Author Topic: Western Governments To Blame for Beheading of French Teacher, Not Radical Islam  (Read 1900 times)

Neptin

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma +0/-0
So about a week ago, a school teacher in France was beheaded by a "refugee" for displaying cartoons of Muhammad in his class. There's been a few related terror incident after that. And Macron and several western leaders have now rallied to condemn the act and reaffirm the primacy of freedom of speech.

All due sympathy to the deceased, but unlike I've done with similar tragedies in the past, I'm not here to blame "Islamism", "Radical Islam", "Traditional Islam" or "Hadith teachings". Instead, this is an avenue to point the hypocrisy & insanity in the west, especially on the political Left.

Macron delivers a speech in a public gathering following the killing of the teacher, Samuel Paty. In summary, he says;

A. Islam is a religion experiencing crisis today, all over the world.
B. There is need to 'free Islam in France from foreign influences'.
C. France failed immigrant communities, 'creating its own separation'.
D. We will not give up caricatures & drawings, even if others back away.

To start, I want to address the false doctrine of "freedom of speech" in the west, and the scam behind it. This is important because freedom of speech remains the greatest scam ever sold outside of religion.

But any close observation of the west reveal that certain speech are not tolerated, they're branded as hate speech, sometimes these speeches are banned and their utterance is punishable.

These include speech that demographics like Jews, Blacks, Asians and Muslims might find offensive, regardless of the veracity of such speech. There are plenty of examples, but the most relevant here would be 'denying the holocaust'. It is in order to avoid hate speech accusations that public figures often maintain political correctness when addressing sensitive subjects.

In Austria, 2018, an Austrian critic of Islam was convicted and fined for insulting Muhammad, despite pleading not guilty on grounds of factual accuracy & freedom of speech.

So, with regards to the Charlie Hebdo's cartoon on Muhammad, let's not mince words up. Going by the western logic of hate speech, this is simply "hate speech". Ironically, although it is insulting Muhammad & Muslims are offended by this cartoon, Macron & his government as well as politicians in other European countries want to play the "free speech" card this time.

Let's see the problems with Macron's speech and western leaders.

A. Islam is a religion experiencing crisis today, all over the world.

Not true. First, Islam is the fastest growing traditional religion, even by conversion. Secondly most Muslims are content with Islam as it is.

Islam is not in a crisis, which is why, I'm sorry to admit, Islamic reform failed. The notion that Islam is currently undergoing some crisis, like Christianity underwent before the Protestant Reformation is false.

B. There is need to 'free Islam in France from foreign influences'.

Apparently the French government don't get Islam. In traditional Islam, criticism of Muhammad is punishable by death, and contrary to Muslim apologists, there is no need for some court to try the culprit, any random Muslim can proceed execute the blasphemer. This constitute hadith teachings.

So don't blame foreign influences on Islam in France, blame the Islamic teachings. But we know that would be too politically incorrect, so even if Macron knows it, he dares not state it.


C. France failed immigrant communities, 'creating its own separation.'

So we all know that western leaders have been pushing for diversity and multiculturalism for a long time. They try to give the impression of "tolerance", "altruism" and try to seem "progressive." And a lot of people fell for it.

But as the years passed, it became clear that they were only looking after their selfish interests - a sustainable voter base, cheap labor source and reorganization of human societies to divide & conquer.

OK. So they import the immigrants but they end up with ethnically segregated communities, and now Macron is citing the need to integrate immigrants as a measure to curb Muslim extremism.

But this clearly shows how warped western thought have become. Birds of a feather flock together. That's pretty much explains segregation. As hard as it is to admit, not every immigrant in France want to share neighborhood or work space with native French. And vice versa.

Lots of Middle eastern Muslim migrants won't integrate because they're of a different background & interest from the french. They may pay lip service, but they don't buy into the west's diversity or multiculturalism obsession. And their choice to self-segregate should be acknowledged.

Heck, pushing integration will further breed conflicts due to differing and contradictory values, cultures and religious doctrines between the migrants and native French. So, Macron will fail.

If France sought integration, the very least the government could've done was to enforce stronger borders, controlled and restricted immigration. This would avoid clustering of large numbers of migrants to form segregated communities.

In short, uncontrolled & mass immigration contributes to segregation, which is has become Macron's scapegoat for France Muslim extremism. Unfortunately, in the west, particularly the English speaking west, to object to the mass or unrestricted immigration system would be xenophobic. So everyone turns a blind eye.

D. We will not give up caricatures & drawings, even if others back away.

Traditional Muslims will not tolerate caricature of their prophet, even if in France.
Reclaiming Islam from extremism;
Flames Of Truth

reel

  • Advanced Truth Seeker
  • ****
  • Posts: 1834
  • Karma +2/-1
  • Gender: Female
I am not holding anything against Macron. He had to appear rough for the sake of his country.

Far right/fascist groups backed by Russia are always looking to exploit attacks like those to gain people's support. They always need a scapegoat. You can read here how it all works: https://www.sigtheatre.org/signature-in-the-schools-the-spoken-word-educational-resources/fascism-101/

At this point, Macron is competiting against them. It is dangerous to allow them to broadcast their nightmarish views and come to power to turn them into reality. But by copying their style in words, he is able to disarm them and save the country.

Quote
But any close observation of the west reveal that certain speech are not tolerated, they're branded as hate speech, sometimes these speeches are banned and their utterance is punishable.

These include speech that demographics like Jews, Blacks, Asians and Muslims might find offensive, regardless of the veracity of such speech. There are plenty of examples, but the most relevant here would be 'denying the holocaust'. It is in order to avoid hate speech accusations that public figures often maintain political correctness when addressing sensitive subjects.

If the hate speech risks many people's lives and are used in hate groups they will ban it.


"I fear that nothing will lead me to hell more than ḥadīth"-Hadith collector: Shu'ba Ibn al-Ḥajjāj

Neptin

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma +0/-0
I am not holding anything against Macron. He had to appear rough for the sake of his country.

Far-right/fascist groups backed by Russia are always looking to exploit attacks like those to gain people's support. They always need a scapegoat. You can read here how it all works: https://www.sigtheatre.org/signature-in-the-schools-the-spoken-word-educational-resources/fascism-101/

At this point, Macron is competing against them. It is dangerous to allow them to broadcast their nightmarish views and come to power to turn them into reality. But by copying their style in words, he is able to disarm them and save the country.


I don't think so. Macron just proves what the far-right(I use the term loosely) have been saying, and thus is giving them approval. In any case, the terror has been done. And the far-right will point this out and say, "We warned you. We were right all along," regardless of how Macron chose to approach this.

Definitely, I would be concerned with how Macron has handled this if I were concerned about far-right groups.

Lastly, who are these far-right fascists anyway? How much of a threat do they pose? I'm kind of skeptical of people in power with all control of the media, pointing a particular group as the boogeymen of current times.

Quote
If the hate speech risks many people's lives and are used in hate groups they will ban it.

The speech that the west censors and bans, mostly don't even risk any life. It is no different from blasphemy in the Muslim world. If someone says that the Nazis didn't cause WW2 or that there was no holocaust of Jews, how does that risk people's lives?
Reclaiming Islam from extremism;
Flames Of Truth

Wakas

  • Administrator
  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 11287
  • Karma +14/-2
  • Gender: Male
All information in my posts is correct to the best of my knowledge only and thus should not be taken as a fact. One should seek knowledge and verify: 17:36, 20:114, 35:28, 49:6, 58:11. My articles

www.studyQuran.org

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0
Ok, I'm a French, and let me explain what is happening here, from a French point of view.


I. Blaming the government for the beheading


First of all, blaming Western governments for the beheading on the French teacher by a radical Muslim is exactly like saying that a woman deserves to be raped because she is dressed like such and such or because she doesn't wear a veil or a scarf.

This inversion of values doesn't serve the cause of those who advocate it.
The criminal who beheaded the teacher and those who support him are to be blamed, and not the French government is to be blamed for the beheading. Period.

II. The "Laïcité" à la Française.

Next, from French viewpoint, Western governments, although they condemned the killing, were fairly reluctant to go further and fully support the French government, and President Macron in his approach of Islam.

This is because France has this strong concept of "laïcité" which is a word barely translatable to other languages and other cultures, so other countries hardly understand it and confuse it with persecution of religions.
 
Laïcité in France is a concept that is intimately tied to France history.
It was originally setup in 1905 to replace the old regime of the Napoleonian "concordat" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801) which itself succeeded to the Civil Constitution of the clergy elaborated during the French Revolution of 1789.

Basically the Napoleonian concordat established official relations between the Government and Catholic church, Protestant churches, and Israelite cult.

In particular, regarding the Israelite cult, the Jews were allowed to remain in France and practice their religion provided they organized themselves in institution that represented them to the Government (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite_Central_Consistory_of_France) and provided they gave up some Jewish customs, mostly polygamy.


There is one big missing in this list: Islam.

As there were hardly Muslims in France during the Napoleonian era, Islam was not part of the concordat.
The later conquest of Algeria under King Louis-Philippe didn't bring the opportunity to extend the concordat to include Islam in it, for various reasons, including rejection by Algerian imams to give up some Islamic laws under French ruling contrary to what Jews accepted before.

During the 19th CE, the Catholic church held various political positions against Democracy, against freedom of speech, against freedom of religion, against working and social laws, thus leading to an increasing rejection of Catholic church by a part of the French people.
In parallel, in 1870, France was severely defeated by Germany and lost territories for the benefit of Germany. This has lead to an increasing desire for revenge in France.
French elites then took the opportunity to progressively cut the links between the Catholic church and the Government, so that the elite could takeover the education of the masses, especially in the view of a new war with Germany (that happened in 1914).

In particular, school in 1881 was rendered governmental (public), free, and "laïc", that is, instruction was not made by the Church anymore.
The trend culminated in 1905 by the "laïcité" laws which definitely separated the religions from the State. Religions were forbidden to interfere with the governmental institutions, and in return, freedom of religion was guaranteed by the Government, which was not necessarily the case before, provided they don't cause trouble to the public order.

Laïcité has now become a strong part of the French identity and is explicitly mentioned in the First article of the 1958 Constitution.

But this concept of laïcité does not exist in other Western countries. In those countries, there remains some connection between religions and the government. E.g. in Germany, a tax is taken to people based on their religion. In Belgium, there are religion courses in governmental schools. And so on.

So on this specific point of laïcité and its relationship to religions, France receives very little support from other Western countries.


III. Foreign influences on Islam in France

This is unfortunate that no concordat could be established with Islam before the laïcité came into force.
Because of laïcité, the French government and administration is forbidden to provide any support to Islam, in particular to financially help building mosques or setting up official trainings compatible with French laws of imams endorsed by the State.

Therefore, Muslim people are turning to foreign countries to get help, either for building mosques or for having imams.
In particular, since a lot of Muslim people are descending from immigrants, they are turning to their countries of origins to get support.
This leads to a competition and overbid between those Muslim countries: Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.

Those countries do not provide support for free, they want to influence the community through money. Also they send imams who are not aware of the French laws and culture, thus amplifying the mismatch between Islamic worshiping practices of the faithful and the French way of life.

This is the reason why Macron wants Islam in France to get rid of foreign influences.
The only problem is that the laïcité prevents him to give the means of his ambitions.

In addition, we have to account for the existence of two major movements in Islam today throughout the world (discounting Shia): the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism.
The movement of Muslim Brotherhood seeks to make governmental institutions compatible with Shari'a, Islamic laws.
Because of this the Muslim Brothers were often chased in various Muslim countries.
In France, they seek to have particular accommodation of the law for Muslims, and this is a direct attack to the laïcité principle.

