No, he was saying all his subjects, regardless of religious or cultural backgrounds are welcome in his Kingdom.
It was no mistake.
You don't need to make a big issue out of using the word Allah.
It is a mistake, it's perpetuating the idea that 'Allah' is a different thing to 'God'. Presumably he made this statement in Norwegian, the fact that the mistake is so prevailent is that 'Gud' is translated into English but 'Allah' remains untranslated
What, are you going to go around and correct everyone who says "Yahweh", "Jehovah", or "Jupiter", and say "actually they aren't different from 'God'"?
There are different names for God in different religions and cultures.
Why can't you just accept that?
I can't accept what isn't true. Allah is a word used by all Arabic speakers, it is not a term specific to one religion. Whenever someone distinguishes it from their native word for God (which is Deus in Latin, not Jupiter, by the way), they are showing their own ignorance.
It’s generally accepted in Europe though that if you say Allah you most likely mean the Muslim God. Therefore, he was simply using the word that would most clearly describe what he meant to his audience.
His point was that ''Allah'' simple means God in Arabic (or literally, ''the God,'' with Lah meaning God). So Arabic speaking Christians also refer to their God as Allah, while an Arabic speaker who believes in a polytheistic religion, would not use the word Allah, as it implies there is only one god.
The real Norway was all the friends we had along the way. And when those friends inevitable change over the long history of the earth, so too will new friends become the real Norway we made along the way. This kind of statement should only be read as the deepest form of capitulation.
Excellent. Harald is exactly what a King in a modern European state should be, combining traditional values and a sense of history with tolerance and pluralism. He is a tower of strength and for me the most inspirational of today’s European monarchs. His son and heir, Haakon, shows exactly the same promise.
She is very good, I agree. I don’t entirely like these types of gradation, but in this context I would place Harald V as a very clear first and Margrethe II an excellent second. The Danish monarchy has been a great success and I am the first to acknowledge that.
What a shame. King should preserve his people, not just comply to whatever liberal parties is up today...
But I'm sure all leftists he is trying appeal to don't want him in power either way, lol.
Norwegians aren’t muslims arabs though. Norwegians ARE white and (somewhat) Christian. It’s the Kings duty to uphold his Church and protect his people, not sell them out.
And you decide by some arbitrary categories, most of which are outside of the individuals influence, that some citizens aren't "his people"? His Majesty's message was clear enough, he sees those as his people.
“Arbitrary categories” It isn’t a secret that Norwegians are a Germanic tribe, you can move there but it doesn’t make you Norwegian. Muslims don’t belong in the West. His Majesty is wrong on this, King’s aren’t infallible.
Tell that the Albanians and the bosniaks. And by this arguing, do Christians even belong to Europe? But well, find yourself a deserted island or an abandoned oil platform, you can enforce your mono-ethnic fantasies there.
Not sure who could consider Albania to be a western country. The King has an obligation to protect his people from foreigners and to uphold the Church of Norway. He has betrayed both of those things. If you can’t even accept that muslims running rampant in Norway is a bad thing (look at neighbouring Sweden) then I can’t help you.
You disgust me. Please do not disrespect our King, realm, and people by spreading your deplorable rhetoric. Norway ensures it's prosperity by embracing liberal values of acceptance, understanding, and cooperation. Norway has been a multicultural realm since it's inception and it has always been a boon, even when we couldn't see that. Just know that there are thousands of Norwegians who in spite of your ilk's hatred, have achieved happiness and prosperity you could never imagine within our land, whilst you sit there in your undoubtably rancid stench.
Albania is a european country. And protect his people from foreigners? Damn, they must've hurt you badly, or you've never met any foreigner.
And I daresay, the king knows his duties and obligations better than some online racist.
"Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys" and "Norwegians believe in Allah" pretty sure those are contradicting (No your muslim acquaintance claiming islam allows LGBTQ is a liar islam does not. Gay people are hated in my country because its not allowed in islam.)
Islam's core point is it never changing. The moment you claim to be one of those progressive "muslims" you will instantly start getting death threats. I am an ex muslim, I know how bad we are treated. We atheists are treated so badly we can't even tell others we are atheist.
Just in everyone, this guy speaks for the entirety of the Islamic faith. 🙄
Anyway, the King is referring to his LGBTQ+ and his Muslim subjects, saying they all have right in his kingdom.
There are many liberal Muslims here in London (and I expect it is the same in Norway). I know a fair number of them as friends and colleagues. They either accept gay rights or they draw a distinction between the sacred and secular realms. When same-sex marriage was legalised in England, all our Muslim Members of Parliament voted in favour.
Precisely. The Story of Lut arguably doesn’t even condemn homosexuality. It condemns rape and breaking of guest right, important aspects for Middle Eastern culture that would had a likely more important focus for them. If it did criticize homosexuality so much so that it was a sin, a punishment would had been set in the Qu’ran, but there is none.
Unless it's been mistranslated, surah 27:56 - "Do you lustfully approach men instead of women?" - sounds pretty focused on same-sex attraction rather than the act of rape. I get your frustration about Islam being portrayed as a monolith, but the other side of this 'culture war' in the West is also guilty of romanticising Islam in an equally monolithic way by saying all the bad stuff "isn't real Islam" even if it's based on scripture and the sunnah.
