Thursday, December 10, 2015

The Islamic Realities Start to Appear in France

While we fight over Trump, France closes 3 mosques, finds hundreds of weapons

The French have adopted what is clearly a no-nonsense attitude toward radical Islamist terrorism since the Paris attacks and they’re not taking their foot off the gas. As the United States continues to debate over “tone” and how to balance religious liberty and tolerance against domestic security, Francois Hollande’s forces have “cut a few corners” on those subjects and just begun shutting down mosques. At least three of the Muslim houses of worship have been closed already and law enforcement has found a trove of disturbing items among the haul. (Speisa)
Police investigating the Paris terror attacks have shut down three mosques in a series of raids to close the net on Islamic extremists, the Express reports.

Police in France also arrested the owner of a revolver found during Wednesday’s raid, France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said.

Security officials found jihadist documents at the mosque where yesterday’s raids took place.

They have placed nine people under house arrest. Another 22 have been banned from leaving the country Mr Cazeneuve said.
In additon to the mosques, the French have kicked in the doors on 2,235 homes and taken 232 people into custody or placed them on house arrest. More than three hundred weapons were discovered at the mosques. Tom Porter at the International Business Times reports that the trove included 7.62mm ammunition, Kalashnikov rifles and terrorist propaganda videos. And they’re only just getting started. (See edit below)
Hassan El Alaoui, one of France’s chief imams, told Al Jazeera that French authorities were likely to close down more than 100 mosques in the wake of the Paris attacks.

“According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licences, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech,” he said.

Takfiris are those who accuse fellow Muslims who do not share their hard-line interpretation of the faith of apostasy, and is often used as a pejorative term.

Reports like this likely present a rather awkward challenge for observers in America who are used to a large number of rights which the government isn’t supposed to violate. It’s easy to cheer for the French rooting out that many terrorists and their supporters and removing their ability to launch attacks, but the methods being employed will probably give many Americans pause. First of all, simply having a weapon of any sort is tantamount to a conviction there, so the idea of badgering “law abiding gun owners” is sort of an unknown concept in Paris. And with our First Amendment rights, the idea of armed, uniformed men kicking in the doors of churches of any type and hauling the congregants out to a wagon makes us recoil.

But now even some of their own Imams are estimating that more than 150 more mosques may be closed. France really isn’t all that big… how many mosques do they have? To be fair to the French, though, what else are they supposed to do? They’re physically much closer to the home turf of several terrorists groups and thanks to the EU’s open border policies it’s far easier for the bad guys to move around. They’re dealing with an infestation and it needs to be stamped out. The methods probably appear harsh, but they’re doing what they need to do in order to survive.

Exit question: how will all of Europe’s leaders who screamed about Donald Trump suggesting a temporary ban on Muslim immigration react to this news?
There will be stark silence, then back to business as usual - condemning Islamophobes. How many French Leftists could be killed with 300 weapons? Assuming 3 attackers per incident, that makes 100 incidents (so far). That times, say conservatively 20 people per attack, that's 2,000 victims which have been saved from an Islamic death raid. It would require 300 Jihadis, of course, and that makes 21,600 virgins who don't have to shack up with Jihadis in Allah's heaven. Everybody benefits!


Hugo Pelland said...

What France is doing sounds good; they should keep going after these radical religious leaders and their illegal mosques. Hopefully the moderate Muslims will agree this is the right thing to do and help in the fight against jihadists.

However, this does not make Trump's comment more relevant; discrimination based on religion -alone- is not justified by such findings... Plus, looks like they fixed the article:
"EDIT: Original post incorrectly implied that all the weapons were found in a mosque. The total figure included raids on multiple sites."

Also, I thought about Trump's comment this morning as I was walking to work, and was wondering how it would apply in this case: Every few weeks, there are assermentation ceremony at this big venue I pass in front of. Dozens are families leave the building with their citizenship papers in hand; sellers are there to offer passport covers, picture frames and sketchy looking bacon-wrapped hot dogs. Most of the time, all I hear are people speaking Spanish, and some Chinese, but today for the first time I saw 2 families in which the women were wearing hidjabs. So, should they have been delayed in their citizenship process because of their religious-based clothing choice?

Stan said...

Islam offers something which no other religion does: totalitarian government under Sharia Law. Polls have shown that most American Muslims favor Sharia over Democracy.

Apparently there are a significant number of Islam-devotees who do not believe in the Qur'an as a Truth Text (See Dragon Fang's comments a few posts back). These Muslims claim that the "strict" Islamists (i.e., "takfiri"), are heretical. But the twist is that the takfiri are adhering to the words of the Prophet, and are using his actions as their standards for behavior. The "Mainline" Muslims do not, and from my vantage point, that makes the Mainline Muslims the heretics, not the takfiri.

This is an important point, in my estimation anyway, because Islam is connected to their deity only through the Prophet. This is because Allah does not speak to anyone else. So the modifiers of the meaning of Allah's words via his Prophet, Muhammad, are not the words of Allah, they are the words of humans who change meanings to meet their own satisfaction.

So what type of Islamist do you have when you meet one? Strict tafiri? Or probable heretic who interprets the Qur'an for his own purposes? How can you tell? It's obvious from San Bernardino that you cannot tell.

