France and Islam

There will always be a problem with Muslims in western democracies. Muslims traditionally do not integrate and get involved into western society. They take their religion far too serious to the point where it is a complete obsession in their lives. The West for most part are more open minded and believe we are here because of science and natural evolution and not by some God who made us. We really don't have anything in common with Muslims and I feel that in essence this is the root cause of the problem.

As one who believes in religious freedom although not religious my self,I do feel that ones faith should be contained within boundaries,I hate it when for example,others knock on my door trying to push their religion.
If I were a devout Christian,I would never consider moving to an Islamic country and therefore find it hard to accept that Muslims expect us to tolerate every thing that they think we should when they move to a Christian country.What ever happened to the old saying"when in Rome do as the Romans do"

Better to have a debate about it in public than sweep it under the carpet and pretend that the problem does not exist. The latter attitude led to the BNP doing quite well in the last EU elections. Thankfully one or two smarter people within the Labour Party (not many of those about btw) took heed of this and the subsequent BNP vote was smaller than predicted.

The banning of the burqa and how it is enforced could have untold consequences. This would be easy to enforce if the muslim community was small, but currently it is quite large and growing all the time. What happens at airports these days? Are female travellers allowed to wear burqas?

At the end of the day, it's France. If people want to move to France, and live according to French customs and culture, fine.

If not, then perhaps they should consider returning to the country of their or their ancestor's origins where they might feel more at home.

In the same way that I would have to obey and respect the laws and traditions of a Muslim country, I expect them to do the same here or in any non Muslim state.
We should make it quite clear to ALL Muslims that if they are not prepared to accept this they should leave. End of story.

Religious books, including the christian bible and the muslim koran, are wide open to interpretation and cannot therefore be used to influence civil law. Most religions have various factions, some of which are quite prepared to either kill or subjugate factions that they do not agree with. It strikes me as perverse that someone emigrating from one country for greater personal freedom and economic prospects should campaign so vigorously in the country they chose to reinstate the yoke they emigrated to escape from in the first place.

Integration and acceptance of the host is vitally important to the cohesiveness of the mainstram society otherwise it feels threatened. When I worked in the Middle East, I observed their culture, not eating, drinking etc during Ramadan out of respect for their culture. In private you may practice your faith however do not move overseas and expect others to adhere to what is a foreign culture.

Some points I'd like to make:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is well known in my country (the Netherlands), though not as a "former Islamist", whatever that may be, but as a reformed muslima who attributes all the evils of het traditional Somalian upbringing to Islam - which seems slightly harsh. Islam, when it first emerged, was actually one of the more enlightened religions of the period, calling for tolerance towards jews and christians for instance, unlike the christian churches of those and later days, that have always excelled at intolerance and religious bigotry. I think some of that christian feeling of superiority is still reflected in this so-called secular debate. Portraying islam as a backward, anti-social religion (or even "ideology" as our own Geert Wilders calls it) can only serve to add unwanted fuel to an already inflammatory debate.
As for the "multi-cultural society" having failed, that is a point of view that seems far removed from reality - that we live in a global society that contains people of many cultures is a fact of life, not something subject to the opinions of votes-seeking politicians.

Ironically, the demonstrators shown in the accompanying photograph would run the risk of being shot at with live ammunition were they to hold a rally promoting another religion in their countries of origin.

Multi-culturism has not failed; certainly not in the UK. Cast-iron Cameron has failed to tackle the EU issue, and is hoping that making intolerant speeches on immigration will win him votes from those who refused to vote for him after his Lisbon climb-down, and who cost him a Commons majority in May 2010. But adding bad policy on immigration to his current bad policy on the EU will not help the Tories ‘seal the deal’ in the next election either. Rather this bigoted policy mistake should compound his problems and help ensure that the Cast-iron One follows Gordon Brown out of Downing Street as the 2nd unelected Prime Minister in a row.

Cameron pretends he represents a ‘liberal conservativism’ but all he is interested in is getting votes from those he voted Liberal Democratic in the past. His definition of liberty fails to embrace the rights of religious minorities or the rights of the nation to elect a parliament capable of changing the law and policy its live under (which is increasingly set by Brussels no matter how we vote). Those who hold liberty dear and want a change in Britain’s relationship with the EU must penalise Cameron for his approach.

Islam is not against democracy. Muslim majority countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia are example of how democracy works well in Muslim majority countries, though democracy practiced in such countries may not be up to the bench mark of developed countries . Islam is misunderstood by most of the people from the West,mainly due to the bad press. Modern media plays pivotal role in forming bridges among different faiths, or sowing hatred.If democracy profess fundamental human rights, there should be no efforts from the democratic governments to force or discriminate a group of people for the faith they believe. No one should be penalized just because of the faith or culture the chose to adhere to, sorry to say that the West always practice double standard to Islam and Muslims.

The comment "when in Rome..." is in itself nothing but an attempt to sweep the question under the carpet. I believe the west, with our secular take on society and inclination towards human rights, is right, whereas muslim ideology simply is wrong. If I were a woman I would never accept covering my face, even in a Muslim country. Religion simply has to come in second place, universal human rights, freedom, and equality first. This is the somewhat troubling truth that not only muslims, but apparently quite a few vague-minded westerners seem to ignore.

Western values are shaped more by their political systems, rather than religious dogmatic laws. If one wishes to participate in western society then they should recognize the freedoms afforded to everyone are based on that system, and not there religious doctrines. If the doctrines conflict with the political system, then my question is.. Why did you choose to live here? IRAN, IRAQ, EGYPT, ect...ect.. they're plenty of other places you can live that will allow you to practice your faith that is homogenous with govt rules and laws. But Western Society is not one of those places. Muslims that believe they can just show up in a country and practice their religious customs despite being in conflict with the rules and laws laid down by that countries governing body, are simply mistaken. Again, why did you come to our country??

To those saying that Muslims in the UK should integrate or "go back home"... does that apply to the Muslims born here? How about white Anglo-Saxons who convert to Islam? There is a world of difference between integration and assimilation and I believe you can be British and Muslim. Britishness isn't defined by drinking alcohol, or dressing a specific way. I fully understand how demanding special treatment can create resentment and I think our so-called community leaders overdo it but the elephant in the room is terrorism and if you take that out of the equation there would be a lot less suspicion.

p.s. David post#5, suggest you go to Dubai, Bali, the Maldives, Izmir, KL, or the gated communities of Dammam and see how much the expats respect local customs!

The fact that Islamists want western voices silenced speaks volumes for the Muslim view of democracy, free speech and equal rights. This debate is long overdue and should also be taking place in the UK and other western countries. Here in the UK, as in France, we have our laws which people are expected to abide by and the majority are not interested in importing other laws, such as Sharia, to pander to the wishes of a religious minority. Those who do not wish to abide by our laws and customs can take advantage of their right to leave this country.

There are certainly issues around the impact of the Muslim faith in Europe and in particular their impact on France who currently seems the most reactionary state in Europe at this time. However there are also important financial issues in Europe. Even if we ignore the crisis in Portugal, Ireland and Greece we have this.

"Firstly we have the European Central Bank which is the central bank for the seventeen nations of the Euro zone. Unless something extraordinary happens in world markets it is likely to raise its official interest-rate from 1% to 1.25% on Thursday. This will be presented as being in response to an increase in inflation in the Euro zone which was estimated by Eurostat as being at 2.6% late last week."
https://t.co/WY7Fk5y

I think that this subject will focus minds should it happen on Thursday...

IMO,unless the whole of the western world can come together and agree on one law for all,there will always be people or religious groups who will want to exploit the law.
The whole of Europe now needs to ban all single faith schools and all religious regalia from all our schools now.
A good start would be a total european ban for the Burka,in all it's forms.

excellent information. i take it if i am in france and see a catholic praying outdoors, this means i should report this crime to the police then. those buddhist monks in their religious saffron robes walking in paris - somebody should be kind enough to stop them and explain the law, how embarrassing for them. and if i wanna see how people celebrate christmas, i should go to the philippines or the US, but not france - thanks for the travel tip.

is it ok to have vegetarian food in schools, or does it become not ok if a muslim eats it with the intention of complying with halal diet? i hadn't realised the jewish schools are not allowed to serve kosher meals. that must be so inconvenient for them.

Most of the arguments I have across are very weak and fall apart under scrutiny.

1) abide by the law or go back to where you came from
If a law is brought retrospectively then the citizens have every right to oppose that new law, lets not pretend muslins in France are not 'respecting' French culture and law. It would seem the law is not respecting muslin culture. do not get it the wrong way around.

2) Grow up people. This should not at all be a religious case, at this rate you might as well ban hats slippers and certain types of shorts ... what does how people dress have anything to do with the state ... makes me angry it really does

Islam actually teaches to follow the laws of the country.The issue seems to be that new laws are being made specifically targeting muslims. Surely that is wrong and discrimminatory. Without a doubt terrorism should be tackled. In Islam suicide-bombings are absolutely prohibited and even sinful. The muslims that actually follow the Quran and aren't harming anyone; why should they change just because some people don't like or understand their customs or dresscode. What happened to the phrase 'live and let live'.

Most Muslims are like most Christians and treat their religious beliefs as personal and not a subject for social discussion. Because there are some who support a more conservative application they do not represent the majority. One can always find a fringe element in any religious group and the media is unfair in concentrating on a minority within that population. It may be good to look at the historical disagreements between Catholics and Protestants and understand that issue, which lead to many unnecessary deaths, has been resolved over time. The West has lost confidence in its own social structure and because of this lack of social cohesiveness projects fear to others. When a society is confident in itself it does not express such fears. Peoples have been mixing for over 1,000 years and when economic times are difficult the minorities are targeted....Jews were killed to ward off the plague..a political ploy that politicians like to use to distract from their own ineptness. In 5,000 years of organized civilization human beings have progressed about a half step out of the cave. With a little luck the old order will be replaced....not suggesting that the new order will be better...just different. Human beings are enamored with the illusion of change.