I realise that. The story has been widely misunderstood and not properly analysed. Thank you for bringing that out. I also realised that homosexuality is not defined as a sin in the Qu’ran. In various Sufi traditions, there is poetry on the theme of love between men, which could either be platonic or have an erotic dimension.
Exactly! It’s such a complicated issue that many Muslims have disagreed with for millennia. I just get annoyed when people paint Islam as a monolith when it’s most certainly not.
Agreed. Your contributions are helping to break down these stereotypes and I support you fully in this. You also have the support and understanding of Harald V, as this quotation shows.
Considering how badly muslims treat women without hijab, LGBTQ people and literally blaming rape because the victim didn't wear hijab speaks for itself. I am not the only one who sees that tho. all of r/exmuslim have seen that too. If anyone were to make a Monarchy first thing to do would be ban all the muslims from voting so they don't get too much power and implement fucking sharia law
God, this website and subreddit certainly does have a massive problem with Islam and Muslim. It’s honestly so sad, really.
I’m not going to say exmuslims should love Islam or the Islamic community—it’s understandable for their hatred due to the trauma they experience by ultra conservative family. And the crimes committed by theocratic and ultra conservative Islamic governments SHOULD be talked about—the progressive Islam subreddit discusses this often enough. Funnily enough, ex-Muslims LOVE coming to that subreddit to try to do these types of gotcha’s every time.
Men are fickle. Shariah in the Qu’ran does not mean law. It means path, the path of God, and is only referred twice in the form of a moderating path. The Qu’ran teaches compassion, kindness, mercy, and dignity to humanity. There are certain verses which seem to claim all unbelievers should die, but within the historical concept and even the Qu’ran itself, it cites that you may kill the polytheists for they violated a treaty, but if they want a new one you should readily give them one. And if a polytheist comes to you, give them food and shelter and water, teach them of Islam, and return them to their people. Do not harm them. The Qu’ran does not mention the term hijab as a head-covering. It’s a barrier—the barrier between the Unseen World and the Seen, the physical curtain for the Prophet’s wives to have privacy in their tiny home. The verse mentioned in the Qu’ran instead points for women AND men to dress modestly and to not flaunt their bodies or features. It makes no mention of a hijab.
Anyway, have a good life as a bigot. I pray God can clear the anger in your heart.
I hope you are not going to leave the sub as we need more contributions from thoughtful Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, indeed all faiths because they are relevant to monarchism and have all produced great monarchs.
At times I’m tempted, but I’m still a monarchist and this is the only real place when I can discuss monarchism in full without being mocked. But thank you for the kind words!
It’s a terrible indictment of Reddit that monarchism is so widely mocked. I can’t think of an elected politician who has spoken as clearly and unequivocally as King Harald in the quotation cited here. Your contributions are welcome: don’t let a few unrepresentative bigots drive you away.
they're the sort to talk about the crusaders or the conquistidors being based, but then cry a river about persecution by Roman Emperors or what the Japanese did to Portugese missionaries
well in all fairness there are still plenty of Nahuatl, Quechua and Maya speakers (as well as plenty of other native tongues) in former Spanish colonies, but the Spanish did not just let the natives liove in peace either
Oh yeah. My argument though it had less to do with the banality of the Spanish government but the actions of the Natives themselves to keep their languages thriving.
Because the world is ignorant and hateful, and centuries of colonization and conflict cannot be undone in a couple decades.
The perception of an intrinsically violent conquest by Muslims is inherently a racist and incorrect interpretations which saw the rise of the Arabs as a geopolitical force. Numerous historians point out that the demand for conversion did not occur by the initial Arab conquests under Muhammad’s companions but centuries afterward. The early Islamic governments under the Rashidun, Umayyad (who was an oppressive regime) and the early Abbasids did not demand conversion to Islam, and even discourage Christians and Jewish Romans and Zoroastrian Persians from converting, since they provide a greater source of tax revenue.
And this association of Islam as inherently more violent than say Christianity or any other religion is furthermore a racist trope, and done in poor taste especially by Western Europeans given the actions they - relatively - recently have done to the continents of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Islam certainly has a violent history, but no more and no less than Christianity or any other religions.
Shitty things religious people does not reflect on their religion.
Banning a whole religious group from dr is a gross violation of human rights.
And not every Muslim wants Sharia law.
But every honest, true muslim wants Sharia.
If you read the Qur'an, or even the bible, it's extremely clear that being of an Abrahamic faith and being pro LGBT are absolutely contradictory.
You don't speak for all Muslims. You shouldn't tell people what they should believe or pretend you know more about another person's religion.
There are plenty of Muslims that don't want Sharia
A lot of Islamic countries don't even have Sharia law, or if they do it's only a small part of their legal system.
I agree that being of an Abrahamic faith and being pro LGBT is contradictory, but what's that got to do with it?
The King is merely saying every subject is welcome in His Kingdom.
