This incident was more about the impossibility to discover looneys in time, before they can do harm, but there was a racist background, and unfortunately it is not true that racist violence is a very abnormal event in Germany, Englishman. In some regions racism is a general attitude, and I don’t think we are doing enough against it.

Abdulksaida, you gave a very much shortened version of the story, here are some more details:
It started when this man complained about the Egyptian’s children playing loudly, with an undertone that he didn’t want to see or hear any foreigner or immigrant in Germany. The mother simply pointed out that they were on a public playground, the perfect place for children to be loud, and if he didn’t like noisy children, he’d better avoid playgrounds. (I’m used to complaints about noisy and wild children, and I usually react in the same way). The man then insulted her, she lodged a complaint and he was fined. He appealed against that, that’s why they met in court. A trial about an insult and a fine doesn’t sound very exciting normally, nobody expected that this man would turn murderous.

All European countries have changed a lot by immigration (not only of Muslims, but Muslims bring an extra portion of foreign culture to us), and there is an interesting debate on about how much we want to adapt to these changes, and how much immigrants must do to adapt themselves. Part of this is irrational and by the way, I don’t think there are many families without some immigrants among their ancestors in any European country, but most people forget that (which shows that complete integration is possible).

also momo , i want to say that the strong culture will not be afraid of other culture if of course they didnt occupy them or use force with them. let each culture practice its own peacfully with no hatret to any culture.

now we are all introduced to all cultures via TV, internet and travelling, so it is not so strange to live all peacfully and justly.

i came from jordan before 3 days, and even in streets i saw foreigners and it came to my mind that they might be jewish and nobody try to even look to them and people were shopping ordinary. i want to say that seeing people from all over the world in one place doesnt seem strange and challenging or doesnt mean we have to hate the other for their clothes.

i dont know wheather the western people dont know that almost all of islamic and arab countries , most women wear scarf , and others nikab and it is encouraged even from their husbands, or brothers or even parents and many women themselves asked for it and like it. That is the freedom. i dont beleive sarkozy when he said about the aggression and submission and where is the principles of french country about human rights. for us we dont beleive them. No body told them to change their culture, so why they want us to change it , even we dont ask them to change it while they wear what ever they like and also many native muslim women wear the same. if i want others to change , i have to give them logic and sense of everything and try to convince and not kill.

Abdulksaida, you are good at describing the feelings and thoughts of people in Jordan and Egypt, can you imagine that people here simply have a feeling of uneasiness, seeing that the world they live in changes rapidly, without thinking much what that means, or what the causes are?

I don’t belong to the people who are afraid of immigration changing our culture too much, but I am glad that different cultures are being openly discussed nowadays, it helps against the diffuse feelings. An example: “you pig” is a fairly weak insult among Germans. Everybody knows by now that Muslims are a bit touchy when they hear it. On the other hand there are some things that are simply bad manners for Muslims, but taboo for us. Both sides have to learn a bit.

I’m not so sure that your perception is right that a majority of Muslim women wears a headscarf. Most Muslims here come from Turkey, and there it’s not the rule. I haven’t seen many headscarves among Muslims in sub-Saharan Africa either. Even my pen-friend in Jordan (a Palestinian like you) told me she only decided to wear one when she was over 20, and her sister wouldn’t touch one.

I don’t think it should either be obligatory or forbidden to wear one, but Muslim women in Europe must know that the thing makes them conspicuous. If they don’t mind that, fine with me. (I’m wearing short trousers and a shirt with no sleeves just now, and I know some countries where I wouldn’t wear them.)

Momo

i think now plenty of women wears scarfs or hijab , now in eypt they are much increasing and that is not related to what west thinks, it is simply that the relegious sense are now increasing now among the young ladies whom think much of this life and the hearafter and frankly as relegious channels are increasing and relegious people are active to preach the message of Allah.

so muslims women dont think of west when they put scarf, they think of only God and they dont grasp that for only a thread of peice on their head whould make the west angry and consider them as terrorists, really it is not logic and cant be digested.

even in my country not all ladies are covered, but most of them covered after 20 years or more by their will and not by force, so u can find many sisters , some covered and others are not . Each one is responsible for his or her act and will. I think we have more democractic in our families and society in choosing hijab or not.