The problem friendlyonewhocares is that the laws are being made simply in reaction to Muslims and were not simply there to be followed. There is an element of hypocrisy in the mere existence of this debate in that if such a debate was held in a Muslim country about a growing Christian minority and its practices, it would not be reported and viewed in the same manner but as another example of how those countries do not permit religious freedom and personal liberties and instead persecute those minorities. There was a similar element of hypocrisy in the French law that banned religious symbols in schools because while the law proclaimed itself to apply to all religious symbols, it permitted "discreet crosses" and banned everything else, Sikh turban and hijab. Likewise, German schools permit nuns to teach with their hair covered but not Muslim teachers who wear the hijab. Moreover, I doubt that President Sarkosy would consider serving kosher food as a threat to secularism. The principle of secularism is being stretched as far as it can go in order to eliminate personal choices of behavior that the French government do not consider palatable, in a sense to remove as far as possible any evidence of Islam. If they could get away with it, the government would no doubt want to remove all Muslims from the country but most members of the Muslim community in France are French in origin. They were born French and while some may be the descendants of immigrants, others are converts.

It is my belief that ultimately, the French and most European countries have a problem with their immigrant minorities but since they can only politely and "justifiably" direct this sentiment at Muslims, their problem has coalesced into a problem with Islam specifically. In a sense I admire the French in that they are the ones brazen enough to say that they consider Islam a problem, but no good can come of this debate.

Unfort

11. At 13:53pm on 4th Apr 2011, KKOO wrote:
Islam is not against democracy. Muslim majority countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia are example of how democracy works well in Muslim majority countries, though democracy practiced in such countries may not be up to the bench mark of developed countries . Islam is misunderstood by most of the people from the West,mainly due to the bad press. Modern media plays pivotal role in forming bridges among different faiths, or sowing hatred.If democracy profess fundamental human rights, there should be no efforts from the democratic governments to force or discriminate a group of people for the faith they believe. No one should be penalized just because of the faith or culture the chose to adhere to, sorry to say that the West always practice double standard to Islam and Muslims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a gross distortion of the truth.
You cannot begin to compare to the religious freedoms we have here in the west to that in Muslim countries.
Militant Islam is rife all around the world. Even in the UK, our citizens have been murdered by Muslims. Is it any wonder that we are rather apprehensive about the Muslim population.
Stop attacking us and there will be no problem.
I grew up in Luton and we lived side by side with the Muslim population.We worked with them, ate in their restaurants, bought from their shops. There was NEVER any hint of trouble. If you go on telling people they are being persicuted maybe in time they believe it. There are people within the Islamic world who have an agenda of their own and it's worrying for us all

I like France, but the real problem IMO is that France's concept of a secular society in fact is religiously repressive. It's not legal, for example for a church to meet in a state school (as often happens in the UK), but they have no problem with the message "ni dieu, ni maître" ("No God, no Master") as graffiti liberally sprinkled around their cities (as I observed about 6 years ago in and around Nice).

So, the French do need a serious rethink of their constitution, it doesn't make sense to have the ghost of 1789 forever determining what 21st, 22nd etc society should look like. In particular, religious freedom means people should be allowed to express their religion in public: they can wear burquas if they want (even if it offends the FN) in the same sense that French secularists can wear clothing that reflects their lack of any faith (even if it offends Muslims and Christians etc).

14. At 14:10pm on 4th Apr 2011, khan wrote:
To those saying that Muslims in the UK should integrate or "go back home"... does that apply to the Muslims born here? How about white Anglo-Saxons who convert to Islam? There is a world of difference between integration and assimilation and I believe you can be British and Muslim. Britishness isn't defined by drinking alcohol, or dressing a specific way. I fully understand how demanding special treatment can create resentment and I think our so-called community leaders overdo it but the elephant in the room is terrorism and if you take that out of the equation there would be a lot less suspicion.

p.s. David post#5, suggest you go to Dubai, Bali, the Maldives, Izmir, KL, or the gated communities of Dammam and see how much the expats respect local customs!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn
I defend your right to worship God in any way you want as long as it doesn't infringe the laws of this country.
The expats who show disrespect to the laws of any Muslim countries should expect to be dealt with under their laws.
I think you will find that the average person in the UK has similar views to mine.

Am a Muslim, was born and brought up in a Muslim country and now living and working in UK.

I completely agree with those of you who suggest that if Muslims can't accept values, traditions and life style of the west then they should go back. Yes they must go back instead of raging hate and terror against the country which they are living in. If they were born British then try migrating to a Muslim country just like they come here. I respect UK/West for letting us live here for the peace and prosperity which is often lacking in countries we come from. If you don't like these people here then LEAVE!!

My question to the PEOPLE IN WEST: You talk about freedom (with respect to France) why can't you let Muslims women cover their faces if they find it important for themselves? They are not making you wear the burqa!! Where is their freedom? They can always take it off for security and legal reasons.

You talk about RESPECT: y can't you respect Muslims by not drawing cartoons of the Prophe Mohammad (pbuh)... YOU KNOW we find it disrespecting but some of you (not all) still do do it. This is not freedom of speech this is mockery and its like rubbing it in our face. And Western Govts. doesn't mind this fun game.

And just for record, not that we mind it, its Quran and not Koran - similarly its Makkah and not macca.

Anyone from a culture or religion that has it's basic tenants blatantly violated cannot be blamed.

For example, France banned the Hijab or Headscarf. Which is ofcourse going to affect only Muslims. Just like other "Laws" that affected on Muslims.
These Laws had no bearing or affect whether they were there or not.

Banning a girl from wearing a headscarf serves nothing except as a suppression of someone's preference or choice.

So instead of blaming people who are having their 'rights' taken away, blame the one who takes it away

If you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of thought, then there can not be anything wrong with having the debate.

In the UK we have seen that allowing the BNP to be part of main stream political debates, rather than strengthening them, merely made their extreme views look rather silly.

So I am all in favour of the debate as extremists (both Islamic and non-Islamic) will be given an opportunity to make their case and proudly make fools of themselves.

The problem is that people treat Islam as a single monolithic religion where the fundamentalist view is deemed to be the only view. Islam is nothing of the sort. Some Muslims will have a problem with the idea of a separation between state and religion, others will accept it as simply part of the culture of France.

GH: "Tomorrow Jean-Francois Cope, a rising star in the governing UMP party, will hold a debate on secularism and Islam. Its purpose will be to explore how to accommodate Islamic customs with France's secular traditions."






Elementary, Dear Gavin,


Make France a Sharia-based caliphate and there won't be any problems with any acoomodation at all.

GH: "Any man found guilty of forcing a women to wear a burka will face a 30,000-euro fine"





And any man wearing a balaclava?

It is really interesting reading what people put on this blog. The one thing we have all to remember and it is this; we are all born human beings, irregardless of sex, colour, we are all human. Religion does not reside in the brain no more than it resides in the blood. It is like politics, it's a choice. Notwithstanding that some religions pass it on to their children, it's still a choice because when we become of age we can continue, or let go of our beliefs. This, too,is a choice. If i could say anything, it is this; i do not want my country to become like France where the government is stepping into the debate. People should never be told what to wear. There are situations where a bhurka can cause logistical problems (Airports) or anywhere that faces should be shown, but, hey, we are adults, lets deal with this in a grown up manner. Lastly, i would not be allowed to go onto a street in a Muslim country and set up a stall in one of their market streets and begin to tell everyone why "their Prophet" isn't the messiah or god, it is completely unthinkable. My home town of Manchester has had groups of Muslims doing exactly that on market street, explaining why Jesus isn't the messiah. Religion, in my opinion, should be a private matter without any public preaching.

To say that Muslims are stubborn with regards to different cultures, that they are they are all obsessed with their religion and even more so with those that insult it is a un-informed sweeping statement that is on par with assuming that Muslims are terrorists. Once again a high profile minority that is obviously not representative of a group as a whole has led to people making assumptions based on rumour and ridiculous tabloid 'journalism'. To say that they should go back to the countries of their ancestors is again clearly not looking at the actually issues of such a solution, it would be extremely difficult for people to move potentially to the other side of the world from a country where they and their family may have lived for generations, to somewhere they have never been before. To criticise the Muslims who protest against laws which affect their religion (I do not support some of the aspects of Islam) undermines their right to free speech and their human rights as stated by the UN. It may surprise some of the people here that there are Muslims who intergrate themselves into society and live normal lives alongside others, but it would seem that people actively choose only to view the extreme end of Islam rather that look at the emerging liberal and modern side. Granted their are some aspects within Islam which can be seen to create divisions and potential logistical issues, but the same could be said with any belief whether it be religion or the football club you support, next thing people will say is that being a Muslim is not 'British', one can only hope that other people do not have the misfortune to take such notions seriously.

The real root of the problem is not multiculturalism, rather it is those who are defining these terms of reference. History has proven that Europe has steered a steady course on the path of World dominance. "Rubbish", you may say, then how should we view what took place in Australia to the Aboriginal peoples, or the Maoris of New Zealand, or the tribes of the Americas, or the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the wickedness inflicted on the Africans peoples during the North Atlantic Slave trade? The list could go on and on. The common bond between all the perpetrators of all of these atrocities is not Muslims or Islam it was White European hegemony.

I see some posters are moaning about what people wear again as though it is of no consequence.During the disturbances in London recently, people many demonstrated with their faces covered.People are now discussing a law change to prevent this facial covering in future demonstrations.
If many men took to walking around wearing full facial balaclavas all day how long do you think it would take before the wearing of them would be restricted or banned?

