The growth of radical Islam

[_Q_]

Recently, I was talking with an interesting Arab man who lives in our community, and he said, "Injustice leads to insecurity." This is an important point. Rather than just thinking in terms of "those" people, I think it's important to consider the circumstances that have polarized some Muslims. The move towards radicalism probably seems to them like a way of mobilizing in the face of the enemy. In this case, the enemy is perceived to be Americans and Israelis. Although people in the U.S. see Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as separate issues, but Arabs see them as closely related.
To the best of my understanding, radical groups perceive terrorism as a means of communication/negotiation that they use when nothing else seems to work. However, what often happens is that governments get even more heavy-handed, and the cycle of violence continues.
Has anyone seen "The Battle of Algiers?" It was an old (1966) subtitled movie about the Algerian's struggle for independence, but it was amazingly relevent. I'd strongly recommend it.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Q_
Recently, I was talking with an interesting Arab man who lives in our community, and he said, "Injustice leads to insecurity." This is an important point. Rather than just thinking in terms of "those" people, I think it's important to consider the circumstances that have polarized some Muslims. The move towards radicalism probably seems to them like a way of mobilizing in the face of the enemy. In this case, the enemy is perceived to be Americans and Israelis. Although people in the U.S. see Iraq and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as separate issues, but Arabs see them as closely related.
To the best of my understanding, radical groups perceive terrorism as a means of communication/negotiation that they use when nothing else seems to work. However, what often happens is that governments get even more heavy-handed, and the cycle of violence continues.
Has anyone seen "The Battle of Algiers?" It was an old (1966) subtitled movie about the Algerian's struggle for independence, but it was amazingly relevent. I'd strongly recommend it.

No they don't seem to rally against their own inhumane governments...the injustices are done by anyone that's not them. And in that regards it's acceptable to blow your self up and murder "infidels" or "dhimmi" because you are a freedom fighter who will receive 70 something virgins (really it's white grapes but who would murder if all they got were raisins?).

-Rudey

[_Opi_]

Originally posted by Rudey
[B I believe further that Muslims have said little and done nothing to counter it.

-Rudey [/B]

To counter that argument, I provided a couple of links that shows just want North American Muslims have been doing, since you accuse us of doing "little" or "nothing".


When you finish reading, maybe you can shed some light on what ELSE muslims here can possibly do, other than take up arms...

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/nineeleven.html
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Opi_
To counter that argument, I provided a couple of links that shows just want North American Muslims have been doing, since you accuse us of doing "little" or "nothing".


When you finish reading, maybe you can shed some light on what ELSE muslims here can possibly do, other than take up arms...

http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/nineeleven.html
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

The first is a random mish-mash. For example the first link quote President Khatami of Iran but it doesn't quote his support for terrorists.

The second and third offer a response to September 11. One day in the history of the world received a response. And the response? Well Palestinians danced in the street and handed out candy while Yasser Arafat pretended he cared and donated blood. How about the many countries that claimed this was done by Jews and spread that lie? How about the Saudis who gave their sympathy and followed it up with a donation that was dependent on America recognizing this was a result of Israel?

And let's take this further. In the article that I posted, there are Muslims talking about how they've done nothing and tried to shift the blame away from Muslims (what you have done on this website) but I guess they are lying huh?

-Rudey

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Rudey
No they don't seem to rally against their own inhumane governments...the injustices are done by anyone that's not them. And in that regards it's acceptable to blow your self up and murder "infidels" or "dhimmi" because you are a freedom fighter who will receive 70 something virgins (really it's white grapes but who would murder if all they got were raisins?).

-Rudey

I think that it's important to try to understand where they're coming from, rather than mocking their religious beliefs. Sure, we might not subscribe to them, and that's fine. But if we act based on a set of invalid assumptions, we may end up contributing to the escalating violence.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Q_
I think that it's important to try to understand where they're coming from, rather than mocking their religious beliefs. Sure, we might not subscribe to them, and that's fine. But if we act based on a set of invalid assumptions, we may end up contributing to the escalating violence.

Nobody mocked their religious beliefs. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Try making a sentence like this.

[Claim] because [Fact].

