A new poll finds Swedes reject anti-Semitism, but a sizeable minority appear to hold anti-Jewish feelings:
The study found that 59 per cent of Swedes generally rejected anti-Semitic attitudes, while 36 per cent were ambivalent and agreed with some anti-Semitic statements and rejected others or did not express an clear opinion. Five per cent displayed strong anti-Semitic attitudes.
Among those with higher education more rejected anti-Semitic notions as opposed to those with less education, 70 per cent versus 48 per cent. However, the beliefs in Jewish power over media, finance or US foreign policy were equally widespread among all the respondents, irrespective of education.
Buried in the news story, however, is a more disturbing figure:
In order to compare attitudes toward other religious minorities, some questions in the poll were about Muslims, the largest religious minority in Sweden. There are 18,000 Jews in Sweden and 350,000 Muslims. The poll showed that the intolerant attitudes towards Muslims were higher than those towards Jews.
2 per cent supported discriminatory measures toward Jews. Only 2,9 per cent of Swedes think that there are too many Jews in Sweden, while 24.1 per cent think there are too many Muslims. 6.7 per cent also feel that “Muslims ought not be allowed to vote in political elections”.
Sweden is a liberal, open, fairly tolerant country, but then, people used to say that about Denmark. That country is currently experiencing a rise of the far-right and anti-immigration parties. Jews are rarely seen as not fitting into the mainstream, while Muslims are often shunned and tarred with the “terrorism” brush.
I wonder why Scandanavians have this attitude towards muslims? Lets look at the headlines:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060205-115832-8523r.htm
Here is where an Imam has to beg swedich muslims not to commit acts of violence. He has to beg them. Not remind them of the law, but beg them:
“Swedish Muslims Take Anti-Prophet Priest to Court,” from IslamOnline, with thanks to Mary Beth:
STOCKHOLM – A top Muslim scholar said the minority would abide by the Swedish law in confronting a Christian preacher who insulted Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), urging his fellow Swedish Muslims not to take the law into their own hands or commit any violent acts to avenge the repulsive remarks of the Christian cleric.
“We beg those who threatened (Runar) Sogaard, in the name of Islam, to let Swedish law judge between him and us,” Hassan Moussa, the head of Sweden’s council of imams, wrote in the Expressen newspaper, according to Reuters Friday, April 22.
“Do not under any circumstances take the law into your own hands.”
Celebrity evangelist preacher Runar Sogaard, in a sermon at Filadelfia church in Stockholm on March 20, repeated claims against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) – whose Birthday Muslims worldwide celebrated Thursday – saying the Seal of Prophets was “a confused pedophile” since his wives included a girl aged nine years old, alluding to the Prophet’s wife `Aisha.
Well I think they should kick his arse saying inflammatory shit like that. Better still since he’s obviously got sex on the brain , kick him in the nuts.
Chris Mar 24th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Actually, it was quite a big reform to religious law at the time (the reform basically was that marriage could be consumated only after a “girl” became a “woman”, i.e. when she begins menstruation) – after all, the Jewish law at the time stated that mere betrothal to be married could be established by having sex with the a 3 year old baby (yes, go check the Midrash).
Please post a link to said Midrash. Then post a link to any known occurance of such.
Why else might the Swedes believe the muslim vote might be unreasonable? Could it be the demands that a convert to Christianity be put to death? And this is a big reform from what?
Chris Mar 25th, 2006 at 12:45 am
What? You don’t have it on hand? Tsk, tsk.
Here you go. Happy reading! (Fortunately Judaic law is not immutable or particularly durable, so this is all pretty much out of date now.)
Not a midrash. Again, any known occurance or is this merely a scholarly discourse?
You little right wing gnomes labour away in your caves, searching for little tit-bits of shlock and awe to gleefully produce as evidence on why we should hate the Muslims. Stick it up your arse.
