islamist extremists strike in france

[KareninsGirl]

My thoughts are with the victims of the latest barbaric act by Islamic extremists.

The world needs to wake up and defend itself.

RIP those who died and prayers for those critically injured.

at French magazine office www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30710883

there are supposed yo be depictions of the prophet at Mecca! So again, it's down to individual interpretation in the absence of any hierarchical governance

What we need to do is to ensure that when that dickhead Prince Charles rakes the Utah if allegiance at his Coronation he does not swear to be Defender of Faiths (plural) as GE us threatening to do. If he dies that he will be opening up a whole bag if constitutional sirens and give legitimacy to all claims for special treatment got ALL religions rather than the State Church of England

I agree with the poster who said this would fuel racist far right parties in europe. This will be bad news for us all.

Killallmuslims has been trending on twitter. There's a witchunt going on reminiscent of the 1930's. The maniacs who did this must be caught and punished and extremism has to be eradicated. The process of elimination has to come from within the communities. But villifying millions of muslims, asking for them to be rounded up and sent elsewhere (twitter, fb rife with these messages) is playing into the agenda of these maniacs.

Don't know if I am allowed to say this here but if anyone wants some further reading, the New Humanist magazine (avaiable online) regularly publishes relevant to this (and other) discussion articles.

I didn't for a moment think that you were wondering if the act was justifiable. But, it might be interesting to know at what point blowing people up for cartoons is the act of a young hot head. But, issuing a fatwa on Salman Rushdie wasn't the act of a young man. But, they say war is planned by old men and young ones die fighting it. Maybe something similar is true of fatwa.

Dora

Google Dennis McShane if you want to learn about Rotherham and why those gangs acted with impunity. He was a Labour MP, jailed for expenses fraud, who admitted that they did nothing as they were scared if antagonising the Muslim population

And if you continue to deny that fact and look fir alternative answers fir the negligence then you are just as guilty as those in Rotherham that condoned this abuse by their silence. It's because we are always wish to avoid confrontation that our tolerance is abused by the intolerant.

OK, but, are politicians afraid of antagonising people who don't vote?

The integration/multiculturalism debate that these kind of events in France always engender here is an exercise in collective dishonesty, as far as I'm concerned. It conveniently omits reference to the white racism that meant integration was generally speaking not on offer to the Commonwealth immigrants of the 50s, 60s and 70s, Muslim and Christian. We started out separate, and created multiculturalism as a way of trying to navigate that reality without too much conflict.

And are the people decrying it actually willing to integrate, or just to use lack of integration as a stick with which to beat the hate group of the moment?

And as for the enemy within, while there are undoubtedly many of those (and don't given them too much credit for religious belief or political conviction, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are death cults offering the opportunity to abuse and kill with impunity, that's their main attraction I suspect) I think there are probably many many Muslim immigrants to the West who have moved precisely because they are moderates, and therefore first in the firing line in their countries of origin. Just remember how many fellow Algerian Muslims the extremists killed in Algeria.

I think part of the problem is that as a society we have tried to bend and adapt to please everyone.

In my view the Rule of Law should over-ride everything else and it should not be bent or adapted because one religion or another says "well that doesn't fit with our beliefs". The Law should be explicit and apply to everyone equally, with no exceptions and no watering down or adapting to try and accommodate a myriad of different beliefs.

Dora. Don't be idiotic, of course they vote.

Monstrous - I think there are probably many many Muslim immigrants to the West who have moved precisely because they are moderates

How can they be modertes if they are immoderate of women, other religions, etc.?

How can they be moderates if they are immoderate of women, other religions, etc.?

Who says they are 'immoderate of women, other religions', fourmummy?

I can think of people I met at uni, postgrad, work who are liberal, happily British, have a wide range of views and opinions, some are married outside the Muslim faith, all sorts. Others are more socially conservative but have firm principles about how to treat women, the rule of law, not being violent.

can they be modertes if they are immoderate of women, other religions, etc.?

Not all muslims are the same. We're really only discussing the ones who shoot people who write things they disagree with (at the moment.)

Claiming they are not true Muslims is just the standard way all religions defend atrocities caused by teaching people to get their morals from old books written by primitive people.

If the claim is that most Muslims are kind and decent people (and I'm not saying they are not) then let them discard the old books/beliefs and make a new one with just those kind and decent principles in it.

I've said this to Christians too, but they hang onto the bible full of hatred and justification for atrocities and they say "it's ok because we only follow the nice bits on pages 1223-1334 and 4343-4800".

That won't do when members read it all and act on the other parts.