At the end of the day Muslims in the article I posted are even saying they have done little to counter the terrorist and extremist influences that come from them. Are they wrong themselves?

-Rudey

[_Q_]

Originally posted by Rudey
Nobody mocked their religious beliefs. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Rudey

I think the part about "who would murder if all they got were raisins?"
Sure, it would be great if Muslims themselves worked to combat extremism. My main point is that there are external situations that polarize groups of people and contribute to extremism, and it's valuable to understand what they are. Again, the movie "The Battle of Algiers" was extremely interesting and I'd highly recommend it.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Q_
I think the part about "who would murder if all they got were raisins?"
Sure, it would be great if Muslims themselves worked to combat extremism. My main point is that there are external situations that polarize groups of people and contribute to extremism, and it's valuable to understand what they are. Again, the movie "The Battle of Algiers" was extremely interesting and I'd highly recommend it.

I don't need to see a movie on that. I've read quite a bit about the war.

As for raisins, it's not mocking. There is a fundamental change if instead of something big (like virgins, money, whatever) you get raisins. Many years ago, white raisins had worth...today they don't. But then again the reinterpretation would be something controversial in and of itself - like stopping suicide murders and terrorist attacks.

-Rudey

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by Rudey
You're right. I'm not talking about JI's membership only.

The bombings still occur and people are still calling many of these terrorists freedom fighters and can't seem to break emotional loyalties for logic and truth.

Indonesia still is not a safe-haven for moderates and it's still only one country in South East Asia.

I really do wish that Indonesia would reject all these acts and become a new powerhouse. There is absolutely no reason for me not to want that you see.

-Rudey

Let make it clear, radical Islam is not growing in Indonesia nor will it ever. Even Political Islam is not growing. In fact, political Islam itself is declining.

The LSI (Indonesian Survey Institute) did a poll this year which shows that Indonesian prefer to vote for secular candidate over Islamic candidate. They also found that secular nationalist figures were more popular then their Islamic counterpart.

Radical Islam's main goal in the region is to create a super Islamic state which stems from Indonesia to Southern Thailand and southern Philippines. This goal is seen by many Indonesians as foolish and insane.

Dr. Amien Rais (head of PAN, and former chairman of Muhammadiyah) made it clear that "Political Islam is not selling in this country. If I based my political support only on Muslims, there is a foregone conclusion that I will lose."
When he was asked about terrorism in the country, the former head of the 30 million strong Muhammadiyah said "I don't feel at ease if those terrorists who have been given death verdicts are given chances to appeal. This is ridiculous. We have to banish them from this earth. The sooner the better."

There was also a bill that was presented by the conservative Islamic parties which would have outlawed premarital sex, adultery and cohabitation. That bill was shut down before it even got to the committee.

There was also another bill that would have seen the implementation of Sharia law nationwide.

Here is an excerpt from the Straits Time about the result:

Despite living in the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, Indonesians are generally moderates and are tolerant of other faiths. ...Any talk about an Islamic state, he added, invariably brings to mind the issue of the hudud, a part of the syariah law that prescribes stoning for adulterers and the amputation of limbs for thieves, as applied in the Middle East.

However, here is a study done by United States-Indonesia Society and the Asia Foundation with regard to the thesis that says radical Islam is growing in Indonesia which shows that "the vast majority of Indonesian Muslims remain tolerant and inclusive, as they have been traditionally described, and voted for secular political parties in the last elections in June 1999. Although Islamic piety has increased in recent years there has been no increase in the number of radical Muslims."

So my thesis is, radical Islam may have garner the headlines in South East Asia. That isn't hard to do. You only need one successful bombing and instant headline news. However, they failed to garner the hears and minds of the region. Election results have given us this evidence. In Malaysia, the fundamentalist party of PAS lost 20 seats in the national parliment. You may think it's nothing, but they used to have 27 seats. This is after PAS guaranteed a seat in heaven if voters voted for them. Guess they were wrong.

Then you have the Indonesian elections which resulted in a dramatic lost of seats in the parliment for the fundamentalist parties. The United Development Party proposed a constitutional amendment to turn Indonesia into an Islamic state in 2002. That proposal failed miserable. Then they also dropped the shair platform when they realized that they weren't getting the votes they wanted. Even the Justice Party didn't used Islamic platform or Sharia. Instead they used anti-corruption and economic issues as their platform.