Momo, if you were short sleeves and what u now wear as u said, nobody will accuse u of anything and will not insult you ,and will leave you as it is not strange to see things like that, it seems the east is more broadminded that the west and know about cultures more .

i think nobody can teach the other by force and let him wear what he wants by force or by bias law like the french law now towards muslim womens. Before we were admiring the west for their democracy and freedom of speech and fredom of clothes, and now we are disappointed and dont beleive them, really also our minds change toward the west which was as a good example for manything, but now it is deteriorating in our thoughts.

Momo

i respect what you said, as it seems you dont mind mixing culture, but i want to say that here in muslims countries and ordinary people are so angry from insulting arabs and muslims in their media and also for insulting their women whom put scarf.

they also say, why we permit the western to wear what they like in our countries and they dont permit us to wear what we want?

before 2 days aljazeera TV interview the brother of marwa al sherbeeni whom was killed by 18 shot of knife and nobody stop the criminal in the court and the police shoot her husband also. Any way the brother said: why while the west accept Mary the virgin and mother of jesus to wear scarf as a relegious sign and also the nun but a scarf and nobody kill them and find it ok, why they find the muslim women as a threat and hate her .

he also said , if my sister was not covered, so the german man would let her kid to play and will not say bad words to her, as he told her you are a muslim and terrorist and bad things, if she was not covered he would welcom her, so the brother was very sad and they want to built for her a center holding her name in the city she was killed there with a help of some german officials as i hear . she was pharmasist and about to find a job .

Momo, it is not execuse to kill strangers as he cant find work, many muslims youth cant find work in theri countires and they say that also the western administrations took our money with the help of unelected native people and also they dont kill forigners for that reason.

also many audiances blame sarkozy and the german administration and media as they spread islamphobia and resemble us with terrorists only for wearing a peice of thread on our heads. Really i cant understand a cover on head would be a threaten to anyone.

i think the lying media have responsibility for her blood and any media whom lie on their people hold a responsibility towards any muslim killed for their relegious sign.

also i want to say , it is not business of people to define me according to my clothes. they are not in the place to evaluate anyone. we all asked to respect others according to basic moral standards which is universal in the whole world

Abdulksaida,

Your finger must be healing quickly, congrats!

You started this discussion by constructing a relation between this murder case and Sarcozy’s idea of banning the burqa. I don’t think it is entirely wise to mix the two up.

Of course there is no excuse for this or any other murder. There are explanations though, and it’s important to know them, in order to fight both racism and violence. There are things that can be done.

The other thing is the debate about the change immigrants bring us, and the amount of adaptation we expect from them. I welcome Sarcozy’s statement, not because I agree with him (I don’t), but I want this debate in the open. He certainly managed that. I want awareness of differences.

Abdulksaida, you must know how a first impression works. You can’t say “it is not business of people to define me according to my clothes”, they simply do. Everybody does, including yourself. What else have we got when we see somebody for the first time? The blouse clashes with the skirt. That’s neither a beard nor shaven. A headscarf. Mind, I don’t say you mustn’t wear a headscarf, but you must be aware that you firstly give a message by wearing it and secondly people may have their own interpretation. In Germany for instance most women who wear a headscarf are immigrants from the poorest and least developed parts of Turkey. You can guess what kind of jobs they have, I believe. Many people will associate “here comes one of the cleaners” when they see a headscarf. Nothing wrong with cleaners, just be aware of the message you want to give, and what people think and with this awareness you can react to them.

Owly, the widest spread definition of racism says “discrimination because of race or ethnicity”. Many people (including myself) use the word in a wider sense, including discrimination because of religion.

You don’t mean to say that the existence of racism in Muslim countries means that Muslims aren’t entitled to complain of racism in the west, do you?

A headscarf may be a statement, but not a political one. Actually, I don’t care if it’s required by the Koran or just a tradition, it’s not my business.

Race is race: religion is religion. You cannot mix the two. You cannot change your race, but religion is a belief system which can be changed on a whim.

I am not saying that Abdulksaida is not entitled to complain about racism in the west, but she is complaining about the treatment of Islam. Different topic. By the same token she can't complain when (using your definition) Muslim discrimination and violence towards Christian minorities is pointed out. She of course denies there is any such discrimination and violence as her co-religionists busy themselves burning down churches.

The headscarf and the burqa (and its variants) are political statements. They are also - to western eyes - a symbol of Islamic oppression of women and this is a serious problem in the west.

Momo

Even when i went to turkey , many tourists are their , i went to place which is marmaris which i didnt choose it and dont know about it before, but that what i find, all was a beach, i was not happy, but i saw tourists from all over the world, all wearing bekini and i dont care for them , even it is prohibited for us to wear such that in public as we r muslims. My niece whom not covered and broadminided also didnt wear it , even she was happy to only see new places in the world.