On the other hand, Salafism in general wants a total impermeability between politics and religion. Salafism is very welcome in Muslim countries ruled by autocrats because the Salafis often don't try to challenge them.
And in France, Salafism is very happy with the laïcité: Salafis often don't vote, they don't ask for particular accommodation although they would welcome them.
They just want to live the Salafi way, and because of this, they are viewed in France as sectarians and extreme communautarism.

But again, because of its own history, France doesn't like communautarism, be it from Islam, or from regional claims.
France is unlike Great Britain or United States which welcome communautarism.

Most countries grew by federating smaller countries or regions, e.g. Germany, United States, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, etc.
France didn't grow like this. Most communities already existed in the French territory conquered by the kings over the centuries.
Under the 3rd Republic, actions were undertaken to reduce the importance of local communities and local languages in order to create a national sentiment in view of a revenge war against Germany.

The problem is that France is responding to Salafi communautarism by extending the notion of laïcité: whereas in 1905, the laïcité meant freedom from interference between religion and government, today in the mind of most people, it means that showing religious signs in public should be banned.

Answer to sectarian behavior should sit at the sectarian attitude, not by denaturing the laïcité concept.

IV. Relationship between Islam and Western countries in general


Whatever troubles France has with Islam because of the laïcité and anti-communautarism attitude, it is not the sole country to face issues with Islam. Yet laïcité, as I explained above is quite unique to France.

Attacks and bombing have been perpetrated by Islamic radicals in various Western countries besides France: Spain, Austria, Germany, Great Britain, US. And I don't even mention Muslim countries.

So it is against Western countries in general that those Islamic radicals have something against, not only France because of the laïcité or Charlie Hebdo.

It should be noted that some months ago Charlie Hebdo drew cartoons insulting French soldiers killed by jihadists in Mali and thus have been heavily criticized by the French government for that.

Yet the French government didn't go to behead Charlie Hebdo's journalists nor did the French army bombing Charlie Hebdo's premises.
Where Charlie Hebo used its freedom of speech for its cartoons insulting the dead soldiers, the French government and other people used their freedom of speech to express their disgust towards those cartoons and that's all.

On the other hand, some years ago, Charlie Hebdo fired one of his cartoonists, Siné (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9) for alleged anti-Semitic cartoons, so Charlie Hebdo is also capable to set themselves some limits, although those appear very flexible...

In general, contrary to United States, European countries have set some limits to free speech, namely to ban hate speech, as it was considered as one of the reasons of the rise of Nazism, WWII, and genocides.

In France, in addition to banning hate speech, the law also forbids to endorse terrorism, called "apology of terrorism".

I find some of those restrictions to free speech questionable. For example, I don't think that Nazism was the result of free speech. Cambodia genocide was not the result of too free speech. The French law on "apology of terrorism" is subject to abuses by police and government who tend to have a too extensive interpretation of it, in my opinion.


Nevertheless, calling freedom of speech in Western countries "scam" and "hypocrisy" is plainly wrong and outrageous.
Go to Muslim countries, or China, or Russia or North Korea and try to exercise there your rights to free speech, then go back here to tell us how it went...If you are still alive.

In fact, such statement like freedom of expression in Western countries is scam or hypocrite is just endorsing terrorist speech.
The goal of terrorists and Islamic radicals in particular is to make these countries overreact to their attacks and constraint them to deny themselves and "reveal their true oppressive face".

The worse is that this terrorist strategy actually works.
In a lot of Western countries, and France in particular, Islamophobia and even rage against Islam is rising, and not only in far right movements. Protestors are shouting "Islam out of Europe !".
Laws are constantly being passed to increasingly monitor citizens since 09/11.


Now, the question is: what is the stake here ?


V.  Islam failure as guidance to mankind
 
In fact, both Islam and Christianity have long been developed the ambition to be the civilizational pole for mankind.
For Islam, this ambition was developed especially under the Abbasid era.

This ambition finds this root in the underlying messianic impulse that triggered first Christianity, then Arabic proto-Islam during the 7th CE as evidenced by some old chronicles of that time.

In ancient Jewish thought, the coming of the Messiah would result in an era of eternal peace, the Kingdom of God, and a common law for Israel and the pagans.

Under the Abbasid dynasty, the theologians and legal scholars elaborated the concept of Dar al-Islam, the Domain of Peace under Islam submission, and Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War outside Islam rule, which is exactly a far remote derivative of the forgotten original messianic idea.

The original messianic idea ended to be forgotten in Islam under the Abbasid because Qur'an set a ban on Messianism.
Qur'an actually dismissed the original messianic idea that animated the Arabs in the beginning of 7th CE, when they started their conquest, calling it "fassad", that is, spreading corruption of earth, i.e. causing chaos and war, because this idea was based on the idea that the Messiah would be a war leader as some ancient Jews thought he would be.

During the 8th and 9th CE, those competing traditions among Arabs progressively merged into a common framework that we call "Islam" today.

But the original messianic idea that some kingdom of God should become the civilizational pole to mankind still remained.


Therefore, during centuries, both Islam and Christianity fought each other to be acknowledged as the civilizational pole for humanity.

For complex historical reasons, Islam and Islamic civilization ended up to lose this battleship for being a guidance (huda) for mankind to the benefit of Christianity, and later to the successor of Christianity, i.e. the West.

Islam then stalled for centuries until 19th CE, when most Islamic countries and people suddenly woke up under the West rule and its colonization.
This Western colonization was not only motivated by taking natural resources in colonized countries. West saw also itself as having a mission to civilize the world.

Towards the end of the 19th CE, some Muslim intellectuals, especially Al-Afghani, Ridda, or Abdu, thought about reviving Islam in order to fight back West and get rid of colonization.
They prophesized that atheist and immoral West for ultimately fail despite its technological strength, provided Islam comes back to its root.

Nevertheless, this prophecy utterly failed, despite West being exhausted and weakened by two world wars.

And in the near future, it is not clear whether West will remain the civilizational pole for humanity, because it looks like it could collapse from internal due to people not believing in Western values anymore, namely democracy and freedom.

But one thing is clear anyway: if West stops being the civilizational pole for mankind, it will not be to the benefit of Islam.
If any pole emerges in the future, it will likely be China or even India, both being much more anti-Islam than West today.


Statements like there is no crisis in Islam because Muslims do not feel there is a crisis is simply a denial of reality.
From economical point of view, Muslim countries are mostly failed countries.
Consciously or unconsciously, Muslims are upset to having lost the battleship for being the guidance to mankind despite promises in Qur'an they are the best "umma", and jihadists are  just capturing this resent.

Instead of doing self-introspection of why the Islamic project failed to be a guidance for mankind, Muslims blame Western countries for their fate as they weren't to bare a share of responsibility. They feel they are like Prophet Muhammad in Medina facing a heterogeneous coalition of polytheists, Jews and Christians.

But such way of thinking cannot be successful.






Neptin

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma +0/-0
Misconception: No freedom of speech in Islam
https://www.misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=44

Most Muslims are not Qur'anists, they're hadithists. In traditional Islam, there are hadith sanctioning death for insulting Muhammad. In traditional Islam, there is a concept of abrogation of earlier verses by later verses or by hadith. It's as simple as that. It's not a question of whether the Qur'an enjoins freedom of speech, it is a question of whether Muslims enjoin freedom of speech.

That said, although you could make a case for freedom of speech in the Qur'an, when it all come to realities of the physical world, freedom of speech is unattainable. And any society that promises freedom of speech is con.

Reclaiming Islam from extremism;
Flames Of Truth

Neptin

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma +0/-0
Ok, I'm a French, and let me explain what is happening here, from a French point of view.


I. Blaming the government for the beheading


First of all, blaming Western governments for the beheading on the French teacher by a radical Muslim is exactly like saying that a woman deserves to be raped because she is dressed like such and such or because she doesn't wear a veil or a scarf.

This inversion of values doesn't serve the cause of those who advocate it.
The criminal who beheaded the teacher and those who support him are to be blamed, and not the French government is to be blamed for the beheading. Period.

That's not a good analogy. Samuel Paty, the teacher is the victim, not the government. I'm not blaming the teacher.

Quote
II. The "Laïcité" à la Française.

Next, from French viewpoint, Western governments, although they condemned the killing, were fairly reluctant to go further and fully support the French government, and President Macron in his approach of Islam.

This is because France has this strong concept of "laïcité" which is a word barely translatable to other languages and other cultures, so other countries hardly understand it and confuse it with persecution of religions.
 
Laïcité in France is a concept that is intimately tied to France history.
It was originally setup in 1905 to replace the old regime of the Napoleonian "concordat" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordat_of_1801) which itself succeeded to the Civil Constitution of the clergy elaborated during the French Revolution of 1789.

Basically the Napoleonian concordat established official relations between the Government and Catholic church, Protestant churches, and Israelite cult.

In particular, regarding the Israelite cult, the Jews were allowed to remain in France and practice their religion provided they organized themselves in institution that represented them to the Government (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite_Central_Consistory_of_France) and provided they gave up some Jewish customs, mostly polygamy.


There is one big missing in this list: Islam.

As there were hardly Muslims in France during the Napoleonian era, Islam was not part of the concordat.
The later conquest of Algeria under King Louis-Philippe didn't bring the opportunity to extend the concordat to include Islam in it, for various reasons, including rejection by Algerian imams to give up some Islamic laws under French ruling contrary to what Jews accepted before.

During the 19th CE, the Catholic church held various political positions against Democracy, against freedom of speech, against freedom of religion, against working and social laws, thus leading to an increasing rejection of Catholic church by a part of the French people.
In parallel, in 1870, France was severely defeated by Germany and lost territories for the benefit of Germany. This has lead to an increasing desire for revenge in France.
French elites then took the opportunity to progressively cut the links between the Catholic church and the Government, so that the elite could takeover the education of the masses, especially in the view of a new war with Germany (that happened in 1914).

In particular, school in 1881 was rendered governmental (public), free, and "laïc", that is, instruction was not made by the Church anymore.
The trend culminated in 1905 by the "laïcité" laws which definitely separated the religions from the State. Religions were forbidden to interfere with the governmental institutions, and in return, freedom of religion was guaranteed by the Government, which was not necessarily the case before, provided they don't cause trouble to the public order.

Laïcité has now become a strong part of the French identity and is explicitly mentioned in the First article of the 1958 Constitution.

But this concept of laïcité does not exist in other Western countries. In those countries, there remains some connection between religions and the government. E.g. in Germany, a tax is taken to people based on their religion. In Belgium, there are religion courses in governmental schools. And so on.

So on this specific point of laïcité and its relationship to religions, France receives very little support from other Western countries.

III. Foreign influences on Islam in France

This is unfortunate that no concordat could be established with Islam before the laïcité came into force.
Because of laïcité, the French government and administration is forbidden to provide any support to Islam, in particular to financially help building mosques or setting up official trainings compatible with French laws of imams endorsed by the State.

Therefore, Muslim people are turning to foreign countries to get help, either for building mosques or for having imams.
In particular, since a lot of Muslim people are descending from immigrants, they are turning to their countries of origins to get support.
This leads to a competition and overbid between those Muslim countries: Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.

Those countries do not provide support for free, they want to influence the community through money. Also they send imams who are not aware of the French laws and culture, thus amplifying the mismatch between Islamic worshiping practices of the faithful and the French way of life.

This is the reason why Macron wants Islam in France to get rid of foreign influences.
The only problem is that the laïcité prevents him to give the means of his ambitions.