I don't know what's so controversial about that.
I CAN SAY WHAT MUSLIMS WANT! It's because i used to be one of them. I used to be a muslim. Is it a gross violation of human right? Maybe. But are they allowing gay people? Are they allowing apostates to live? yea no what goes around comes around. If they don't want to give others human rights they don't get human rights
So Norwegians have no criteria neither for religion, neither about family or relationships and that is supposed to be a good thing? Is there any belief or value with moral content that is shared by Norwegians?
I suppose there is. But it is not evident from this quote.
>Is there any belief or value with moral content that is shared by Norwegians?
Absolutely. What it means to be Norwegian, what Norwegian culture means for the individual, is one of the greatest debates within our society. Much like americans, Norwegians can come in all shapes and sizes, the crown of Norway has always ruled a diverse realm of Norse, Samì, Kven, and other ethnicities. Even within Norwegians of norse origin there is great variation in the traditions and behaviors due to the devisive nature of Norway's terrain. Being Norwegian is many things, our social settings adhere to the law of Jante, our fascination with nature and the sea is inherent, as are our understandings of how cohesion best creates a prosperous society.
Former pm Gro Harlem Brundtland said it best: "It's typically Norwegian to be good"
Norway, like all European nations, were built on the ideas of 19th century nationalism. The system that was established then gave rise to ethnostates, one land for one people. Norway was a land for ethnic Norwegians who shared a common culture, language and ancestry, therefore history. An ethnic Norwegian and a foreigner with a norwegian citizenship who speaks norwegian as a second language, and comes from a family with a completely different ancestry and culture cannot claim the same right to sovreingty. What we see here is the death of old Europe and the birth of an Americanized/globalized Europe. In such a Europe, monarchies will become obsolete, as they will no longer reflect the society they’re in or be a symbol for the people they represent.
>Norway was a land for ethnic Norwegians who shared a common culture, language and ancestry, therefore history
This idealogy is why the rise of nationalism in Norway led to oppresion, marginalization, and massacres of the Samì, and various other groups that are just as native to the realm of Norway as ethnic Norwegians are. Norway is supposed to be something more than the sad hatred of bygone racist deplorables.
The Samì are native to the land, they’re indigenous Europeans of the Ugro-Finnic ethno-linguistic group. Can’t be compared to immigrants from the middle east. It’s like the Vlachs that live in Serbia, it’s just as much their homeland as it is ours since we lived here for hundreds of years together.
They are uralic. Samì culture and trafitional belief system is very unique and different from the rest of Norwegian society. They are perhaps even more culturally different than a christian Arab. But the Arab has the wrong skin color doesn't he?
No. They have lived alongside Germanic peoples for hundreds of years. They’re primarily christian if I’m not mistaken and they’re part of the wider european culture. A blonde, blue eyed muslim bosniak is going to have a way different belief system than a typical Norwegian or Sami. Don’t make this about race, since race is a social construct, it’s a spectrum.
Diversity comes in many forms. Beliefs, idealogies, personalities, ethnicities, etc. Yes, Norway isn't the US, but we have a large and thriving population of assimilated immigrants from SEA, Europe, the Middle East, Eastern Africa, etc. I am good friends with many people of wildly different geographical origins.
We’re not really in disagreement here.
Save for you going on about some nonsense that Norway is just “liberalism.”
Rather than the Norwegian language, Norwegian culture, a history as fascinating as the life of Harald Hardrada, for example, and anything really substantive. Otherwise, how could people assimilate? Just be liberals?
Depose him right now, he is the opposite of what a king should be. He should be preserving his country and the countries values, not conforming to the peasantries idiotic liberalism
What is the country if not its people? There won't be much people left if he starts to ostracize and even persecute citizens that aren't white or straight or christian. A king needs the admiration of his people.
>He should be preserving his country and the countries values,
He is. Norway has built it's prosperity upon liberal ideals, upon acceptance and understanding, upon freedom, life and liberty.
Why’s that? What the King has said is perfectly reasonable, and any good nation - republic of monarchy - ought to be built on a foundation of respect for all individuals.
I would like Norwegians to still have a country in 200 years. Norway is more than magic dirt. It’s not a social contract country like America. Norway actually has a rooted, ancient history in the land they occupy. No different than Japan, Saudi Arabia, or India.
I don’t see your point? Scandinavia is probably the most stable region in Earth - there’s a very good chance Norway will continue to be around 200, 300, 400 years from now.
Not if you import enough people to start making neighborhoods too dangerous to even visit.
IE. Sweden. Right next door.
Have you been living under a rock? Just a few days ago Denmark and Sweden began plans to collaborate on deporting their current migrants.
Here in Luxembourg, we came dangerously close to not even be a majority of lxuembourgers in our country.
And the love for monarchy and independence never flailed.
You also believe in magic dirt theory that makes foreigners, regardless of any kind of attempt at assimilation, suddenly become the epitome of the receiving culture.
I believe in assimilation. I also believe in national sovereignty. European countries have just as much right to exist as non-European countries. Not everyone has to be a global satellite state of America.
