world

Merkel says refugees didn't bring Islamist terrorism to Germany

38 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

Islam belonged in the country as long as it was practised in a way that respected the constitution.

It sounds like Merkel is asking the impossible. What sets Islam apart from every other major religion is that it cannot accept secular, democratic, man-made law should be supreme over the direct and final word of Allah as revealed in the Quran. This is fundamental to Islam. There is no possibility of separating of religious and secular authority in Islam. No allowance for 'giving to Caesar what is Caesar's', to paraphrase the Christian bible.

24 ( +27 / -3 )

What sets Islam apart from every other major religion is that it cannot accept secular, democratic, man-made law should be supreme over the direct and final word of Allah as revealed in the Quran. This is fundamental to Islam. There is no possibility of separating of religious and secular authority in Islam.

Then how do so many Muslims live without problem in non-Muslim countries?

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

Merkel says refugees didn't bring Islamist terrorism to Germany

Ok, may be it was due to wind pollination. Whatever, now please solve it in a best possible manner you can.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

They didn't bring Islamist terror.

They just brought Islamist culture.

Big difference.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

Merkel allowed a million "refugees" into Germany from Syria and elsewhere.

Some of those "refugees" then engaged in acts of terrorism.

It is absolute nonsense for Merkel to claim that her open borders policy has not resulted in importing terrorism into Germany. Merkel has to accept responsibility for the attacks and all future attacks. Anyone with any honour would resign, but shameless Merkel will blame anyone but herself.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Deash came first and before the refugees.

It is important to put thing in order.

But what created terrorism for sure is racism. hating an other being for his difference always bring much more hatred and pain. And when a people is suffering he goes forward religion and since in europe there no organisation to welcome those desperate people, they went to the foreign founded one by salafist that lead them then discreatly to El and more foundamentalism.

Well this is common immigration problem that went out of hand. We need to dispassionate debate.

Gandee

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Then how do so many Muslims live without problem in non-Muslim countries?

Don't confuse individualistic choices with religious dictate. Islam dictates a lot of things, but some muslims may choose to ignore it in a country that allows them to or even expects them to if it conflicts with the host countries laws. In most Islamic countries, they're usually not allowed to ignore those dictates. And then you have the Islamists who come from those countries wondering why "western" countries don't abide by their religious dictate in governance.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

@Strangerland

Then how do so many Muslims live without problem in non-Muslim countries?

I think the premise of your question is very debatable. There are certainly problems. Problems which we rarely see with other religious immigrant groups.

For me, it's partly about taking people and religions at face value. If you choose to self identify as a member of any religion or organisation who's texts clearly call for violence, intolerance, misogyny and reject most of what western society is based on such as freedom of speech, equality of the sexes and democratic rule of secular law, then it's not unreasonable for us to be very wary of you. If you want to argue that you are a moderate who rejects many of the core tenets of Islam, then the onus should be on you to prove it, not on us to simply assume this.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Islam dictates a lot of things, but some muslims may choose to ignore it in a country that allows them to or even expects them to if it conflicts with the host countries laws.

Good. Which shows that it's wrong to apply the problems with Islam to all Muslims.

I think the premise of your question is very debatable. There are certainly problems. Problems which we rarely see with other religious immigrant groups.

With a tiny minority. The premise of my question was not incorrect at all - the overwhelmingly huge majority of Muslims in non-Mulsim countries live without problem.

If you choose to self identify as a member of any religion or organisation who's texts clearly call for violence, intolerance, misogyny and reject most of what western society is based on such as freedom of speech, equality of the sexes and democratic rule of secular law, then it's not unreasonable for us to be very wary of you.

Under this definition, I expect you are wary of Christians as well then, since the things you mention are all part of the bible. If you're not wary of Christians, then you're just being hypocritical.

If you want to argue that you are a moderate who rejects many of the core tenets of Islam, then the onus should be on you to prove it, not on us to simply assume this.

And so you expect all Christians to prove that they reject the core tenets of Christianity, right?

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

She's probably right in saying that but by bringing hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees who are going to live a precarious life in Germany for the foreseeable future (some of them becoming disgruntled and angry like their predecessors) she is feeding local islamic terrorism with live ammo.

That 99% of Muslim refugees aren't a direct threat right now is irrelevant. They are such obvious targets for already radicalised german Islamists that they do represent another imo unnecessary risk. Very irresponsible thing to say right now.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

She is a very thoughtful and reasoned leader. I think history will vindicate her way in the long run.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

@Strangerland

Under this definition, I expect you are wary of Christians as well then, since the things you mention are all part of the bible. If you're not wary of Christians, then you're just being hypocritical.

And so you expect all Christians to prove that they reject the core tenets of Christianity, right?