The principles of the Qur'an do not allow for non-Islamics to exist. The concept of Jiyra is currently being used to tax "people of the book" into bankruptcy and when they cannot pay, to kill them. This meets the conditions of the Qur'an.

But this is not admitted by the Mainline, heretical Islamists - at least not publicly. But there is also the provision for lying to non-Islamists which is in the Qur'an, called takiyya. Also kitman allows for lying in warfare - are we in a war, or not?

Does the next Muslim you meet believe that we are in a war, jihad vs. Democracy?

That is the problem, then. What the next Muslim you meet says he believes, and makes you believe that he is truthful cannot be trusted, purely due to Islam, Qur'an, Jihad, Takiyya, and Kitman.

If he is a believer that the words of Allah via the Prophet are TRUE, then he cannot be trusted.

If he is a heretic, he cannot be trusted.

That is the evil essence of Islam, which captures these people with their Ultimate Narrative so that they cannot think otherwise (on pain of mutilation or death).

Stan said...

Also, in this atmosphere, the western Leftists are once again the "useful idiots" of the totalitarian on the move.

They seem to line up to be fooled by Potemkin Mosques.

Also, many heresies and/or apostasies are considered the equivalent of treason; Islam really is a government with a very strict narrative which is given moral authority from Allah (via either the Uthman Qur'an, or modifications of the Qur'an). And treason demands death. Dragon Fang has made that clear in the past. Under Sharia, you WILL believe in Islam and obey it to the satisfaction of the Imam, OR you are treasonous, a traitor. The natural fate of a traitor is death.

Hugo Pelland said...

Stan, totally agree with you on Islam being, by far, the worst religion right now, and arguably ever. It is also true that its ties to government-enforced laws are stronger, and that lots of Muslims, even citizens of western countries, are in strong favor of sharia law. Liberals / the Left have failed us, to quote Sam Harris, on the topic of Islam. People reject the idea that Islam is not just like the other religion; they also reject the idea that jihadists really do commit atrocities mainly in the name of religion. Yes, there are also lots of complex socio-economic factors, and yes, there are and have been many stable Muslims communities that can thrive, but that does not excuse today's Islamists and their popularity.

That being said; you also exaggerate, a lot on that topic... And I think it's purely because you focused too much on right-wing biased media when it comes to Muslims. I will comment on just that 1 point: "Polls have shown that most American Muslims favor Sharia over Democracy." because that it also something that I would use as a reason to support my views listed above, but I would rather say that "a lot" of Muslims think that. Here's why it makes a big difference:

- The poll you are referring to was quoted by a few websites, including via The Center for Security Policy.
- The only "worrying" statistics that show something above 50%, to get a majority, states: "Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah."
- Well of course, it states 'should have the choice'. I think I would say I somewhat agree with that! It should not ever be above US law, but if some people, among their families, want to apply some form of personal justice that does not violate other laws, sure... what's illegal remains illegal, so they would have to interpret their shariah law accordingly.
- Which brings us to 2 other questions: "Should Muslims in the U.S. have their own courts or tribunals in America to apply shariah law or should they be subject to American laws and courts?" to which 39% said US courts only, 36% be free to choose either, and 15% shariah courts only.
- So to me, this is a serious problem, because that's a lot of people either for shariah only, or in favor of choosing which is ambiguous in this question... but thankfully, the largest group is clearly "US-only"...
- Then, what if Shariah is not really that bad because they can do whatever they want with it? Just like other less crazy regions... They asked: "With respect to shariah, do you believe that (ROTATE):" to which 45% said 'it's up to the individual'.

So yes, agreed, it's bad. But why are they lying about it? Even makes me wonder how biased the actual survey was... hard to know. And that makes a difference because I don't see 'most' Muslims as bad and think we should actually try to make it clear that 'most' Muslims are actually not extremists. The goal is actually to reduce the proportion of islamists, but lumping everyone together makes it worse.

Phoenix said...

Stan says:The "Mainline" Muslims do not, and from my vantage point, that makes the Mainline Muslims the heretics, not the takfiri

That's correct. The Quran also refers to these pacifist muslims as Hypocrites (Munafiqun). ie. They preach Jihad but when push comes to shove they prefer sitting idly at home.
Here's a verse from the Quran confirming that muslims who don't wage Jihad are hypocrites that will burn in hell for eternity and notice the commentary on the left.

Quran 9:81 Those who remained behind (did not join the Tabuk expedition) were delighted to sit inactive behind Allah's Rasool, and they hated to make Jihad with their goods and their persons in the cause of Allah. They said to each other "Do not go forth in the heat." Say to them: "The fire of hell is much more severe in heat." If only they could understand!

Stan said...

Thanks for the input. I am writing a rather lengthy position regarding the logic of this situation, and it needs to both get a good editing and percolate a bit before I post it. I wrote an item by item response to Dragon Fang's comments, and then realized that there is a logic process which is applicable. So I have delayed responding to him, and this upcoming post will actually serve to answer his questions to me as well.

Stan said...

Thanks for that, it will be very useful and will appear here again.