Holland: Muslim Turk calls for a ban on DOG ownership in The Hague

What a logic.When baltic/former soviet union countries do it,it will be considered their right as they got independent 20 years ago? lol.There are/were Saami and Eskimo populations in sweden,denmark and normay and they were systematicaly assimilated.Bdp itself is an ethnic fascist political party.They dont have a policy of their own except the orders they get from pkk.Thats why when you consider the vote they get its clear that they dont represent the entire kurd population in Turkey.What the west has been trying to do in Turkey as part of their 150 year old game is to create ethnic clashes in Turkey just like they did in yugoslavia and they use pkk for that.If you think pkk has been fighting for kurds in the last 30 years you obviously know nothing since pkk killed thousands of kurd citizens in south eastern Turkey during the first 10 years of terrorism conflict.

What happened in 1915 was a civil war.Killing was mutual.Kurds,arabs killed armenians too just like how armenians killed Turks and others during incidents.At the end of world war I,the Turkish losses was more than 2 million civilian and military combined.If you want to examine the root of the armenian issue and how it ended up with a relocation law in 1915,you should go back to at least 15 years back.It has been more than 90 years.Did armenia open its archives? No.Did they go to international war crime tribunal like Bosnia or Rwanda? No.Political lobbying and parliamentary resolutions mean nothing.Open archives,form a common independent history commission and lets solve the issue for good.As long as armenia cant get over the diaspora influence,there wont be a progress.Otherwise politicaly motivated lobbies and policies to create international pressure on Turkey wont make Turkish state to accept falsified and fabricated allegations.

PS-Enough tourists (millions) come to Turkey everyday year.Its not a big deal if you wont come again lol.

 

the classic model

 

It seems that you're the only person who didn't get it. I was being sarcastic there. Turkey is similar to the third world countries in various aspects, no doubt about that. Though some aspects she's not. That's why I referred to the original definition. It's quite entertaining to see people checking If Turkey is politically a first world country or not on google.

Nevertheless Turkey is not a first world country by the common understanding of "first world countries."

I was in Copenhagen in 2010. And yes, our experiences seem totally opposite to eachother. But I have so many Turkish friends agreeing with me on this subject. In fact for some of them Denmark is the top racist country against Turks in Europe. You can take those as the Turkish tourists' experiences in Denmark.

As for the TRT news. Well the killer(s) are not known at the moment. But according to the Turkish sources the eye witnesses said that the attackers were whites. Nonetheless his family and the Turkish community in Denmark believe that it's a racist attack. That's probably another sign of threatening atmosphere.

As for racial diversity in Turkey. I think you mixed national identity with Human races. Greeks and the Turks from Western Turkey share identitical racial attributes. Kurds, Armenians and the Turks from Eastern Turkey have a very similar genetical stock. Southern Turks and Syrian Arabs are also identical in look. There're Turkomans who are mongoloid and can look pretty much like East Asians. So There're many different skull shapes, skin, eye and hair colors in Turkey. And all the Turks say they are native. Because they are racially not aware. And they can't easily judge people by their phenotype. What Kurds, Greeks and Armenians in Turkey are dealing with is the political aggression of the Turkish people and the Turkish state.

As for the US having difficulties with racism, well. Americans are racially aware people. No doubt about that. But the US is much safer country than Germanic and Nordic countries as far as racism against the middle eastern people goes.

 

Have you any demonstrable evidence of this?

Also, which other countries do you view to be the most hostile to non-whites?

 

That might be subjective though. Obviously there can't be any serious statistics on that. But I think the extremely racist behaviours seen in those countries are highly related to the most hostile ideology towards non White races: Nordicism, whose physiological effects are still noticable in those countries.

And the other countries would be Germany, Denmark, Austria and the Flemish part of Belgium.

 

Didnt you know? The new trend in recent years is promoting "there is no real Turk in Turkey" lol.

Which political pressure against greeks and armenians is "the turk" talking about I wonder since thats not a commonly discussed subject.Thousands of armenians live in Turkey illegaly but still tolerated.As for political pressure against greeks that doesnt make sense.If you mean KCK operations as part of political pressure to kurds.KCK's organic tie with pkk is proven so goverment is just doing whats necessary.Another liberal here.Liberals think being more democratic means dissing their own country as much as possible.

 

Map of the First, Second and Third worlds during the Cold War. Does not necessarily represent a current world view.