I know some good, kind, open-minded muslims. Some of my muslim neighbours are great people. I also lived and worked in muslim-majority countries in the past. But I think these are muslims who have not accepted the full islamic package. Were they to read the whole quran and accept all its teachings, they would be quite unpleasant. My neighbours may be peaceful and kind, but Islam itself is not a religion of peace, not if you take the quran at face value. There are other religions that do teach peace, but Islam is not among them. The danger to society is that Muslims, once settled in western societies may discover the true nature of their religion and not reject it, but promote it with the same violence that accompanied its birth.

At 14:26pm on 4th Apr 2011, hadi82 wrote:
"Islam actually teaches to follow the laws of the country.The issue seems to be that new laws are being made specifically targeting muslims. Surely that is wrong and discrimminatory. Without a doubt terrorism should be tackled. In Islam suicide-bombings are absolutely prohibited and even sinful. The muslims that actually follow the Quran and aren't harming anyone; why should they change just because some people don't like or understand their customs or dresscode. What happened to the phrase 'live and let live'."

What planet is hadi82 living on as I certainly don't recognise the tolerant and peaceful folk he describes? Has he slept through the carnage that is presently going on in Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia and Lybia, as well as the continuing (since the 7th century) bloodthirsty war between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims over the prophet's successor? How strange that Muslim communities all over the world don't share his belief that suicide bombings are sinful and indeed even "moderate" Muslims appear to find excuses for the practice. As for "live and let live", are non Muslims allowed to enter Mecca these days, or hold prayer meetings in Saudi Arabia without fear of flogging or imprisonment and having their bibles destroyed? Has restitution been made to the Coptic Christians in Egypt or to the families of the beheaded victims of Muslims in the Philippines or to the Christian and Animist Southern Sudanese victims of the Northern Sudanese Islamic government? "Live and let live"?

The reason why I think many French laiic opinions are filled with hypocrisy is that in actual fact quite a lot of people don't care less about religious symbols people wear. I am not against a debate such as this because people need to communicate to understand and solve something they are not happy about. But I feel France is going out of bounds with its laws. These laws were created by a number of humans against the Islamic religion, yet why do they follow the 'liberte, egalite, fraternite'? How can someone find the banning of religious symbols as 'freedom' i.e. banning the burka as freedom? True, some men are cowards and pressurise women into wearing such things, and true, many Muslim women do not believe that the burka is even necessary in Islam, but also true that many Muslim women choose to wear the Burka by their own will. I mean, personally, I've always found the bikini such a strange thing, i was never able to comprehend how women could walk around so immodestly so that men can see them as a sex symbol. And I have always had the belief that the bikini in effect degrades women, however, i've never shouted that out in public, never been firmly against it and definately never put that as a law in France.

Then you get the French Muslims. No, I don't mean the French with Arab origins, but the Francais de souche i.e. their whole ancestry were French or possibly European. If they choose to follow the Islamic religion, why do people consider them disintegrated? why do people not welcome them into society? is that what France calls freedom? I was disgusted with the headscarf ban. I've lived in Britain all my life, wore the headscarf for more than 9 years and have always lived comfortably and freely. I integrate with society very well, have many Atheist friends..only one Muslim friend and I do so many activities and voltuneering within the community whilst wearing the headscarf at the same time. Why do people try to deny that you can't live in France just because of a piece of material on your head that is just there for modesty?

It's a never ending, quite ridiculous debate.

I am a U.S. citizen and cannot fathom the U.S. goverment ever banning religious dress. There are more than a few Christian sects that have their own way of dressing. For instance, the Amish. They stick out in a crowd. I went to school with them and nobody ever had a problem with their clothing. I find their way of life extreme but not in a religious sense. I can see why the French don't like the burka and naqib. It connotates extremism but i also find it very hypocritical to ban it by law. Nobody wants to be told what to wear, to believe, to be discriminated against.

Let's make something very clear. Islam requires every Muslim to be loyal to the authority (whether Muslim or Not) they live under: "O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (pbuh) AND THOSE WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY OVER YOU" (Chapter 4, Verse 60).
The very idea of compulsion in religion is rebuked by Islam: "There is NO COMPULSION in religion" (Chapter 2, Verse 257). Therefore, the idea of forcing someone to wear the veil is inherently Un-Islamic.
However, whether the law itself is legitimate and secular in essence is questionable. The debate started off with the idea of liberating those women (minute in proportion) who were forced to stick to a particular dress code. And what is being done through this legislation, EXACTLY THE SAME! You are now deciding for people what they should and shouldn't wear. What about the disproportionate number of women who wear it by choice?
In reality, this attitude only reflects the rise of right wing popularity and the pandering to the prejudices of people. This sets a very dangerous precedence indeed for Europe!
To get some basic questions answered, have a look at this:
https://www.islamicfaq.org

23. At 14:45pm on 4th Apr 2011, David wrote:
Even in the UK, our citizens have been murdered by Muslims. Is it any wonder that we are rather apprehensive about the Muslim population.
Stop attacking us and there will be no problem.

----------------------------------

Strictly speaking you are correct in that “our citizens” were “murdered by Muslims” on 7/7. However, some of those murdered UK citizens who were murdered by Muslims were in fact Muslims. Most of the victims of Islamist extremism internationally are Muslims. So it may be worth making the effort to distinguish between mainstream Muslims and Muslim extremists. Otherwise you are speaking the language of “them and us” in an arbitrary and artificial way, like those nutters in Afghanistan who drew an equivalency between international UN staff and Pastor Terry Jones.

As for who is attacking whom, I believe that 80 years of Western interventionism in the Middle East has given some credence to those on the other side of the fence who feel they are on the receiving end. As such, when you say “Stop attacking us and there will be no problem”, this is pretty much what Bin Laden said after 9/11 and what 7/7 bomber Muhammad Siddeeq Khan said in his goodbye video. I don’t think it justifies crass generalisations or victimisation on either side.

Islam poses the ultimate dilemma for the world. It is considered by many muslims to be a peaceful religion. Yet, it is also considered by a great many muslims to represent an idealogy, which is incompatible with democracy. Some muslims have for a long time also been vocal in their beliefs that the aims of islam are to overthrow all power regimes; to consider non-muslims as inferior and subject to death if they do not submit to islam; and ultimately to establish a worldwide muslim state.

If we believe that those who hold such views are in a tiny minority, we only need look once again at the thousands of muslim men currently on the rampage in Afghanistan, and who, in response to an individual of questionable intelligence in a far-off land who happened to burn a book, are once again killing and beheading innocent individuals who, ironically, have only the interest of those same muslims at heart, and who of course have nothing whatsoever to do with the book burning that has led to yet another islamist tantrum. The justification: these muslims simply believe, utterly and sincerely, in the 'justice' of islam and the destruction of anything that represents anything non-islamic. (One UN member of staff was apparently spared only because they were able to recite a passage from the koran.)

It is clearly the onus of all peaceful, level-headed muslims throughout the world to condemn such actions. Yet since islam appears to forbid one muslim condemning another for actions against non-muslims, this is a difficult area. Therefore, the very least that moderate muslims can do under such circumstances is to acknowledge the horror, fear and disgust that non-muslims feel throughout the world when witnessing the extent of such radical and abhorrent behaviour that is constantly carried out in the name of this often-called 'peaceful' religion of islam. They must not simply jump to the conclusion that everybody hates all muslims, because this simply isn’t true.

And before anyone compares such violence to the actions of the so-called 'christian west' in muslim countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, it is crucial to note that the vast majority of individuals in the west are actually against any such interference in any other country unless it is called upon by the muslim population and genuinely aimed at freeing those people from the tyrannical rule of it's violent despot leaders. (That is not to say that mistakes have not been made, and this is increasingly being recognised.)

Just for interest, consider reversing roles for a second: imagine what the millions of devoted, practicing Christians throughout the world would do if it transpired that a radical muslim cleric had burnt a copy of the New Testament Holy Bible? Answer: nothing at all. Other than perhaps question the reasoning of such an action. Such a response would certainly not breed suspicion and hatred, as do the actions of extremist muslims under similar situations. For that reason alone, the ability to respond in such a way according to one's religion must surely be the envy of many a peaceful muslim.

Nevertheless, nobody should condemn all muslims for the actions of those who practice violence hatred in the name of islam. And the vast majority of peace-loving muslims probably share the same fear of radical islam that is felt by the majority of non-muslims.

For these reasons alone, is it not time for all who seek peace to stand together, regardless of religious persuasion, and condemn the violent extremism that is so intent on destroying the peace that every man and woman on this planet has the right to enjoy in harmony with each other?

If we could do only so, it would surely be so much easier to find the tolerance for each other's views and opinions that muslims and non-muslims living in 'the west' seem unable to find in circumstances such as those in France. Perhaps then, such a debate over 'islam's place in society' would be deemed unnecessary by all.

Surely we are not beyond making such a choice for the benefit of future mankind?

I agree that society should be secular. I also find it offensive that so many public venues and schools are starting to serve halal meat in the UK. Why should I a non-muslim have no choice but to eat this meat butchered in such a barbaric way? This primitive and cruel approach to killing animals for food should be banned out right.
All modern countries should be fully secular and not held to ransom by religious groups, especially when their practices inflict cruelty on animals or oppress women.

For the longest I have assumed that the majority of Muslims were moderate and not of the same ilk as say the Taliban. However, when I look at Pakistan I'm wondering where are these moderates? Blasphemy of the prophet to be punished by death. (state law). In Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, Muslims who convert to Christianity can be punished by death. (state law) The list could go on and on. Where are the majority moderates.

What happens to children of Muslims parents living in France who converts to Christianity? I'm asking cause I don't know. Is it a mute question because no one converts to Christianity in France anyway?

Mr Hewitt's article includes this extremely pertinent observation by a Muslim:

"..Only this weekend, in an interview with the Times, the ethnic Somali writer and former Islamist Ayaan Hirsi Ali said that "a society needs the rule of law. Islam is incompatible with the rule of law because it says only Allah is the law and not human beings."