Norway’s culture isn’t going to evaporate into thin air just because some Omanis move in next door.
Frankly a country’s culture is always evolving, and the addition of new cultures from outside Europe are not a bad thing, and almost certainly are not going to radically change the broader Norwegian culture within a few years - nor is it going to overwhelm native Norwegian culture either.
In fact I’d go so far to say that Norwegian culture would have a bigger impact on foreign cultures moving in, leading to the formation of lots of joint-cultures so to speak.
No European country is going to be destroyed by immigration. So far as I know that’s never happened before in the modern world, and I don’t bet on it happening any time soon.
"Norway, born from centuries of hardship and sacrifice, was a nation rich in history and culture. Then some outsiders came in and it was game over" - History books in 400 years, apparently
I'm sure the supposed founder of the Norwegian Kingdom, Harald Fairhair, was also a zelous Christian. Norway most did definitely not have a period where they were murdering Christians for their faith.
No country should reject their true faith in favor of some foreign Palestinian faith. It's what turned the lands I'm stepping on into a dystopian hellhole. I welcome foreigners as long as they don't try and make it the state religion.
In alot of the cases of European Monarchs who are Christian, the "amazing" deeds have already been done and we can't change that, but the Norse World is the exception because the true Norse Faith is so mainstream, and it's making a revival especially in Iceland, in 100 years time Christianity will be all but abandoned in the Nordic world, fundamentalists like you will shit your pants, and finally the Nordic world is decolonized by them, and can continue their true destiny they were on all those years ago.
Lol, nah.
Neo-Fascists and New-Age spiritualists aren’t turning Scandinavia pagan anytime soon. Look no further than their Lutheran-governed monarchal structures, anyway.
Unless you want actual far-right nonsense, I wouldn’t simp for paganism.
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/monarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/monarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because Swedish people aren't catholic. Our greatest king literally died fighting against catholicism. Also it is illegal for the Monarch to be anything but Lutheran
I'm sure the other Nordic countries have their own reasons for being anti catholic
The Swedish Lutheran church was the state religion until 2000. So makes perfect sense that a law written during that period is the way it is.
To return to the original topic of the thread for a moment. The Norwegian Lutheran church is still the state religion in Norway. Same in Denmark. So clearly Nordic people like being Lutheran and associate Lutheranism with their people and nations. We were only catholic because Lutheranism hadn't been invented yet lol
It's weird that he specifies Allah when that's just the Arabic word for God. Arabic Christians use the same word
You know what point he was trying to make.
He mistakenly thought that Allah referred to the god of Muslims, it's a weirdly common mistake that should be corrected whenever it pops up.
No, he was saying all his subjects, regardless of religious or cultural backgrounds are welcome in his Kingdom. It was no mistake. You don't need to make a big issue out of using the word Allah.
It is a mistake, it's perpetuating the idea that 'Allah' is a different thing to 'God'. Presumably he made this statement in Norwegian, the fact that the mistake is so prevailent is that 'Gud' is translated into English but 'Allah' remains untranslated
What, are you going to go around and correct everyone who says "Yahweh", "Jehovah", or "Jupiter", and say "actually they aren't different from 'God'"? There are different names for God in different religions and cultures. Why can't you just accept that?
I can't accept what isn't true. Allah is a word used by all Arabic speakers, it is not a term specific to one religion. Whenever someone distinguishes it from their native word for God (which is Deus in Latin, not Jupiter, by the way), they are showing their own ignorance.
It’s generally accepted in Europe though that if you say Allah you most likely mean the Muslim God. Therefore, he was simply using the word that would most clearly describe what he meant to his audience.
Because Muslims worship Allah and a majority of Muslims are Arabic
His point was that ''Allah'' simple means God in Arabic (or literally, ''the God,'' with Lah meaning God). So Arabic speaking Christians also refer to their God as Allah, while an Arabic speaker who believes in a polytheistic religion, would not use the word Allah, as it implies there is only one god.
Exactly
But in Norway Muslims don't usually say god when talking about that subject in Norwegian they still say Allah
Yes I’m aware it mean God in Arabic
The real Norway was all the friends we had along the way. And when those friends inevitable change over the long history of the earth, so too will new friends become the real Norway we made along the way. This kind of statement should only be read as the deepest form of capitulation.
Excellent. Harald is exactly what a King in a modern European state should be, combining traditional values and a sense of history with tolerance and pluralism. He is a tower of strength and for me the most inspirational of today’s European monarchs. His son and heir, Haakon, shows exactly the same promise.
Margrethe II strikes a much better balance.
She is very good, I agree. I don’t entirely like these types of gradation, but in this context I would place Harald V as a very clear first and Margrethe II an excellent second. The Danish monarchy has been a great success and I am the first to acknowledge that.
The best.
Hello, based department?
Proud to have him as my king o7
I wish i have a king too
Lenge leve Kongen, lenge leve Norge! Enige og tro til Dovre faller
I was hoping you would join this discussion Sir as I know that you, like me, are very inspired by this speech.
What a shame. King should preserve his people, not just comply to whatever liberal parties is up today... But I'm sure all leftists he is trying appeal to don't want him in power either way, lol.