Dora - polls (as cited above) reguarly show immoderate beliefs and attitudes. Why is the silence on behalf of 'moderate' Muslims so deafening in the face of these atrocities? Individual Muslims speak out, yes, but nothing big or organised. We can probably all cite anecdotal examples of 'moderate' Muslims' immoderation (one woman would not shake hands with my husband at a work BBq because, as she stated, she is not allowed to on account of her religion). She wears trousers, goes to work, etc.. Moderate?

too many in here are confusing our legal system with cultural and traditional beliefs.

The legal system does not have all the answers. It does not address the matter of 'offence' which is subjective. It has tried to via Lady Chatterly, Oz, Sex Pistols Romans in Britain etc. But society changes and what may have been seen as offensive decades ago is no longer viewed that way.

The legal system does not say that anyone has the absolute right yo free speech, as that right is constrained rightly by anti-discrimination legislation.

The Koran tells Muslims that they should follow the laws if the country in which they live - so no murder. But it also condones killing when the Prophet has been criticised - which implies that these extremists believe Islamic law to be above French law

So the question is who defines the culture of a state? Is it defined by tradition, even though the populations believes have changed or become diverse, or is it defined by the people who currently live in that State, which may mean changing centuries if tradition.

I think people on both sides are scared - the non Muslim population of what is happening to 'their' country and freedoms and the Muslims who fear their inevitable backlash

WEtAugust - not really. Beliefs about women's, other belief systems' inferiority are at the core of Islamic beliefs. There is no way to be 'moderate' and believe these things. Moderation, here, means accepting pluralism - but Islam does not teach this.

who defines the culture of a state?

It's a work in progress, participated in by every citizen. But, politicians, editors, writers and intellectuals have more influence than people who stack shelves in Tesco.

Pluralism = other social group are equal = women are equal, Jews are equal, gays are equal... = moderation

Equal means equal before the law.

It doesn't mean equal in every sense. The Royal Family is a social group. It's not equal to unsuccessful immigrants (formally housed in Cambridgeshire) in any other sense.

Tourmummy. I hold the same view as you, that there is no such thing as moderate/extreme Islam, but just moderate/extreme reactions to perceived slights to their religion

And it's fear if the extreme reaction that has stopped us challenging behaviour that is illegal.

As a result we have a fractured society in which the rights of one community are given undue consideration.

These scumbags in P aria have actually made Europe wake up and realise what is happening. They have given legitimacy to the Pegida marches that were already taking place in Germany. We must stop appeasement of abusers and apply our laws fairly and consistently.

Oh well. Cameron has just said, as we knew he would, that yesterday's attack was "nothing to so with Islam"

I expect that phrase will be written on the gravestone of western civilisation.

Wet my point was that exemptions from the law have been made on the grounds of religion and that should never be the case as it has led to a culture of trying to please all of the people all of the time and in some cases a fear of 'upsetting' people on the basis of religious sensibilities.

Perhaps we do need something more definitive and explicit.

Like enforcing the law without prejudice or appeasement?

Wet - apologies if I misread your meaning. We do share the same views.

It's not only fear of an extreme reaction that has stopped us acting. It is also the case that Islam actively promotes the stealthy and insidious infiltration of Western societies (in order to eradicate them) - e.g., insistence on universal Halal food, the coining of the term 'Islamaphobia' as a special case of prejudice, to be treated differently to other groups, etc.. This has been extensively written about in the New Humanist. It is also the case that many have said that we may well have to wait for Muslims to have their own Enlightenment - we can't do it for them.

Dora - It doesn't mean equal in every sense. The Royal Family is a social group. It's not equal to unsuccessful immigrants (formally housed in Cambridgeshire) in any other sense.

True, of course, but in our societies, ordinary people can organise themselves for social change (pressure groups, revolutions). Am I the only one who is constantly amazed (well, not really...) by a complete lack of action on behalf of Muslims living in Western democracies? This seems like such an important point to me - the stealthy normalisation of Islam in Western cultures. The point is that they can't and won't act because their institutions forbid the belief of equality. If you ask a 'moderate' Muslim if they believe that gays are equal to Muslim men, what willl they say? "Fair enough, an attitude can be held, a thought can be thought - plenty in Western societies also believe that gays are scum" - but our institutions actively try to change this and prevent discriminatory behaviour. Islam can and will never do this - not the Koran, not Sharia Law, not anything.

Indeed the law should be simple and not be bent in order to appease, if your desire to wear a turban means you cannot wear a motorcycle helmet then you either ditch the turban or don't ride a motorcycle, that should be the only choice open to you.