In addition, we have to account for the existence of two major movements in Islam today throughout the world (discounting Shia): the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism.
The movement of Muslim Brotherhood seeks to make governmental institutions compatible with Shari'a, Islamic laws.
Because of this the Muslim Brothers were often chased in various Muslim countries.
In France, they seek to have particular accommodation of the law for Muslims, and this is a direct attack to the laïcité principle.

On the other hand, Salafism in general wants a total impermeability between politics and religion. Salafism is very welcome in Muslim countries ruled by autocrats because the Salafis often don't try to challenge them.
And in France, Salafism is very happy with the laïcité: Salafis often don't vote, they don't ask for particular accommodation although they would welcome them.
They just want to live the Salafi way, and because of this, they are viewed in France as sectarians and extreme communautarism.

But again, because of its own history, France doesn't like communautarism, be it from Islam, or from regional claims.
France is unlike Great Britain or United States which welcome communautarism.

Most countries grew by federating smaller countries or regions, e.g. Germany, United States, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, etc.
France didn't grow like this. Most communities already existed in the French territory conquered by the kings over the centuries.
Under the 3rd Republic, actions were undertaken to reduce the importance of local communities and local languages in order to create a national sentiment in view of a revenge war against Germany.

The problem is that France is responding to Salafi communautarism by extending the notion of laïcité: whereas in 1905, the laïcité meant freedom from interference between religion and government, today in the mind of most people, it means that showing religious signs in public should be banned.

Answer to sectarian behavior should sit at the sectarian attitude, not by denaturing the laïcité concept.

IV. Relationship between Islam and Western countries in general


Whatever troubles France has with Islam because of the laïcité and anti-communautarism attitude, it is not the sole country to face issues with Islam. Yet laïcité, as I explained above is quite unique to France.

Attacks and bombing have been perpetrated by Islamic radicals in various Western countries besides France: Spain, Austria, Germany, Great Britain, US. And I don't even mention Muslim countries.

So it is against Western countries in general that those Islamic radicals have something against, not only France because of the laïcité or Charlie Hebdo.

It should be noted that some months ago Charlie Hebdo drew cartoons insulting French soldiers killed by jihadists in Mali and thus have been heavily criticized by the French government for that.

Yet the French government didn't go to behead Charlie Hebdo's journalists nor did the French army bombing Charlie Hebdo's premises.
Where Charlie Hebo used its freedom of speech for its cartoons insulting the dead soldiers, the French government and other people used their freedom of speech to express their disgust towards those cartoons and that's all.

On the other hand, some years ago, Charlie Hebdo fired one of his cartoonists, Siné (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9) for alleged anti-Semitic cartoons, so Charlie Hebdo is also capable to set themselves some limits, although those appear very flexible...

In general, contrary to United States, European countries have set some limits to free speech, namely to ban hate speech, as it was considered as one of the reasons of the rise of Nazism, WWII, and genocides.

In France, in addition to banning hate speech, the law also forbids to endorse terrorism, called "apology of terrorism".

I find some of those restrictions to free speech questionable. For example, I don't think that Nazism was the result of free speech. Cambodia genocide was not the result of too free speech. The French law on "apology of terrorism" is subject to abuses by police and government who tend to have a too extensive interpretation of it, in my opinion.

OK. This has been quite educating.

Quote
Nevertheless, calling freedom of speech in Western countries "scam" and "hypocrisy" is plainly wrong and outrageous.
Go to Muslim countries, or China, or Russia or North Korea and try to exercise there your rights to free speech, then go back here to tell us how it went...If you are still alive.

Well, these countries outright tell you they reject freedom of speech, so you know what you're up against. The west tells you that they support freedom of speech, yet there are so many exceptions. There is no freedom to criticize minority communities, like Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Asians, LGBT or women. There are doctrines and tenets in the west that you're not allowed to criticize - like the holocaust narratives or the victimhood narratives by minority groups like blacks.

Quote
In fact, such statement like freedom of expression in Western countries is scam or hypocrite is just endorsing terrorist speech.
The goal of terrorists and Islamic radicals in particular is to make these countries overreact to their attacks and constraint them to deny themselves and "reveal their true oppressive face".

The worse is that this terrorist strategy actually works.
In a lot of Western countries, and France in particular, Islamophobia and even rage against Islam is rising, and not only in far right movements. Protestors are shouting "Islam out of Europe !".
Laws are constantly being passed to increasingly monitor citizens since 09/11.

But what else can I do? I have to call a spade a spade. It wasn't always so. I used to believe the west stood for freedom of speech, I argued in defense of Charlie Hebdo in 2015 when I was actively promoting Quranism and Islamic reform. It all changed for me by mid 2019.


Quote
Now, the question is: what is the stake here ?


V.  Islam failure as guidance to mankind
 
In fact, both Islam and Christianity have long been developed the ambition to be the civilizational pole for mankind.
For Islam, this ambition was developed especially under the Abbasid era.

This ambition finds this root in the underlying messianic impulse that triggered first Christianity, then Arabic proto-Islam during the 7th CE as evidenced by some old chronicles of that time.

In ancient Jewish thought, the coming of the Messiah would result in an era of eternal peace, the Kingdom of God, and a common law for Israel and the pagans.

Under the Abbasid dynasty, the theologians and legal scholars elaborated the concept of Dar al-Islam, the Domain of Peace under Islam submission, and Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War outside Islam rule, which is exactly a far remote derivative of the forgotten original messianic idea.

The original messianic idea ended to be forgotten in Islam under the Abbasid because Qur'an set a ban on Messianism.
Qur'an actually dismissed the original messianic idea that animated the Arabs in the beginning of 7th CE, when they started their conquest, calling it "fassad", that is, spreading corruption of earth, i.e. causing chaos and war, because this idea was based on the idea that the Messiah would be a war leader as some ancient Jews thought he would be.

During the 8th and 9th CE, those competing traditions among Arabs progressively merged into a common framework that we call "Islam" today.

But the original messianic idea that some kingdom of God should become the civilizational pole to mankind still remained.


Therefore, during centuries, both Islam and Christianity fought each other to be acknowledged as the civilizational pole for humanity.

For complex historical reasons, Islam and Islamic civilization ended up to lose this battleship for being a guidance (huda) for mankind to the benefit of Christianity, and later to the successor of Christianity, i.e. the West.

Islam then stalled for centuries until 19th CE, when most Islamic countries and people suddenly woke up under the West rule and its colonization.
This Western colonization was not only motivated by taking natural resources in colonized countries. West saw also itself as having a mission to civilize the world.

Towards the end of the 19th CE, some Muslim intellectuals, especially Al-Afghani, Ridda, or Abdu, thought about reviving Islam in order to fight back West and get rid of colonization.
They prophesized that atheist and immoral West for ultimately fail despite its technological strength, provided Islam comes back to its root.

Nevertheless, this prophecy utterly failed, despite West being exhausted and weakened by two world wars.

And in the near future, it is not clear whether West will remain the civilizational pole for humanity, because it looks like it could collapse from internal due to people not believing in Western values anymore, namely democracy and freedom.

But one thing is clear anyway: if West stops being the civilizational pole for mankind, it will not be to the benefit of Islam.
If any pole emerges in the future, it will likely be China or even India, both being much more anti-Islam than West today.

Fair enough.

Quote
Statements like there is no crisis in Islam because Muslims do not feel there is a crisis is simply a denial of reality.
From economical point of view, Muslim countries are mostly failed countries.
Consciously or unconsciously, Muslims are upset to having lost the battleship for being the guidance to mankind despite promises in Qur'an they are the best "umma", and jihadists are  just capturing this resent.

Instead of doing self-introspection of why the Islamic project failed to be a guidance for mankind, Muslims blame Western countries for their fate as they weren't to bare a share of responsibility. They feel they are like Prophet Muhammad in Medina facing a heterogeneous coalition of polytheists, Jews and Christians.

But such way of thinking cannot be successful.


You're missing the point. The Muslim world is lagging in the scientific, technological, or economic arena. But none of these imply a crisis within Islam. Far more than the west, the Muslim world retains a unique and strong religious and cultural identity and the families units are closer and more intact.

This is not crisis.

Reclaiming Islam from extremism;
Flames Of Truth

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Karma +111/-1
  • Gender: Male

I. Blaming the government for the beheading


First of all, blaming Western governments for the beheading on the French teacher by a radical Muslim is exactly like saying that a woman deserves to be raped because she is dressed like such and such or because she doesn't wear a veil or a scarf.

This inversion of values doesn't serve the cause of those who advocate it.
The criminal who beheaded the teacher and those who support him are to be blamed, and not the French government is to be blamed for the beheading. Period.

Agree..

Yet using your own metaphor of blaming the raped women, it's like the men blaming the raped woman because they have fear of being blamed by the women, all men are rapist. Better throw the blame first before being blamed and/or throw the blame back when you're being blamed.

Not a justification definitely, but I'm sharing with you the 'why' aspect so you can understand better.



Quote

II. The "Laïcité" à la Française.
Laïcité has now become a strong part of the French identity and is explicitly mentioned in the First article of the 1958 Constitution.

But this concept of laïcité does not exist in other Western countries. In those countries, there remains some connection between religions and the government. E.g. in Germany, a tax is taken to people based on their religion. In Belgium, there are religion courses in governmental schools. And so on.

So on this specific point of laïcité and its relationship to religions, France receives very little support from other Western countries.

Thank you for sharing the historical aspect of power struggle between 'religious body / institution' and 'government institution' in France.

Quote
III. Foreign influences on Islam in France

This is unfortunate that no concordat could be established with Islam before the laïcité came into force.
Because of laïcité, the French government and administration is forbidden to provide any support to Islam, in particular to financially help building mosques or setting up official trainings compatible with French laws of imams endorsed by the State.

Might potentially caused issue on 'which Islam' to be included.

Which also intrigued me about the laicite, do they include Russian Orthodox institution, Greek Orthodox institution, Syrian Orthodox institution, Coptic institution, Jehovah Witness institution, Mormon institution, Kaballah institution in the laicite?

And how about the buddhist institution doing in France, they're not included in the laicite?
Does exclusion from laicite also cause problems for them?
Yet if you came back with question of "which Buddhist institution", that is also a valid question...

I recently exposed to Plum village, and surprised to learn that they're a vietnamese buddhist monastery in France?
https://youtu.be/KKBDXcmRpAY

Quote
Therefore, Muslim people are turning to foreign countries to get help, either for building mosques or for having imams.
In particular, since a lot of Muslim people are descending from immigrants, they are turning to their countries of origins to get support.
This leads to a competition and overbid between those Muslim countries: Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc.
Those countries do not provide support for free, they want to influence the community through money. Also they send imams who are not aware of the French laws and culture, thus amplifying the mismatch between Islamic worshiping practices of the faithful and the French way of life.

And each have their own political agenda to support... understood..

Quote
This is the reason why Macron wants Islam in France to get rid of foreign influences.
The only problem is that the laïcité prevents him to give the means of his ambitions.

And he didn't want Buddhist in France to get rid of foreign influences too?

Maybe it's wiser for him to convey to all people in France (or the world) in general to get rid of hatred, pride, supremacist teachings, from whatever the sources.

Quote
In addition, we have to account for the existence of two major movements in Islam today throughout the world (discounting Shia): the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafism.

Why only two? MB doesn't have official government support as of now, while Salafism has many sub-sects, among them Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia and MB itself is a subsect of Salafism or the other way around is also true, depending on your perspective. And definitely MB and Wahhabist hate each others to the bone... because that's the key foundation of their teachings in the first place, fear and hatred.



Quote
Attacks and bombing have been perpetrated by Islamic radicals in various Western countries besides France: Spain, Austria, Germany, Great Britain, US. And I don't even mention Muslim countries.

