Family & Relationships5 mins ago
Is France About To Take Sensible Action?
142 Answers
FRENCH Prime Minister Manuel Valls says the country is to shut down certain mosques, cut foreign funding and police the content delivered in sermons in a massive crackdown on Islamic fundamentalism.
Meanwhile, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy has demanded every person suspected of being involved in terrorism be placed under house arrest.
And he said accessing jihadi websites should be made a crime similar to that of paedophiles who view and distribute content online.
France is also considering legislation that will allow it to remove and expel dual national citizens.
http://
Meanwhile, former French president Nicolas Sarkozy has demanded every person suspected of being involved in terrorism be placed under house arrest.
And he said accessing jihadi websites should be made a crime similar to that of paedophiles who view and distribute content online.
France is also considering legislation that will allow it to remove and expel dual national citizens.
http://
Answers
Perhaps curtailing the building of more Mosques is a security issue. The existing ones would seem to have become a hotbed of radical indoctrinati
11:43 Wed 03rd Aug 2016
// Why don't the audience vote with their feet and leave?//
// Probably because of the Imam's standing in the community.//
I hope the ed doesnt spike this thread
some of the comments are quite ..er .. well cerebral abd thoughtful
the above two could be recast as
what is the function of a mosque in muslim society ? and
does the mosque in Islam have the same place as a church has to christians?
both very good questions ...... ( and erm I dont know the answer, other than I know they are different )
// Probably because of the Imam's standing in the community.//
I hope the ed doesnt spike this thread
some of the comments are quite ..er .. well cerebral abd thoughtful
the above two could be recast as
what is the function of a mosque in muslim society ? and
does the mosque in Islam have the same place as a church has to christians?
both very good questions ...... ( and erm I dont know the answer, other than I know they are different )
fiction-factory , //it gives extremists even more evidence in their warped minds that the west hates them and they need to fight back//
I’d like to think you’re joking but I know you’re not. Why is it so difficult for the appeasers here to understand that no matter what we do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to plot our destruction – and they will never stop. They are laughing at you.
Andy-hughes said //Under the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty', free societies do not as a rule, go around locking people in their homes on the basis of something they might or might not have done,//
That premise takes no account of the fact – and it is a fact – that the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before. We need to acknowledge that and cut our cloth to suit the coat. It’s time to say ‘No’ – and mean it.
Lots of bluster here about other faiths, but comparing Islam to any other faith is ignorance in the extreme. Virtue signalling might make the ‘signallers’ feel morally superior, but it won’t cure the problem.
I’d like to think you’re joking but I know you’re not. Why is it so difficult for the appeasers here to understand that no matter what we do, Islamic fundamentalists will continue to plot our destruction – and they will never stop. They are laughing at you.
Andy-hughes said //Under the premise of 'innocent until proven guilty', free societies do not as a rule, go around locking people in their homes on the basis of something they might or might not have done,//
That premise takes no account of the fact – and it is a fact – that the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before. We need to acknowledge that and cut our cloth to suit the coat. It’s time to say ‘No’ – and mean it.
Lots of bluster here about other faiths, but comparing Islam to any other faith is ignorance in the extreme. Virtue signalling might make the ‘signallers’ feel morally superior, but it won’t cure the problem.
I agree with everything in Naomi's post apart from this:
"... the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before.".
The West may now have forgotten, but for a thousand years it suffered subjugation, enslavement and slaughter at the hands oi Islamic fundamentalists with just that mind-set.. The mind-set is as old as Islam. In the most literal sense (submission, i.e. us to them) it IS Islam. Mohammed: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". This is what the Prophet taught and what he,and his successors practised.