It is incredible how the 'liberal-minded'-'multiculturalist-obsessed' Politicians of Europe over the last 2 to 3 decades have failed to realise any aspect of that salient key-point, i.e. ".. Allah is the law.." for any follower of Islam.

The idea an Islamic culture can accommodated within standard, traditional EUropean cultural-political-judicial systems is a complete non-starter for so long as Muslim reasoning for extremist activity includes the cop-out phrase, "Allah wills it!"


Maybe 'West' Politicians and all those concerned with 'policy-making' that attempts to alleviate or connect EUropean Human Rights values alongside those of Islam need all to be made to repeatedly consider the implied impact of the above phrase.

They also might do well to consider the following Qur'an phrases of supremacy:

The Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) reported that Allah said, "..I created my servants in the right religion, but devils made them go astray."

Elsewhere in Soorah al-An'aam 6:75-79, it is written, "..For me I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah."

And, of course the Muslims' all-time cop-out (and a particular favourite for those in suicide vests etc.), ".. Any one who says: There is no god but Allah, and dies holding that 'belief' will enter paradise."

Myself: I believe Islam has a more moderate tendency which the vast majority of Muslims have embraced and it is they who should be encouraged and recognised across EUropean society at all levels. They surely are the future: An Islamic culture within Europe's region that like the other World religions (Judaism, Christianity, Bhuddism, Taoism) takes account of the Rights of other non-believers to not only exist, but also to go about their daily lives without being under any sort of threat.

However, whilst there are extremist branches of Islam that declare all non-Muslims and millions of their own Faith as "..unclean.." and "..sinners.." deserving only of death then there is going to be tough times ahead.
Particularly whilst blinkered do-gooder Politicians & Human Rights bodies continue to imagine simply allowing a non-stop build-up of 'foreign' religion/culture into the European region should only be managed by acting on the 'liberal' traditions of which Europe is justly proud, but which are under dire threat from Islamic extemism.

For once I am in large agreement with those of France's Leadership who are insisting this 'debate' must be held: It is those Politicians of every European Nation who still avow there is no need for concern that are the really dangerously deluded at this juncture.
Surely most Europeans would agree, we do not want to go down the path of electing Far Right Political Parties across the EU. Then, those European Leaders & establishment cliques must respond to the justified concerns of non-Muslim Citizens. European Leaders collectively must bite-the-Faith/Culture-bullet and enact clear, unequivocal policies that insist on a level of behaviour & attitude amongst Muslims in Europe that fully complies with European values in every walk of life.

These IMO would include total equality of the sexes i.e. no Sharia 'divorce', no Sharia distribution of property in favour of males etc., only 1 wife, no arranged marriage before aged 18, and adherence at Faith Schools to strictly secular Curriculums with any 'religious' element left to after-hours etc.

Sorry, if that offends Muslims & indeed other Faiths, well, IMO they've had 2,000+ years to sort it out amicably and failed miserably. Time for Humanism to assert its authority over all alleged 'gods'.

Read this and really reflect, "..There is no god, but Allah!" Oh for goodness sake, is this the 21st century or the Dark Ages!? It's enough to make any sane person weep!

Oooh lots of people posting on this....

As per usual I'm somewhat bemused. If you allow immigration into your country the immigrants will bring their language and to a certain extent their culture with them. If you allow lots of immigrants they can build up their own sub-culture; maintain the use of their own language and arrange education in this language in parrallel with or even in prefference to the local language. This is as true of the French in London as it is of the British in Helsinki and why do we expect immigrants from muslim countries to behave any differently?

Given that the West has permitted large scale immigration from muslim countries the West must accept that people from these countries will maintain some of their languages and behaviours. If some immigrants now decline to learn the local language; provided they meet the educational norms demanded of their host society then this is not an issue. If some muslims wish to wear a burqa this is nobodies business but theirs. If the daughter of strict muslim immigrants to a Western nation wishes to become a porn star; nobody has the right to stop her; whether you approve of her behaviour or not. If the same girl wishes to simply wear Western clothes, drink a little alcohol and attend university; her parents cannot stop her.

If the West truly offers freedom then it must accept that some muslims will chose their traditional, languages, dress and habits. And good luck to them. I hope that their lifestyle brings them happiness. (P.S. If you ever meet one of those really cheerfull Imams you have to wonder wonder what sort of swine they would have to be to not try and share their religion, which has brought them such joy, with other people.)

The other edge of the sword is that the West offers the children of the immigrants the freedom to reject the culture of their parents just as the children of Western parents are free to live lives that their parents disapprove of.

I really don't understand the problem. The West allowed the immigrants in and some people don't approve. Tough, this is the West; you don't have to approve and other people don't have to approve of you.

@ #33

The real root of the problem is multiculturalism because conflict arises when incompatable ways of life come into conflict. History has proven that Europe is not alone in steering a steady course on the path of World dominance. "Rubbish", you may say, then how should we view what took place in North and East Asia during Ghengis Khan's hegemony, the Japanese "crimes against humanity" duing WW2, Chinese marginalization of minorities, African tribal massacres, the Hun's rampages across eastern Europe, the conquests and wars of oppression by Arabic and other tribal forces that took place across N Africa, the middle east, and Eastern Europe, the selling of the Slavs (slaves) and Serbs (serfs) into bondage (especially that which was done in the Ottoman Empire)... The list could go on and on. The common bond between all the perpetrators of all of these atrocities is not White Europeans or Christianity it was Non-European hegemony.

Two can play at this game

39. At 15:47pm on 4th Apr 2011, Denthrax wrote:
Let's make something very clear. Islam requires every Muslim to be loyal to the authority (whether Muslim or Not) they live under: "O ye who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger (pbuh) AND THOSE WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY OVER YOU" (Chapter 4, Verse 60)."


This isn't just semantics: You have totally misinterpreted that phrase!

It refers to the power and majesty of Allah and not to Human equivalents.

Thus, for Muslims their worship of Allah begins with 'shahada' in which the concept of God in Islam requires all Msulims to bear witness that: "There is no god but God", or "..no divinity bu the (one) divinity".
The Qur'an is the scripture and a commentary on the implications of "There is no god, but God (Allah)".
This Allah has no 'partner' either in creating the Universe or in maintaining it in existence. Thus a Muslim will insist: "He is Allah, One, the utterly Self-suficient: He begets 'not' neither is He begotten, and there is nothing that is like unto Him".

So, for a Muslim, there can be no power, force or agency in the heavens or on earth which is independent of Allah. Everything that exists - - and everything that happens - - is subject to His control, there is nothing that can compete with Him or that escapes His grasp...

Islamic Faith just goes on in that unquestioning, unchallenging, wholly unequivocal sense: It is why Muslims get so upset about 'images' of Allah - - for them it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of a form adequate to do justice to Allah, i.e. "No (human) vision encompasseth Him, yet He encompasseth all vision".
This Allah is 'al-Khaliq' or the 'Creator', and he is 'al-Hadi' the 'Guide', as well as being 'al-Wakil' the 'Utterly Reliable'.

Under Islam there is no room for a man-made Governance that does not owe its existence and allegiance to Allah.

33. At 15:17pm on 4th Apr 2011, Ricco powers wrote:

"..The common bond between all the perpetrators of all of these atrocities is not Muslims or Islam it was White European hegemony."


Ho-hum!

It is an interesting line You peddle: One often trotted out by those with a very narrow perspective of what constitututes Human evolution (one could say the perspective of Fundamentalist Islam fits the category of 'narrow' vision).


Train, Plane, Car also have that 'white hegemony' origins, as do numerous Medical advances, Technologies, Sciences etc. and the Internet You used to blame it all on Europeans!
When You were 'Innoculated' against all those nasty 'white' things as a child, don't suppose You considered Edward Jenner Vaccinating Milk Maids - - come to that - - when You airily listed all Europe's faults what were You thinking!?

11. At 13:53pm on 4th Apr 2011, KKOO wrote:
Islam is not against democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is, as are all religions, by definition. Democracy means rule by the people. Religion is rule by god, or theocracy. They are two entirely mutually exclusive ideas. Any legal or governmental system based on the assumed unchanging, eternal desires of a deity, is without a shadow of a doubt, anti-democratic.

39. At 15:47pm on 4th Apr 2011, Denthrax wrote:

"The very idea of compulsion in religion is rebuked by Islam: "There is NO COMPULSION in religion" (Chapter 2, Verse 257). Therefore, the idea of forcing someone to wear the veil is inherently Un-Islamic."

You forgot the Hadiths and quote only the Quran. The Hadith quite clearly contradicts both itself and the Quran when it recommends the death of anyone who converts from Islam to another faith.

Cherry-picking at its finest.

31. At 15:09pm on 4th Apr 2011, queen of the north wrote:

"My home town of Manchester has had groups of Muslims doing exactly that on market street, explaining why Jesus isn't the messiah. Religion, in my opinion, should be a private matter without any public preaching."

I'm from Manchester too, and I must say I've never seen this on Market Street from Muslims (there's a crazy Christian guy who does it), but I fully believe it goes on.

However, in my opinion they can do that all they like - as long as everyone else has the right to criticise, mock, ridicule and offend Muslims and their beliefs, as per the law on racial and religious tolerance passed in Parliament.

The law is quite clear that offence is protected under free speech/expression, and so I'd love to feel assured that the government and police will uphold this, and not make apologise when these rights are exercised in public.

The negative response to Jean-Francois Cope's debate suggestion may in part be due to worries about Cope's motives. But more interestingly, I think it is largely due to a lack of epistemic confidence internal to Muslim communities worldwide. The deference to religious authority is prevalent throughout the Muslim world, and because this authority itself tends to be orthodox and to discourage debate within the Muslim world, ordinary Muslims understandably feel besieged when invited to critically reflect upon their own commitments (both religious and civic). They are told by religious authorities that an unquestioning deference to the holy scriptures (read: a certain interpretation of that scripture) is demanded from them. So they naturally feel defensive when someone else asks them to question it.