So it is against Western countries in general that those Islamic radicals have something against, not only France because of the laïcité or Charlie Hebdo.

Not true.. Islamist Fanatics have problems with everyone that is not among their group or share their view.
Well actually fanatics and supremacist in general will have problems with everyone that is not among their group or share their view.

And you should mention attacks and bombings in non-western countries as well such as Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Philippines, China.

Quote
It should be noted that some months ago Charlie Hebdo drew cartoons insulting French soldiers killed by jihadists in Mali and thus have been heavily criticized by the French government for that.

On the other hand, some years ago, Charlie Hebdo fired one of his cartoonists, Siné (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9) for alleged anti-Semitic cartoons, so Charlie Hebdo is also capable to set themselves some limits, although those appear very flexible...

I don't agree to Charlie Hebdo firing one of his cartoonist due to anti-semitic cartoons either.

People or group of people who is not capable of laughing about themselves has a kind of mental sickness and insecurity within them.

The same goes to Donald J Trump in this case, which currently show similar tendency.

Quote
In general, contrary to United States, European countries have set some limits to free speech, namely to ban hate speech, as it was considered as one of the reasons of the rise of Nazism, WWII, and genocides.

I tend to agree on 'banning' hate speech.
Although I'm more of support educating the masses the ability to recognize 'hate' speech.

Lately I stumbled on a pamphlet issued by Indonesian government to their citizen, it basically say:

How To Recognize The Radicals?
1. They spread fear and hatred.
2. They think that they're superior
3. They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

It's a socialization pamphlet as part of their 'religious deradicalization program'.
Without mentioning a specific name of religion.

Quote
V.  Islam failure as guidance to mankind
 
In fact, both Islam and Christianity have long been developed the ambition to be the civilizational pole for mankind.
For Islam, this ambition was developed especially under the Abbasid era.

Under the Abbasid dynasty, the theologians and legal scholars elaborated the concept of Dar al-Islam, the Domain of Peace under Islam submission, and Dar al-Harb, the Domain of War outside Islam rule, which is exactly a far remote derivative of the forgotten original messianic idea.

Therefore, during centuries, both Islam and Christianity fought each other to be acknowledged as the civilizational pole for humanity.

Statements like there is no crisis in Islam because Muslims do not feel there is a crisis is simply a denial of reality.
From economical point of view, Muslim countries are mostly failed countries.
Consciously or unconsciously, Muslims are upset to having lost the battleship for being the guidance to mankind despite promises in Qur'an they are the best "umma", and jihadists are  just capturing this resent.

Instead of doing self-introspection of why the Islamic project failed to be a guidance for mankind, Muslims blame Western countries for their fate as they weren't to bare a share of responsibility. They feel they are like Prophet Muhammad in Medina facing a heterogeneous coalition of polytheists, Jews and Christians.

See how those fit the 3 criteria as outlined by the Indonesian government pamphlet

How To Recognize The Radicals?
1. They spread fear and hatred.
2. They think that they're superior
3. They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

Not only "The Religious" as mentioned by you above, but the Colonialist as well..

Quote
But such way of thinking cannot be successful.
Indeed it will not.. and never will be..
Hatred beget hatred, fear beget fear, pride beget pride.


Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0

Well, these countries outright tell you they reject freedom of speech, so you know what you're up against. The west tells you that they support freedom of speech, yet there are so many exceptions. There is no freedom to criticize minority communities, like Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Asians, LGBT or women. There are doctrines and tenets in the west that you're not allowed to criticize - like the holocaust narratives or the victimhood narratives by minority groups like blacks.

You may surely have a point here, but if you present it in a kind of outrageous way, it will not serve your cause. So let me rephrase according to my own views, and hopefully you could agree with it.

In Western countries, you find these things about speech: laws about freedom of speech, and the more recent phenomenon of social  justice warriors (SJW).

I have a definition of SJW that is likely more extensive than its current meaning. I include in the definition of SJW individuals who fight some kind of speech to defend their own beliefs.

In Western countries, laws about free speech have be designed to protect people from governments, administrations and institutions trying to put abusive and illegitimate restrictions on free speech.
But those laws were never been thought to protect free speech from SJW.

I'm not far from beginning to consider the guy having beheaded the teacher as a kind of very extreme case of SJW.

In European countries, hate speech is by law never accepted as free speech. This might be different in US.
Targeting a group because of what they are is considered hate speech here.

On the other hand, targeting a group because of what they think, what they believe or what they do is usually never considered hate speech, although locally some courts may settle otherwise.

Sexual identity (being homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, etc.) is considered of what an individual is, so targeting LGBT because of their sexual identity is considered hate speech is most Western countries.
On the other hand, targeting LGBT because they claim some political rights is not considered hate speech.

Regarding religion, the law protects from discriminating people solely based on their faith, e.g. at work, even if criticizing religions itself is allowed.

Now, the problem is that Muslims tend to claim that what they believe is what they are, so that targeting Islam, especially mocking Prophet Muhammad, is hate speech by definition.
But such claim is not accepted, at least in France, hence the misunderstanding between France and the Muslim world.


In France and some other countries, it is illegal to deny Holocaust, gas chambers, or crimes against humanity.
While I believe it is morally wrong to deny Holocaust and such, I also believe that this should not be legally forbidden.
Morally wrong and legally wrong are two different things and should not be confused.


Next, there is the rising problem of the social justice warriors, whether they are from far left wing or from far right wing.
SJW hound people to discourage some kind of speech that is still considered lawful.
Laws protecting free speech are currently powerless here, social networks play a bad game too because they live from the buzz caused by SJW, and worse, political forces are connections with some SJW groups, so are not always willing to improve the law to stop that phenomenon.





You're missing the point. The Muslim world is lagging in the scientific, technological, or economic arena. But none of these imply a crisis within Islam. Far more than the west, the Muslim world retains a unique and strong religious and cultural identity and the families units are closer and more intact.

This is not crisis.

You don't understand the point here: lagging in the scientific, technological, or economic arena is because of Islam as religion and this is why we say there is a crisis within Islam.
That Muslims don't want to see it or connect the above lagging with Islam is different and also an indication of the Islam crisis.

First you have to note that barely masses will be able to make the connection between scientific, technological, or economic lagging and religion.
Same problem in other cultures in different contexts.
This is the job of intellectuals to think and do the connection and enlighten the masses.

At the end of the 19th CE, Muslim intellectuals were able to recognize that Islam was in crisis.

Nowadays, when Muslim intellectuals want to propose a progressive and liberal approach to Islam (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_and_progressivism_within_Islam), they are called atheists or traitors sold to the West and they are hounded not only by ulemas and screaming mobs but also by their governments.

So sure, by breaking the thermometer, one can still claim there is no fever.

Note that Qur'an-alone intellectuals are among those targeted by ulemas and Muslim governments.


That scientific lagging in Muslim countries is linked to Islam as religion comes from the fact that in Islam, everything is created by God whatever the way He created the Universe.
So if He created the Universe with these laws, then this proves that God is All-Powerful.
And if He created the Universe with those laws instead, then this also proves that He is All-Powerful.

This way of thinking barely encourages positive attitude towards science, because, after all, it doesn't matter what are the laws of Nature since in any case, God created them.

On the other hand, science works and makes progress by putting forward hypotheses (i.e. theories), challenging them by experiences and observations, disproving some, corroborating others.

If Muslims want to stop lagging in scientific arena, they must do science for what it is and to increase common human knowledge, and not for proving that God is great and that Islam is the true religion.

Regarding technological arena, in order to make technological progress, as an engineer myself, I can tell you that you need a mindset that allows you to transgress the state of the art.
Progress and transgress proceed from the same mindset, that is to go beyond some recognized limits.

But here is the catch: you cannot have technological progress without allowing some degree of social transgress.
In Western countries, they managed to make substantial technological progress when they allowed themselves to make some social transgress, including free speech, freedom of religion, women rights, greater acceptance of sexuality outside marriage.

Muslim intellectuals I mentioned above, Al-Afghani & Co, thought it was possible for the Muslim world to catch up West with technological lagging without having to compromise Islamic social rigor and accept so-called Western immorality.

But that program didn't work, it couldn't work that way.


amin

  • Truth Seeker
  • ***
  • Posts: 520
  • Karma +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
The problem I see, with the identity "Muslims" we had to take too much burden on ourselves, had to justify rogue elements who bring religion onto everything and in their fight  with their real and unknown enemies,  as infact many started idolizing things like Prophet, Quran and the Arab symbols,  rather seeing those with reason. In many cases we do not know if things are really true as the media and the world is more Islamophobic and these things sells easily.

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0


Might potentially caused issue on 'which Islam' to be included.

Which also intrigued me about the laicite, do they include Russian Orthodox institution, Greek Orthodox institution, Syrian Orthodox institution, Coptic institution, Jehovah Witness institution, Mormon institution, Kaballah institution in the laicite?

And how about the buddhist institution doing in France, they're not included in the laicite?
Does exclusion from laicite also cause problems for them?
Yet if you came back with question of "which Buddhist institution", that is also a valid question...

I believe you are confusing here the laïcité with its previous institution, the concordat, which was abolished in 1905 by the laïcité law. I apologize if I didn't make the distinction clear between both.

Under the regime of laïcité, all religions, including Buddhism, are treated the same, i.e. no law cannot give them some particular rights or official recognition, and they don't get funding from the State.
They are free to exercise provided this exercise does not cause public disorder.

Some religions have particularities that make the State considers here they can cause trouble to the public order or infringe the laïcité principle: Mormons cannot spouse several women, since polygamy is forbidden.
Sikhs cannot walk with a knife in public as they do in India. And if they work for public administration, they must remove their turban.

Jehovah witnesses refuse blood transfer. But if a blood transfer is needed to save a child and their parents refuse that, their child can be removed and placed in a home family.
In general, Jehovah witnesses are considered as a sect in France.





And he didn't want Buddhist in France to get rid of foreign influences too?

Well, Buddhism is fairly marginal in France anyway, and provided Buddhists don't fall into sectarian attitude, like requiring children to eat unbalanced, they are left quiet here.



Why only two? MB doesn't have official government support as of now, while Salafism has many sub-sects, among them Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia and MB itself is a subsect of Salafism or the other way around is also true, depending on your perspective. And definitely MB and Wahhabist hate each others to the bone... because that's the key foundation of their teachings in the first place, fear and hatred.

Well, if you are a Muslim teen looking for information on Google how to practice good Islam, the first Google pages will lead you either to the propaganda of the Muslim Brothers, or the propaganda of Salafism.
That there exist various sub-sects among them largely goes unnoticed at first sight.

And if you want to look for something like Sufism, you will have to dig far into Google, and pass through the Salafi propaganda that Sufis can be assimilated to polytheists.

So today, on Internet, on Islam, besides Islamophobic pages, you mostly find either Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, or Salafi propaganda. That's why I say there two main movements in Islam, though it's a kind of shortcut and caricature.


Not true.. Islamist Fanatics have problems with everyone that is not among their group or share their view.
Well actually fanatics and supremacist in general will have problems with everyone that is not among their group or share their view.

And you should mention attacks and bombings in non-western countries as well such as Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, Philippines, China.


Yeah, but that's why I implied that the French laïcité is a false problem here.
The problem is first within Islam. Weren't any problem in Islam, the French laïcité would go unnoticed like for other religions.


See how those fit the 3 criteria as outlined by the Indonesian government pamphlet

How To Recognize The Radicals?
1. They spread fear and hatred.
2. They think that they're superior
3. They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

Not only "The Religious" as mentioned by you above, but the Colonialist as well..


Point 3 is the key difference between West and Islamic fanatics.