I don't want to get into a whole debate on religions here (not the time or place/article) but you've inadvertently hit upon the key reason that Islam is so fundamentally different than any other major religion out there. The principle belief in Islam is that every word of the Quran in the direct, unalterable and final word of Allah. This is why there is so much emphasis on reading the Quran in its original classical Arabic. A follower of Islam cannot entirely dismiss violent or mysogynistic verses in the Quran by claiming that they appear to be written by men full of bronze age prejudice rather than the true word of Allah. This would be blasphemy.

Christians, on the otherhand, readily admit that the Bible is merely a compellation of hearsay quotes attributed to God but written by fallible men, not the direct and unalterable word of God. It's open to interpretation and wholesale dismissal in a way that the Quran is not. The fact that the Christian god has not said that the Bible will be the final revelation for all time means that Christians can radically reform their faith to suit modern times. Afterall, if God was displeased with today's more progressive and liberal interpretation of the Bible, he would send someone down to set us straight, right?

It's not unreasonable to ask how those who claim to be 'moderate' Muslims have been able to square this circle (assuming we won't accuse them of not actually being true Muslim), whereas a moderate Christian is much more plausible and requires less imagination or explanation. Islam is just not designed to be as malleable as Christianity. It's a question of credibility based on an objective reading of each religion.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

"I think the premise of your question is very debatable. There are certainly problems. Problems which we rarely see with other religious immigrant groups."

"With a tiny minority. The premise of my question was not incorrect at all - the overwhelmingly huge majority of Muslims in non-Mulsim countries live without problem."

Depends on what you mean by without problem. According to polls in the UK, over half of Muslims want homosexuality criminalised in a country which legalised same-sex marriage. We also saw the creation of Sharia courts with some terrifying results. A majority want to see free speech violated by seeing satire of their prophet criminalised ( marches in the streets of the U.K. calling for the execution of a novelist was a disgrace in a modern country ). Most terrifyingly of all, a majority of Muslims would not inform police if they knew of a terror plot.

Problems such as blowing up the London Underground are merely the most violent. It's worth remembering that the security services have uncovered and thankfully stopped many repeats of this kind of filth.

It does have to be said that this particular group does seem to produce more difficult cases than most in European countries. The filthy massacres we've seen in France in recent times are examples.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

“We have said clearly that an Islam that works and lives on the basis of the constitution ... belongs to Germany,” Merkel said.

oh those 3 dots... classic media tool to put words in people's mouths.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hear Hear Mrs. Merkel. Still living in the old days, arn't we? Perhaps a little lesson in history. Mrs. Merkel was a top shot in the FDJ, the youth organization of the former SED. The governing party of the east German DDR (German Democratic Party) responsible for the murder of hundreds of refugees wanting to escape to the west. Her position in the FDJ was that of "DDR FDJ-Secretary for Agitation and Propaganda". Wonder how much BS German people have still to cope with from that woman. Things to come. Its called elections. The sooner the better.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

" We have said clearly that an Islam that works and lives on the basis of the constitution ... belongs to Germany, "

And kind of islam would that be? Not the one that literally follows the Koran and Hadith, that is for sure. Merkel is in denial.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Merkel is in serious denial and thats not unusual in cases like this. If she admitted the truth how could she live with herself knowing what she has done to Germany?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Politicians and policymakers say the most outrageous, mind-boggling things after they realize they've made a horrific, irreparable mistake. The most difficult thing for them to say at that point is, "I made a mistake."

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Ok Merkel if your in favour then you won't mind in taking them all into Germany. Not all terrorist are Muslim, but the majority of terrorist acts are committed in the name of Islam. So it would be a fair statement to say that more Muslim entering your country will increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack in that country!?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Not all terrorist are Muslim, but the majority of terrorist acts are committed in the name of Islam.

Not according to the FBI. Where are you getting your information?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

What else will take Merkel to understand the huge mistake she has made with letting refugee floodgates open? It's very difficult to see another national leader with such scant grip on reality.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Not according to the FBI. Where are you getting your information? ok show me on the FBI website where these statistics are? Let me put it this way, Muslims can state that the best known religious extremists are not true muslims and not real disciples of Alla, but the majority of religious extremists acts are done based on the teachings in the Koran. Why is it that we hear of so few religious terrorist acts are Christians, Hindu, Jews etc. Just look at France, as the muslim population has increased over the last 20yrs, so has the number of people killed by Muslim extremists, certainly not a coincidence.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I think what matters in this case is the number of religiously motivated terrorist acts in Europe.

At this moment in time, the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists is the front runner by some distance.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Good. Which shows that it's wrong to apply the problems with Islam to all Muslims.

