How come Dubai and Qatar do not seem to have to worry about terror?

Who are you talking about, exactly? These imams are not part of Western society, they are criminals who should be in jail.

Wrong, because their religion is:

1) their motivation for their hate speech
2) their cover, under which they operate, and which allows them to get away with things they would otherwise not
3) their source of funding (e.g. from Saudis)

You cannot separate their fundamentalist religious/ideological beliefs from the rest of their personality.

Tell that to Dubai - don't you work for a government that clearly disagrees with what you just said? And tell that to all the other islamo-theocracies in the world. Quite clearly, they disagree with that last sentence.

Also, re-watch your own video. Islamic religious "leaders" say that there should be a "state within a state". This is not one person making an isolated statement, it is a movement that has its foundation in a particular current of the religion. You are looking at an organized subversive movement here, and that is clearly a reason for the state to look at the organization behind it, which are the islamic organizations driving this. If you always look at it in an isolated fashion without looking at the religion itself, you ignore the root cause, and you are only reactive and always a step late. It is like treating a patient who has cancer for the side effects, without examining the tumor itself.

No, this is incorrect. I do not support their right to do what they do. What I am saying is that a too liberal interpretation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion laws, partly out of fear of appearing xenophobic or bigoted, has led to too much tolerance towards those who really are bigoted, and has allowed them to spread. I actually do not think we are that far apart in our thinking here. The law needs to be analyzed and its interpretation adjusted, because nowadays, de facto threats to freedom of speech and freedom of religion do not only come from the government, but also from organized religion, and this is something that has not really been accounted for in constitutional law circles.

Where do you read that I am forcing anyone into being "traditional European"? What is that, even? Spaniards are different than Germans, Brits are different than Italians, etc. You are claiming something that I never said.

 

But the regulation is what it is. Just because it can be circumvented does not mean it is not there. And the regulation is wrong - I am opposed to any of it, anywhere.

I am totally supportive of sanctioning this hate speech, where do you get it from that I am not? What I was saying is that laws and lawyers in western countries traditionally misinterpret freedom of speech laws. They only look at these hate preachers as objects of possible state intervention that need to be protected from the state, when the reality nowadays is that de facto, freedom of speech and freedom of religion can be threatened by these hate preachers and their organization themselves...they are not only an object that needs to be protected, but they are also a subject others need to be protected from. And legal scholars will have to get accustomed to that thought.

 

They are as much part of the society as some random criminal that should be in jail and as a terrorist that wants to overthrow the government is part of the society. My understanding of being part of a society is not to want to destroy it, and to "build a state within a state".

They are breaking laws. I think you do not fully understand law, but I don't blame you, 2 lawyers 3 opinions goes the saying. Whether they break laws or not is a question of how laws are interpreted. Constitutional rights (like freedom of religion) ban the government from prosecuting certain offenses even if those offenses were otherwise considered a violation of the law. What I am saying is that if the courts were to interpret the laws correctly, these people should be considered criminals.

Of course you give them a fair trial. But you are throwing around a lot of terms in that paragraph without fully understanding the law.

How do I meddle in your work? You told us that you work as a regulator for a government in a country where Islam has a strong influence on the law. I believe that is relevant background information when discussing Islam and the law, and cannot be disregarded as a piece of information, once it is out there. People refer to me being German all the time, as I have disclosed that, and I am not whining about it like you do. It is not off-topic, it is related to the topic.

I am talking about Dubai as well.

Reminds me of what Hamed Abdel-Samad said: (Some) muslims switch it around: Sometimes they argue "there is only one islam", but when it comes to bad things, they say "which islam do you mean, there is no central leadership?" But then you see the guy in the video saying that Bin Laden and other murderers are closer to them than any "kufir".

No, the main people to blame should be the islamists. Then, the people within the Muslim world who try to pretend the problem is not there. Then, politicians, lawmakers and courts that have ignored the problem instead of addressing it. All those.

Yes, what I am saying is that when you immigrate to a country, you respect its laws and you do not try to build a state within a state, aiming to overthrow the current state. You should also be respectful of the established culture in that country. The people you showed us in the video are exactly the opposite of that, and they have many followers, as you say. That is "failed multikulti".

 

I don't think either one was a good person or a good representative of whatever club they pretended to belong to...obviously.