Turkey now has both cultures and they leave people free to choose what they want to wear in the streets , even really the secular part have no right to forbid girls whom wear scarf from entering university, and really it is ironically and we are in the rest of muslim countries cant understand that as even we cant understand what sarkozy says when their country human rights built on equality and freedom of speach and freedom of wearing what we want, or he let his wife or accept her even if she was naked and no problem. It is his choice and no body have to interfer, but not to impose laws forbidding other muslim women to wear what they want.

Abdulksaida,

I tried to inform you about a general attitude that most people aren’t aware of, I don’t think I am generalizing.

“I dont know why the west consider the scarf as a symbol of oppression by the men towards us.

Like most women in the west I am fed up with double standards. We don’t like to be stared at either, but if it happens, we blame the man, not our clothes. The responsibility for leering is the man’s, not ours. The idea that it’s the woman’s fault, because she is not dressing modestly enough, is in my view oppressive.

On the other hand I am perfectly aware that a growing number of self-confident Muslim women who take pride in their culture (as they should) us the scarf as a symbol for this. I support this, of course.

Owly, I am not mixing up race and religion. I am talking of the discrimination of groups, and I can’t see much difference if people ascribe attributes of inferiority to somebody because of his or her religion or because of the colour of their skin. Both is racism.

'I am not mixing up race and religion. I am talking of the discrimination of groups, and I can’t see much difference if people ascribe attributes of inferiority to somebody because of his or her religion or because of the colour of their skin. Both is racism.'

Complete rubbish. Religion is a belief system and so is subject to debate and comment. Under your definition Abdulksaida, for example, must be a racist because under her belief system she must consider me an 'infidel', a non believer etc. in accordance with the Koran. By the same token in theological terms I must regard Abdulksaida as a heretic because she worships Mohammed who was an 'anti-Christ' (he denied the divinity of Christ). She thinks I am wrong - in theological terms - and I think she is wrong. That does not make either a racist and to assert such is complete and utter nonsense.

Neither she or I would dream of attacking the other because of the colour of their skin, something over which neither of us has any control, and to do so would be racist. Neither she nor I are any such thing and to insinuate that is damned offensive. Attitudes such as yours merely serve to close down proper and sensible debate on topics which ought to be debated.

Owly,

“She thinks I am wrong - in theological terms - and I think she is wrong. That does not make either a racist and to assert such is complete and utter nonsense.”

So what? Disagreeing, or having different beliefs is not the same as ascribing attributes of inferiority to a group because of race, ethnicity or religion.

What’s the point in emphasising that people can change their religion but not the colour of their skin? They have the right to the religion of their choice.

“Attitudes such as yours merely serve to close down proper and sensible debate on topics which ought to be debated.”

I am shuddering at your idea of a proper and sensible debate. It sounds like complete rubbish and has often turned out to be damned offensive. I’d rather have a proper and sensible debate, but if you insist on your debating manners, I can accommodate, as you should know.

If you want to discuss theology, can you go to the missionaries’ corner, aka “faith and ideas”, please? I am very much interested in discussing the problems of immigration, but the intricacies of trinity or lengthy quotations from Koran simply bore me.

I don’t care why many Muslim women wear a headscarf. The question if it is required by the Koran or simply a tradition can only be interesting in a discussion among Muslims. Of course everybody should have the freedom to decide on their own what clothes they want to wear.

Abdulksaida, you emphasise very much that Muslim women wear the scarf voluntarily, and often their families are against it. That may be true for the majority (I’ve no idea if it’s the majority, but for argument’s sake…), but of course there are girls who would prefer not to wear it, but their parents want it. I even know some of them (the neighbourhood I live in has at least 20 % Muslims, I think more). They leave the house with their scarf on, but as soon as they are round the corner of the street, they take them off. My sympathies are with the girls, of course. When I talk to their parents, I am often shocked of their mental picture of the west. They are very much worried about their daughters’ future, and a bit surprised when they see that we don’t want our daughters to end as prostitutes either.

The idea to solve these problems by banning the scarf is male, I think. I know few women who would support the notion. Most of us haven’t forgotten that they have fought with their parents about clothes, this isn’t the privilege of Muslim girls. I wanted plaited skirts banned by law!