Parties seeking to engage ordinary Muslims need to understand this, and Muslims themselves need to appreciate that it is their prerogative to reflect upon their own beliefs. One recent example is Zuhdi Jasser. Unsurprisingly, he readily participated in Peter King's congressional hearing in the US on this very subject. Muslims who understand that they aren't beholden to religious authority are usually prepared to engage freely and independently in debate. This is just what you'd expect from anyone who appreciates their own intellectual independence.

Concept of secularism means to give freedom of relgion but not to show intolerance with some1 who follows his faith.

Peace/Integration doesnt mean that Muslims should start drinking or eating pork or idolating. For example, I cant drink to please sm1 who drinks but I dnt have any problem if his faith/moral allows him to drink. I dnt need to be so intolerant in his personal matters.

I cant expect a pure vegetarian HIndu to eath beaf to please me and to integrate with non-veg society.
Similary, I dont buy the idea to do anything against my relgion to please/integrate Hindu/christain bros/sis just like I dnt expect any Hindu/Christian to fast during fasting month to please me.

I dont like to corrupt my faith to please any1 or just like I dont like any1 to corrupt his faith to please me. Doing what he does as per his relgion is nothing to do with integration.

If I like him to corrupt/deviate his faith to pelase me or for communal harmony then I m the one who is intolerant not the person who doenst accept to corrupt/deviate his faith.

Islam doesnt allow hypocrisy n double stnadard. Islam is transparent. So, any Muslim is not expected to show fake love to any non-Muslim but not from his heart, by diluting Islam and any non-Muslim is not expected to do the same by diluting his faith and against his will.


I can integrate with society and live in peace without compromising my faith. And forcing people not to follow their faith is not sign of tolerance and it will not integrate society but divide more.
So, Islam is not abt playing hypocrisy or diplomacy. Its about following God's message witout forcing others to do so (even though some intolerant Mulsims do.)
Respecting other's religion doenst mean to do something agsint his own relgion.

Hope, non-Muslim bros/sisters will try to understand the feelings of Muslims and understand Islam in depth before forming opinion.


Quran says - There is no compulsion in religion. Islam should not be forced but from heart. And respect all humanity and every follower of other religion without corrupting ur own relgion.

As with all fundamentalist religious groups, compromise is not an option. Otherwise, in their view, they are not following their faith and therefore will not receive whatever is promised to those who do so. Rational thought and logic have no place when their beliefs come into conflict with the laws and customs of others. To expect anything other than strong resistance or violence in response to conflicting civil laws and regulations would be wrong. With the passage of time future generations of Muslems exposed to western society will naturally trend toward more liberal interpretations or leave the faith. In order to allow this process to unfold, western governments will best be served by not being overly harsh when enforcing their restrictions. Islamist leaders undestand the power of western philosophy and life-style and how it will eventually undo fundamentalism and begin a new chapter in the history of their faith. Turning to violence is proof this is true.

@ #38

I have also asked that question to myself, what about the amish and of monks/nuns. The one difference I have found is that generally, the Amish (I have lived in Pennsylvania in "Amish country"), monks, and nuns remove themselves from mainstream society as a general practice. As such, their interactions with the general public are limited, unlike certain Muslim groups whose's restrictions are brought out into the main flow of population. There are a lot of Muslims in the area around where I currently work in NYC. Mostly I see the women with a simple headscarf and most (the younger ones at least) have kit that is brightly colored, patterend, or adorned in some fashionable way. This comes off similar to how some Amish-type groups have adopted the addition of colored cloth to thier wardrobe; it just fits in easier. Replace all of these with the burka or naqib and there would likely start to be communication problems and an increase in cultural isolation.

In response the BLACK KNIGHT STRIKES AGAIN:

"...you may say, then how should we view what took place in North and East Asia during Ghengis Khan's hegemony, the Japanese "crimes against humanity" duing WW2, Chinese marginalization of minorities, African tribal massacres, the Hun's rampages across eastern Europe, the conquests and wars of oppression by Arabic and other tribal forces that took place across N Africa, the middle east, and Eastern Europe, the selling of the Slavs (slaves) and Serbs (serfs) into bondage (especially that which was done in the Ottoman Empire)... The list could go on and on. The common bond between all the perpetrators of all of these atrocities is not White Europeans or Christianity it was Non-European hegemony."

I am in total agreement with your argument which demonstrates another perspective, however, the reason for the historical reference is to put the current problem into a context. But surely one has to agree, that the Chinese marginalization of minorities, African tribal massacres, the Hun's rampages across eastern Europe, the conquests and wars of oppression by Arabic and other tribal forces that took place across N Africa, the middle east, and Eastern Europe, the selling of the Slavs (slaves) and Serbs (serfs) into bondage (especially that which was done in the Ottoman Empire)... are no longer relevant: they are past history. Todays threat is European hegemony.

"The very idea of compulsion in religion is rebuked by Islam: "There is NO COMPULSION in religion" (Chapter 2, Verse 257). Therefore, the idea of forcing someone to wear the veil is inherently Un-Islamic."

You forgot the Hadiths and quote only the Quran. The Hadith quite clearly contradicts both itself and the Quran when it recommends the death of anyone who converts from Islam to another faith.

Cherry-picking at its finest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Marnip,

U should know that Islam give preference to Quran than Hadith. All Hadiths should not be followed. There are certain Hadiths like strong Hadith, weak Hadith, Hadith before Quran, Hadith after QUran, reliable hadith, unreliable hadith etc.

Islam says to kill those fake converts and hypocrites who work as spy and work as traitors. Islam gives freedom of relgion to any1.

NO DEATH PENALTY FOR POSTASY IN ISLAM:

Coming back to what Islam says, let me quote a logical verses from Quran:

**************************************************
Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance. (4.138)

**************************************************

U see here “believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and again…..so on”.
If Islam allows to kill an apostate, there is no question of believe again then disbelieve, he could have been killed in the first instance of disbelieving. Is it logical?

Let me give another verses where Quran allows freedom of relgion:

**************************************************
a) I worship not that which you worship, Nor will you worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which you have been wont to worship, Nor will you
worship that which I worship, So you be your Way, and to me mine.(109:1-6)

b) Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the mosttrustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth allthings.(2:256)

@ #49

"by definition. Democracy means rule by the people. Religion is rule by god, or theocracy"

I have to clear this up.

Religion, by its own definition, does not equal theocracy, just as government does not equal democracy. It cannot be its own definition. demo = people .therefore democracy = rule by people; theo = religion therefore theocracy = rule by religion.

GH: "Then next week the French ban on the burka and the niqab comes into effect. There will be a warning initially, followed by a 150-euro (£132; $214) fine."



He're wondering how those "innocent civilians" in Libya will react.

@ #58

"are no longer relevant: they are past history. Todays threat is European hegemony."

Not true in all cases. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I really cannot understand how you came to that conclusion.

Also, here is another side of the coin to consider.
Threat of Hegemony or Darwininain Evolution?
One man's savior is another man's tyrant afterall.

I think we should not generalise too much. There are many many muslims in this country leading normal lives, doctors, dentists, teachers, shopkeepers etc and they are by no means extremist. As far as I am aware the Koran actually tells people to respect the laws of the country in which they live. We only hear about the nutters -not the ordinary people who are muslim...and no, I am not a muslim just someone who knows lots of really nice muslims

# 57

If the Quran allows the freedom of religion then why do Muslims go about burning churches in say Egypt for example. Or the fact that there where many Christians in the Middle East, but most have since been killed or driven out by Muslims.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And for those others who argue that Muslims are peaceful then where does all the hate against the Jews come from? Explain that to me.


They should learn to live by the countries laws that they move to. Muslims are quick to exercise their right to protest in European countries yet if they tried to protest in their own country or if some other religious group tried to protest in a Muslim country they would be fired on and beaten by police and arrested or killed.

Cool Brush wrote:

"It is an interesting line You peddle: One often trotted out by those with a very narrow perspective of what constitututes Human evolution (one could say the perspective of Fundamentalist Islam fits the category of 'narrow' vision)."

In response to your argument, a truly narrow perspective, is one that refuses to see the other point of view. Of course that the baton of knowledge reached the Muslim World from the Romans, Greeks, Persians, and Egyptian civilizations, and they, the Muslims, passed on a baton of knowledge to Europe.

In reference to your statement:
"Train, Plane, Car also have that 'white hegemony' origins, as do numerous Medical advances, Technologies, Sciences etc. and the Internet You used to blame it all on Europeans!"
The advancements you have mentioned, like the train and car, came out of Capitalist mindset; to reduce the amount of time and costs to transport goods. Take what the British Empire done in Africa and Asia for an example. With regards to medical and technological advances, are you talking about the medical advances which owe their success to the experimentation carried out on NON-Whites in Africa and America?

There is a famous saying of Muhammad, "non of you have truly attained perfection of character, unless he desires for someone what he too desires for himself."

# 26

"You talk about RESPECT: y can't you respect Muslims by not drawing cartoons of the Prophe Mohammad (pbuh)... YOU KNOW we find it disrespecting but some of you (not all) still do do it. This is not freedom of speech this is mockery and its like rubbing it in our face. And Western Govts. doesn't mind this fun game."


Cartoonists are afraid to draw or depict Mohammad in the US and throughout Europe and such for fear of being killed or recieving death threats.

You need to grow up. There are plenty of American show like "Family Guy" which make fun of Jesus and God yet Christians don't go making death threats against the writers and creators of the show.

What about that European cartoonist who was recieving death threats for depicting Mohammad as a dog or something? I don't remember but he was recieving death threats for doing it.


Sorry but you need to get over yourself.

Black Knight said:
"Not true in all cases. I can see the point you are trying to make, but I really cannot understand how you came to that conclusion.