Chris Mar 25th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Yeah, sorry – the Talmud. I accept your thanks for finding you this interesting and now utterly irrelevant legalistic skeletal remains.
Boy that is pretty weird shit. So now what? Do we make some inflammatory anti-jewish remarks?
Chris, are you there?
What now is we ignore orang.
I think for the sake of freedom of speech and equal opportunity for all religions, the media should be discussing stuff like the edward squire link:
“In one, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her before the age of three and found blood, and when he had intercourse after the age of three he found no blood. If you grant that they disappear and reappear again [it might well be assumed that there ‘was not sufficient time for their reappearance, but if you maintain that they cannot be destroyed until after the age of three years it would be obvious that a stranger cohabited with her. Now what is your decision? — R. Hiyya son of R. Ika demurred: But who can tell us that a wound inflicted within the three years is not healed forthwith, seeing it is possible that it is immediately healed and it would thus be obvious that a stranger had cohabited with her? Rather the practical difference is the case, for instance, where her husband had intercourse with her while she was under three years of age and found blood and when he had intercourse after the age of three he also found blood. ”
What does it all mean-aren’t you shocked? Disgusted at the pedophelia with a big PEDO perhaps?
Would you like to pinpoint any particular incident that occured? Mohamed’s pedophelia is documented. Until such, it seems that the world will continue to ignore orang.
Chris Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Would you like to pinpoint any particular incident that occured? Mohamed’s pedophelia is documented.
Chris Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Errr – what on earth are you talking about? The only reason why the Judaic practice is documented (and sanctioned) at all is because it was common enough to make in worthy on ruling on. Have you no comcprehension of such texts? There was nothing shocking about Muhammad’s marriage (of which, incidentally, the age of 9 cannot be established anyway, but like you would know or care) because marriage at a younger age than at “womanhood” was so common among the those living in the Middle East (and Asians, and Europeans, and Africans, and Kooris) at the time and all the time before.
But this is not the place for “The Education of Young Chris”. Please feel free to go to a good university library, proceed to the Anthropology section, look through the titles, find the appropriate books, and then start reading.
Please prove that “The only reason why the Judaic practice is documented (and sanctioned) at all is because it was common enough to make in worthy on ruling on.”
I fear you have no comprehension of such texts. Further reading shows a marraige can not take place until the girl is 12.
Again, show a link to an actual occurance.
Chris Mar 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Here is a proof:
1. If it were not a common practice there would be no rulings on it.
2. There are rulings on it.
3. Therefore it was a common practice.
The logical form of the proof is derived from:
If p then q.
~q.
Therefore ~p.
In the case of the above proof, it takes the modified form:
If ~p then ~q.
~~q.
For any x, ~~x=x.
Therefore ~~q=q.
Therefore p.
Yes, that’s another condition. It is, interestingly, still the one that for some orthodox Rabbis, holds today, although of course, it is officially nullified for those followers of Judaism who live outside a theocratic state (which basically means everywhere).
Again, a good library is the key. This forum is not entirely for your educational benefit.
You haven’t shown any proof other than your opinion. You have not shown a single case. And your sanswer was a statement that you are unable to find a single case.
The Rabbis often argued ruling based on ideas drawn to the extreme, for which there was no prctical use.
Funny how we strayed from the apparent distrust of Muslims by Swedes to Squire’s posting of Talmudic verse.
Talk about trying to skirt the issue.
Could the beheadings, death sentences for conversion, stoning for adultery cause the Swedes to see muslims as crude barbarians storming at their gates?
Chris,
Woudl you please care to answer Edwards quuestion:
Chris,
It would seem that it was you that actually introduced the OT issues that Edward addressed.
Chris Mar 24th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Exactly which OT mentions Mohammed’s pedophilia? And the issue is the Swedes apparent distrust of Muslims.
Could it be that the history of Muslims from their founding through current history is one of umnmitigating racism, murder, dictatorships, and a morality that seems to come from satan worship?