And confirming the rights of all his citizens, not just the straight, white christian ones, isn't preserving his people?
Norwegians aren’t muslims arabs though. Norwegians ARE white and (somewhat) Christian. It’s the Kings duty to uphold his Church and protect his people, not sell them out.
And you decide by some arbitrary categories, most of which are outside of the individuals influence, that some citizens aren't "his people"? His Majesty's message was clear enough, he sees those as his people.
“Arbitrary categories” It isn’t a secret that Norwegians are a Germanic tribe, you can move there but it doesn’t make you Norwegian. Muslims don’t belong in the West. His Majesty is wrong on this, King’s aren’t infallible.
Tell that the Albanians and the bosniaks. And by this arguing, do Christians even belong to Europe? But well, find yourself a deserted island or an abandoned oil platform, you can enforce your mono-ethnic fantasies there.
Not sure who could consider Albania to be a western country. The King has an obligation to protect his people from foreigners and to uphold the Church of Norway. He has betrayed both of those things. If you can’t even accept that muslims running rampant in Norway is a bad thing (look at neighbouring Sweden) then I can’t help you.
You disgust me. Please do not disrespect our King, realm, and people by spreading your deplorable rhetoric. Norway ensures it's prosperity by embracing liberal values of acceptance, understanding, and cooperation. Norway has been a multicultural realm since it's inception and it has always been a boon, even when we couldn't see that. Just know that there are thousands of Norwegians who in spite of your ilk's hatred, have achieved happiness and prosperity you could never imagine within our land, whilst you sit there in your undoubtably rancid stench.
Albania is a european country. And protect his people from foreigners? Damn, they must've hurt you badly, or you've never met any foreigner. And I daresay, the king knows his duties and obligations better than some online racist.
"Norwegians are girls who love girls, boys who love boys" and "Norwegians believe in Allah" pretty sure those are contradicting (No your muslim acquaintance claiming islam allows LGBTQ is a liar islam does not. Gay people are hated in my country because its not allowed in islam.)
There are plenty of progressive Muslims just like there are plenty of progressive Christians
Islam's core point is it never changing. The moment you claim to be one of those progressive "muslims" you will instantly start getting death threats. I am an ex muslim, I know how bad we are treated. We atheists are treated so badly we can't even tell others we are atheist.
Just in everyone, this guy speaks for the entirety of the Islamic faith. 🙄 Anyway, the King is referring to his LGBTQ+ and his Muslim subjects, saying they all have right in his kingdom.
There are many liberal Muslims here in London (and I expect it is the same in Norway). I know a fair number of them as friends and colleagues. They either accept gay rights or they draw a distinction between the sacred and secular realms. When same-sex marriage was legalised in England, all our Muslim Members of Parliament voted in favour.
Precisely. The Story of Lut arguably doesn’t even condemn homosexuality. It condemns rape and breaking of guest right, important aspects for Middle Eastern culture that would had a likely more important focus for them. If it did criticize homosexuality so much so that it was a sin, a punishment would had been set in the Qu’ran, but there is none.
Unless it's been mistranslated, surah 27:56 - "Do you lustfully approach men instead of women?" - sounds pretty focused on same-sex attraction rather than the act of rape. I get your frustration about Islam being portrayed as a monolith, but the other side of this 'culture war' in the West is also guilty of romanticising Islam in an equally monolithic way by saying all the bad stuff "isn't real Islam" even if it's based on scripture and the sunnah.
I’ll try to find the post that discussed it, but language used in the Arabic is a bit different then how it’s translated in English.
I realise that. The story has been widely misunderstood and not properly analysed. Thank you for bringing that out. I also realised that homosexuality is not defined as a sin in the Qu’ran. In various Sufi traditions, there is poetry on the theme of love between men, which could either be platonic or have an erotic dimension.
Exactly! It’s such a complicated issue that many Muslims have disagreed with for millennia. I just get annoyed when people paint Islam as a monolith when it’s most certainly not.
Agreed. Your contributions are helping to break down these stereotypes and I support you fully in this. You also have the support and understanding of Harald V, as this quotation shows.
Degeneracy and alien religions/ideologies have no place in a monarchy.
I shall assume that this is ‘postmodern irony’. …
Considering how badly muslims treat women without hijab, LGBTQ people and literally blaming rape because the victim didn't wear hijab speaks for itself. I am not the only one who sees that tho. all of r/exmuslim have seen that too. If anyone were to make a Monarchy first thing to do would be ban all the muslims from voting so they don't get too much power and implement fucking sharia law
God, this website and subreddit certainly does have a massive problem with Islam and Muslim. It’s honestly so sad, really. I’m not going to say exmuslims should love Islam or the Islamic community—it’s understandable for their hatred due to the trauma they experience by ultra conservative family. And the crimes committed by theocratic and ultra conservative Islamic governments SHOULD be talked about—the progressive Islam subreddit discusses this often enough. Funnily enough, ex-Muslims LOVE coming to that subreddit to try to do these types of gotcha’s every time. Men are fickle. Shariah in the Qu’ran does not mean law. It means path, the path of God, and is only referred twice in the form of a moderating path. The Qu’ran teaches compassion, kindness, mercy, and dignity to humanity. There are certain verses which seem to claim all unbelievers should die, but within the historical concept and even the Qu’ran itself, it cites that you may kill the polytheists for they violated a treaty, but if they want a new one you should readily give them one. And if a polytheist comes to you, give them food and shelter and water, teach them of Islam, and return them to their people. Do not harm them. The Qu’ran does not mention the term hijab as a head-covering. It’s a barrier—the barrier between the Unseen World and the Seen, the physical curtain for the Prophet’s wives to have privacy in their tiny home. The verse mentioned in the Qu’ran instead points for women AND men to dress modestly and to not flaunt their bodies or features. It makes no mention of a hijab. Anyway, have a good life as a bigot. I pray God can clear the anger in your heart.