Different religions can very well exist in the same place, that’s why I think that a debate about infidels and heretics is pointless.

Traditions of treating the adherents of other religions as second-class citizens are more interesting, but the record of Christian states is certainly not better than that of Muslim states, so where is your point, Owly?

BigC, your attempt at making a point was successful with me, I got your meaning right away.

Are you telling me that you have race hate laws that don’t include discrimination because of ethnicity, gender, religion or world view? Could that possibly be the reason for some excitement at my definition of racism?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842931&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Jerusalem Post has an interview with a member of the Basij, the teen militia that enforces the Iranian regime’s will. Even with what we knew about the Basij’s brutality, this is shocking:

He said he had been a highly regarded member of the force, and had so “impressed my superiors” that, at 18, “I was given the ‘honor’ to temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death.”

In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard--essentially raped by her “husband.”

“I regret that, even though the marriages were legal,” he said.

Why the regret, if the marriages were “legal?”

”Because,” he went on, “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.

”I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over,” he said. “I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her.”

when we wrote about the israeli soldiers whom killed innocent palestinians and consider even kids as enemies, mr mike didnt response and everything is on the net and all the world knows about that.

it seems now iran is the enemy of the west and now they have to collect any misaction of any iranian man or women in the authority or not to show the world how iran is treating its people.

as Momo said , what is the relation and connection of what you said with the thread point . Stop only giving propaganda for the sake of the only state above the international law in the whole content.

You can have your penny back, BC. Nothing illicit about these rapes under Iranian law. Temporary marriage in Iran is normally the backdoor to prostitution, but it’s considered a marriage.

We are at Sharia law again, and the progressive spirit in it, if you bear in mind that it is early medieval. Sharia forbids the execution of children. Without proper birth registers they define children along physical lines. A US American like Mike can probably not grasp the fact that criminal law for children must be different from that that’s applied to grown-ups, so far the US haven’t reached the 8th century in this respect. The underlying concept in this case is of course that a girl isn’t considered a woman unless she is married, and in medieval times this was perfectly realistic (btw, remember how fascinated Mike is of the outdated German diminutive “Fräulein”. Same concept: no womanhood without marriage).

If you compare Sharia law with the laws it replaced, you will notice that its aim was humanity. It didn’t abolish cruelty, but it aimed at diminishing cruelty, which tells us something of the spirit of it. There is an analogy to your distinction of Christmas and Easter Christians and Sermon on the Mount Christians in Islam.

Iran manages to circumvent everything that is humane in Islamic law, but this isn’t exactly news, and I still don’t see why Mike brings this in.

Mike, try reading my post. You managed to get hold of an Umlaut (congrats, was that very difficult?), now try to get at my meaning (shouldn’t be difficult, but for you obviously it is).

I’ve been talking about the progressiveness of Sharia in its historical context, as opposed to the fundamentalist perception of it, or the even more distorted things the Iranian state (or for instance your ally Saudi Arabia) makes of it.

Re-read it a couple of times, and get rid of the idea that Iran is ruled by Allah (or the Vatican by God). It’s certainly better to change the world than just to interpret it, but you are unable even to interpret it.

You chose not to answer my question about the connection of your post to the discussion on this thread and I remember, you explained what that means.

You want to say that relevance is irrelevant, don’t you?

Mike, I believe you that you don’t speak German, you needn’t prove it! What was that meant to be? It just doesn’t make sense in any language I know.

“Iran is a theocracy, ruled, ultimately, by Allah and his representatives here on earth, the Mullahs.” American stinker, quoted by you with the intention of broadening my mind, which it didn’t. Small wonder that you are losing track of all the nonsense you have spread. (in this case on the Iran elections & Moussavi thread)

You still haven’t grasped what I said in my post. Go on re-reading.

I’ve been talking about the progressiveness of Sharia in its historical context, as opposed to the fundamentalist perception of it, or the even more distorted things the Iranian state (or for instance your ally Saudi Arabia) makes of it.

Now I am trying to broaden your mind. I refuse to believe that there is such a thing as a hopeless case.

I read an article today about the expansion and operation of Sharia Law here in the UK. I suppose Sharia can be used between two consenting parties, but there is a proviso: that it may not run contrary to the principles and practise of English Law.

In many areas this is exactly what Sharia Law does. The most notable example is in its treatment of Women and divorce.

"My point was that as young women are executed for having illicit sex then they would not be virgins anyway."