Surely during the colonization era, West didn't allow free speech in the colonized countries.

But it allowed it in their own countries.
And this is how decolonization leaders, like Ho Chi Minh and others, were able to think the emancipation of their country, by attendance of Western intellectuals, mainly Marxists.

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Karma +111/-1
  • Gender: Male
I believe you are confusing here the laïcité with its previous institution, the concordat, which was abolished in 1905 by the laïcité law. I apologize if I didn't make the distinction clear between both.

Some religions have particularities that make the State considers here they can cause trouble to the public order or infringe the laïcité principle: Mormons cannot spouse several women, since polygamy is forbidden.
Sikhs cannot walk with a knife in public as they do in India. And if they work for public administration, they must remove their turban.

Hmmm.. I'm aware how the Sikh viewed their turban.. an integral part of their 'identity'.
Have anyone tried class action against the government on this regulation?

Quote
Well, Buddhism is fairly marginal in France anyway, and provided Buddhists don't fall into sectarian attitude, like requiring children to eat unbalanced, they are left quiet here.

Although my personal view is: Buddhists.. generally... are not sectarian..
But I don't think sectarianism is the key issues here.. the key issues are those 3 which were brilliantly stated by the Indonesian government pamphlet.
1. Fear and hatred.
2. Superior complex
3. Bigotry

But... Buddhism.. by name, is also not immune to those 3 things, no group is.
For a case study what pride, fear, hatred and bigotry are capable of doing to Buddhism, one may look at the case in late medieval Japan.

Sokhei, Monk Warrior in Medieval Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHedbN-rL2Q

Or Myanmar for that matter...

Quote
Well, if you are a Muslim teen looking for information on Google how to practice good Islam, the first Google pages will lead you either to the propaganda of the Muslim Brothers, or the propaganda of Salafism. That there exist various sub-sects among them largely goes unnoticed at first sight.
And if you want to look for something like Sufism, you will have to dig far into Google, and pass through the Salafi propaganda that Sufis can be assimilated to polytheists.

Definitely.. thus, the 3 things above on "How To Recognize Radicals" should be socialized earlier.. as early as possible.
Thus the teenagers can easily recognized those when they read Google materials on 'good Islam' as laid out by MB and Wahhabist.
Or any other materials for that matter, such as Mein Kampf or White Supremacy..
Or even the bully and the narcist in their school class as a living and breathing example...

Quote
So today, on Internet, on Islam, besides Islamophobic pages, you mostly find either Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, or Salafi propaganda. That's why I say there two main movements in Islam, though it's a kind of shortcut and caricature.

I view them the two side of the same coin, the same salad with different dressings....
Referring to the 3 criteria as mentioned above...


Quote
The problem is first within Islam. Weren't any problem in Islam, the French laïcité would go unnoticed like for other religions.

The problem is on those 3 criteria.
And those problems can be found nearly anywhere, and throughout history, not only within today's Islam.
Aren't there are any white or french nationalist supremacist in France?

Having said that I do agree that those 3 characteristics definitely exist if not generally widespread within the religion of Islam today.

Quote
Point 3 is the key difference between West and Islamic fanatics.

#3 They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

Bigotry do not exist in Western fanatics?
Are you sure?
Neo Nazi? White Supremacist? Proud Boys? Hooliganism in Football?

Quote
Surely during the colonization era, West didn't allow free speech in the colonized countries.
Definitely as their main goal is domination of the natives by the invader.
Heck even during WWII the Nazi Germany did the same thing to the Occupied France aren't they?
And so does during the Napoleon and Louis dynasty era..

No free speech is among key characteristic of any realm fell under the grasp of a tyrant..

Quote
But it allowed it in their own countries.
Not in Nazi Germany..  isn't Germany fell under "The West" by your definition?
Or Franco Spain, or Mussolini Italy.. as among other example.

Quote
And this is how decolonization leaders, like Ho Chi Minh and others, were able to think the emancipation of their country, by attendance of Western intellectuals, mainly Marxists.

Specifically for uncle Ho case, yes you're correct.
But as recorded by history, it took many lives and brutal war against post-WWII French Military to make that a reality.
But uncle Ho is definitely not a saint either, as he also brutally tortured and murdered all of his political adversaries and rivals within Vietnamese national movement ensuring the victory of his own group.

Back to the main topic, definitely it's much wiser for current French administration to follow the example as shown by the Indonesian govt pamphlet on 'combating' Radicalism... any form of Radicalism.

How To Recognize The Radicals?
1. They spread fear and hatred.
2. They think that they're superior
3. They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

Blaming a specific group of people like "Islam" (or immigrants or others) doesn't help, worse it actually support the agenda of The Radicals.
Spreading fear and hatred....

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0
Hmmm.. I'm aware how the Sikh viewed their turban.. an integral part of their 'identity'.
Have anyone tried class action against the government on this regulation?

On a legal basis, class action is barely recognized in France, and only for specific areas related to consumer domain.

That said, this regulation has certainly been challenged in the Constitutional Council or the State Council but very likely it passed those courts.



Although my personal view is: Buddhists.. generally... are not sectarian..
But I don't think sectarianism is the key issues here.. the key issues are those 3 which were brilliantly stated by the Indonesian government pamphlet.
1. Fear and hatred.
2. Superior complex
3. Bigotry

But... Buddhism.. by name, is also not immune to those 3 things, no group is.
For a case study what pride, fear, hatred and bigotry are capable of doing to Buddhism, one may look at the case in late medieval Japan.

Sokhei, Monk Warrior in Medieval Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHedbN-rL2Q

Or Myanmar for that matter...


Well, France doesn't care a little bit of Buddhism in Myanmar of Buddhist warlords in Japan during Middle Age.
What matters for France here would be how Buddhists behave in France.

Up to this day, Buddhists in France do not have political claims (or it's barely audible) nor exhibit sectarian attitude.
Also French Buddhists are not bombing Chinese locations and interests in France because of China occupying Tibet and persecuting Dalaï-Lama.

And that makes a big difference here.




Definitely.. thus, the 3 things above on "How To Recognize Radicals" should be socialized earlier.. as early as possible.

Sorry, but Salafism in general is not particularly hateful, at least in France.
Most salafis only want to live the salaf way and are not interested in political matters.

Only some extremist tendencies in Salafism are hateful and want to do jihad.

So most of Salafism doesn't fall into those three criteria.
Comparison of Salafism to Mein Kampf does not make sense.

The problem of Salafism, from a French point of view, is its sectarian attitude.


The problem is on those 3 criteria.
How To Recognize The Radicals?
1. They spread fear and hatred.
2. They think that they're superior
3. They don't tolerate other view and people outside of their own group.

Blaming a specific group of people like "Islam" (or immigrants or others) doesn't help, worse it actually support the agenda of The Radicals.
Spreading fear and hatred....

Ok, since your pitch mostly revolves around those 3 criteria, I will specifically focus on that, and skip your other points that you hook up to those 3 anyway.

I believe you ought to realize there are a couple of flaws with those criteria.

First, I would argue that criteria #2 is questionable, and I'm not afraid to say that some opinions are indeed superior to others. Especially, opinions that are argued are superior to those who are not. This is why philosophy is a bit more than counter talk.
Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you or the Indonesian government don't include philosophical treaties in criteria #2.


Then I'm not able to find the source of those guidelines to recognize radicals so I'll simply trust you when you assert they were elaborated by the Indonesian government.

France too has elaborated its own guidelines to recognize radicalization here: https://cache.media.eduscol.education.fr/file/Prevention_radicalisation/20/2/prevention_livret_567202.pdf or more recent and more succinctly here http://www.stop-djihadisme.gouv.fr/radicalisation/prevention-radicalisation/prevenir-radicalisation-role-familles (Sorry, it's in French)

A big difference is that the French approach is more focused on extreme sectarian behavior, whereas the Indonesian approach is more focused on a kind of particular and especially hatred ideology.

This is an interesting and key difference between both approaches.

There exists no society where free behavior is accepted, and in general the laws are there to put some definitions and restrictions on what behavior is commonly acceptable, and what behavior is not commonly acceptable. Sectarian behavior falls into the second category.

On the other hand, ideology is mostly a matter of thinking, and more liberal societies are usually willing to accept ideologies deviating from mainstream thinking, whereas less liberal societies tend to protect themselves against ideologies perceived as deviant.

Here the problem of the three criteria of the Indonesian government is that they venture into the realm of thought, instead of focusing on problematic behavior.

It shouldn't be the job of any government, even well-intentioned, to define what is an acceptable ideology and what is a deviant ideology. This distinction should be the prerogative of a sound intellectual debate, and the role of the government should be limited to guarantee the free holding of this debate, and in particular to guarantee that people denouncing deviant ideologies can do it without fear.

It is also too easy to reverse those 3 criteria by a kind of semantic shifting in order to turn down and hinder legitimate opinions.
 

The more important problem of those criteria and the role of the Indonesian government in them, in my opinion, is that they are after all only symptoms of a problem. They are not the root cause.
By focusing on the symptoms, the Indonesian government simply ignores the root cause.
This debate cannot go to the root cause, because the root cause of Islamic radicalism is really to be found in foundations of Islam itself.
Claiming that Islamic radicals lie outside the realm of Islam is no more than denial of reality. They use the same texts, Qur'an, hadiths, Sira. They share the same understanding, that we commonly call "Islamic tradition" or "Islamic culture", of those texts as mainstream Islam.
They just have a different view on the consequences to draw from that shared understanding.

The 3 criteria of the Indonesian government overlook the fact that the radical discourse feeds on the imaginary of the Islamic tradition narrative on the life of the Prophet, and this is exactly why this discourse is seducing.

If you don't want to acknowledge that the seeds of the radical discourse is deeply rooted inside the Islamic tradition narrative and imaginary itself, and thus you prefer to see that those radicals are only motivated by hatred and pride, then no matter how you cut the stems, they will grow again.



Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Karma +111/-1
  • Gender: Male
That said, this regulation has certainly been challenged in the Constitutional Council or the State Council but very likely it passed those courts.

I hope it will passed..

Quote
Well, France doesn't care a little bit of Buddhism in Myanmar of Buddhist warlords in Japan during Middle Age.
What matters for France here would be how Buddhists behave in France.

How Buddhist or how PEOPLE behave in France?

Quote
Up to this day, Buddhists in France do not have political claims (or it's barely audible) nor exhibit sectarian attitude.
Also French Buddhists are not bombing Chinese locations and interests in France because of China occupying Tibet and persecuting Dalaï-Lama.

That is an amazing treat isn't it?
I mean Dalai-Lama and his movement..
Bullying a bully will turn one to become a bully themselves..


Quote
And that makes a big difference here.
Or anywhere else... not the 'label'  but the 'concept'... you don't fight hatred with hatred, brutality with brutality...

Quote
Sorry, but Salafism in general is not particularly hateful, at least in France.
Most salafis only want to live the salaf way and are not interested in political matters.

I think you meant Salafis, people who labeled / idenftified themselves as "Salafi".
Salafism, the idea / concept does contain superiority complex, hatred, fear and bigotry.

Of course that's the amazing thing about human, not all Nazi Germany soldiers are supremacist and hateful.  And even not all ISIS supporters and soldiers are supremacist and hateful.
There is always wonderful exception within a group of human even when they were being put within a certain environment / situation of hate, fear and bigotry.

Quote
So most of Salafism doesn't fall into those three criteria.
Comparison of Salafism to Mein Kampf does not make sense.

Again I think you mean Salafis.. the labelling name used by people.
I have made my point above...

Salafism (not the Salafis) is comparable to Facism ideology or any other supremacist ideology.