Also, here is another side of the coin to consider.
Threat of Hegemony or Darwininain Evolution?
One man's savior is another man's tyrant afterall."

In response to your argument I say this, Knowledge is the recognition of something as it truly is. With what argument would you deny one who says the World was temporally created by an Eternal Will that decreed its existence at the time in which it came to be; that the preceding non-existence continued to the point at which the World began. The existence prior to this was not willed and for this reason did no occur; that at the time in which the World was created it was willed by the Eternal Will to be created at that time and for this reason it was created then.

What is there to disallow such a belief and what would render it impossible?

It's my view that Copé has raised this debate as a sop to the right-wing (FN) vote, who gained a lot of attention (and a small percentage of the vote) at the recent cantonal elections.

People here in France, as in most of Europe, are feeling very sensitive - against a back-drop of high unemployment, uncertainty about the future, and far away governments seemingly unfeeling towards their needs. So, here in France they have chosen to either not vote or to vote for extremist parties with simple messages (eg "it's all the foreigners' fault - let's get rid of them").

The "debate" will, I expect come out with a ban on praying together in the street; but will not (I expect) ban religious marches (such as Good Friday processions). Oh No, not anti-Islamic, just allowing "tradition" to proceed but blocking the "non-traditional" (by the government's view of what is "traditional").

We do try, here in France, to write tight rules saying - but precisely - what is and what is not allowed. And then, over time, forgetting it ...... C'et la vie.

63. At 18:54pm on 4th Apr 2011, Ricco powers wrote:

"..In response to your argument, a truly narrow perspective, is one that refuses to see the other point of view."


Hmm, well that would be the Far Right Evangelist buring a Qur'an & the Islamic Fundamentalist beheading a U.N. worker: Thus, a quote from the viewpoint of one who thinks both are wicked & ignorant, 'There's none so blind as those that will not see!'


"..With regards to medical and technological advances, are you talking about the medical advances which owe their success to the experimentation carried out on NON-Whites in Africa and America? "


Well, not really talking about any 'experiments' per se on anyone (more a state of mind), but if You really are unaware that 'Vaccination/Innoculation' came about from Dr Edward Jenner's experiments on British 'white' (presumably in the 19th century) Milk Maids who did not suffer from the 'pox'/'smallpox' like the rest of the communities then I'm happy to enlighten You.

As to the sweeping generalisations about 'Capitalism' & the 'Imperial' past it seems to me The-Black-Strikes... gave exactly the rejoinder to that over-simplified & unrealistic perspective.


"..There is a famous saying of Muhammad, "non of you have truly attained perfection of character, unless he desires for someone what he too desires for himself."


Yes, Muhammad was fond of his sayings, but having read most of his stuff at one time or another I always come back to a very basic Truism that IMO fits all these Gods, Prophets & their misguided followers, "The clear fool is foolishly clear!"

@ #65

To answer the question you posed in the most cynical fashion possible, the non-existance of all who hold that particular beleif. No man, no problem. - J. Stalin

Now, if you are done trying to evade my question with your round-about attempt at philosphically stating that you do not need to explain yourself. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that "Todays threat is European hegemony."

@ #63

"There is a famous saying of Muhammad, "non of you have truly attained perfection of character, unless he desires for someone what he too desires for himself."

This can be quite hilarious if one were to consider this statement in the context of violent jihad in the form of suicide bombers. Remember those videos a while back of the masked men wearing bomb vests stating something along the lines of "we love death more than you love life" as they threatened to bring destruction upon thier "enemies"? As suicide bombers, they show to desire death for themselves a much as they desire death for thier enemies. Therefore, by Muhammad's saying, they are to have truly attained perfection of character.

From a purely libertatian point of view, I would say no one should be banned from anything in public - except obvious bad things like killing. I think it really is as simple as that. State powers everywhere should be kept on a tighter leash.

And from this it also follows that no one should be prevented from saying anything they wish about anyone, real or imaginary. Real freedom of speech, like freedom of movement and property rights, are what makes the Western World what it is. If some people want to cover their bodies with black attire, that is fantastic. If some people want to pierce every square centimetre of their skin, great. If some cartoonist wants to draw a prophet, super cool. It's all the same to me.

If we really believe in all these freedoms that we so casually demand, then they all belong to all of us. Embrace your freedom, and do not question mine. So to the muslim friends that are demanding the right to wear a burkha, will you also demand the right for cartoonists to depict the prophet in any way they want? And, of course, the same thing goes for the non-muslims.

Would you accept this?

#67 CBW

excellent post .... especially the last sentence.

Hello to you all,

I was reading all the comments on that thread as being French I was quite surprised how some people seem to know so little about our laws (being French) and still think that they are fine to give their opinions.

Let me start with our law about laicity, this existed in France long before Muslims were a growing number of our citizens, yes OUR citizens. That law means that any religious signs at school are not allowed and this is applied to any religion. The people coming on this thread to say that we are voting new laws to discriminate Muslims are totally out of order and should check their sources a lot more before posting such comments. I remember being at school and nobody was able to show religious signs of any faith at any moment they were inside the school. This was never a problem till maybe 5-10 years ago when some of the Muslim population decided it was against their human rights and decided to protest. We therefore had to make sure it was well understood for everyone and the only change in the law which was made was that the girls who could/would not take the veil off would be expelled from school. At no point did we say that the veil was not allowed in the street or any other place but school, which is why we are not arresting Buddhists walking in their robes, and I seriously do not see the wrong in doing that.

I remember years back when the problem rose up to international news that a friend of mine working as a hairdresser in London was insulted by an America client telling him that we are just a bunch of racists who should realize that the Muslim population had right to freedom too. He then explained to her what the law was about and how we were all subject to the law at school, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc...The lady then felt quite embarrassed of her own ignorance and that insulting people for free without knowing the facts could be seen as quite offensive. Curiously enough, I saw a comment from somebody from the US on that thread saying exactly the same thing which makes you wonder what kind of news they are getting. It is quite unfortunate, especially considering how some Muslims are treated in let's say Guantanamo Bay just to give the one example.

Now, about the new law banning the burka. The piece of clothing I understand fully is quite important to some Muslims (willingly or not but that is the point) and it can make people feel alienated for it. I want to tell those people that since the terrorists attacks in different parts of the world by a minority of people, the situation changed, I remember one of the terrorists in London using the burka he 'borrowed' to a lady in the street to flee the police and the country. I also saw several instances in different countries where men used burkas to rob shops. This means that for security reasons this had to be tackled especially as most women refuse to show their faces when you want to check their identities. To ban this on that ground only is more than enough for me.

I fully realized that some Muslims feel like all the whites and the western world as a whole is out to get them due to all those actions but I can feel no sympathy towards that considering the obligations we westerners face when going to countries like Saudi Arabia, especially women.

Two of my closest friends are Muslim, one is Morocco born and one is born in France from Moroccan parents. Those guys mean a lot to my wife and myself and always will and there are plenty of them in the Muslim community. We of course disagree on some issues but never have words blaming each other about what we think. At the end of the day , this is what multiculturalism is about, being able to live together and try to make our differences make us be closer and stronger. Unfortunately, not all people are like us, I distinctly remember a Muslim lady being in Politics in one London neighborhood (do not remember which) and as she was dressed in a European manner, some guys started swearing at her on camera and tell her that she should go home and dress 'properly', these are the kind of people that make Muslim being felt as a threat and as far as I know, the western world has nothing to do with that conception of Islam.

I am also really shocked at how Soldiers are insulted and treated when coming back home, I disagree with the Iraq war and am really happy that my country is not in that one but as a foreigner living in England, I cannot understand how people over here tolerate that kind of behavior, the latest example being people burning poppies and getting fined £50 for it!!!! I am French and it hurts me big time, nearly makes me cry to see that and seeing it unpunished. I would be one of those soldier's dad, I am not sure how I would react at seeing people insulting his dead body. Sure there is anger and lots of Muslims civilians died in that dirty war but when we westerners seem to say offensive things about the prophet or other signs related to Islam, the politically correct band wagon seem to be making examples a lot more easily. This is creating another feeling of rejection towards the community and you know what, this is what will hurt us ALL, Muslims and others.

We are all human beings, need to eat, breathe and drink to survive. Why could both sides not find a way to make it work? We all agree that some people are more integrated than others and more willing to do so, this is what will take us forward all around. And if some people feel that their faith is so important that they cannot live in England, I am not telling you to leave as it is not my place or my right but you should think of countries which would make you happier and not feeling persecuted in your everyday life. I had to live my country years ago (over 10 years now) to make my life better and you know what, being French is not easy either in England, the rivalry is fierce but it makes it entertaining at times...

I apologize for the long rant but some of the comments I saw got me carried.
away.

I wish you all a very good evening and hope that some of you will have realized that it is good to have a bit of knowledge before offending people, and it works both ways!

Its a pity I did not manage to enter in time to comment on the previous one on Turkey... Turkey as-if power, now muslims in France... what else Gavin is going to churn out as a subject? Issues of division and issues trying to show Europe as weak and ineffective all while the ever-beloved children of the British, i.e. the muslims (British have supported in 99% of war/conflict/clash cases the muslims against christians all over the world apart the case of Israel of course.... - no matter Britain is the main host of muslim fundamentalism in Europe, it is not just host, it is producing it willingly to spread it around...).

Gavin let us change subject. It if the problem of the French if they do not want anymore muslims in their country, it is their democratic right to vote for whoever they want, anyone wishing to intervene is a mere fascist and nothing else.

Now let us talk geopolitical...

All over Europe no group of immigrants are making such a kind of trouble as the muslims.

They urge rights no muslim culture fought for ever.

They are arrogant, aggressive and provoking in many ways.

The people do not trust them (see # 35. above). By experience (Mohammad Atta as example).

That's not a matter of clothing or butcher customs, it's simply a matter of behaviour.

As you shout into the wood the answer will be like.