Exactly! Therefore, it is not a sexual crime for which they are sentenced to death because their virginity would not be at issue requiring a sham marriage, but some other unspecified crime against the state which requires them to lose their virginity in order to be executed.

"What other unspecified crime against the state?"

Any and all crimes for which one is arrested is in fact a crime against the state. The "victim" of a crime is always the state in addition to any person "victimized." To me there are NO crimes which merit this punishment, so arguing which crimes is irrelevant. You disagree. So perhaps you can tell me which crimes a woman can commit that you find worthy of marital rape and execution?

"What are the numbers?"

Does it matter? How many rapes and executions does it take to exceed your threshold of acceptability?

Have you seen the documentary film I recommended earlier?

http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Review+Stoning+Soraya/1794029/story.html

And you've not answered the point that this character as good as signed his name with the details he gave. It's an invention.

What "point" is there to answer? Because he gave details it must be an invention? I guess we should disregard all confessions in that case. They must all be inventions because if they give details, it can't possibly be true. Is that your point?

Someone who is aware of how thorough and vengeful the Basij is would have withheld the details which could easily identify him. Someone in this position would have fled the country with his family and given the story in person.

I guess you missed this part of the article:

In a shocking and unprecedented interview, directly exposing the inhumanity of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's religious regime in Iran, a serving member of the paramilitary Basiji militia has told this reporter of his role in suppressing opposition street protests in recent weeks.

He has also detailed aspects of his earlier service in the force, including his enforced participation in the rape of young Iranian girls prior to their execution.

The interview took place by telephone, and on condition of anonymity. It was arranged by a reliable source whose identity can also not be revealed.

Like you pointed out, the truth can be dangerous to the teller. But lack of attribution does not mean the story is invented. There are many stories relying on conditions of anonymity. Does the lack of specific numbers in a country ruled by fear trouble you? The fact ANY take place should trouble you.

I did not insinuate any sympathy on your part. I only made the point that numbers were irrelevant because even one case is one too many. But this article makes it clear this is a widespread practice in which he took part, although now he expresses some regret. I insinuate blindness on your part if you are unwilling to entertain the veracity of the report.

If the practice is as widespread as the article suggests, then the details are not really specific enough to reveal his identity as you suggest. There are a LOT of widows in Iran as the result of the war with Iraq when men and boys were used as canon fodder. Part of the problem with the Basij is the probability that many of them were fatherless teens. Nor is there any evidence that he knew the reporter was from JP, only that she was a reporter.

Are these the "specific" facts that reveal him?

"The Basiji member, who is married with children, spoke soon after his release by the Iranian authorities from detention. He had been held for the "crime" of having set free two Iranian teenagers - a 13-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl - who had been arrested during the disturbances that have followed the disputed June presidential elections.

"There have been many other police and members of the security forces arrested because they have shown leniency toward the protesters out on the streets, or released them from custody without consulting our superiors," he said."

So we are looking for a Basiji member, married with children who joined as a teenager and was one of many who were arrested for leniency toward protesters. That could be hundreds or thousands of people for all we know.

More interesting to me is the level of skepticism you apply to stories in which you perceive some Israeli benefit, but do not seem to apply the same standard to obvious propaganda from Hamas and Hezbollah.

“Nobody forces me to wear the full veil, it’s my choice”

I read that title when i open this link http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090629-nobody-forces-me-wear-full-veil-choice-sitar-sarkozy-hijab-france

It is from www.france24.net

for me i feel it is a freedom to wear what a women choose to and nobody has a right to tell her what to wear , even for me i have no intention to wear it, but i respect also those who wear it and it is up to them .

also i hear in the same channel as one professor in pakistan was speaking about sarkozy comment and that he will drive a hatret towards him from muslim countries and he said that the burga dont humulate the women and also her personality can be noticed, he said that he knows one girl whom was very intellent and a leader and he cant forget her strong personality and can differentiate her by her speech and her confidence of her self and he didnt feel for a second that she has a unigue personality even she wears burga and never saw her face.

Morally unjust or not, some women really do need a bag over their heads.

Sorry. Couldn't help it.

No disagreement there, Mo.

Nope. Not yet.

What do fat girls do in the summertime?

Stink.

Again... Sorry.

many beautiful womens wear it , may be no one knows that like me. Here in the gulf many are so beautiful and attractive and have long dark hair and prefer to wear it and are happy with it. Alan if you dont know , so better to follow Momo advice, if i understand it well as manytimes i cant grasp what some of the west wants to say.