Quote
The problem of Salafism, from a French point of view, is its sectarian attitude.
Among others.. the common concept within salafism (the ideology) are:
- They're 'above others', the chosen one who shall enjoyed Jannah after death. #pride #superiority
- God no longer send out revelation, it has ended and written in a perfect book, and we're the only one who have the correct understanding of that book. #pride, #superiority
- God will torture those who do not believe, disobeyed or even just because they're not within their group. #fear
- You should hate 'others' (the kuffar / the infidels), their culture, their tradition, their idol, their belief and be wary because they're the enemy who wishes to destroy us. #fear, #hatred

One might argue that the same concept can also be found in other religion, such as Catholicism, and I also concur with that.

Quote
First, I would argue that criteria #2 is questionable, and I'm not afraid to say that some opinions are indeed superior to others. Especially, opinions that are argued are superior to those who are not. This is why philosophy is a bit more than counter talk.

#2 They think that they're superior to others.

Is not referring to 'opinion' it's referring to the 'identity'.
Another example of #2 are: Aryan superiority (Nazi Germany), White superiority, Jews as chosen people etc...

Quote
France too has elaborated its own guidelines to recognize radicalization here: https://cache.media.eduscol.education.fr/file/Prevention_radicalisation/20/2/prevention_livret_567202.pdf or more recent and more succinctly here http://www.stop-djihadisme.gouv.fr/radicalisation/prevention-radicalisation/prevenir-radicalisation-role-familles (Sorry, it's in French)

Then better remind that to the president..

Quote
A big difference is that the French approach is more focused on extreme sectarian behavior, whereas the Indonesian approach is more focused on a kind of particular and especially hatred ideology.

It started with an ideology...

Quote
This is an interesting and key difference between both approaches.

I think we're discussing about the unwise remarks coming out from the French president... which started the entire fiasco in the first place.
Which of course get twisted and taken out of context by the Radicals to spread hatred towards France and the French or even the West in general. As it's their objective to do so in the first place... spreading hatred...

I'm not well versed with the overall Indonesian government approach as comparison, but the similitude will be like Indonesian president saying things like "Christianity is a religion in crisis". Although objectively it is true, but it's not a wise thing to say by a political figure.

Quote
On the other hand, ideology is mostly a matter of thinking, and more liberal societies are usually willing to accept ideologies deviating from mainstream thinking, whereas less liberal societies tend to protect themselves against ideologies perceived as deviant.

That is what 'fear' does to human psyche, faced or reminded with 'insecurity' and 'fear' (torture and the like) shall turns one attitude towards 'defensive' for 'protection'. As mentioned above fear is among the tools uses by Salafism, they even considered 'fear' as a virtue.

But of course they're not alone, if you argued that Catholicism and Judaism also have similar fundamental teachings and I would agree on that as well. And so does other radical group.. Nazis, Communist or even street gangs and drug cartel.

Quote
Here the problem of the three criteria of the Indonesian government is that they venture into the realm of thought, instead of focusing on problematic behavior.

I don't see any problem for government to venture into the realm of thought as long as it's objective and not alienating certain group of people by merely a label or identity.

In many countries, the curriculum of education was set forth by the government. That is among an example where government venture into the realm of thought. The flat earther will NOT agree to the concept being thought by the school that the earth is round. They might get a lower grade in physic and geography exams in public school and that's it. They should not suffer any other kind of discrimination.

Quote
It shouldn't be the job of any government, even well-intentioned, to define what is an acceptable ideology and what is a deviant ideology. This distinction should be the prerogative of a sound intellectual debate, and the role of the government should be limited to guarantee the free holding of this debate, and in particular to guarantee that people denouncing deviant ideologies can do it without fear.It is also too easy to reverse those 3 criteria by a kind of semantic shifting in order to turn down and hinder legitimate opinions.

This distinction should be the prerogative of each individuals.

The pamphlet example indicate the generic criteria that can be used to identify "Radicals" and "Radical Teaching".
It doesn't say that the radicals should be punished, tortured or arrested.

And there could be a possibility that there are people who become attracted to become radical themselves, because they're attracted to the ideology of fear, hatred, superiority and bigotry. And it is the right of the individuals to do so, to pass his / her own judgement.

Quote
The more important problem of those criteria and the role of the Indonesian government in them, in my opinion, is that they are after all only symptoms of a problem. They are not the root cause. By focusing on the symptoms, the Indonesian government simply ignores the root cause.

Again I'm not well versed with what the Indonesian government actually doing with their overall de-radicalization program. But that pamphlet with generic criteria of Radicals (without mentioning a specific label or religion) is a good socialization pamphlet.

Quote
This debate cannot go to the root cause, because the root cause of Islamic radicalism is really to be found in foundations of Islam itself. Claiming that Islamic radicals lie outside the realm of Islam is no more than denial of reality. They use the same texts, Qur'an, hadiths, Sira. They share the same understanding, that we commonly call "Islamic tradition" or "Islamic culture", of those texts as mainstream Islam.
They just have a different view on the consequences to draw from that shared understanding.

I think the root cause of radicalism (not only Islam) is similar.
1. Insecurity and Envy, resulted in Fear and Hatred
2. Pride, resulted in intolerance and bigotry.

One might argue that pride is also caused by insecurity / lack of self-confidence, which I also agree...

Quote
If you don't want to acknowledge that the seeds of the radical discourse is deeply rooted inside the Islamic tradition narrative and imaginary itself, and thus you prefer to see that those radicals are only motivated by hatred and pride, then no matter how you cut the stems, they will grow again.

I'm well aware that fear, hatred and pride has it's root in Islamic religion, Salafism to be exact.
But again so does in many other supremacist ideologies.
The issue being discussed here is the 'direct labelling' and 'blaming' to the overall 'identity' and it was issued by a political figure of a nation.

And as discussed above with Dalai Lama's approach, you can't fight fear with fear, hate with hate, pride with pride.
As by doing so we will transform ourselves to become exactly like them.
Which is actually the objective of the Radicals in the first place.


Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0

How Buddhist or how PEOPLE behave in France?

Do you really inquire about how Buddhists behave in France or is it a mere rhetorical question ?


That is an amazing treat isn't it?
I mean Dalai-Lama and his movement..
Bullying a bully will turn one to become a bully themselves..

Yet, despite the persecutions they face in Tibet, they don't bomb Chinese interests. Strange, no ?



I think you meant Salafis, people who labeled / idenftified themselves as "Salafi".
Salafism, the idea / concept does contain superiority complex, hatred, fear and bigotry.

Salafism (not the Salafis) is comparable to Facism ideology or any other supremacist ideology.


No, I mean Salafism itself, not only Salafis.

You are confusing Salafism with Muslim Brotherhood while both movements are totally opposed each other.

Muslim Brotherhood was indeed created on the model of Italian Fascism in order to fight British presence in Egypt in the thirties.
So Muslim Brotherhood by birth and essence is a Fascist movement.

Salafism, on the other hand, emerged from a different context and analysis.
It emerged at the end of the 19th CE when Muslim intellectuals found that the traditional Islamic fiqh was completely stalled since several centuries and they made it responsible of the decline of the Muslim world.
So Salafism started as a newer and more modern approach to fiqh and later melted into Wahhabism when Ibn Seoud took the power in Arabia around 1920.



Among others.. the common concept within salafism (the ideology) are:
- They're 'above others', the chosen one who shall enjoyed Jannah after death. #pride #superiority
- God no longer send out revelation, it has ended and written in a perfect book, and we're the only one who have the correct understanding of that book. #pride, #superiority
- God will torture those who do not believe, disobeyed or even just because they're not within their group. #fear
- You should hate 'others' (the kuffar / the infidels), their culture, their tradition, their idol, their belief and be wary because they're the enemy who wishes to destroy us. #fear, #hatred

This is not only Salafism, but Islam in general, since most of those issues can be linked to Qur'an verses.


One might argue that the same concept can also be found in other religion, such as Catholicism, and I also concur with that.

Also yes.



Is not referring to 'opinion' it's referring to the 'identity'.
Another example of #2 are: Aryan superiority (Nazi Germany), White superiority, Jews as chosen people etc...

Maybe, but "identity" for them is just opinion for me: if Jews believe they are the chosen people, it is an opinion. If Nazis believe that Aryans are superior, it remains an opinion.


I don't see any problem for government to venture into the realm of thought as long as it's objective and not alienating certain group of people by merely a label or identity.


In many countries, the curriculum of education was set forth by the government. That is among an example where government venture into the realm of thought. The flat earther will NOT agree to the concept being thought by the school that the earth is round. They might get a lower grade in physic and geography exams in public school and that's it. They should not suffer any other kind of discrimination.

Ok, then the discussion is going in a completely different direction.
That the curriculum of education was set forth by the government is because the elites should normally have the responsibility to educate the masses.
For example, France was built on that idea of the educational responsibility of the elites at the end of the 19th CE and the first half of the 20st CE.
(Btw Qur'an has similar concept with "qawm").

And the French laïcité was part of that plan to make the masses emancipate themselves from the tutelage of the Catholic church.

At least in France, but I guess it is the same in other locations, it is often denounced that the elites have lost this feel of their educational responsibility and just want to protect their advantages against the masses.


So I would accept that a government ventures into the realm of thought if it is for the objective to make people emancipate themselves from obscurantism.

But for Indonesia, I don't have the feeling this could be the case, and rather I feel the Indonesian government seeks to give pledges to Islamic conservatives (https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/health-safety/indonesia-considers-national-ban-on-alcohol-as-controversial-bill-debated/news-story/74fa48ea7ce976cba920eeecbe078989).



I'm well aware that fear, hatred and pride has it's root in Islamic religion, Salafism to be exact.
But again so does in many other supremacist ideologies.
The issue being discussed here is the 'direct labelling' and 'blaming' to the overall 'identity' and it was issued by a political figure of a nation.


So unless the other supremacist ideologies pose the same threat to public order than Islamist radicals, it is fair for the French authorities to focus on radical Islamist ideology first.



Then we have the issue of how to stop that radical Islamist ideology to spread.

And this is where the problem that I'm raising since several posts lies: as Islamic liberals share the same corpus of texts (Qur'an and Sunnah), and the same understanding of those texts, and the same imaginary of a kind of romantic life under Early Islam and its astounding successes as those Islamist radicals, they cannot offer a proper counter-argument to them.
This is word for word, and the feeling of the masses, or rather their frustration, will go to those who success in capturing it.


Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Karma +111/-1
  • Gender: Male
Do you really inquire about how Buddhists behave in France or is it a mere rhetorical question ?

What France government should concern about is how their citizen behave (including the president or other political figure).

Quote
Yet, despite the persecutions they face in Tibet, they don't bomb Chinese interests. Strange, no ?

Not strange at all, because Dalai Lama understood the 'game' very well.
Like mentioned previously, you can't fight hate with hate, fear with fear.

Those kind of negative emotions acted like a virus, has tendency to be contagious, and transform the cell that it attacks to give birth to multitude of new viruses.

Bullying a bully will turn one into a bully..


Quote
You are confusing Salafism with Muslim Brotherhood while both movements are totally opposed each other.

Any ideology based on hatred, fear and pride have tendency to fight and opposed each others, that's the nature of their game, the logical impact of hatred, fear and pride in the first place. See how even ISIS and Al-Qaeda hate each others to the bone.



And the above cartoon hasn't yet included, Wahhabism, Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwanul Muslimin), Hamas, Hizbullah, Khomeinism and many other groups.