Nordicum- Yes to freedom for ALL.
As a veil wearing, law abiding, working, tax-paying, mother of two I ACCEPT wholeheartedly your sentiments and agree with your view in totality...
Let FREEDOM reign! Yay!

Good luck to the secularists in France, and well done all there, for taking this bull by the horns.

We in the UK should have settled this in the 1960s.

The hopes for the whole of Europe rest on the values of the Enlightenment, in my view.

If the debate engenders a general understanding amongst muslims as to what these are, then it will have been very, very worthwhile, I think.

Multiculturalism is a failure when only the tourist version gains traction: having an "ethnic food day" at school is probably the most common example. But if in a society there are persistent disadvantages to being members of non-mainstream communities--religious, ethnic, cultural, sexual, among others--all the dressed up talk about "multiculturalism" is a sham. Muslims in the UK and France and much of Europe have too tidy an argument for rejecting assimilation: their opportunities remain limited by doing so, at the loss of identity, faith and culture. I don't endorse that view--but I see where it's rooted.

Canada, while not perfect, does a lot better. When the odd islamist pops his head up (almost always a man; that tells you something), the overwhelming reaction from Canadian Muslims is "shut up--Canada is a great place to be a Muslim." It's also where there's a fair bit of dialogue between groups that ostensibly have nothing to say to one another: gays, religious folks for example.

Substantive equity underscores genuine multiculturalism.

Did see a (presumably) lady in a full-burka shopping for new ski-boots a couple of months ago. Does she ski in a full-burka?

Last week in Outpatients (not Obs or Gynae), a nurse came to me to warn me, "The next patient's husband is very angry that you are a man, and instructs you not to make contact with her." I therefore deliberately carried out the consultation with the patient, and deliberately ignored her husband.

I can see why some secular laws may be required to deal with this kind of extreme behaviour.

How can I treat to the best of my ability a person whom I cannot question, see or examine?

Truly a waste of time - if someone wishes to remove their child from swimming class or serve halal meat then is this really cause for debate? only for the islamaphobe who hastens to hate anything that comes from the mouth of a Muslim. LIke the Crusaders who refused to have a bath for life simply because Islam upheld personal purification.
Lets return politics to tackle those matters truly harmful to society, prostitution; drugs; teenage preg; domestic violence...to name a few. I for one, would like to see morals common to British society and the Muslim faith return to the value system here (such as parental rights, marraige, maintainence of elderly etc..). Europe and its Islamaphobic moves is shooting itself in the foot. Lets make humanity our goal and not ousting out people who are more adherent to their faith than their country.
Most of the comments Ive read are from people who take their stance on Islam and Muslims from nothing more than BBC comments and the accumulating yet hateful attack of Islam. At the end of the day, many Muslims are law abiding, yet God fearing individuals who pose no threat and just want to live in their country of birth without compromising what they believe is whole and good. Every community has their bad, so work on them, not the lay man who has done no crime.

By far the most important thing that must be scrapped is the idiotic notion that Islam is a race, a racial group or an ethnicity. Muslims come in almost as many racial varieties as exist amongst humanity worldwide.

Islam is a collection of beliefs. Some of these beliefs are decent and others are morally repugnant.

Suppressing discussion about a particular collection of beliefs is utterly pathetic.

Should we say, by way of analogy, that no one may criticise capitalism, for fear of offending people who invest? Of course not, and the same treatment is merited for any other belief.

The Black Knight wrote:
"To answer the question you posed in the most cynical fashion possible, the non-existance of all who hold that particular beleif. No man, no problem. - J. Stalin"

My reply is this, in a non-cynical way, since I know man does exists, there must be a problem.

The Black Knight further said:
"Now, if you are done trying to evade my question with your round-about attempt at philosphically stating that you do not need to explain yourself. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that Todays threat is European hegemony."

My response to this statement is as follows. "The uncomfortable fact, hardly discussed in mainstream moral and political theory, is that we live in a world which has been foundationally shaped for the past five hundred years by the realities of European domination and the gradual consolidation of global white supremacy. Thus not only is the "Racial Contract" real, but whereas the social contract is characteristically taken to be establishing the legitimacy of the nation-state, and codifying morality and law within its boundaries, the "Racial Contract" is global, involving a tectonic shift of the ethicojuridical basis of the planet as a whole, the division of the world, as Jean-Paul Sartre put it long ago, between "men" and "natives." Charles W Mills

The next point the Dark Knight mentioned was this:

"There is a famous saying of Muhammad, "non of you have truly attained perfection of character, unless he desires for someone what he too desires for himself." This can be quite hilarious if one were to consider this statement in the context of violent jihad in the form of suicide bombers. Remember those videos a while back of the masked men wearing bomb vests stating something along the lines of "we love death more than you love life" as they threatened to bring destruction upon thier "enemies"? As suicide bombers, they show to desire death for themselves a much as they desire death for thier enemies. Therefore, by Muhammad's saying, they are to have truly attained perfection of character.

My reply is this, what Muhammad said was in-order to encourage people to treat each other the way they themselves would want to be treated. What the suicide bomber and the Fundamentalist christian preacher have in common is they are indeed both extremists. The purpose of what Muhammad said, was to negate such extreme positions.

The Dark Knight said earlier:
"Also, here is another side of the coin to consider.
Threat of Hegemony or Darwininain Evolution?
One man's savior is another man's tyrant afterall."

In response to this statement I said this:
"With what argument would you deny one who says the World was temporally created by an Eternal Will that decreed its existence at the time in which it came to be; that the preceding non-existence continued to the point at which the World began, and believes that the existence prior to this was not willed and for this reason did no occur at the time in which the World was created since it was willed by the Eternal Will to be created at that time and for this reason it was created then?"
Dark Knight I answered your question know answer mine.

Firstly: When in Rome!!? Pleaase.

Did the Romans ever follow that rule?

Did the Europeans ever follow that rule? We dont see White South African men and women wearing local clothing or American men with names like One Who Talks Much and wearing a big feather headgear? Why dont the Americans live in Teepees and worship like the native Americans?

Secondly, there is a wee bit of a misdirection here. Why shouldnt Britons or Frenchmen and women, born and raised in these countries, be able to choose how to live their lives? Are we saying to Britons that they can adopt New Age type religions but if they choose Islam they should consider leaving?

Thirdly, what example does this set for the rest of the world? 10% of Pakistan is non-Muslim - maybe 12 million people. Are we telling the Pakistanis that they should tell the Hindus, Sikhs Chrisitians and others to adopt the ways of the majority or leave? Will Briton take its share of these 12 million exiles?

I would suggest reflection on another saying: Walk the Talk...

Cool Brush said:

"Hmm, well that would be the Far Right Evangelist buring a Qur'an & the Islamic Fundamentalist beheading a U.N. worker: Thus, a quote from the viewpoint of one who thinks both are wicked & ignorant, 'There's none so blind as those that will not see!'

My response is, I agree.

He also said:
"Well, not really talking about any 'experiments' per se on anyone (more a state of mind), but if You really are unaware that 'Vaccination/Innoculation' came about from Dr Edward Jenner's experiments on British 'white' (presumably in the 19th century) Milk Maids who did not suffer from the 'pox'/'smallpox' like the rest of the communities then I'm happy to enlighten You."

In reply to this comment, I say this. Yes indeed history has proven that The White Supremacist ruling elite have indeed abused their own lower classes. In fact, you gave a good example of that.

In response to your saying"
"As to the sweeping generalisations about 'Capitalism' & the 'Imperial' past it seems to me The-Black-Strikes... gave exactly the rejoinder to that over-simplified & unrealistic perspective."

In reply I have to say this, do you really think Imperialism was not a racist ideology?
According the Dictionary of Human Geography: "Imperialism is the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

With regards to Capitalism, who do you believe has benefited from it the most, the Third World (people of non-White European heritage) or the First World (people of White European heritage)?

Suraiyah wrote:

The problem friendlyonewhocares is that the laws are being made simply in reaction to Muslims and were not simply there to be followed.

No,you are wrong.
British law is one of the most liberal in the western world and it is wrong that any group should be allowed to abuse it by only cherry picking the bits that happen to suit.
I will still say to any one of any religious calling,whether born in Britain or not,of our way of life conflicts with your faith,emigrate to a country that does accommodate your beliefs.

80. Ricco powers

"What the suicide bomber and the Fundamentalist christian preacher have in common is they are indeed both extremists. The purpose of what Muhammad said, was to negate such extreme positions."

I cannot agree. One is an extremist and the other is a terrorist. For someone to burn a book considered holy by a large number of people is extreme but does not compare with killing and mangling other human beings by blowing ones self up.

If a so called "fundamentalist" preacher decides that it's God's will for him to blow up a family planning center, then he is not an extremist but rather a terrorist.

As to your last statement:
"With what argument would you deny one who says the World was temporally created by an Eternal Will that decreed its existence at the time in which it came to be; that the preceding non-existence continued to the point at which the World began, and believes that the existence prior to this was not willed and for this reason did no occur at the time in which the World was created since it was willed by the Eternal Will to be created at that time and for this reason it was created then?"

I absolutely agree.

Islam is an ideology which is incompatible Western civilization and indeed with living in the West. And believing Muslims who believe in Allah's law as different from our country's laws are potentially dangerious especially with continuing high immigration and the very high Muslim birth-rate.

I am surprised that only 40% of French people expressed the view that Islam is the enemy within. I believe that the figure is much higher

igloo commented
"Thirdly, what example does this set for the rest of the world? 10% of Pakistan is non-Muslim - maybe 12 million people. Are we telling the Pakistanis that they should tell the Hindus, Sikhs Chrisitians and others to adopt the ways of the majority or leave? Will Briton take its share of these 12 million exiles? "

The non-Muslim people in Pakistan are not immigrants or refugees. Far from having special favours as Muslim immigrants here have with shariah courts, children wearing muhammedan costumes etc non-Muslims in Pakistan are cruelly persecuted, churches and houses bombed , Christians shot at, "blasphemy laws" which can be applied to anything used to imprison them, priests murdered in court etc.