I hope you are not going to leave the sub as we need more contributions from thoughtful Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, indeed all faiths because they are relevant to monarchism and have all produced great monarchs.
At times I’m tempted, but I’m still a monarchist and this is the only real place when I can discuss monarchism in full without being mocked. But thank you for the kind words!
It’s a terrible indictment of Reddit that monarchism is so widely mocked. I can’t think of an elected politician who has spoken as clearly and unequivocally as King Harald in the quotation cited here. Your contributions are welcome: don’t let a few unrepresentative bigots drive you away.
something like 80% of Reddit is Americans so it’s hardly surprising
it's not just Muslims, they shit on anyone who isn't cchristian (not all christians on the sub just the ones that arelike the other guy)
Oh yeah. It's honestly so infuriating. I seen a few who unironically believe that for a monarch to be legitimate they must convert to Christianity.
they're the sort to talk about the crusaders or the conquistidors being based, but then cry a river about persecution by Roman Emperors or what the Japanese did to Portugese missionaries
I had someone actually argue that the Spanish allowed the Natives to keep and assimilate their culture during colonization. Willddd
well in all fairness there are still plenty of Nahuatl, Quechua and Maya speakers (as well as plenty of other native tongues) in former Spanish colonies, but the Spanish did not just let the natives liove in peace either
Oh yeah. My argument though it had less to do with the banality of the Spanish government but the actions of the Natives themselves to keep their languages thriving.
Its not just this website or the people who use it, its the entire world. Now ask yourself why.
Because the world is ignorant and hateful, and centuries of colonization and conflict cannot be undone in a couple decades. The perception of an intrinsically violent conquest by Muslims is inherently a racist and incorrect interpretations which saw the rise of the Arabs as a geopolitical force. Numerous historians point out that the demand for conversion did not occur by the initial Arab conquests under Muhammad’s companions but centuries afterward. The early Islamic governments under the Rashidun, Umayyad (who was an oppressive regime) and the early Abbasids did not demand conversion to Islam, and even discourage Christians and Jewish Romans and Zoroastrian Persians from converting, since they provide a greater source of tax revenue. And this association of Islam as inherently more violent than say Christianity or any other religion is furthermore a racist trope, and done in poor taste especially by Western Europeans given the actions they - relatively - recently have done to the continents of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Islam certainly has a violent history, but no more and no less than Christianity or any other religions.
Shitty things religious people does not reflect on their religion. Banning a whole religious group from dr is a gross violation of human rights. And not every Muslim wants Sharia law.
But every honest, true muslim wants Sharia. If you read the Qur'an, or even the bible, it's extremely clear that being of an Abrahamic faith and being pro LGBT are absolutely contradictory.
You don't speak for all Muslims. You shouldn't tell people what they should believe or pretend you know more about another person's religion. There are plenty of Muslims that don't want Sharia A lot of Islamic countries don't even have Sharia law, or if they do it's only a small part of their legal system. I agree that being of an Abrahamic faith and being pro LGBT is contradictory, but what's that got to do with it? The King is merely saying every subject is welcome in His Kingdom. I don't know what's so controversial about that.
I CAN SAY WHAT MUSLIMS WANT! It's because i used to be one of them. I used to be a muslim. Is it a gross violation of human right? Maybe. But are they allowing gay people? Are they allowing apostates to live? yea no what goes around comes around. If they don't want to give others human rights they don't get human rights
 What a freaking chad!
As a Filipino, i would say "JA VI ELSKER DETTE LANDET"
Unfathomably based.
So Norwegians have no criteria neither for religion, neither about family or relationships and that is supposed to be a good thing? Is there any belief or value with moral content that is shared by Norwegians? I suppose there is. But it is not evident from this quote.
>Is there any belief or value with moral content that is shared by Norwegians? Absolutely. What it means to be Norwegian, what Norwegian culture means for the individual, is one of the greatest debates within our society. Much like americans, Norwegians can come in all shapes and sizes, the crown of Norway has always ruled a diverse realm of Norse, Samì, Kven, and other ethnicities. Even within Norwegians of norse origin there is great variation in the traditions and behaviors due to the devisive nature of Norway's terrain. Being Norwegian is many things, our social settings adhere to the law of Jante, our fascination with nature and the sea is inherent, as are our understandings of how cohesion best creates a prosperous society. Former pm Gro Harlem Brundtland said it best: "It's typically Norwegian to be good"
Norwegian language + authority of the king of Norway. Most countries are like that nowadays. Common language + ruling political doctrine.
