T Nation

Switzerland Bans Minarets

Switzerland just passed a referendum banning the construction of minarets:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9C9EES80

Sounds like backlash at the islamic inability to regulate zealots is starting to spread. One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders. Isn’t maintaining personal honor, and the honor of the family, a central theme? Why not maintain the honor of the religion?

Many of them do that all the time – in their own minds, anyway – by killing their own daughters.

Why are white people so afraid to say they want their culture left unmolested for their future and their kids?

Surely if an Arabic Muslim country got a huge injection of White Christians and they started building church after church for more to arrive and make it their home. They would be a little “itchy” with it and try to preserve their culture.

See Diversity is nothing more then the teaching of people to stomp out their own culture and replace it with a foreign one. Once they do that, they can consider themselves an Evolved society. Utter Bullshit.

I applaud theu actions. Arabs and Muslims have to be kept on a short leash else they will do their best to run over and take over your culture. It’s just how they are. They never integrate and become a melting pot. Always a salad bowl with Islam.

Has been like that for a few millenia now.

[quote]borrek wrote:
One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders. [/quote]

Well, the mosque in Geneva is regularly vandalized by a “minority of fanatics”.

The response of “the group as a whole”? Alienate the Muslim community by organizing a referendum banning minarets.

[quote]lixy wrote:
borrek wrote:
One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders.

Well, the mosque in Geneva is regularly vandalized by a “minority of fanatics”.

The response of “the group as a whole”? Alienate the Muslim community by organizing a referendum banning minarets.[/quote]

See there you go, espousing nothing but victimhood. Booooo friggidy hooooo.

Our nations made you feel welcome in ways that your nations never have, did or will for us, non Muslims. You know it’s true. You only even know the concept of freedom and your verbal expression because of the culture you leach of off and denounce. Like i said.

Islam = a take over while cleverly using our laws designed to protect humanity against us to further Islam and destroy err, replace us.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
lixy wrote:
borrek wrote:

Our nations made you feel welcome in ways that your nations never have, did or will for us, non Muslims.

[/quote]

Yep!
Muslims will never cease their wining, though.

I hope they go even further, banning more and more Islamic cancer.

[quote]lixy wrote:
borrek wrote:
One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders.

Well, the mosque in Geneva is regularly vandalized by a “minority of fanatics”.

The response of “the group as a whole”? Alienate the Muslim community by organizing a referendum banning minarets.[/quote]

Alienation? Vandalization? Tell this to the Copts and the Yezidi! They will laugh in your face.

If the Muslims only treated them THIS good. . . .

[quote]lixy wrote:
borrek wrote:
One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders.

Well, the mosque in Geneva is regularly vandalized by a “minority of fanatics”.

The response of “the group as a whole”? Alienate the Muslim community by organizing a referendum banning minarets.[/quote]

The Muslims should move out of Switzerland. They are clearly not wanted. The Swiss do not want to end up like most non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries:

http://www.aina.org/news/20091129124643.htm

The fact that you cannot see that means that you would, of course, co-operate with Muslims trying to persecute non-Muslims if given the opportunity.

Who’s to say you don’t join in the rape-fests of non-Muslims in Scandinavia right now?

You never acknowledge any Islamic wrong-doing. Instead, you come on here and cluck away about infidels like the hen you are.

[quote]Gregus wrote:

Surely if an Arabic Muslim country got a huge injection of White Christians and they started building church after church for more to arrive and make it their home. They would be a little “itchy” with it and try to preserve their culture.
[/quote]

That’s kind of funny. What a sight that would be… I doubt the Muslims would react well.

One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.

[quote]borrek wrote:
Switzerland just passed a referendum banning the construction of minarets:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSvKwQU-w3j6Gp8PWHRzV2hnh54QD9C9EES80

Sounds like backlash at the islamic inability to regulate zealots is starting to spread. One would think that if a supposed small “unapproved” minority of fanatics were threatening the freedom of the group as a whole, that group would reign in the offenders. Isn’t maintaining personal honor, and the honor of the family, a central theme? Why not maintain the honor of the religion?[/quote]

I didn’t know Muslims had spread into even Switzerland. Wow, I thought the Swiss were a lot smarter than that! Ah, well, Al-Qaeda is everywhere, from Minnesota to the White House to Fort Hood, and all around the globe.

The battle against evil is just beginning!

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.[/quote]

What they banned are minarets. That’s the tall bit associated with a mosque.

The adan or call to prayer is forbidden in Switzerland (church bells and stuff are OK though).

And just to keep things in perspective, there are 4 quite dated minarets in the entire country (for a population of about 400,000 Muslims) as requests to build mosques or minarets are normally turned down. I think this story got too much fuss on both sides. Minarets have no current purpose in Islam. It’s merely a symbol, and the openly xenophobic folks at the SVP knew that and exploited it quite well to rally support for their anti-immigration agenda. On the other hand, I don’t see why it should be a constitutional amendement. This is a ridiculous issue.

P.S: A year ago, the Swiss voted about legalizing consumption and production of cannabis. 63% voted no. Now, that’s something I got pissed about!

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.

What they banned are minarets. That’s the tall bit associated with a mosque.

The adan or call to prayer is forbidden in Switzerland (church bells and stuff are OK though).

And just to keep things in perspective, there are 4 quite dated minarets in the entire country (for a population of about 400,000 Muslims) as requests to build mosques or minarets are normally turned down. I think this story got too much fuss on both sides. Minarets have no current purpose in Islam. It’s merely a symbol,
[/quote]

I symbol of what? Islamic supremacism?

Thought experiment: do the Swiss have a right to decide whether or not they want to remain ethnically Swiss, or must they accept everyone who wants to move to their country to change it as the newcomers see fit?