Note Turkey in the first world.


In 1952, the French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in reference to the three estates in pre-revolutionary France. The first two estates being the nobility and clergy and everybody else comprising the third estate. He compared the capitalistworld (i.e. First World) to the nobility and the communistworld (i.e. Second World) to the clergy. Just as the third estate comprised everybody else, Sauvy called the Third World all the countries that were not in this Cold War division, i.e. the unaligned and uninvolved states in the "East-West Conflict." With the coining of the term Third World directly, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World," respectively. Here the three world system emerged.

source - wiki

Not sure why you consider the Wisconsin University version the classic one but having most of the Kingdom of Denmark in the third world wouldn't carry much stick here!

 

this is.........

 

your map shows USSR

 

It would be better for people like litwin if they used internet for more education and awareness instead of being a dedicated hater and trying desperately to create an insult out of every comment they post.They would be taken more serious and it would make them more respectable.

 

1) first you pointed Sweden, new the whole Scandinavia, then you forgot about gypsies , and Norway's 'Nazi' children, etc ...but question what has happened to your biggest minority - the Armenians?

2) do i look like azari to you ? we dont buy it ... and your dirty lies are crimes in some countries

 

Well there are many immigrants living in their own world of preconceptions and prejudice however my impression is that this was only true for a minority of Turks.

I would say your experience is very much open to such preconceptions working on you and that's a shame.

There is nothing in the Danish media that I have seen that the family or the Turkish community consider the murder a racist one. In any event the TRT report was clearly biased if it was relying solely on what some Turks have said and not reported on what the police have stated. The family and the police both believe that the attack was carefully planned which suggests another motive.

I assume you do realise that there isn't such a thing as different human races only characteristics which are perceived as such? I doubt very much that the variuations you name are any more diverse in Turkey than in relatively homogen Denmark. You seem to contradict yourself when you claim diversity and at the same time say that Turks cannot easily judge their phenotypes.

My point is that your argument that diversity procludes racism doesn't hold. I ma sure that US is not safer than Nordic countries or Germany as far as racism against middle eastern people but of course if you see all crimes against such people in Nordic countries as racist I can see why you might get that impression.

 

Turkeys biggest minority by far are the Kurds.

 

Actually the soviets are only a small minority of the population in the red area and in the same vein your map shows the USA.....

 

why????????????????????

 

What perfect nonsense! Nordicism is really old hat and thoroughly discredited.

 

http://www.utrikesperspektiv.se

 

You are a failure.You took just the "civil war" part out of whole two paragraphs I wrote and you dont even make sense.You dont have any valid stand point about any of your arguments except copy pasting what other people post.For an uneducated brainwashed people like yourself,anything that you didnt hear before will be a "lie".It makes me laugh.Your comments are as ridicilous as the thread you opened and the title you gave to it.And its "Azeri" not "azari".Learn to spell.While you are at it,search the Karabagh/Khojaly.You will have an idea about who made a genocide to whom under which circumstances and stop the denial of Azeri people's sufferings.

I meant the whole scandinavia by mentioning Saamis and Eskimos.Until early 1980s,sweden sterilized Saami women to prevent the population increase of Saamis and sweden also murdered hundreds of thousands of Saami.Otherwise the Saami population today would be 8 million.Today the Saami population is only 20.000.Also Saami language is not offically an education language today in sweden.Its considered as a foreign language and not studied in academic level.There is not a Saami linguistic research center or department in sweden's universities.These ethnic assimilation policies were systematicaly practiced by sweden and norway also influenced by the Nazi racial policies to create "master race".And much more.I bet they dont teach you these at schools in sweden too.Come on call these dirty lies too lol.

 

Half of Holland is comprised of immigrants from Isabella and Ferdinand. Maybe this is the new age of Muhammad-no Muhammad and strange political immigrants of mysterious designs. In the end, Europe will have the final say on their demise.

 

I have been tortured by Dutch people. I want to know why all the time and no one explains why I am hated and loathed by your people. I do not know who I am in but I hope it will bring the end to your kind as well-properly.

