Prevent and why it's okay for young Muslims to be radical.

[North German Realm]

Then you're pretty wrong about what Catholics do. Latin masses are the exception, not the rule, in the US. Masses in the language of the congregation is sure to make it more accessible than to insist on using what is essentially a dead language (Latin, before you misunderstand what is being said).

You've shown you can't even speak for what all Muslims do, try not to tell other faiths what they do.

But he's right about that. He didn't say mass, but the RCC does still use Latin in official documents and when describing dogma.

Yeah, but the problem -currently- in Islam is something more comparable to the situation in the Roman Catholic Church before the reformation (At the point where you could literally get sent to the stake for writing the Bible in your own language). Maybe not that severe, but something close to it.

[Al Mumtahanah]

That is the ultimate criterion to me. What criteria do you want?

Will your laws actually physically improve people's lives? Will they lead to better living conditions?

Ah, I see. No, Shariaa isn't intended to be like Plato's Republic. Islamic belief is that a society's prosperity depends mostly on the virtue and industry of the people in it.

[Nakena]

That would be a delightful development if this were to happen and I would not rule it out either, altough I do not believe that it would go without further bloodsheed.

And the reason I am worried is specifically because it is in places that are considered part of the civilized world (Europe) where the fundamentalization and separation of Islam is actually getting stronger rather than it fading away. This is a development that keeps happening in (nearly) all european nations with a sizeable muslim minority and will lead in the long run to very serious problems in a number of them. (France is in very big danger). Of course social and economic factors play a role as well here.

I would not be surprised if Islam declines in, lets say the Islamic Republic, more than it does in lets say France. But thats speculative.

The thing about that is, Islam has entrenched itself in France, and the French are nowhere as balsy enough to deal with the entrenched Muslims the same way they did with the Catholics, which -given the form of self-segregation Muslims prefer- will necessarily mean that Muslims will necessarily increase their number by birth alone, if nothing is done about it. However, they are not the actual problem. The money that Turkey, Arabia, Iran, and other "heads" of main Islamic denominations spend on proselytism alone is the bigger problem. It is a demonstrable fact that the increase in the number of Muslims -and more importantly, radical Muslims- is directly related to Mosques under the paycheck of Turkey and KSA (Iran is also up there, but it doesn't have that type of budget, hence Shia are always a minority in Europe even among Muslims). You can fix the problem with self-segregating Muslims at any time, but foreign-backed proselytism needs to take precedence.

Theres a great reluctance amongst the current establishment in charge (which includes political parties, media and NGOs which are sort of closely connected) to do take any decisive steps that may potentially enrage either muslim minorities or said countries, or further strenghtening their political enemy. This white elephant in the room they'd like to avoid, namely the insurgent right-wing populism which they see as their major political enemy ideologically, culturally and as well practically when it comes to elections.

The current establishment will go to very great lenghts at avoiding any further surge of anti-muslim sentiment in Europe, up to the point at downplaying the scale of the problems. Including instituting censorship measures. Basically their entire strategy is keeping the pressure cooker down in the hope they can avoid the desaster which namely would be the loss of their political and cultural hegemony, which they see mortally treatened by the populism.

In terms of security policies they will avoid any steps that may damaging to their image or good looks of liberal democracies, because they are unwilling and unable to go to that steps. Below that they will increase indirect measures like surveillance and similar to very high levels in the vain hope that everything goes well, and that they can prevent further tension (or the occassional terrorist attack) that way by keeping things under control as possibe.

It is absolutly safe to assume that european security services and authorities have entire lists about all players and foreign actors involved in those matters and have full information on a number of things. But it is unlikely that political leadership will be taking any measures. Even if the populist were to take over this is unlikely to change much.

tl;dr: European politicans are afraid. Very afraid.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Do you think the fundamentalists will win in your place or will Islam, as NGR says, decline and fade out in the long run?

But we maybe are just lucky. The main opposition, our version of Erdogan, a guy named Prabowo is fortunately a nationalist military veteran who dont pray, drink wine, and gives jack shit to the interests of radical Muslims. Alhamdulillah.

[North German Realm]

Theres a great reluctance amongst the current establishment in charge (which includes political parties, media and NGOs which are sort of closely connected) to do take any decisive steps that may potentially enrage either muslim minorities or said countries, or further strenghtening their political enemy. This white elephant in the room they'd like to avoid, namely the insurgent right-wing populism which they see as their major political enemy ideologically, culturally and as well practically when it comes to elections.