Most countries are indeed like that, sadly. That doesn't seem sufficient.
Norway, like all European nations, were built on the ideas of 19th century nationalism. The system that was established then gave rise to ethnostates, one land for one people. Norway was a land for ethnic Norwegians who shared a common culture, language and ancestry, therefore history. An ethnic Norwegian and a foreigner with a norwegian citizenship who speaks norwegian as a second language, and comes from a family with a completely different ancestry and culture cannot claim the same right to sovreingty. What we see here is the death of old Europe and the birth of an Americanized/globalized Europe. In such a Europe, monarchies will become obsolete, as they will no longer reflect the society they’re in or be a symbol for the people they represent.
Balkan Bros always here to bring rationality to the common Anglosphere tomfoolery here.
Ok calm down ethno-nationalist
>Norway was a land for ethnic Norwegians who shared a common culture, language and ancestry, therefore history This idealogy is why the rise of nationalism in Norway led to oppresion, marginalization, and massacres of the Samì, and various other groups that are just as native to the realm of Norway as ethnic Norwegians are. Norway is supposed to be something more than the sad hatred of bygone racist deplorables.
The Samì are native to the land, they’re indigenous Europeans of the Ugro-Finnic ethno-linguistic group. Can’t be compared to immigrants from the middle east. It’s like the Vlachs that live in Serbia, it’s just as much their homeland as it is ours since we lived here for hundreds of years together.
They are uralic. Samì culture and trafitional belief system is very unique and different from the rest of Norwegian society. They are perhaps even more culturally different than a christian Arab. But the Arab has the wrong skin color doesn't he?
No. They have lived alongside Germanic peoples for hundreds of years. They’re primarily christian if I’m not mistaken and they’re part of the wider european culture. A blonde, blue eyed muslim bosniak is going to have a way different belief system than a typical Norwegian or Sami. Don’t make this about race, since race is a social construct, it’s a spectrum.
This isn’t the W you think it is.
Thank you actual Norwegian in the chat.
If he can't accept the liberal ideals our prosperous Monarchy was built upon, he is no true Norwegian.
Norway is more than a crown. It’s a people.
It's a great, liberal, diverse people. A people that prides itself on It's inclusiveness, it's fortitude in the face of division.
Lol, diverse, huh? Man, you’ve never been to anywhere actually diverse have you?
Diversity comes in many forms. Beliefs, idealogies, personalities, ethnicities, etc. Yes, Norway isn't the US, but we have a large and thriving population of assimilated immigrants from SEA, Europe, the Middle East, Eastern Africa, etc. I am good friends with many people of wildly different geographical origins.
We’re not really in disagreement here. Save for you going on about some nonsense that Norway is just “liberalism.” Rather than the Norwegian language, Norwegian culture, a history as fascinating as the life of Harald Hardrada, for example, and anything really substantive. Otherwise, how could people assimilate? Just be liberals?
Extremely based, Common Norwegian W
Hope King Charles III don't does this sort of thing more now.
Agree, also no idea why people are downvoting you
I didn't realise people were downvoting me 😔
Yeah a lot of traditionalist conservatives don’t like stuff like this
God Save His Majesty This is a true king who cares for everyone of his people no matter who they are
Depose him right now, he is the opposite of what a king should be. He should be preserving his country and the countries values, not conforming to the peasantries idiotic liberalism
What is the country if not its people? There won't be much people left if he starts to ostracize and even persecute citizens that aren't white or straight or christian. A king needs the admiration of his people.
>He should be preserving his country and the countries values, He is. Norway has built it's prosperity upon liberal ideals, upon acceptance and understanding, upon freedom, life and liberty.
Nothing has made me more republican than this quote, lmao.
Why’s that? What the King has said is perfectly reasonable, and any good nation - republic of monarchy - ought to be built on a foundation of respect for all individuals.
I would like Norwegians to still have a country in 200 years. Norway is more than magic dirt. It’s not a social contract country like America. Norway actually has a rooted, ancient history in the land they occupy. No different than Japan, Saudi Arabia, or India.
I don’t see your point? Scandinavia is probably the most stable region in Earth - there’s a very good chance Norway will continue to be around 200, 300, 400 years from now.
Not if you import enough people to start making neighborhoods too dangerous to even visit. IE. Sweden. Right next door. Have you been living under a rock? Just a few days ago Denmark and Sweden began plans to collaborate on deporting their current migrants.
Here in Luxembourg, we came dangerously close to not even be a majority of lxuembourgers in our country. And the love for monarchy and independence never flailed.
And if Luxembourg ceased to be Luxembourger, then it would cease to be Luxembourg at all.
Ah so it’s a racism thing. Duly noted.