 

I do not remember torturing you, but if you post pic of yourself, I'll search my memory. Been so many... for so long... cannot remember all of you

 

1. "civil war" is a codeword for all rightish Junta-lovers like you. it was not any Genocide it was "civil war" . and Turks dont do Genocide ...
2. as well as systematically with double LL

3. the Saamis can get a half of Sweden if they want it , no one here is questioning the fact that saami politic was wrong "On 1 April 2002, Sami became one of five recognized minority languages in Sweden. It can be used in dealing with public authorities in the municipalities of Arjeplog, Gällivare, Jokkmokk and Kiruna. In 2011 this list was enlarged considerably. In Sweden the Umeå and Uppsala Universities have courses in North Sami, and Umeå Universitiy has also Ume Sami and South Sami."
4. the Karabagh...question was who ´d be the first , the Armenians won, party because of your 80 years old actions
5. "Otherwise the Saami population today would be 8 million." links?

 

tell us more, please

 

"“Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature”
Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, s.v. “Dogs in the Islamic Tradition and Nature.” New York: Continuum International, 2004.

By: Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl

Islamic discourses on the nature, and function of dogs are representative of a range of tensions regarding the roles of history, mythology, rationality, and modernity in Islam. In fact, the debates surrounding the avowed impurity of dogs, and the lawfulness of possessing or living with these animals were one of the main issues symbolizing the challenging dynamic between the revealed religious law, and the state of creation or nature. In addition, certain aspects of these debates pertained to the power dynamics of patriarchy, and more generally, the construction of social attitudes towards marginal elements in society.

In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition.[1] According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[2] Although this report did reflect a part of pre-Islamic Arab mythology, it had a limited impact upon Islamic law. The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal. Nevertheless, much of the Islamic discourse focused on a Prophetic report instructing that if a dog, regardless of the color, licks a container, the container must be washed seven times, with the sprinkling of dust[3] in one of the washings. Different versions of the same report specify that the container be washed once, three, or five times, or omit the reference to the sprinkling of dust. The essential point conveyed in these reports is that dogs are impure animals, or, at least, that their saliva is a contaminant that voids a Muslim’s ritual purity. Hostility to dogs, not just as a source of physical but moral impurity, are further expressed in Prophetic reports claiming that angels, as God’s agents of mercy and absolution, will not enter a home that has a dog,[4] or that the company of dogs voids a portion of a Muslim’s good deeds.[5] Cultural biases against dogs as a source of moral danger reach an extreme point in reports that claim that Prophet commanded Muslims not trade or deal in dogs,[6] and even to slaughter all dogs, except for those used in herding, farming, or hunting.[7]

These various anti-dogs reports expressed culturally engrained social anxieties about aspects of nature that were seen as threatening or unpredictable. In addition, discourses on dogs played a symbolic role in the attempts of pre-modern societies to explore the boundaries that differentiated human beings from animals. In that sense, the debates about dogs acted as a forum for negotiating not just the nature of dogs but also the nature of human beings. This is most apparent in traditions that create a symbolic nexus between marginalized elements in society, such as non-Muslims or women, and dogs. In some such traditions, it is claimed that the Prophet said that dogs, donkeys, women, and in some versions non-Muslims, if they pass in front of men in prayer, they will void or nullify that prayer.[8] Interestingly, early Muslim authorities, such as the Prophet’s wife Aisha, strongly protested this symbolic association between dogs and women because of its demeaning implications for women. As a result, most Muslim jurists ruled that this tradition is not authentic, and that the crossing of women in front of men does not negate their prayers.[9]

Despite the attribution to the Prophet of a large number of traditions hostile to dogs, for a variety of reasons, many pre-modern Muslim scholars challenged this orientation. The Qur’an, the divine book of Islam, does not condemn dogs as impure or evil. In addition, a large number of early reports, probably reflecting historical practice, contradicted the dog-hostile traditions. For instance, several reports indicated that the Prophet’s young cousins, and some of the companions owned puppies.[10] Other reports indicated that the Prophet prayed while a dog played in the vicinity.[11] In addition, there is considerable historical evidence that dogs roamed freely in Medina and even entered the Prophet’s mosque.[12] A particularly interesting tradition attributed to the Prophet asserted that a prostitute, and in some versions, a sinning man, secured their places in Heaven by saving the life of a dog dying of thirst in the desert.[13]

