization. There is also the Sveriges Förenade Muslimska Församlingar (SMuF, United Muslim Communities of Sweden) which split from FIFS over internal conflicts in 1982. This organization primarily represents Sunnis of Arabic language background, but also does serve some Shia communities. In 1990, another split occurred and IKUS was formed. The Islamiska Kulturcenterunionen (IKUS, Union of Islamic Centres of Culture) tends to represent the Suleymani, but also co-ordinates quite a few Somali communities. In IKUS there are no Shia communities. Also in 1990, the Sveriges Muslimska Råd (SMR - The Muslim Council of Sweden) was formed by FIFS and SMuF to help in their relations with the Swedish majority society. The most active person in SMR is Mahmoud Aldebe who has held the chairmanship of SMuF for quite a while. The SMR can be seen as his project. The specific missions of the SMR are the creation of mosques and Islamic schools, inform non-Muslims about Islam and to take an active part in public debate. From an ideological point of view, the leaders of FIFS, SMuF and SMR are considered close to the Muslim Brotherhood and some have been closely connected to Rabita. They reject the support of the Saudis. The leaders of IKUS tend to lean towards a revivalist Turkish Islam that accepts Sufism as a form of intellectual piety. Milli Görus only has local groups and does not seem to have a strong influence.

I'm also a bit unsure of who the "Swedish Islamic Society" is. They're not listed in the above account, but the snippet in the start of my post still has their spokesman speaking on behalf of the Muslims of Sweden. Can anyone clarify this to me?
Anyway, if Aldebe spoke out of his ass with no backing from his members, one would expect him to be removed from his post shortly.