Quote
Muslim Brotherhood was indeed created on the model of Italian Fascism in order to fight British presence in Egypt in the thirties.
So Muslim Brotherhood by birth and essence is a Fascist movement


Salafism, on the other hand, emerged from a different context and analysis.
It emerged at the end of the 19th CE when Muslim intellectuals found that the traditional Islamic fiqh was completely stalled since several centuries and they made it responsible of the decline of the Muslim world.
So Salafism started as a newer and more modern approach to fiqh and later melted into Wahhabism when Ibn Seoud took the power in Arabia around 1920..

Hassan Al-Bana, Ibn-Wahab both has it's root in Salafism or you can switch it the other way around, doesn't matter. Both longing the 'glorious era' of Islam supremacy, where they see such era was in the era of 'four righteous caliph'. For Ibn-Wahab case it started as an ideology to rally the Arabs in rebellion against the Ottoman Turk empire, initially it failed before it succeed with help of the British in the WWI, giving birth to Saudi Arabia.

It's an old recycled ideology within the umbrella of political Sunniism.
Sunniism by itself is a political ideology... that's why it has the rival of the umbrella of Shiaism.
You can go down the history lane on the bitter and long conflict between Sunniism and Shiaism.

Musollini dream about reviving the glorious era of Roman supremacy during Roman Empire.
While Hitler put forward the supremacy of Aryan-Germanic race.

Quote
This is not only Salafism, but Islam in general, since most of those issues can be linked to Qur'an verses.

If you understood Islam as a religion then yes..
Mind you that religion, is a political ideology (Catholicism, Judaism, Islamism, Protestanism, Orthodoxism etc..)

Quote
Maybe, but "identity" for them is just opinion for me: if Jews believe they are the chosen people, it is an opinion. If Nazis believe that Aryans are superior, it remains an opinion.

It's an opinion... how one view themselves...
But when one view themselves as 'superior' compared to others, that's the start of the problem.

Quote
At least in France, but I guess it is the same in other locations, it is often denounced that the elites have lost this feel of their educational responsibility and just want to protect their advantages against the masses.

That's what politician does, rallying people to his agenda... asking people to sacrifice their energy, money, time and even their life to extend his/her power. And Jihadists are politicians....

Quote
So I would accept that a government ventures into the realm of thought if it is for the objective to make people emancipate themselves from obscurantism.

Never under-estimate the power of individual judgement..
As mentioned in the Quran:
"Let there be no compulsion in judgement, truth stands out clear from error".
-- 2:256

I'll explain below..

Quote
But for Indonesia, I don't have the feeling this could be the case, and rather I feel the Indonesian government seeks to give pledges to Islamic conservatives

Few years back I attended a seminar as part of IOC event.

In a panel discussion, the moderator asked an Indonesian delegate, on why they didn't close the (Islamic) Boarding Schools which they have detected to promote radicalism.
The delegate responded with something like "If we do so, then they will become underground and it will be harder to detect, we have a democracy in place and we can't punish people based on the idea that they subscribed to. Anyone including them are free to promote their ideology and within the construct of democracy they have a channel to power, they can create political party, and when they get enough support through the election they can have political power. They will be visible on the surface, the judgement of the soundness of their idea will be open to public debate".

And what it interest me more is this.
"But let me share with you regarding our findings, the majority of students from that boarding schools did not become jihadists, after the graduation they become normal law-abiding citizens, many of them do not subscribe to the radicalism being thought within the boarding school. Few of them actually does become jihadists, but the percentage is less than 1%. And since they're on the surface we can easily learn about their network once any terrorist activities are actually being planned, and we can foiled their plan most of the time."

Never under-estimate the power of individual judgement, with the absentee of fear of course... truth stands out clear from error..

And the delegate also mentioned that those 3 things on the pamphlet was carved out by an ex-jihadist...
Fear & Hatred, Supremacist and Intolerance...

Quote
And this is where the problem that I'm raising since several posts lies: as Islamic liberals share the same corpus of texts (Qur'an and Sunnah), and the same understanding of those texts, and the same imaginary of a kind of romantic life under Early Islam and its astounding successes as those Islamist radicals, they cannot offer a proper counter-argument to them.
This is word for word, and the feeling of the masses, or rather their frustration, will go to those who success in capturing it.

Have you noticed that the jihadist never ever quote 2:256 as I've quoted above?
They will often quote the samina wa atona (hear and obey, never question anything) and also the behead the infidels verses instead.
At the end of the day it's up to individual judgement...

A case of murder in France with unwise remarks coming from the France president has provided fuel for the jihadist around the world to rally people to their causes.  It's quite useless for you to try to explain things, because that is not what the radicals are seeking, they don't want to understand, they want to spread fear and hatred thus rallying people to their cause.

The radicals are looking for something to boost their power to spread fear and hatred.
And the unwise remarks from French President has served them well for that purpose.

Further alienation of all people who identified themselves with the label "Islam" will again boost the radical cause to spread fear and hatred around the world.

We're talking about people who are not shy to use even "God" to spread fear and hatred.
God will torture you in hell if you don't fight for the glory of Islam or do nothing when God's prophet are being mocked.
God will be pleased and grant you paradise with 72 virgins if you behead the infidels who has insulted God and His prophet.

Heck.. they even teaches that God will burn part of your body that you missed during your ablution...

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0
Hassan Al-Bana, Ibn-Wahab both has it's root in Salafism or you can switch it the other way around, doesn't matter. Both longing the 'glorious era' of Islam supremacy, where they see such era was in the era of 'four righteous caliph'. For Ibn-Wahab case it started as an ideology to rally the Arabs in rebellion against the Ottoman Turk empire, initially it failed before it succeed with help of the British in the WWI, giving birth to Saudi Arabia.

But this is exactly the point I'm trying to highlight about Islam since the beginning of this discussion.
Where are we disagreeing then ?

Islam has a collective narrative of its own origin as a "Golden Age" under the rule of Prophet Muhammad and the four "rashidun" caliphs.
Whether Muslims are liberal, or sufi, or conservative or salafi, they share this collective narrative.
The consequence of this collective narrative is that there is a collective reasoning that if one could somehow reproduce (some of) the conditions of this "Golden Age", Islam could revive another "Golden Age".

The divergence is on how to reproduce those conditions, and which ones exactly, in order to revive this "Golden Age".
Jihadists will say Muslims must do jihad.
Salafis will say Muslims must live like the Salafs.
Sufis will say Muslims should feel the spiritual experience of Prophet Muhammad.
Liberals will say e.g. Prophet Muhammad improved women conditions of his time in Arabia, so his followers should continue the work.
Qur'an-alone people will say that Muslims must dismiss hadithes and come back to Qur'an only.

Etc.

But that Golden Age actually never existed in the mind of the Arabs of the 7th CE themselves, because history didn't happen the way it is narrated by Islam.

I came once across a poem of the ancient poet Labid who was supposed to stop doing poetry after his alleged conversion to Islam, around 630 CE.
Yet a poem attributed to him was actually written at the time of Uthman, Ali or Mu'awiya, much later (it says that the reign of Heraclius has been forgotten like the one of Tubba and Abraha).
And this poem complains that the Arabs by having become sedentary have also become only the shadow of themselves.
And btw, this poem never mentions Islam.

Quote
وَلَقد جرَى لُبَدٌ فأدرَكَ جَرْيَهُ ... رَيْبُ [الزَّمانِ] وكانَ غَيرَ مُثقَّلِ

لمّا رأى لُبَدُ النُّسُورَ تَطايَرَتْ ... رَفَعَ القَوَادِمَ كالفَقيرِ الأعزلِ

مِنْ تَحْتِهِ لُقْمانُ يرْجو نَهضَهُ ... وَلقد رَأى لُقمانُ أنْ لا يأتَلي

غَلَبَ اللّيالي خَلْفَ آلِ مُحَرِّقٍ ... وكمَا فَعَلْنَ بتُبَّعٍ وبِهِرْقَلِ

وغَلَبْنَ أبْرَهَة َ الذي ألْفَيْنَهُ ... قد كانَ خلَّد فوقَ غرفةِ مَوْكِلِ

والحارِثُ الحرَّابُ خَلَّى عاقِلاً ... داراً أقامَ بها ولَم يَتَنَقَّلِ

تَجري خَزائِنُهُ على مَنْ نَابَهُ ... مجْرى الفراتِ على فِرَاضِ الجدوَلِ






Never under-estimate the power of individual judgement..
As mentioned in the Quran:
"Let there be no compulsion in judgement, truth stands out clear from error".
-- 2:256

Well, I don't think this verse means that, i.e. power of individual judgment, but this is not the point of the discussion here.



Few years back I attended a seminar as part of IOC event.

In a panel discussion, the moderator asked an Indonesian delegate, on why they didn't close the (Islamic) Boarding Schools which they have detected to promote radicalism.
The delegate responded with something like "If we do so, then they will become underground and it will be harder to detect, we have a democracy in place and we can't punish people based on the idea that they subscribed to. Anyone including them are free to promote their ideology and within the construct of democracy they have a channel to power, they can create political party, and when they get enough support through the election they can have political power. They will be visible on the surface, the judgement of the soundness of their idea will be open to public debate".

Same debates happen in France when the public authorities have to dissolve some deviant associations or movements.



And what it interest me more is this.
"But let me share with you regarding our findings, the majority of students from that boarding schools did not become jihadists, after the graduation they become normal law-abiding citizens, many of them do not subscribe to the radicalism being thought within the boarding school. Few of them actually does become jihadists, but the percentage is less than 1%. And since they're on the surface we can easily learn about their network once any terrorist activities are actually being planned, and we can foiled their plan most of the time."


Huh ?
Population of Indonesia is estimated to 267 Millions people, so 1% of it would make around 2 millions jihadists !!
Arghh...Look at the damages one jihadist can do alone.




Have you noticed that the jihadist never ever quote 2:256 as I've quoted above?
They will often quote the samina wa atona (hear and obey, never question anything) and also the behead the infidels verses instead.
At the end of the day it's up to individual judgement...


Have you noticed that according to Islam in general, Qur'an doesn't address Muslims, except for a few verses ?
Qur'an is supposed to speak to polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, people of the Book (that Muslims are not, even if they have a Book), hardly to Muslims.
Qur'an is good to be sung.



A case of murder in France with unwise remarks coming from the France president has provided fuel for the jihadist around the world to rally people to their causes.  It's quite useless for you to try to explain things, because that is not what the radicals are seeking, they don't want to understand, they want to spread fear and hatred thus rallying people to their cause.

French speaking people can read this interesting article https://www.nouvelobs.com/idees/20201122.OBS36427/on-a-oublie-le-role-de-l-humiliation-dans-l-histoire-par-olivier-abel.html that talks about the role of humiliation in the recent events.

(Maybe going through Google Translate can give an acceptable result in English)

Jafar

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 4115
  • Karma +111/-1
  • Gender: Male
But this is exactly the point I'm trying to highlight about Islam since the beginning of this discussion.
Where are we disagreeing then ?

Islam (capital I) is a religion, and religion is a political construct. (the same goes to Catholicism, Judaism, Communism, Facism etc..)
Anytime anyone think that they're superior compared to other is a first sign of potential problem.

Quote
The divergence is on how to reproduce those conditions, and which ones exactly, in order to revive this "Golden Age".
Jihadists will say Muslims must do jihad.
Salafis will say Muslims must live like the Salafs.
Sufis will say Muslims should feel the spiritual experience of Prophet Muhammad.
Liberals will say e.g. Prophet Muhammad improved women conditions of his time in Arabia, so his followers should continue the work.
Qur'an-alone people will say that Muslims must dismiss hadithes and come back to Qur'an only.

I don't think Sufis ever preached about achieving 'golden age'.
They're the closest group within this identification / labelling of "Islam" to the view that's being subscribed by Dalai Lama.