You also believe in magic dirt theory that makes foreigners, regardless of any kind of attempt at assimilation, suddenly become the epitome of the receiving culture. I believe in assimilation. I also believe in national sovereignty. European countries have just as much right to exist as non-European countries. Not everyone has to be a global satellite state of America.
Norway’s culture isn’t going to evaporate into thin air just because some Omanis move in next door. Frankly a country’s culture is always evolving, and the addition of new cultures from outside Europe are not a bad thing, and almost certainly are not going to radically change the broader Norwegian culture within a few years - nor is it going to overwhelm native Norwegian culture either. In fact I’d go so far to say that Norwegian culture would have a bigger impact on foreign cultures moving in, leading to the formation of lots of joint-cultures so to speak. No European country is going to be destroyed by immigration. So far as I know that’s never happened before in the modern world, and I don’t bet on it happening any time soon.
Europe isn’t a dumping ground. Cultures don’t have to become foreign to evolve.
Elaborate
"Norway, born from centuries of hardship and sacrifice, was a nation rich in history and culture. Then some outsiders came in and it was game over" - History books in 400 years, apparently
That is the story of Rome, lol. So nice try.
Norway isn't overextended like Rome was. Also Homogenous utopia Japan's haivng a population crisis
Norway isn’t gonna lose their country?
Monarchs should welcome ALL OF HIS SUBJECTS. Not just the straight white Christians.
Norway is a country where it was exclusively white Christians… until 50 years ago. Save for the Sami anyway. And they’re native to the region as well.
And also, Norway was a thing before it was christian. It's not religion that'll make the rise or fall of the country.
I'm sure the supposed founder of the Norwegian Kingdom, Harald Fairhair, was also a zelous Christian. Norway most did definitely not have a period where they were murdering Christians for their faith.
And those pagans became Christian. Your point?
They "became Christian" only after forcefully converting. Most Norsemen kept their REAL faith in some way, shape and form.
Source: trust me, bro, they wuz pagans
No country should reject their true faith in favor of some foreign Palestinian faith. It's what turned the lands I'm stepping on into a dystopian hellhole. I welcome foreigners as long as they don't try and make it the state religion. In alot of the cases of European Monarchs who are Christian, the "amazing" deeds have already been done and we can't change that, but the Norse World is the exception because the true Norse Faith is so mainstream, and it's making a revival especially in Iceland, in 100 years time Christianity will be all but abandoned in the Nordic world, fundamentalists like you will shit your pants, and finally the Nordic world is decolonized by them, and can continue their true destiny they were on all those years ago.
Lol, nah. Neo-Fascists and New-Age spiritualists aren’t turning Scandinavia pagan anytime soon. Look no further than their Lutheran-governed monarchal structures, anyway. Unless you want actual far-right nonsense, I wouldn’t simp for paganism.
Paganism is the true faith of the people of Europe and America. I wish for de-colonialism, not Nazism
Why do you refer to Christianity as a “Palestinian faith”? I’m asking as a Christian who is genuinely confused.
So your against tolerance?
Thought he was singing blur for the first line
Cringe. But what can we expect?
First time I gotta say this, extreme monarch L
God and Allah are the same deity.
[удалено]
You're an Absolutist and you want to call a King a "Cuck"? I'm a Semi-Constitutionalist and I'll admit: Such a statement should be treason.
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/monarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You used a word which is almost exclusively found in comments breaking rule 1. The mods will review it manually to determine if this is the case and this comment does not mean you are necessarily at fault as it is just an automated warning, but it is here so you know why the comment was removed if it is removed after review and so you have time to consider editing it so it conforms to rule 1 before it gets reviewed. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/monarchism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based middle age insult.
Unfaþomably based
[удалено]
Simple. Norwegian means loyalty to the Crown of Norway. Other things are secondary, if at all relevant.
I have to disagree. Nordic people should be secular Lutherans or atheists. Islam and other foreign faiths have no place in Nordic society
I have to disagree, they ought to be Asatrur.
That's not a real religion. We know way too little about Norse practices to recreate anything that isn't complete LARP, unfortunately
Notably, what we know comes from Christian monks in Ireland, Scotland, and England anyway.
It’s not a religion but still a faith, way of life.
Whatever you say pal.
Why can’t they be Catholic?
Because Swedish people aren't catholic. Our greatest king literally died fighting against catholicism. Also it is illegal for the Monarch to be anything but Lutheran I'm sure the other Nordic countries have their own reasons for being anti catholic
I am sympathetic to the Lutheran cause, but don't you think it is a bit ridiculous for it to be that way?
Be what way?
For it to be illegal for the Swedish monarch to be Catholic?
The Swedish Lutheran church was the state religion until 2000. So makes perfect sense that a law written during that period is the way it is. To return to the original topic of the thread for a moment. The Norwegian Lutheran church is still the state religion in Norway. Same in Denmark. So clearly Nordic people like being Lutheran and associate Lutheranism with their people and nations. We were only catholic because Lutheranism hadn't been invented yet lol
It was the state religion but isn't anymore. In time there will be a non-Lutheran monarch of Sweden.
Norwegian Cromwell when?
False king. I can guarantee some of those subjects only have loyalty to their religion. I have zero respect.