Western Governments To Blame for Beheading of French Teacher, Not Radical Islam

[Anoushirvan]

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]

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?

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...

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...

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...

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.

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?

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..

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.

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]

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]

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..

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?

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..

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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..

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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]

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]

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).

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..

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.

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.

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..)

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.

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....

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..

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...

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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]

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

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]

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.