@Strangerland, The point you seem to be missing is that just because people are critical and fervently against Islam doesn't mean we hate Muslims just because they supposedly follow Islam. The most outspoken critics of Islam actually used to be Muslim! When are you going to understand Islamic ideology is the poison and source and instigation of radicalization? Even the ex-Muslims and some actively "practicing" Muslim's say there is something wrong with the ideology that needs to be addressed. If you keep sidetracking away from the real problem, its only going to get worse.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I am fortunate enough to have achieved a BSc in accounting and finance at the London School of Economics, not because I am particularly smart or clever. I can certainly count from one to ten with a modicum of skill. Yet this unique establishment of teaching and research, a byword in academic excellence and innovation, succumbed to the allow segregating between men and women of its Islamic society at a gala dinner.

LSE criticised after Islamic Society holds segregated gala dinner.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12194943/LSE-criticised-after-Islamic-Society-holds-segregated-gala-dinner.html

Islamic beliefs in conjunction to a liberal democracy, the Islamic experience and the traditional cultural concept of western political freedoms and thought is mutually incompatible.

Merkel Government is in a perpetual state of continuous denial.

In all fairness to Strangerland distinction between fundamentalists and a loose contrast between a set of principles to a public policy that Merkel Government defines can exist alongside a representative constitutional framework is frivolous, leaders of Islamic states are not elected by the people.

That is not a huff, Strangerland, your comments have a clear set of values.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Strangerland

I think we need to look at a few stats honestly. A Pew poll taken in Middle Eastern countries on the question of whether suicide bombing targeting civilians in defence of Islam is ever justified yielded some horrific results. Some countries saw the answer of 'never' at under 50%. Outside of the Middle East, the results were still shocking in Muslim majority countries.

Would all of those who answered 'never' be prepared to carry out a suicide attack? Of course not, but sympathy for it is still appalling and these people are ripe for radicalization.

A recent suicide attack in Germany killed only one ( probably due to incompetence ) but there will be more.

This is far darker than a simple idea of some bad apples.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

At this moment in time, the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists is the front runner by some distance.

In the US, September 11 was the high water of Islamic Terrorism. Since then, homegrown extremists -- white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, anti-abortion weirdoes, and others -- got the violent Islamists beat: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists.

BUT

Per capita, the jihadis have all the other beat.

So, that's something to consider.

When you look at the demographic data, American Muslims have integrated and assimilated into society just as easily and thoroughly as all other immigrant groups. It could have something to do with how diverse our society is in the first place, the creed of Americanism, and the overall welcoming nature of American soceity. While the old folks may wish to maintain their ways, good luck with kids.

Or maybe it has to do with the numbers: you get big enough blob of people living in their own communties and they dont mix. CF: South Phiilly.

I think its because the pull to assimilate is just irresistible. It happened to 'my people' the Jews, it happened to the Italians, the the Japanese, and everyone before and since. Its just America. Too much money to be made to worry about crap like god.

;)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Angela Merkel refused to accept the truth and ignored German peoples concern was shown she wasn't different from WW I and WW II German leaders. I'm really pity for German peoples and EU citizens for having leader like Angela Merkel for Germany and EU. Angela Merkel is arrogance person with Hitler's mentality. She is destroying European culture, religion and unity.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What sets Islam apart from every other major religion is that it cannot accept secular, democratic, man-made law should be supreme over the direct and final word of Allah as revealed in the Quran. This is fundamental to Islam. There is no possibility of separating of religious and secular authority in Islam.

A quick lesson in religion and fast food chicken. In the USA there is a fast food chicken chain named Church's Chicken. Though the name is Church's, it has no religious affiliation at all, just a name.

This chain is also international, and they have franchises in the Far East. Let's look at two countries that are close and have them. Singapore and Malaysia. In Singapore, the name is exactly as it in the USA, and the menu is the same also. However, just across the Straits, the same franchise is named 'Texas Chicken" and has the same menu. The only difference is in the name, since to some it would connote a religious (church) name. Singapore is a multicultural country with many different religions living together, and Malaysia is predominantly Muslim, even though more secular than some ME countries, they still have a hard time with naming something like a chicken restaurant with a name that some may find offensive.

For those refuges going into Germany, I would say Merkel would be correct if they came from a place like Singapore, where the people there have managed to somehow get along with others of different religions and are tolerant of others. But, as we have seen they aren't. They are fleeing their countries, and once established, want to live by the same rules as they did in their old country, and not try to assimilate into the local culture.

Sure, a business is out to make money, and a Western fast food chain is able to go into a market, change the name, and sell mostly the same food as they do in the non-Muslim world. That doesn't make them any less a capitalist organization or against their owners religion, whatever it may be even though their name has nothing to do with any particular religion. Yet, somehow out of a million or so refugees, they can't accept the fact that in Germany, women don't have to wear veils or can dress and go as they please.