Most jurists rejected the traditions mandating the killing of dogs as fabrications because, they reasoned, such behavior would be wasteful of life. These jurists argued that there is a presumption prohibiting the destruction of nature, and mandating the honoring of all creation. Any part of creation or nature cannot be needlessly destroyed, and no life can be taken without compelling cause.[14] For the vast majority of jurists, since the consumption of dogs was strictly prohibited in Islam, there was no reason to slaughter dogs. Aside from the issue of killing dogs, Muslim jurists disagreed on the permissibility of owning dogs. A large number of jurists allowed the ownership of dogs for the purpose of serving human needs, such as herding, farming, hunting, or protection. They also prohibited the ownership of dogs for frivolous reasons, such as enjoying their appearance or out a desire to show off.[15] Some scholars rationalized this determination by arguing that dogs endanger the safety of neighbors and travelers.[16] For the majority of jurists, however, the pertinent issue was not whether it was lawful to own dogs, but the avowed impurity of dogs. The majority contended that the pivotal issue is whether the bodies and saliva of dogs are pure or not. If dogs are in fact impure then they cannot be owned unless there is a serious need for doing so.[17]

As to the issue of purity, the main point of contention was as to whether there is a rational basis for the command to wash a container if touched or licked by a dog.[18] The majority of jurists held that there is no rational basis for this command, and that dogs, like pigs, must be considered impure simply as a matter of deference to the religious text. A sizeable number of jurists, however, disagreed with this position. Jurists, particularly from the Maliki school of thought, argued that everything found in nature is presumed to be pure unless proven otherwise, either through experience or text.[19] Ruling that the traditions mentioned above are not of sufficient reliability or authenticity so as to overcome the presumption of purity, they argued that dogs are pure animals. Accordingly, they maintained that dogs do not void a Muslim’s prayer or ritual purity.[20] Other jurists argued that the command mandating that a vessel be washed a number of times was intended as a precautionary health measure. These jurists argued that the Prophet’s tradition on this issue was intended to apply only to dogs at risk of being infected by the rabies virus. Hence, if a dog is not a possible carrier of rabies, it is presumed to be pure.[21] A small number of jurists carried this logic further in arguing that rural dogs are pure, while urban dogs are impure because urban dogs often consume human garbage.[22] Another group of jurists argued that the purity of dogs turn on their domesticity—domestic dogs are considered pure because human beings feed and clean them, while dogs that live in the wild or on the streets of a city could be carriers of disease, and therefore, they are considered impure.[23] It is clear from the evolution of these discourses that as nature became more susceptible to rational understanding, complex and potentially dangerous creatures, such as dogs, became less threatening for Muslim jurists.

Aside from the legal discourses, dogs occupied an elusive position in Muslim culture. On the one hand, in Arabic literature dogs were often portrayed as a symbol of highly esteemed virtues such as self-sacrifice and loyalty. For example, Ibn Al-Marzuban wrote a fascinating treatise titled, The Book of the Superiority of Dogs Over Many of Those Who Wear Clothes, which contrasts the loyalty and faithfulness of dogs to the treachery and fickleness of human beings. Dogs were also widely used for protection, sheep herding, and hunting. On the other hand, dogs were often portrayed as an oppressive instrument in the hands of despotic and unjust rulers. Similar to the medieval European practice, in the pre-modern Middle East region, as an expression of contempt or deprecation, at times dogs were hung or buried with the corpses of dissidents or rebels.[24] Furthermore, in popular culture, unlike cats, dogs were considered filthy or impure animals that ought not share the living space of the pious or religiously observant. This cultural anti-dog prejudice survived into modern times, and as a result, the ownership of dogs continues to be socially frowned upon. In the contemporary Muslim world, dog ownership is common only among Bedouins, law enforcement, and the Westernized higher classes. As a matter of fact, it is rather striking that, to a very large extent, modern Muslims are unaware of the pre-modern juristic determinations that vindicated the purity of dogs. Nevertheless, this in itself is a measure of the ambiguous fortunes of the dynamics between Islamic law and nature in modernity. In the pre-modern age, Islamic law evolved in near proportion to the advances achieved in the human knowledge of nature. But as the institutions of Islamic law were deconstructed by European Colonialism, and with the rise of puritanical movements in contemporary Islam, Islamic jurisprudence has ceased to be a forum for creative thinking or dynamic interactions with the vastness of nature."

 

Rightish junta lover lol.What an intellectual answer.What does that even mean? lol.No one reads such long copy paste post like the one above.Thats just spamming.People can check this thread out.

http://www.politicalforum.com/weste...-forgotten-saami-genocide.html#post1060827935