"The Islamization of Indonesia has failed." announced Indonesian analyst Salim Said. Douglas Ramage of the Asia Foundation agreed when he said, ""When Islamists have brought their demands through the political system, they've lost every time. Voters again and again reject radical Islam." Indonesia is more religious, however, they see themselves as Indonesian first, Muslim second.

How do we define this? Well, the spread to Islam was made by Sufism. According to Azyumardi Azra, rector of the State Islamic University in Jakarta, "The Islam that was brought to Indonesia in the 12th century was mainly from traveling Sufi teachers."

[_Q_]

moe.ron, those are interesting points, thanks. I was thinking more about the growth of radical Islam in the middle East, but it's good to learn about Indonesia also.

[Rudey]

But read what I said, Indonesia still is not a moderate haven. At the end of the day, suicide murders and terrorist acts are often considered justified by "freedom fighters" instead of outright rejecting them.

It is also a country that suffers from attacks like Bali and Jakarta.

It is also not the brain, it is but a limb in the body of Islam.

It is also but one country in South East Asia.

It has not exerted muscle on some global stage regarding Islam's direction on violence and extremism, etc.

-Rudey

Originally posted by moe.ron
Let make it clear, radical Islam is not growing in Indonesia nor will it ever. Even Political Islam is not growing. In fact, political Islam itself is declining.

The LSI (Indonesian Survey Institute) did a poll this year which shows that Indonesian prefer to vote for secular candidate over Islamic candidate. They also found that secular nationalist figures were more popular then their Islamic counterpart.

Radical Islam's main goal in the region is to create a super Islamic state which stems from Indonesia to Southern Thailand and southern Philippines. This goal is seen by many Indonesians as foolish and insane.

Dr. Amien Rais (head of PAN, and former chairman of Muhammadiyah) made it clear that "Political Islam is not selling in this country. If I based my political support only on Muslims, there is a foregone conclusion that I will lose."
When he was asked about terrorism in the country, the former head of the 30 million strong Muhammadiyah said "I don't feel at ease if those terrorists who have been given death verdicts are given chances to appeal. This is ridiculous. We have to banish them from this earth. The sooner the better."

There was also a bill that was presented by the conservative Islamic parties which would have outlawed premarital sex, adultery and cohabitation. That bill was shut down before it even got to the committee.

There was also another bill that would have seen the implementation of Sharia law nationwide.

Here is an excerpt from the Straits Time about the result:



However, here is a study done by United States-Indonesia Society and the Asia Foundation with regard to the thesis that says radical Islam is growing in Indonesia which shows that "the vast majority of Indonesian Muslims remain tolerant and inclusive, as they have been traditionally described, and voted for secular political parties in the last elections in June 1999. Although Islamic piety has increased in recent years there has been no increase in the number of radical Muslims."

So my thesis is, radical Islam may have garner the headlines in South East Asia. That isn't hard to do. You only need one successful bombing and instant headline news. However, they failed to garner the hears and minds of the region. Election results have given us this evidence. In Malaysia, the fundamentalist party of PAS lost 20 seats in the national parliment. You may think it's nothing, but they used to have 27 seats. This is after PAS guaranteed a seat in heaven if voters voted for them. Guess they were wrong.

Then you have the Indonesian elections which resulted in a dramatic lost of seats in the parliment for the fundamentalist parties. The United Development Party proposed a constitutional amendment to turn Indonesia into an Islamic state in 2002. That proposal failed miserable. Then they also dropped the shair platform when they realized that they weren't getting the votes they wanted. Even the Justice Party didn't used Islamic platform or Sharia. Instead they used anti-corruption and economic issues as their platform.

"The Islamization of Indonesia has failed." announced Indonesian analyst Salim Said. Douglas Ramage of the Asia Foundation agreed when he said, ""When Islamists have brought their demands through the political system, they've lost every time. Voters again and again reject radical Islam." Indonesia is more religious, however, they see themselves as Indonesian first, Muslim second.