Within a hundred years of the Prophet's death Islamic jihad had captured Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, had subjugated the whole of Christian North Africa and seized most of the Iberian peninsula. The last outpost of Easter Christianity fell in 1453 establishing the Ottoman caliphate.. The attempt by the Ottomans to subjugate the West was repulsed at Lepanto over a hundred years later. The victorious forces were a coalition of Christian forces from southern Europe organised in part, I believe, by the Pope. (No appeasing Francis he!). The Ottomans tried again a hundred years later at Vienna, this time being defeated by a Christian coalition from the north. Even after the scientific revolution following the 17th century Enlightenment gave Europe a technological superiority which remains to this day and has made it invulnerable to military invasion, the Islamic states of the Barbary coast continued to follow the example of the Prophet , disrupting commerce in the Mediterranean by attacking infidel ships and enslaving or holding for ransom their crews. (Christopher Hitchen's biography of Jefferson is an interesting read about that period of history. One of the down-sides of independence was that the merchant ships of the American colonies no longer had the protection of the Royal Navy. He also mentions the visit of a representative of the Bey of Tunis/Algiers(?) to the newly independent states - the event from which Obama fancifully invented the "first iftar in the White House").
More realistic than any president in recent years, John Quincy Adams wrote:
"The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.".
"... the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before.".
The West may now have forgotten, but for a thousand years it suffered subjugation, enslavement and slaughter at the hands oi Islamic fundamentalists with just that mind-set.. The mind-set is as old as Islam. In the most literal sense (submission, i.e. us to them) it IS Islam. Mohammed: "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". This is what the Prophet taught and what he,and his successors practised.
Within a hundred years of the Prophet's death Islamic jihad had captured Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, had subjugated the whole of Christian North Africa and seized most of the Iberian peninsula. The last outpost of Easter Christianity fell in 1453 establishing the Ottoman caliphate.. The attempt by the Ottomans to subjugate the West was repulsed at Lepanto over a hundred years later. The victorious forces were a coalition of Christian forces from southern Europe organised in part, I believe, by the Pope. (No appeasing Francis he!). The Ottomans tried again a hundred years later at Vienna, this time being defeated by a Christian coalition from the north. Even after the scientific revolution following the 17th century Enlightenment gave Europe a technological superiority which remains to this day and has made it invulnerable to military invasion, the Islamic states of the Barbary coast continued to follow the example of the Prophet , disrupting commerce in the Mediterranean by attacking infidel ships and enslaving or holding for ransom their crews. (Christopher Hitchen's biography of Jefferson is an interesting read about that period of history. One of the down-sides of independence was that the merchant ships of the American colonies no longer had the protection of the Royal Navy. He also mentions the visit of a representative of the Bey of Tunis/Algiers(?) to the newly independent states - the event from which Obama fancifully invented the "first iftar in the White House").
More realistic than any president in recent years, John Quincy Adams wrote:
"The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.".
v_e, //I agree with everything in Naomi's post apart from this:
"... the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before.". //
When I typed that I had in mind our more recent history - but you're absolutely right of course.
"... the people we are now obliged to deal with possess a mind-set that bears no resemblance whatsoever to anything that our civilisation has ever encountered before.". //
When I typed that I had in mind our more recent history - but you're absolutely right of course.
Desperate times takes desperate measures -if the terrible events in France had taken place in UK I would fully expect my Government to take the most robust measures available to protect her citizens - enough of this namby pambying so as not to 'offend' everyone - people are dying here and in horrific circumstances. For goodness sake I can only support politicians who get some watnots and actually do something to safeguard their people. The opposition isn't playing to the rules so why should we? whatever it takes.
// 'Laicite' means, generally, secularism. But, as is usual with French, it's a bit more woolly than that.//
thx Jourdain I hoped you would add something
laity is the set of lay (unordained) people (!) rather than clergy
secularism is not on the usual ABers lips on a daily basis
and altho secular means lay a lot of the time - you can have secular clergy ( eek!) ( not under vows or in a religious house ) .
thx Jourdain I hoped you would add something
laity is the set of lay (unordained) people (!) rather than clergy
secularism is not on the usual ABers lips on a daily basis
and altho secular means lay a lot of the time - you can have secular clergy ( eek!) ( not under vows or in a religious house ) .
Basically, Naomi, you would like to see all Muslims have their rights curtailed and don't care if it causes more resentment and turns a few more into extremists, whereas I think the jihadists want to cause division so we should seek ways to get peaceful Muslims to play their part in combatting radicalisation in their communities.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.