I know you’re not going to answer any of my questions because you only like responding to clueless infidels with happy talk about Islam. The problem you have right now is that as your co-religionists blow more stuff up and kill more infidels, your happy talk will lose explanatory power and will create much cognitive dissonance in the minds of the infidels you are lying to.

So, in summary, since you’ll dodge my questions, you do think it’s perfectly ok for the Swiss to be expected to change slowly into a Muslim country the symbolism of minarets can best be understood in the overall context of mosque design: watchtowers for fortresses used to intimidate the infidel.

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.

What they banned are minarets. That’s the tall bit associated with a mosque.

The adan or call to prayer is forbidden in Switzerland (church bells and stuff are OK though).

And just to keep things in perspective, there are 4 quite dated minarets in the entire country (for a population of about 400,000 Muslims) as requests to build mosques or minarets are normally turned down. I think this story got too much fuss on both sides. Minarets have no current purpose in Islam. It’s merely a symbol, and the openly xenophobic folks at the SVP knew that and exploited it quite well to rally support for their anti-immigration agenda. On the other hand, I don’t see why it should be a constitutional amendement. This is a ridiculous issue.

P.S: A year ago, the Swiss voted about legalizing consumption and production of cannabis. 63% voted no. Now, that’s something I got pissed about![/quote]

No worries, the word is that the vote will get overturned by the Swiss supreme court, or some Euro Court of “human rights”. Glad to hear that minarets don’t play “no purpose” in Islam. Would be great if muslims would see to it that child brides, honor killkings, and jihad were mixed out of the equation. The world would be a better place.

[quote]lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.

What they banned are minarets. That’s the tall bit associated with a mosque.

The adan or call to prayer is forbidden in Switzerland (church bells and stuff are OK though).

And just to keep things in perspective, there are 4 quite dated minarets in the entire country (for a population of about 400,000 Muslims) as requests to build mosques or minarets are normally turned down. I think this story got too much fuss on both sides. Minarets have no current purpose in Islam. It’s merely a symbol, and the openly xenophobic folks at the SVP knew that and exploited it quite well to rally support for their anti-immigration agenda. On the other hand, I don’t see why it should be a constitutional amendement. This is a ridiculous issue.

P.S: A year ago, the Swiss voted about legalizing consumption and production of cannabis. 63% voted no. Now, that’s something I got pissed about![/quote]

Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top. Neither offends me… and honestly, depending on who builds it, minarets can be beautifully done.

If they had that call to prayer, I would agree with banning it- there is no way that a loud voice chanting in arabic is comparable to a church bell- one is way more fucking irritating. If I was a neighbor and had to listen to that shit five times a day I’d be furious.

But the building in and of itself is not offensive, and this is kind of ridiculous.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gregus wrote:

Surely if an Arabic Muslim country got a huge injection of White Christians and they started building church after church for more to arrive and make it their home. They would be a little “itchy” with it and try to preserve their culture.

That’s kind of funny. What a sight that would be… I doubt the Muslims would react well.

One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.[/quote]

There was…it was called The Crusades.And they are still bitching about it almost 1000 years later.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
lixy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
One thing I’m not clear on is whether they are banning the building itself or banning the “halalalalalal” calls that come out during prayer times. That would make a big difference to me.

What they banned are minarets. That’s the tall bit associated with a mosque.

The adan or call to prayer is forbidden in Switzerland (church bells and stuff are OK though).

And just to keep things in perspective, there are 4 quite dated minarets in the entire country (for a population of about 400,000 Muslims) as requests to build mosques or minarets are normally turned down. I think this story got too much fuss on both sides. Minarets have no current purpose in Islam. It’s merely a symbol, and the openly xenophobic folks at the SVP knew that and exploited it quite well to rally support for their anti-immigration agenda. On the other hand, I don’t see why it should be a constitutional amendement. This is a ridiculous issue.

P.S: A year ago, the Swiss voted about legalizing consumption and production of cannabis. 63% voted no. Now, that’s something I got pissed about!

Then it’s stupid. A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less. No different than a Church with a big cross on the top. Neither offends me… and honestly, depending on who builds it, minarets can be beautifully done.

If they had that call to prayer, I would agree with banning it- there is no way that a loud voice chanting in arabic is comparable to a church bell- one is way more fucking irritating. If I was a neighbor and had to listen to that shit five times a day I’d be furious.

But the building in and of itself is not offensive, and this is kind of ridiculous.
[/quote]

The building itself is a “political religious claim to power” just as the SVP said it is. Indeed, Muslim leaders themselves make this claim:
â??the mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the (Muslim) faithful our soldiersâ?? - Tayip Ergodan

Mosques have traditionally been fortresses where Muslims keep their weapons and plan jihad. It’s so obvious at this point you have to be willfully blind not to see it. Where did Nidal Hasan get his ideas? Al-Awlaki’s mosque.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less.

[/quote]

That is a masterful understatement.

What matters is:
HOW a building is used, and
WHAT goes on inside of it. You can’t compare that to a church, and you know it.

Try building a church in a Muslim country, it would be more than banned. It would be bombed.

Did they change their immigration policy from the mid-east and muslim nations?

I’m assuming no. Therefore, I’d oppose this and the restriction against the call to prayer.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

A minaret is a building, nothing more, nothing less.

That is a masterful understatement.

What matters is:
HOW a building is used, and
WHAT goes on inside of it. You can’t compare that to a church, and you know it.

Try building a church in a Muslim country, it would be more than banned. It would be bombed.
[/quote]

When will the Turks return the Hagia Sophia to the Orthodox Church? It’s been since 1453.

[quote]borrek wrote:
Why not maintain the honor of the religion?[/quote]

The honor of the religion demands world domination