How do we define this? Well, the spread to Islam was made by Sufism. According to Azyumardi Azra, rector of the State Islamic University in Jakarta, "The Islam that was brought to Indonesia in the 12th century was mainly from traveling Sufi teachers."

[Rudey]

Here is another good article. These incredibly large and powerful religious institutions that are pushing extremists and terrorism are being challenged by a few who want to see the religious texts reinterpreted to prevent this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/in...=all&position=

The New York Times

Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

Published: December 10, 2004


CAIRO, Dec. 9 - Muhammad Shahrour, a layman who writes extensively about Islam, sits in his engineering office in Damascus, Syria, arguing that Muslims will untangle their faith from the increasingly gory violence committed in its name only by reappraising their sacred texts.

First, Mr. Shahrour brazenly tackles the Koran. The entire ninth chapter, The Sura of Repentance, he says, describes a failed attempt by the Prophet Muhammad to form a state on the Arabian Peninsula. He believes that as the source of most of the verses used to validate extremist attacks, with lines like "slay the pagans where you find them," the chapter should be isolated to its original context.

"The state which he built died, but his message is still alive," says Mr. Shahrour, a soft-spoken, 65-year-old Syrian civil engineer with thinning gray hair. "So we have to differentiate between the religion and state politics. When you take the political Islam, you see only killing, assassination, poisoning, intrigue, conspiracy and civil war, but Islam as a message is very human, sensible and just."

Mr. Shahrour and a dozen or so like-minded intellectuals from across the Arab and Islamic worlds provoked bedlam when they presented their call for a reinterpretation of holy texts after a Cairo seminar entitled "Islam and Reform" earlier this fall.

"Liars! Liars!" someone screamed at a news conference infiltrated by Islamic scholars and others from the hard-core faithful who shouted and lunged at the panelists to a degree that no journalist could ask a question. "You are all Zionists! You are all infidels!"

The long-simmering internal debate over political violence in Islamic cultures is swelling, with seminars like that one and a raft of newspaper columns breaking previous taboos by suggesting that the problem lies in the way Islam is being interpreted. On Saturday in Morocco, a major conference, attended by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, will focus on increasing democracy and liberal principles in the Muslim world.

On one side of the discussion sit mostly secular intellectuals horrified by the gore joined by those ordinary Muslims dismayed by the ever more bloody image of Islam around the world. They are determined to find a way to wrestle the faith back from extremists. Basically the liberals seek to dilute what they criticize as the clerical monopoly on disseminating interpretations of the sacred texts.

Arrayed against them are powerful religious institutions like Al Azhar University, prominent clerics and a whole different class of scholars who argue that Islam is under assault by the West. Fighting back with any means possible is the sole defense available to a weaker victim, they say.

The debate, which can be heard in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, is driven primarily by carnage in Iraq. The hellish stream of images of American soldiers attacking mosques and other targets are juxtaposed with those of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheading civilian victims on his home videos as a Koranic verse including the line "Smite at their necks" scrolls underneath.

When the mayhem in Iraq slows, events like the slaying in September of more than 300 people at a Russian school - half of them children - or some other attack in the Netherlands, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia or Spain labeled jihad by its perpetrators serves to fuel discussions on satellite television, in newspapers and around the dinner tables of ordinary Muslims.

"Resistance was never like this - to kidnap someone and decapitate him in front of everyone," said Ibrahim Said, delivering pastry in the Cairo neighborhood of Nasser City recently.

"This is haram," he went on, using the Arabic word for something forbidden or shameful, and then quotes the Koran on his own. " 'Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves.' That means nothing will change unless we change ourselves first."

Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, director of the Dubai-based satellite network Al Arabiya and a well-known Saudi journalist, created a ruckus this fall with a newspaper column saying Muslims must confront the fact that most terrorist acts are perpetrated by Muslims.

"The danger specifically comes from the ideas and the preaching of violence in the name of religion," he said, adding, "I am more convinced there is a problem with the culture, the modern culture of radicalism, which people have to admit. Without recognizing that as fact number one, that statistically speaking most terrorists are Muslims, we won't be able to solve it."