The current establishment will go to very great lenghts at avoiding any further surge of anti-muslim sentiment in Europe, up to the point at downplaying the scale of the problems. Including instituting censorship measures. Basically their entire strategy is keeping the pressure cooker down in the hope they can avoid the desaster which namely would be the loss of their political and cultural hegemony, which they see mortally treatened by the populism.

In terms of security policies they will avoid any steps that may damaging to their image or good looks of liberal democracies, because they are unwilling and unable to go to that steps. Below that they will increase indirect measures like surveillance and similar to very high levels in the vain hope that everything goes well, and that they can prevent further tension (or the occassional terrorist attack) that way by keeping things under control as possibe.

It is absolutly safe to assume that european security services and authorities have entire lists about all players and foreign actors involved in those matters and have full information on a number of things. But it is unlikely that political leadership will be taking any measures. Even if the populist were to take over this is unlikely to change much.

tl;dr: European politicans are afraid. Very afraid.

Which is ironic, because the insurgent Far Right is the only group I despise more than proselytizing Muslims.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

The thing about that is, Islam has entrenched itself in France, and the French are nowhere as balsy enough to deal with the entrenched Muslims the same way they did with the Catholics, which -given the form of self-segregation Muslims prefer- will necessarily mean that Muslims will necessarily increase their number by birth alone, if nothing is done about it. However, they are not the actual problem. The money that Turkey, Arabia, Iran, and other "heads" of main Islamic denominations spend on proselytism alone is the bigger problem. It is a demonstrable fact that the increase in the number of Muslims -and more importantly, radical Muslims- is directly related to Mosques under the paycheck of Turkey and KSA (Iran is also up there, but it doesn't have that type of budget, hence Shia are always a minority in Europe even among Muslims). You can fix the problem with self-segregating Muslims at any time, but foreign-backed proselytism needs to take precedence.

Theres a great reluctance amongst the current establishment in charge (which includes political parties, media and NGOs which are sort of closely connected) to do take any decisive steps that may potentially enrage either muslim minorities or said countries, or further strenghtening their political enemy. This white elephant in the room they'd like to avoid, namely the insurgent right-wing populism which they see as their major political enemy ideologically, culturally and as well practically when it comes to elections.

The current establishment will go to very great lenghts at avoiding any further surge of anti-muslim sentiment in Europe, up to the point at downplaying the scale of the problems. Including instituting censorship measures. Basically their entire strategy is keeping the pressure cooker down in the hope they can avoid the desaster which namely would be the loss of their political and cultural hegemony, which they see mortally treatened by the populism.

In terms of security policies they will avoid any steps that may damaging to their image or good looks of liberal democracies, because they are unwilling and unable to go to that steps. Below that they will increase indirect measures like surveillance and similar to very high levels in the vain hope that everything goes well, and that they can prevent further tension (or the occassional terrorist attack) that way by keeping things under control as possibe.

It is absolutly safe to assume that european security services and authorities have entire lists about all players and foreign actors involved in those matters and have full information on a number of things. But it is unlikely that political leadership will be taking any measures. Even if the populist were to take over this is unlikely to change much.

tl;dr: European politicans are afraid. Very afraid.

So it seems like there's 2 possible approach:

1. Soft. Keep the tension between the native and immigrant community low, try integrate/ assimilate/ multiculturalate/ whatever them to the nation, risk populist backlash.

2. Hard. Stand up to protect national western values and identity, risk racial/religious friction, conflict, terrorism from a big chunk of the population.

Hey, actually, do we have a historical precendent similar to the present crisis? Maybe a solution can br drafted from there.

[Nakena]

Theres a great reluctance amongst the current establishment in charge (which includes political parties, media and NGOs which are sort of closely connected) to do take any decisive steps that may potentially enrage either muslim minorities or said countries, or further strenghtening their political enemy. This white elephant in the room they'd like to avoid, namely the insurgent right-wing populism which they see as their major political enemy ideologically, culturally and as well practically when it comes to elections.

The current establishment will go to very great lenghts at avoiding any further surge of anti-muslim sentiment in Europe, up to the point at downplaying the scale of the problems. Including instituting censorship measures. Basically their entire strategy is keeping the pressure cooker down in the hope they can avoid the desaster which namely would be the loss of their political and cultural hegemony, which they see mortally treatened by the populism.