Indeed it is the action of Muslims towards Infidels in Muslim countries eg Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt etc together with countless acts of Islamic terrorism which is reinforcing Europeans' determination that these immigrants from outside Europe should not force their ideology down our throats. Our laws are made for all to adhere too.

Giltedged states:
"Islam is an ideology which is incompatible Western civilization and indeed with living in the West. And believing Muslims who believe in Allah's law as different from our country's laws are potentially dangerious especially with continuing high immigration and the very high Muslim birth-rate."

My reply to you is this, if you believe that Islam is dangerous because it seeks to infiltrate the corridors of political power, or that it believes that what it stands for is Justice and liberty, then I think both Western civilization and Islam have a lot in common; because you both make the same claims. What I want to know however, is by which methodology can I determine which is right and which is wrong, or are they both right and both wrong at the same time?

As for your surprise that only 40% of french expressed the fear of Islam being the enemy within, put it this way, you know the old saying, "you reap what you sow" and believe me, the French, and many other European nations has sown many a bad seed in Africa, like Malcolm X said, when questioned about the assassination of the late President Kennedy, "... the chickens have come home to roost."

A problem that must be noticed, explored, and explained to Muslims and non Muslim is that the Muslim communities that have been forming in e.g. UK and France are mainly based on the backward features of Pakistani and Arab / African culture more that Islamic culture. There are some people in the UK who have been living in the UK for 30 to 50 years and they have not learn to speak or to use English, just able to speak in their mother tongue. This is not Pakistan, Africa or the Arab desert. They have never socialized with English person or been generous to them. shocking.


But this is the reality.


This is what breeding this isolation among the Muslim communities.


But this is their half of the problem. The other half will be provided at a later time.

It is my guess that most of the commenters here are much younger than me .

I remember after WWII , when many Pakistanis immigrated to Britain . One didn't see a headscarf , or know the a Burka existed .

Pakistanis and West Indians came in to fill the void of men lost in the war . They worked in the London Underground or in the clothing industry in the midlands .
Particularly Pakistanis had settled and integrated well , if they were Muslim , there was no evidence of it , they found somewhere to pray or prayed at home .

I went to a co-ed boarding school , where there were many Muslims , religion didn't rear its head at all . Muslims were lucky , they didn't have to go to church on Sunday . Race , colour or religion were no barrier to friendships .
Later at a college of further education , one of my best friends was an Iranian girl , no headscarf , no mention of religion .

The problem today is one of Fundamental Islam ; that likes to wear religion as a national emblem ; that is on a cruisade to Islamize the wholw world .
The Islamic beliefs , dress , customs , way of life are incompatible with western , secular or Christian society , in western countries .

Countries like France , Britain , Germany , you name it in Europe , should not be swamped by Islam , made to change laws and customs to accommodate an invasion of Islamic people . If Islamists don't like the laws and customs in Europe , they can go back home again .

One person on here mentioned "breeding" and another "Muslim high birth rate"

Are we getting just a little tacky here? hmmm, hmmmm

Come Come !!! Yes , just a little I guess !

In response to Ananda's comment, I was wondering if anyone could elabotate on how muslims living in the UK are breaking the rules and regulations of that country.

All these debates are nice and people need to learn how to respect each other's religion. But... BUT! Muslims want freedom of religion when they live in Christian countries. But, if you, as a Christian, live in one of their country, then you MUST abide by THEIR rules. And, if you don't like it, then leave the country! That's what they think. When we give them freedom or decide to do something that is according to Islam, they don't see that as a sign of good peace. No! They see that as a "weakening" of our convictions on the separation of state and religion, they see it as if we were agreeing to their methods and then as an opportunity to seize the moment and further push their agenda.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against religious freedom. I am totally for it. But, it MUST BE RECIPROCAL! While they should have freedom in Christian countries, Christian living in their countries should also have freedom!

Jewish and Islamic dietary laws and dress codes are nothing but superstitious nonsense, but so what? - providing they're no more than a trivial nuisance to the rest of us. Lots of us believe in superstitious nonsense of one kind or another anyway.

As long as there are vegetarian options in schools and hospitals (which there have to be anyway), what's the point in providing halal/kosher meals?

But we must draw the line at facial concealment (whether by niqab or balaclava): hiding your face in the street is offensive in the extreme; managers of shops and banks (and bus and taxi drivers) should not be forced to admit people whose face they cannot see - they really could be criminals; and as for allowing those who hide their face to vote or to go through passport control...

Religious tolerance can go too far - and practices which would otherwise be unacceptable do not become acceptable just because they are "justified" by some form of religion.

71. At 20:58pm on 4th Apr 2011, shen_fr wrote:

"Hello to you all,.....


....I apologize for the long rant but some of the comments I saw got me carried.
away.

I wish you all a very good evening and hope that some of you will have realized that it is good to have a bit of knowledge before offending people, and it works both ways!"



Non 'rant' in it: No need at all to apologise for an excellent contribution: Thoughtful, constructive & humane.
Well done, please write again.

87. At 03:52am on 5th Apr 2011, Ricco powers wrote:

"...As for your surprise that only 40% of french expressed the fear of Islam being the enemy within, put it this way, you know the old saying, "you reap what you sow" and believe me, the French, and many other European nations has sown many a bad seed in Africa, like Malcolm X said, when questioned about the assassination of the late President Kennedy, "... the chickens have come home to roost." "



'chickens home to roost..' Oh really!

You've had 3 goes at justifying the minority Muslim extremist and in this 4th You're maintaining the Historical angle that the 'whites' did it all to others so it's okay to have it done back!

You mate, are a reason for introducing tougher laws & penalties against fanatacism!

Malcolm X! He represented the Nation of Islam and was no friend of 'whitey' and even less of a friend of the average Black person living in the USA seeking their Civil Rights - - on that level Kennedy & his successor Johnson via political-judicial legislation did far more for the dignity and recognition of Black Americans' Rights & Responsibilities - - some extreme of X's followers just as Muslim extremists today were/are a cancer on the dignity & respect owed to the vast majority of decent Muslims.

To Auren

About Christians in Muslim countries, well these muslim countries are not even ruling with any kind of fair and just system whether that be western or islamic so there is no justice in these countries for any one let alone non muslim. They wont allow even muslim group that will be based on a valid diffrent interperation of the islamic texts. Moreover they wont allow even muslim group that will be based on a valid diffrent interperation of the islamic texts within the same islamic denomination.

Forget about multi religious pluralism, these muslims are deluded to think that there is not even tolarate valid pluralism within islam.

I want to be very clear here this is not at all because Islam promotes anti pluralism or anti islamic pluralism. this is because the people themselves have become distant from being loving human respect under the guise that is what Islam promotes.

The prohibition of covering your face in public spaces has nothing to do with islamophobia, but with common sense or at least with Westerns (and not only) customs. Communication is not only based on verbal language but also in gestures and facial expressions.

Like many here I am sure there are millions of Muslims who would support the burqa´s ban. Two or three years ago there was a case in UK in which a teacher claimed the right to deal with her pupils having her face covered. Fortunately the judges ruled out her absurd pretension and most Muslims supported the legal outcome.

@11 KKO

"Islam is not against democracy. Muslim majority countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia are example of how democracy works well in Muslim majority countries, though democracy practiced in such countries may not be up to the bench mark of developed countries . Islam is misunderstood by most of the people from the West,mainly due to the bad press. Modern media plays pivotal role in forming bridges among different faiths, or sowing hatred.If democracy profess fundamental human rights, there should be no efforts from the democratic governments to force or discriminate a group of people for the faith they believe. No one should be penalized just because of the faith or culture the chose to adhere to, sorry to say that the West always practice double standard to Islam and Muslims. "

Even though muslim representatives do not tire to mention how misunderstood their religion of peace is, it simply is just a boring fairy tale.

What do Turkey and Indonesia have in common for example? Other religious minorities are suppressed and harassed, religious leaders of those groups are frequently killed by muslims.
One of the leading politicians in history of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew , recently stated that muslims cannot be integrated and will not blend into the multi-cultural society of Singapore.


France already has more than 700 no-go areas for non-muslims, where the French executive has no power anymore.
Similar developments are taking place all over Europe.


There really is nothing to misunderstand about Islam, which BTW translates to submission in English.

@26 tauseefahmad

"Am a Muslim, was born and brought up in a Muslim country and now living and working in UK.

I completely agree with those of you who suggest that if Muslims can't accept values, traditions and life style of the west then they should go back. Yes they must go back instead of raging hate and terror against the country which they are living in. If they were born British then try migrating to a Muslim country just like they come here. I respect UK/West for letting us live here for the peace and prosperity which is often lacking in countries we come from. If you don't like these people here then LEAVE!!

My question to the PEOPLE IN WEST: You talk about freedom (with respect to France) why can't you let Muslims women cover their faces if they find it important for themselves? They are not making you wear the burqa!! Where is their freedom? They can always take it off for security and legal reasons.

You talk about RESPECT: y can't you respect Muslims by not drawing cartoons of the Prophe Mohammad (pbuh)... YOU KNOW we find it disrespecting but some of you (not all) still do do it. This is not freedom of speech this is mockery and its like rubbing it in our face. And Western Govts. doesn't mind this fun game.

And just for record, not that we mind it, its Quran and not Koran - similarly its Makkah and not macca"


Respect also means to respect other people`s opinions, that`s the tenet of freedom of speech. That`s why, in a western society, people are allowed to draw cartoons about that caravan raider who married a 9-years old girl.

You say that people who do not accept western values should leave. Well, freedom of speech is one fundamental western value and a human right.


As for the Burqa, who are we kidding? It`s quite apparent that it`s a means of subjugating women. There might be exceptions, but they merely prove the rule.