Mr. Rashed senses there is a movement in the Arab world, if perhaps not yet a consensus, that understands that Muslims have to start reining in their own rather than constantly complaining about injustice and unfairness. The violence has not only reduced sympathy for just causes like ending the Israeli occupation, he says, but set off resentment against Muslims wherever they live.

On the other side is Abdel Sabour Shahin, a linguistics professor at Cairo University and a talk show stalwart, who says the Muslim world must defend itself and most foreigners in Iraq are fair game. In the new middle-class suburbs stretching into the desert beyond the Pyramids, Professor Shahin greets visitors inside a small gated compound of high white walls that includes his own mosque where he preaches each Friday.

"There is a large group of people who wear civilian clothes but serve the occupying forces," he said. "So how can we demand from someone who is resisting the occupation to ask first if the person is a civilian or not?"

When asked what he thinks of those who chop off heads, he responds: "When a missile hits a house it decapitates 30 or 40 residents and turns them to ash. Isn't there a need to compare the behavior of a person under siege and angry with those who are managing the instruments of war?"

His remarks echo those of Sheik Yousef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born, now Qatari cleric whose program "Islamic Law and Life" on Al Jazeera satellite television makes him about the most influential cleric among mainstream Sunni Muslims, the majority sect.

Last August Sheik Qaradawi seemed to imply that all Americans in Iraq could be targets. Asked whether that included civilians, the sheik responded with a question, "Are there civilians in Iraq?" In the ensuing uproar across the region he issued a clarification, suggesting that he meant only those who abetted the occupation, and pointed out that he had previously condemned beheadings.

Yet late last month, right after the renewed United States assault on Falluja, the sheik again put the Islamic seal of approval on anyone fighting back.

"Resistance is a legitimate matter - even more, it is a duty," he said on television.

While few Muslims argue with the right to resist a military occupation, the problem is that such sweeping, ill-defined statements are interpreted as a mandate to undertake any violence, no matter how vicious.

"You condemn the beheading and then on a different question you say anybody who supports the occupation is worth fighting," said Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi expert on Islamic movements. "So the message does not sink in."

In November, 26 prominent Saudi clerics signed a petition supporting the "defensive jihad" in Iraq. Although their statement ruled out attacking relief workers or other uninvolved parties, it was interpreted as a signal for Saudis to volunteer. Osama bin Laden and his followers emerged from a similar call 25 years ago to fight in Afghanistan, a fight that they subsequently spread around the globe.

The discussion on the reinterpretation of Islam remains largely confined to an intellectual elite, but even raising the topic erodes the taboo that the religion and those schooled in it are somehow infallible. There are no opinion polls on the subject, but in talking to people on the streets, one gets the sense that they are grappling with these issues within their own understanding of their faith.

Some utterly reject any criticism and immediately identify Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President Bush as those bearing the most responsibility for the butchery. They inevitably also mention the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as needing to be avenged.

But others exhibit a certain introspection.

One sense of the growing public dismay in the Arab world is the muted reaction to the Falluja assault last month compared with the one six months ago. This has been partly attributed to the atrocities committed by the insurgents, including suicide attacks killing many Iraqis.

The wide public sympathy enjoyed by those fighting the American or Israeli soldiers, however, makes it difficult to mount any campaign against violence and terrorism, advocates of a change say.

Proponents of jihad argue that it is only natural for Iraqis and Palestinians to fight back, and point to what they call American hypocrisy.

Sheik Khalil al-Mais, the mufti of Zahle and the Bekaa region in Lebanon, compares the treatment of two despots, Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi, both with a long history of abusing dissidents and other ills. One did not yield to the West, while the other abandoned his unconventional weapons programs.

"Qaddafi bought his way out, but Qaddafi is still Qaddafi," the sheik said, donning his carefully wrapped white turban before leaving to deliver a Friday Prayer sermon. "Why did they put Saddam in jail and leave Qaddafi in power? America should not talk about principles."

Asked about those who say the problem lies deep within restrictive interpretations of Islam itself, Sheik Mais grimaced and exclaimed, "Take refuge in God!" summing up the viewpoint of most Islamic scholars.

You cannot divide Islam into pieces, he says. You have to take it as a whole.