In terms of security policies they will avoid any steps that may damaging to their image or good looks of liberal democracies, because they are unwilling and unable to go to that steps. Below that they will increase indirect measures like surveillance and similar to very high levels in the vain hope that everything goes well, and that they can prevent further tension (or the occassional terrorist attack) that way by keeping things under control as possibe.

It is absolutly safe to assume that european security services and authorities have entire lists about all players and foreign actors involved in those matters and have full information on a number of things. But it is unlikely that political leadership will be taking any measures. Even if the populist were to take over this is unlikely to change much.

tl;dr: European politicans are afraid. Very afraid.

Which is ironic, because the insurgent Far Right is the only group I despise more than proselytizing Muslims.

They are not going to fix any problems or be of any helps. Aside from being intrinsically instable, they are a destructive force who, where it has been in charge, has been doing nothing but populist and nasty measures and more often than not happens to be of the payroll of Moscow and Putin to which they seem to have a oddly persistent affiliation.

They are essentially populist in their nature and their very existence depends on the crisis they claim to fight.

They will very likely grow stronger in the long run and they may become one major political force in europe, which will be increasingly polarized like the United States between two poles. The lines of this new landscape are not yet reflected in many party systems but the Macron vs. LePen race gives a good idea about how that will look like.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Theres a great reluctance amongst the current establishment in charge (which includes political parties, media and NGOs which are sort of closely connected) to do take any decisive steps that may potentially enrage either muslim minorities or said countries, or further strenghtening their political enemy. This white elephant in the room they'd like to avoid, namely the insurgent right-wing populism which they see as their major political enemy ideologically, culturally and as well practically when it comes to elections.

The current establishment will go to very great lenghts at avoiding any further surge of anti-muslim sentiment in Europe, up to the point at downplaying the scale of the problems. Including instituting censorship measures. Basically their entire strategy is keeping the pressure cooker down in the hope they can avoid the desaster which namely would be the loss of their political and cultural hegemony, which they see mortally treatened by the populism.

In terms of security policies they will avoid any steps that may damaging to their image or good looks of liberal democracies, because they are unwilling and unable to go to that steps. Below that they will increase indirect measures like surveillance and similar to very high levels in the vain hope that everything goes well, and that they can prevent further tension (or the occassional terrorist attack) that way by keeping things under control as possibe.

It is absolutly safe to assume that european security services and authorities have entire lists about all players and foreign actors involved in those matters and have full information on a number of things. But it is unlikely that political leadership will be taking any measures. Even if the populist were to take over this is unlikely to change much.

tl;dr: European politicans are afraid. Very afraid.

So it seems like there's 2 possible approach:

1. Soft. Keep the tension between the native and immigrant community low, try integrate/ assimilate/ multiculturalate/ whatever them to the nation, risk populist backlash.

2. Hard. Stand up to protect national western values and identity, risk racial/religious friction, conflict, terrorism from a big chunk of the population.

Hey, actually, do we have a historical precendent similar to the present crisis? Maybe a solution can br drafted from there.

Yes, the Jewish influx in the Holy Land during the early 20th Century.

[Kvatchdom]

I mean there's a whole lot of other fundamentalists around especially in the US with their weird protestant evangelicals.

[The Alma Mater]

Hey, actually, do we have a historical precendent similar to the present crisis? Maybe a solution can br drafted from there.

The invasion of the Americas by christians ?

[Nakena]

So it seems like there's 2 possible approach:

1. Soft. Keep the tension between the native and immigrant community low, try integrate/ assimilate/ multiculturalate/ whatever them to the nation, risk populist backlash.

2. Hard. Stand up to protect national western values and identity, risk racial/religious friction, conflict, terrorism from a big chunk of the population.

Hey, actually, do we have a historical precendent similar to the present crisis? Maybe a solution can br drafted from there.

This strict dichtonomy is pretty much reflective of the viewpoints of liberals (one) and the nationalist opposition (two)

However the nationalist opposition isn't really up to two. Its simply not the way they roll. The ones who would go for this have yet to appear. Maybe they wont be from a political group but from the ranks of the security apparatus or some conservatives going all out. But that is very speculative.

[The South Falls]

Will your laws actually physically improve people's lives? Will they lead to better living conditions?