And can you detect that the Quran-alone-ism is actually just another branches from Salafism?

Quote
But that Golden Age actually never existed in the mind of the Arabs of the 7th CE themselves, because history didn't happen the way it is narrated by Islam.

Even which era is the 'golden age' varies within the group, Salafis = righteous caliph, General Shiites = there's no golden age because Ali was murdered, Twelver = Fatimid empire.

Quote
I came once across a poem of the ancient poet Labid who was supposed to stop doing poetry after his alleged conversion to Islam, around 630 CE. Yet a poem attributed to him was actually written at the time of Uthman, Ali or Mu'awiya, much later (it says that the reign of Heraclius has been forgotten like the one of Tubba and Abraha).
And this poem complains that the Arabs by having become sedentary have also become only the shadow of themselves.
And btw, this poem never mentions Islam.

Interesting poem where did you found this?
Yes I somehow agree that it's written at later era even perhaps Abbasid era since it mentioned the Euphrates.
It doesn't mentioned Islam because perhaps back then "Islam" was not understood (yet) as an identity.

Quote
Well, I don't think this verse means that, i.e. power of individual judgment, but this is not the point of the discussion here.
It is... everyone is free to judge for themselves.

Because truth can only be recognized within the shade of falsehood, light can only be recognized within the shade of darkness, love can only be recognized within the shade of hatred. Everything in this universe was created, by purpose, with polarity.

Quote
Same debates happen in France when the public authorities have to dissolve some deviant associations or movements.
Huh ?
Population of Indonesia is estimated to 267 Millions people, so 1% of it would make around 2 millions jihadists !!
Arghh...Look at the damages one jihadist can do alone.

1% of the student of the identified Islamic Boarding schools who teaches Radicalism not 1% of the total population.

When they're being dissolved they will went underground, and more difficult to detect and recognize.
By the way, there is no need to fear them as spreading fear is actually their objective..

Some of their ideologies (hatred, fear, supremacist) is hard to accept by 'normal' people.
That's why they need to use FEAR in order to agitate people and make them follow their ideology.
When a human is agitated and in fear, they will accept or do anything in order to regain the 'normal' state (feeling safe and secure). That's human psychology 101.

See how true it is even when you observe how Naziism rise and gain power in Germany...
Or even within today's situation in the united states.

Just like the Jihadist, In the United States they're starting to use "God" to spread fear and hatred...

Quote
Have you noticed that according to Islam in general, Qur'an doesn't address Muslims, except for a few verses ?
Qur'an is supposed to speak to polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, people of the Book (that Muslims are not, even if they have a Book), hardly to Muslims. Qur'an is good to be sung.
I don't understand the point that you're trying to make here..
Just a small note, the same word (ie: islam) can be understood differently today compared to 1400 years ago...

You tend to focus to discussion on "Islam" only while I tend to focus on the root causes: fear, hatred and supremacist which is common symptoms that can be observed elsewhere as well, outside of the group of people who now labeled themselves within "Islam" identity.

Fear cannot be fought with fear, hatred cannot be fought with hatred...

Anoushirvan

  • Apprentice
  • **
  • Posts: 157
  • Karma +0/-0
Islam (capital I) is a religion, and religion is a political construct. (the same goes to Catholicism, Judaism, Communism, Facism etc..)
Anytime anyone think that they're superior compared to other is a first sign of potential problem.

But again, while nobody as a person can be considered as superior to anybody else, I don't have any problem to say that some opinions or ideologies are morally, ethically or intellectually superior to others.
For instance, not only is Nazism not superior to human rights based ideology, it is also morally and ethically inferior to human rights based ideology.




I don't think Sufis ever preached about achieving 'golden age'.
They're the closest group within this identification / labelling of "Islam" to the view that's being subscribed by Dalai Lama.

If you think that Sufism is inherently peaceful, then I'm sorry to say that you are mistaken.

Before the beheading of the French teacher, another attack was carried out on September 25, 2020, by a man from Pakistan near the former headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, exactly where an attack was perpetrated in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Paris_stabbing_attack).
The man suspected of the 2020 attack is suspected to have link with the Pakistani movement Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehreek-e-Labbaik_Pakistan).

But the TLP does not come from Salafism. It comes from a Sufi school in Pakistan.

This study corroborates that Sufism is non inherently non-violent, like Salafism, as I already said, is not inherently violent: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26297065?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Quote
Abstract

It is often assumed that there is a strong correlation, if not a causal relationship between varieties of Muslim thought and violent tendencies. Salafism is often associated with intolerance and violence and Sufism with tolerance and nonviolence. In this article we demonstrate that these assumptions are baseless. Based on analysis of historical and contemporary cases from Southeast Asia and West Africa, we show that there is no significant correlation between theology and violent tendencies. Some violent groups are Sufi and others Salafi, while some non-violent groups are Salafi, others Sufi. Policy makers are therefore ill-advised to use theological orientation as a factor in assessing the violent potential of Muslim movements and organisations.


I have also studied a lot Rumi and Attar, and while I have a profound respect for them, Rumi, in Fi Ma Fihi, justifies jihad against the Mongols, which, in the historical context is fully understandable.
Nevertheless, it cannot be claimed this is 100% peaceful.




And can you detect that the Quran-alone-ism is actually just another branches from Salafism?

What I have been able to read on Qur'an-alone movement on this forum and elsewhere, to me, this movement often looks like a bit "hadith-free" Salafism, or Salafism without hadith.
The idea is not so different from Salafism, it is to live exactly as written in Qur'an, a book that was written in the 7th CE.


Asking questions like https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610832.0 or like https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9611173.0 is not essentially different from my Salafi brother is doing by calling his favorite imam in Saudi Arabia and asking him if it is allowed to do this or that.


We could even imagine jihadi Qur'an-aloners in the future.

Certainly, on personal ground, Qur'an-alone based life is better than (hadith-based) Salafism, but on the scale of the whole society, I think it will not work.

On the other, as a kind of philosophical book on the path to establish a system of laws in his historical context, and provided it is correctly understood, Qur'an provides very interesting ideas, despite a bit outdated, and should be studied like the work of great authors on the same topic of laws.
In my opinion, this is how Qur'an should be used.



Interesting poem where did you found this?
Yes I somehow agree that it's written at later era even perhaps Abbasid era since it mentioned the Euphrates.

Last year I created a forum on history and religion here: https://histoireetreligion.forumactif.com/.
It has very little traffic as I'm not good at doing advertising and the topic is not easy anyway.
Nevertheless, the discussions are very interesting and enlightening.
(There is even a section on Qur'an alone exegesis).


The poem in question was mentioned by one of the participants here: https://histoireetreligion.forumactif.com/t19-l-expedition-de-l-elephant-570#67

It doesn't mentioned Islam because perhaps back then "Islam" was not understood (yet) as an identity.

Exactly.

I don't understand the point that you're trying to make here..
Just a small note, the same word (ie: islam) can be understood differently today compared to 1400 years ago...

The point I'm trying to make here is that if most Muslims feel hardly concerned themselves by what Qur'an actually says, how can you expect them to ponder verse 2:256 ?



You tend to focus to discussion on "Islam" only while I tend to focus on the root causes: fear, hatred and supremacist which is common symptoms that can be observed elsewhere as well, outside of the group of people who now labeled themselves within "Islam" identity.

Fear cannot be fought with fear, hatred cannot be fought with hatred...

In your sentence you are actually mixing up symptoms (fear, hatred and supremacist), with root causes and you are calling root causes symptoms.
The symptoms could indeed be fear, hatred and supremacist, but without root cause, they would stand on nothing.
Those symptoms are actually standing on the traditional narrative of Early Islam origins and the nostalgia of a past glory, which is, in my opinion, precisely the root cause.

By the way, having felt the same kind of issue with Christians and with Muslims, this is exactly the reason I created the forum mentioned above, on history and religion, so that myths of early origins are carefully dissected and people can therefore move forward, emancipated, without being tied to a mythical past.


good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Karma +4/-1
The biggest mix up I see in this conversation is "Islam" the state of mind to GOD Alone with Traditional Islam the made up religion.

You are arguing out /conversing about a religion that has nothing to do with Qoran. If people in history deviate and create a religion and justify their own sects by false interpreting Qoran it has nothing to do with GOD s instructions/message. In fact GOD asked them to do the opposite  and not to break into religious sects.

Many ,in ignorance of what Qoran is really saying ,are  making assumptions  and misrepresenting "true Islam" of Qoran. There is no radical or liberal or fundamentalist Islam to GOD or a religion called Islam in Qoran. There is only the true surrender to GOD Islam

All people of the world  were,are and will be invited to this surrender by the consistent message of GOD.

Generation after generation from the beginning  of mankind have deviated and created their own religion/sect and abused GOD s message to justify their ways/systems.
Those that are connecting sects interpretation of Qoran with Qoran are way out of touch with what Qoran is really saying. Or find where Qoran is asking people to break up into sects and different religions? Or find where Qoran has come up with a new religion called Islam?

Arguing a falsehood and attributing it to the truth(Qoran) is an injustice to the contents and message of Qoran.

GOD bless.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST
38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?
https://total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/

good logic

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 5457
  • Karma +4/-1
As for 2:256,لا إِكراهَ فِى الدّينِ قَد تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشدُ مِنَ الغَىِّ فَمَن يَكفُر بِالطّٰغوتِ وَيُؤمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ استَمسَكَ بِالعُروَةِ الوُثقىٰ لَا انفِصامَ لَها وَاللَّهُ سَميعٌ عَليمٌ   it is talking about the choices we have. There are two choices:
1- The right way.
2- The wrong way.
GOD the creator has only provided these two choices for the created. Accept GOD s system-rightway- or accept other than GOD s (other systems/gods)- wrong way-.
GOD is not enforcing either way on the creation. GOD is explaining  the difference clearly in His message and highlighting the consequences.

There shall be no compulsion in choosing a system/deen(either way): the right way is now distinct from the wrong way( in the message of Qoran). Anyone who denounces the devil s system-wrong way- and believes in God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks= the right way-. God is Hearer, Omniscient.

The only deen(if one wants to call it religion) that has always been  instructed by GOD in all His scriptures  is GOD s system of the straight path To surrender to GOD s way and live your life as a peaceful,good doer and good moral human and to stay away from the wrong way(other gods.systems .false religions/wickedness..)
The choice is there for all humans.Unite under GOD s banner or divide under their systems and false religions.
GOD bless you all.
Peace.
TOTAL LOYALTY TO GOD ALONE.   IN GOD I TRUST
38:65″ Say:? I warn you; There is no other god beside GOD, the One, the Supreme.?
https://total-loyalty-to-god-alone.co.uk/

huruf

  • Wise One / Burnout
  • *****
  • Posts: 6501
  • Karma +1/-1
¡Oh Napomacrom,hallowed be thy name!  Halowwed by thy own creation of Kristallnacht (the "Night of Broken Glass") against muslims emulating the night of that name by the thir reich against jews.

All laws are being broken in France by the very government and still hey get applause unde the guise of fake free speach, which is only free to insult muslims not to allow them their freddom of speech. That a teacher taking a salary from public taxes that muslims pay can insult muslims in the classroom getting officially paid for it but at the same time, but that a woman who wears a head dress is not allowed to get her right to education, speakes volumes of the freedom. Hypocritical to the core. And that is nothing todo with approving hijab or not but th freedom of any person to dress as he or she deems fit.

Pure totalitarianism. I hope those who applaud it get to get a taste of it, those same that athe same time spend ages creying over Arab and other regimes who are appressors and bla bla.