But whose whole, the would-be reformists respond, lamenting what one Saudi writer calls "fatwa chaos." A important difficulty under Sunni Islam, as opposed to, say, the Shiite branch predominant in Iran or the Catholic Church, is that there is no central authority to issue ultimate rulings on doctrinal questions.

Those in the liberal trend believe that Islam, now entering its 15th century, needs to undergo a wholesale re-examination of its basic principles. Toward that end, the Cairo conference this fall recommended reviewing the roots of Islamic heritage, especially the Prophet's sayings, ending the monopoly that certain religious institutions hold over interpreting such texts and confronting all extremist religious currents.

Those taking part were harshly accused of dabbling in a realm that belongs solely to the clergy, with the grand sheik of Al Azhar, Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, Egypt's most senior religious scholar, labeling them a "group of outcasts."

But Mr. Shahrour says he and an increasing number of intellectuals cannot be deterred by clerical opposition.

He describes as ridiculously archaic some Hadith, or sayings, attributed to Muhammad - all assembled in nine bulky volumes some 100 years after his death and now the last word on how the faithful should live.

"It is like this now because for centuries Muslims have been told that Islam was spread by the sword, that all Arab countries and even Spain were captured by the sword and we are proud of that," he said. "In the minds of ordinary people, people on the street, the religion of Islam is the religion of the sword. This is the culture, and we have to change it."

-Rudey

[Rudey]

France

Big Dominique and his struggle against the Islamists

Dec 16th 2004 | PARIS
From The Economist print edition



The French interior minister makes the case for being tough on Muslim extremists


IN AMERICAN minds, Dominique de Villepin once embodied French pacifist defiance and soft-on-terrorism Old Europe. As foreign minister, he was the most passionate opponent at the United Nations of the use of force in Iraq. So it may surprise many to find that, as France's interior minister, Mr de Villepin (in the middle of the picture above) is now waging a hardline battle on terror in France, with zero tolerance of radical Islam.


Liberal multiculturalists have long said that secular France is too intolerant to religious minorities, especially its 5m Muslims (the biggest Muslim population in Europe). It is accused of being too rigid in denying religious freedoms in public institutions, and too suspicious of goings-on in mosques. The French ban on the headscarf in state schools was widely condemned in America, Britain and the Netherlands. But since the grisly murder last month of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film director, more Europeans have asked if there might be a link between laisser-faire multiculturalism and the radicalisation of Muslims. Could excessive tolerance be making it too easy for extremist Islam to organise?

Although he is careful not to criticise multiculturalism in the rest of Europe, Mr de Villepin is unapologetic about France's tough regime. “Terrorists are opportunists,” he says, sitting in his office beside a bust of Napoleon. “They strike where it is easiest.” In his view, Muslim extremism requires good policing and robust laws, but also a strategy. “We need a strong policy to combat radical Islam. It is used as a breeding-ground for terrorism. We cannot afford not to watch them very closely.”


There are two elements to Mr de Villepin's approach. The first is a rigid, even repressive, intolerance of incitement to violence. When he tried to expel Abdelkader Bouziane, an Algerian cleric in Lyons, who advocated the stoning of women, the decision was overturned by the courts. So Mr de Villepin changed the law—and the imam was on the next plane home. Religious-hatred laws were also behind this week's court decision to ban al-Manar, a Lebanese satellite-television station close to Hizbullah, Lebanon's Iranian-inspired “Party of God”.


To help his campaign, Mr de Villepin has an intelligence network, with Arabic expertise and a legal arsenal, that long predates September 11th 2001. France has two domestic intelligence agencies: the Renseignements Généraux, an intelligence-gathering service, and the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, a counter-intelligence agency. Agents keep a close eye on prayer places in France, which number 1,685, according to the RG. Of these, about 50 are considered “radical”. Mr Bouziane had long been tracked. Mr de Villepin is now setting up special cells around the country to monitor fast-food joints, halal butchers, specialist bookshops and telephone call-centres, any of which might be fronts or recruitment points. A pilot effort in Paris has led to the expulsion of 14 extremists, including seven imams.


The French criminal-justice system makes a crackdown easy. Terrorist suspects can be held for 96 hours without charge. Under a 1996 law, they can be detained by a judge for “association with wrongdoers involved in a terrorist enterprise”: this covers not just conspirators, but those in their circle. Since January 2004, several members of the Benchellali family have been held on such charges, linked to plans for a chemical bomb. All four French suspects released from Guantánamo Bay, one of them a Benchellali, were detained on their return home. “We have a particularly repressive criminal-justice regime,” deplores one of their lawyers. As many as 35% of prisoners in France are in “provisional detention” awaiting trial, a process that can take years.


In other countries, this might be a subject for liberal hand-wringing. But the detention of the Guantánamo Bay four provoked little comment in France. Most people in France see it as a price to pay to protect liberal society. “We must never find ourselves in a position of powerlessness,” insists Mr de Villepin. “Democratic governments must ensure order, as this is the guarantee of our freedoms.” Far from prompting debate on the balance between civil liberties and security, Mr de Villepin's approach has been applauded—and his popularity has risen, encouraging those who see him as the next prime minister.


The second part of Mr de Villepin's struggle is one that Libération, a left-leaning newspaper, calls “drowning the beards”. His predecessor as interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, argued that radical Islam was best tamed by co-option. But Mr de Villepin wants to dilute this by promoting moderates. Mr Sarkozy created the French Council of the Muslim Faith, an official body now dominated by hardliners. Mr de Villepin prefers a “Muslim foundation”, in which mosque-based representatives are balanced by secular or moderate Muslims. Since less than 10% of French Muslims are practising, he argues, their representatives should reflect this. His foundation would aim to bring openness to the financing of mosques, much of which comes from Arabs abroad.


Mr de Villepin, a romantic neo-Gaullist, biographer of Napoleon and poetic defender of his country's gloire, is also keen to reaffirm French values. To this end, he wants France to train imams. Of the country's 1,200 or so Muslim clerics, he says, three-quarters are not French, and a third do not even speak French. From next September he plans to offer courses to imams in theology and “secularism”: law, civics and French institutions, as well as the French language. And Mr de Villepin hopes to supply more Muslim chaplains to prisons. It is illegal to collect official figures on religion in France, but it is reckoned that a majority of the country's prison population is Muslim. Recruitment to radical Islam behind bars is a growing worry.


Plenty of questions about these plans remain. Why would foreign financiers, from Saudi Arabia or elsewhere, pay cheques via a foundation? Since courses for imams cannot be compulsory, what is the incentive for them to learn about France's republican code? Given the popularity of Arabic classes at mosques, would imams want to learn French?


Nor does it follow that countries that favour multiculturalism, such as Britain, cannot also support rigorous policing and counter-intelligence work against radical Islam. France may have less compunction about asserting its values, but the trade-off between security and liberty is still a challenge. Yet at a time when all of Europe is grappling with Islamic radicalism, Mr de Villepin's approach will be studied with interest—even, perhaps, in America.

[Imperial1]

Originally posted by Rudey
Do you believe there is a growth?

Is your belief really the truth?

What can be done about it?

-Rudey
--I created this thread for people like _Opi_ who want to talk about it.

There is a growth. What's wrong with that?(Forget it, you still have me on ignore.)

My belief isn't based on Christian beliefs, therefore I believe there's more truth to my belief than Christianity's beliefs now.

Nothing can be done about it. Who are you to tell someone that they can't believe in ONE God which is Allah and reject Jesus as being God himself?

Imperial1

[Shortfuse]

Interesting to say the least.


Don't think it's growing, it's been BIG for a LONG time. Right now with war in the middle east and American troops being involved the media has been focused on it alot more.

This thing is fully grown. Let's remember there has been a distrust and dislike for Christianity dating back to the Crusades. Alot of people have held this resentment in for a long time and have rejected anything that isn't Islam (kinda like your Relgious groups here in America.). And it doesn't take much to set them off.

As far as it being denounce look no further than the holy Q''uran which denounces the killing of women and children as well as people who have NEVER harmed you. Islam also calls for you to do to your attacker what he's done to you and to never go over that boundary. These nuts have twisted Islam into a ugly thing.


I would also add American policy has also hampered the ability to stop these men and I'm not talking about the invasion of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.



P.S. can we show the same disgust for Radical Christianity?