Ah, I see. No, Shariaa isn't intended to be like Plato's Republic. Islamic belief is that a society's prosperity depends mostly on the virtue and industry of the people in it.

Laws can't guarantee the virtue and industry of society. The extreme punishments found in Sharia law doesn't actually improve the standing of those who steal.

[North German Realm]

Hey, actually, do we have a historical precendent similar to the present crisis? Maybe a solution can br drafted from there.

The invasion of the Americas by christians ?

If you believe the wave of migration of Muslims to Europe is like the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, sure...?

[Al Mumtahanah]

Ah, I see. No, Shariaa isn't intended to be like Plato's Republic. Islamic belief is that a society's prosperity depends mostly on the virtue and industry of the people in it.

Laws can't guarantee the virtue and industry of society. The extreme punishments found in Sharia law doesn't actually improve the standing of those who steal.

They're not meant to, just to prevent bad behavior from becoming a public example.

[ECKU]

Ah, I see. No, Shariaa isn't intended to be like Plato's Republic. Islamic belief is that a society's prosperity depends mostly on the virtue and industry of the people in it.

Laws can't guarantee the virtue and industry of society. The extreme punishments found in Sharia law doesn't actually improve the standing of those who steal.

Those aren't extreme punishments.

[The Alma Mater]

The invasion of the Americas by christians ?

If you believe the wave of migration of Muslims to Europe is like the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, sure...?

Is it not ? An influx of people with very different morals, religion, traditions etc, who mostly refuse to integrate into existing society and even view it as inferior.

[North German Realm]

If you believe the wave of migration of Muslims to Europe is like the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, sure...?

Is it not ? An influx of people with very different morals, religion, traditions etc, who mostly refuse to integrate into existing society and even view it as inferior.

Who also commit massive acts of atrocity including but not limited to genocide, erase local culture and native peoples while looking for riches? I mean if you think the Muslims migrating to Europe are at war with Europeans, planning on committing genocide, good for you. I guess. You provided a bad example, is all.

Laws can't guarantee the virtue and industry of society. The extreme punishments found in Sharia law doesn't actually improve the standing of those who steal.

Those aren't extreme punishments.

They are, by definition.

[Fahran]

ibn Taymiyyah was very critical of Sufism. Some forms Sufism do need to be criticized and abolished. Barelvism in particular is a tumor.

Yes, and Salafis tend to lean on Ibn Taymiyyah more so than medieval Hanbalis did.

[Katganistan]

Barelvism in particular is a tumor.

I can't take this seriously if you're going to sound like some alt-righter calling things cancer.

[Fahran]

Barelvism in particular is a tumor.

I can't take this seriously if you're going to sound like some alt-righter calling things cancer.

I'd definitely call Barelvism heretical by the standards of mainstream Muslims, but, apparently, it has some association with the Deobandi Movement in South and Central Asia too. And calling any religious tradition a tumor is just edginess, especially when your own religious tradition has been called an innovation.

[Katganistan]

Yes just like interpretation of the law by a layman is not taken seriously when weighed against the opinion of hundreds of educated jurists.

If you need lawyers to explain your religion, perhaps it's not a surprise that there's so much resistance to adopting it from non-Muslims?

[ECKU]

Yes just like interpretation of the law by a layman is not taken seriously when weighed against the opinion of hundreds of educated jurists.

If you need lawyers to explain your religion, perhaps it's not a surprise that there's so much resistance to adopting it from non-Muslims?

There isn't.

[Page]

If you need lawyers to explain your religion, perhaps it's not a surprise that there's so much resistance to adopting it from non-Muslims?

There isn't.

Tell that to the Baha'i in Iran, Assyrian Christians, and atheists all over the Islamic world.

[Fahran]

Yes just like interpretation of the law by a layman is not taken seriously when weighed against the opinion of hundreds of educated jurists.

If you need lawyers to explain your religion, perhaps it's not a surprise that there's so much resistance to adopting it from non-Muslims?

In all fairness, traditional forms of Judaism and Christianity often require experts to explain them as well. As evidenced by Anti-Semites misquoting large portions of the Talmud.

[Al Mumtahanah]

Yes just like interpretation of the law by a layman is not taken seriously when weighed against the opinion of hundreds of educated jurists.

If you need lawyers to explain your religion, perhaps it's not a surprise that there's so much resistance to adopting it from non-Muslims?

Yet you need lawyers to explain your laws and don't see them as difficult to follow.