Not all religions are equal. Note I didn't say that one is better than the other but that they are not all equal. Some may be more tolerant to opposing views than others. Merkel (and other leaders) need to be aware of this, and let this guide their policy decisions. Not saying to discriminate, nor force others to change their religions, but they need to be aware, people may not change their religious views just because they relocate. And you bring masses of those types in, you will have problems. If a chicken restaurant can change a name to sell a product to sell in a Muslim nation, then maybe they can change some of their outlook at others and live in a nation that is not Muslim vice trying to make them change.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"At this moment in time, the number of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists is the front runner by some distance."

"In the US, September 11 was the high water of Islamic Terrorism. Since then, homegrown extremists -- white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, anti-abortion weirdoes, and others -- got the violent Islamists beat: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists."

@Black Sabbath. I wish you'd quoted my previous sentence which was:

"I think what matters in this case is the number of religiously motivated terrorist acts in Europe."

That's what I was talking about.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

To put things in perspective, mass migrations at least in the last century (whether it be post WW2 jews or whoever) simply did not carry the risk of the immigrants regularly trying to commit mass murder against their hosts. This distinction belongs soley to Islam.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

To put things in perspective, mass migrations at least in the last century (whether it be post WW2 jews or whoever) simply did not carry the risk of the immigrants regularly trying to commit mass murder against their hosts.

They were making the same type of claims about the jews in WWII that they are making about Muslims now: http://forward.com/news/national/325895/what-americans-had-to-say-about-jewish-war-refugees/

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Strangerland

Anti-Semitism was/is based on irrational hatred. I don't doubt that there are those with a similar hatred of all Muslims.

The difference, as you know, is the track record of Islamist violence in Europe which has left hundreds of innocents dead in the last few years. This cannot be ignored.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Are you saying that the refugees are responsible for said violence?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Strangerland

No, I'm saying Islamists have a track record of terrorism in Europe completely unmatched by followers of other faiths at this moment in time.

Can you, hand on heart, say that people are being unreasonable to fear an increase in Islamist violence with the massive influx of Muslim people from a particularly unstable area of the Middle East?

This is a religion in deep distress. Please take a look at my post above regarding support for suicide bombing in defence of Islam in Middle Eastern countries. I couldn't find stats for Syria. I wouldn't like to speculate but do you have any reason to believe Syria has a more encouraging view of things like this?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No, I'm saying Islamists have a track record of terrorism in Europe completely unmatched by followers of other faiths at this moment in time.

Ok, what does that have to do with refugees?

Can you, hand on heart, say that people are being unreasonable to fear an increase in Islamist violence with the massive influx of Muslim people from a particularly unstable area of the Middle East?

With the current vetting process for refugees - yes, I can say that hand on heart.

You do realize that racism is blaming individuals for actions performed by a group they are associated with, right? Or would you say that it's fair to not hire black people in the US, because other black people in the US are members of gangs?

This is a religion in deep distress.

I agree. There is a civil war going on in Islam right now. The religion is messed right up. It needs fixing, or elimination altogether, but since the later is pretty much impossible eto happen, the former is what's left.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Strangerland

As for vetting, Trump's idea of vetting people entering the US was utterly and rightly derided. Do you have any reason to believe the German vetting process is watertight? You did say, hand on heart, that fears of an increase in Islamist terrorism were unfounded.

As for no increase in Islamist terror, your optimism isn't shared by the German security services. They are operating on a when rather than if basis and are worried that they aren't ready to cope with this kind of threat. It does sound a little pessimistic.

Anyway, let's stay tuned to see if anything happens. Time will tell if your prediction is correct but I wouldn't put money on it and neither would the German security services. It does sound like a bit of a gamble Merkel has taken with the security of German citizens.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Trump's idea of vetting people entering the US was utterly and rightly derided.

Rightfully so. But that is different from the process being used to vet and place refugees - a process which takes about two years.

Do you have any reason to believe the German vetting process is watertight? You did say, hand on heart, that fears of an increase in Islamist terrorism were unfounded.

If the Germans are using the same vetting process that is used to vet the refugees that go to the US and Canada, then I believe it is as watertight as its going to get. There are much, much easier ways of getting into a country than through the refugee system. Is it perfect? Is there a potential for someone to slip through? Sure, nothing is perfect and there is always a chance, but I don't believe it is morally right to condemn refugees who have done nothing wrong to living indefinitely in refugee camps, simply because the possibility exists that someone could take this irrational path to getting into a country. When you start thinking that way, you need to close your borders entirely to everyone - aka N. Korea. Or Trump.

As for no increase in Islamist terror, your optimism isn't shared by the German security services. They are operating on a when rather than if basis

As every security service should in every country.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites