As France's Sénat prepares to debate a bill put forward by his predecessor, Bruno Retailleau, aimed at combating "Islamist entryism" on Tuesday, May 5, Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez reveals the details of his own bill against "entryism" and "separatism," in an exclusive interview with Le Monde. The bill is to be presented at a cabinet meeting in the next few weeks.
**On April 1, you attempted to ban an event by Muslims of France, a group said to have close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The administrative courts opposed the move. Why did you make that decision?**
The event had not taken place for six years. This year, we considered that a number of speakers had, in the past, made comments that called their adherence to the Republic's values into question. Furthermore, a certain number of books sold there are problematic. Our vision of this event has evolved. We have addressed terrorism, separatism, violent radicalization. Now, we are tackling entryism.
**Is the Muslim Brotherhood the main Islamist threat facing France today?**
I am not talking about a terrorist threat, as certain members of the political class are trying to make people believe. I am not conflating everything. However, the advice that some give to young people undoubtedly goes against the Republic's rules, the principles of laïcité \[the French conception of secularism\] and equality between men and women. When individuals request a particular organization of public services, one that takes religious precepts into account, that is a problem. It is this threat that the new government-backed bill I am presenting seeks to address.
**According to many experts, the Muslim Brotherhood's influence is declining, while Salafism is gaining ground. Despite this, over the past year, the government has only talked about the former. Why is that?**
We talk about the Tabligh \[a fundamentalist movement\], the Milli Görüs \[a Turkish Islamist movement\], Salafism, the Muslim Brotherhood, etc. The government treats them all the same way. But a Salafist, for example, is visible: It's someone who wears a qamis \[long tunic\] and often does not send their children to school. The Muslim Brotherhood is, by definition, not visible, since their strategy is to infiltrate society and, ultimately, to make religious law prevail. They are by far the most difficult to get to. But we do not solely focus on them.
**A resolution to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization was passed in the Assemblée Nationale on January 22. What is your opinion on this?**
I think that this resolution is impossible to implement and legally fragile. No Western democracy has embarked on this path, except perhaps the US, and, even then, it concerns branches that operate abroad. Several European countries are currently considering the issue, but the operational nature of such a measure does not seem feasible. We are, therefore, extremely cautious. We prefer to take action on a case-by-case basis against certain individuals and organizations that are potentially affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, when we observe that, through their rhetoric or their actions, they challenge the Republic's laws.
**Ultimately, does the state want to ban Islamic rigorism?**
In your private sphere, you are free to do as you wish, but as soon as you are in contact with society, with living together and with republican principles, then no, that is not acceptable. You cannot demand that public services adopt a particular organization that conforms to your religious precepts: opening hours that match your practices, separate schedules for women and men, refusing to allow a depiction of the Prophet to be shown in a civics class about religions. Nor can you make statements that undermine gender equality or homophobic remarks. The question is where to draw the line between freedom of expression, freedom of worship, and public order. The real challenge for the interior minister is to reconcile all three.
Read the full interview at this link: [https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/05/04/french-interior-minister-nunez-i-have-no-problem-with-islam-in-france-but-i-fight-those-who-use-it-to-undermine-our-republic\_6753107\_7.html](https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2026/05/04/french-interior-minister-nunez-i-have-no-problem-with-islam-in-france-but-i-fight-those-who-use-it-to-undermine-our-republic_6753107_7.html)
229
noir_lordMay 6, 2026
+102
> In your private sphere, you are free to do as you wish, but as soon as you are in contact with society, with living together and with republican principles, then no, that is not acceptable.
Yes! or as I've seen it succinctly put in the past "Your rights end where other peoples begin".
Which is exactly how it should be unless you want to speed run the Paradox of Tolerance.
This isn't even a religion thing, it's a *general* thing.
102
nerevarine228May 6, 2026
+87
The problem is, Islam fundamentally doesn't care about your secular rights. It's not just the radical branches or organizations, the sense of superiority and moral entitlement is a foundational part of this belief system. Some people eventually mellow out into not following it as strictly or at all historically (like Kazakhs or Bosnians, for example), but it doesn't happen overnight and **definitely** doesn't happen because you win them over with kindness and acceptance. It's long, messy and sometimes involves persecution.
Trying to pull it off within a single generation by being nice and friendly was never going to work. There's no guarantee this newer approach will either.
87
EconomicRegret2May 6, 2026
-18
Almost all religious texts contain many passages that clash against your secular rights, including the Bible. And as whole, they can easily be interpreted in a way that goes against democracy, equality, etc.
But also the opposite is true: i.e. almost all religious texts, including Islamic ones, contain many passages that can be seen as pro-democracy, pro-freedom-of-choice (e.g. believer, secular, atheist, etc.), etc.
The problem's less about those old iron-age texts themselves, and more about the people reading them (e.g. their social and economic context, their upbringing and education in general, their mental health, etc.), and their aspirations.
-18
Upbeat_Place_9985May 6, 2026
+15
\>The problem's less about those old iron-age texts themselves, and more about the people reading them (e.g. their social and economic context, their upbringing and education in general, their mental health, etc.), and their aspiration
But religion influences social and economic context, people's upbringing, education, and mental health. They go hand in hand.
I doubt people would be this dismissive of the poison of religion if the obvious outcome was White Supremacy rather than just plain old acceptable misogyny.
Imagine a belief system that was born in the most racially oppressive societies.
Imagine if the most sacred texts of said religion had explicitly racist declarations about the inferiority of Black people and instructions on how to oppress them.
Imagine if the people that followed those beliefs pointed to those texts to justify and promote the worst manifestations of their racism - even to this day.
What if Black people faced centuries upon centuries of systemic violent oppression at the hands of its believers.
Imagine if their most venerated prophet or saint partook in the worst forms of racism themselves - r***, slaving, etc.
Would we excuse it all as just "those bad people having a bad take"? Would we find it acceptable for someone to identify with this religion because they follow the more progressive brand of the faith? Would we pretend that there was zero correlation in how White Supremacy continues because the religion also continues?
15
EconomicRegret2May 6, 2026
+2
You make very good points. I can't argue against that.
The only thing I can say is, well, freedom of speech and of association, i.e. you can't ban those old iron-age texts nor the religions that arose from them, even if they're anti-Black racist and White-Supremacist.
Even other super evil books aren't illegal in the US, for example, such as Hitler's *"Mein Kampf"*, the super anti-semitic book *"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"*, the White supremacist novel *"The Turner Diaries"*, and the radical extremist that calls for the genocide of all men: *"The SCUM Manifesto"*.
Last but not least, banning religions usually tend to make things worse instead. IMHO, it's better to use soft power (such as diplomatic and economic channels) to, in the long term, influence positively countries with extremist views for the better (e.g. growing economy, R&D, entertainment, education, etc.)
E.g. Saudi Arabia is slowly turning around, from a virtually medieval mindset, it's embracing STEM fields, investing in new industries, slowly giving more and more freedoms to women and men, persecuting extremists, combating extremist ideologies through awareness and prevention campaigns in the media, education, and social policies, and promoting moderation, "intellectual security," etc.
For Saudi Arabia, IMHO, that happened because of its proximity with the US, and the West in general (e.g. its elites and royals usually get Western education and jobs).
2
nerevarine228May 6, 2026
+12
I mean...yes, but that's also a distinction without the difference in practice, since these particular Muslims share roughly the same problematic understanding of it, so...
12
EconomicRegret2May 6, 2026
-3
That thinking does make a difference when you want to, e.g., prevent extremism from emerging in Western countries from 2nd-3rd generation Muslims, from other groups of people with immigration background, and even from disadvantaged locals/natives.
e.g. razing "ghettos" and/or thinly spreading immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers all over the country. (Switzerland and Denmark do that. France and Sweden don't: which, over-time, created "no-go/ghetto zones" in these countries, and way more "home-grown" extremists than Denmark and Switzerland).
-3
Upbeat_Place_99856 days ago
+4
Ghettos wouldn't exist if immigration from Muslim majority countries was curbed and refugees/asylum seekers welcomed in other Muslim majority countries...
4
EconomicRegret25 days ago
+1
Ghettos have existed long before Muslim immigration.
1
Upbeat_Place_99855 days ago
+1
True but what does that have to do with the point we are discussing...
1
EconomicRegret25 days ago
+1
If you solve ghettos, like Denmark did, you also solve many other issues, including homegrown Islamic extremism.
France wouldn't have these issues today if it hadn't piled up most Muslims in the same poor places, and marginalized them from French society, quality education, and good jobs.
1
Tiennus_KhanMay 6, 2026
-14
The problem is that no one has any idea what "republican principles" means, it reminds me of the Japanese government in the 1930s when they said you had religious freedom in private but in public you had to comply with the "Japanese spirit" and "national essence" (i.e. whatever the priority of the government was at the moment)
-14
halcyon_aporiaMay 6, 2026
+6
No, those principles are very clearly understood in French society. They are, partly, the national motto.
6
Tiennus_KhanMay 6, 2026
-6
I'm sorry but everyone has a different idea of what the republic is. Even something like laïcité doesn’t have a single explanation. The government just uses whatever is convenient to look tough on islam
-6
FlyingRaccoon_420May 6, 2026
+170
Sounds actually reasonable. If he is being honest then I have no problems with such laws.
Religion has to be a private matter. Do not bring that into the public sphere - no matter the religion. Be it Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any of the hundreds or thousands of religions.
You are first and foremost a human and then a citizen. Rest does not need to be said.
170
OdeurInfameMay 6, 2026
+40
He pretty much is. Not the firsr time the Macron administration has wanted to do this. Still motivated by cutting grassunder the feet of RN but it’s still an issue to solve and fast
40
Ihavetogoalone6 days ago
+3
I dont think its reasonable at all, if a religion is encouraging flawed viewpoints in its subjects that clash with the culture of a country. Then letting it fester and proliferate in private and not addressing it until it comes out into the spotlight is not a smart idea.
3
AmbientSociopathMay 6, 2026
-12
Meanwhile USA is speed running a Cristo fascist regime layout.
-12
sonic_couthMay 6, 2026
+9
“We the People worship a God who always agrees with the feelings of whichever Leader we are worshipping at the moment”
9
Tiennus_Khan6 days ago
+3
Everything is free in private, the real point of freedom is to be able to use it in public
3
[deleted]May 6, 2026
-18
[deleted]
-18
OmegatherionMay 6, 2026
+44
The laws will apply to every religion, Islam just seems to be the one that makes such a law necessary
44
LazerWeazelMay 6, 2026
-11
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
-11
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+39
[removed]
39
SleeplessCamembertMay 6, 2026
+15
You're honestly right.
15
FlyingRaccoon_420May 6, 2026
-20
That..is problematic honestly.
Speaking as a non European who has seen the hells a resurgent “past pride” explicitly exclusionary religious movement has wrought on my country I always idealised maybe a false image of what laicite meant (the laicite you learn about through wikipedia and internet sources).
I was dismayed when I learnt the ground reality of how biased the application of Laicite is.
-20
MiriesteMay 6, 2026
-12
However note that the European Convention on Human Rights, which France is also bound to respect, states that there is also an inherent right to *manifest* religion (that is, publicly), with limitations to it being allowed only for very specific instances:
>Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
>Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
And these aren't catch-all cards either, because the same limitations are listed e.g. in the article on freedom of expression, yet we all agree that expression is generally free, and it'd be an overstepping of boundaries to shoehorn limitations by fitting too many of them in those categories at the bottom.
-12
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
-1
Religion is a public matter like any opinion in a free country.
-1
FlyingRaccoon_4206 days ago
+2
I sincerely disagree. It is poison for any society and must be controlled.
2
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
-1
That's your state atheist agenda speaking, not actual facts.
-1
Ihavetogoalone6 days ago
+3
As opposed to the agenda speaking of people brought up brainwashed by a religion all their lives?
3
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
+1
Freedom of religion is not the agenda you'll hear from people who are brainwashed into anything.
1
FlyingRaccoon_4206 days ago
+1
Thats just your childhood indoctrination speaking.
1
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
+2
Can't say i feel bad about being "indoctrinated" into human rights and the freedoms that are essential to any democracy.
2
KyleFlounderMay 6, 2026
-32
The only unreasonable part is "In your private sphere, you are free to do as you wish, but as soon as you are in contact with society, with living together and with republican principles, then no, that is not acceptable".
Why can't you visibly be religious in public? Why can't private institutions set up their own schedules or seperate men and women. Why is this an offense in his mind and France overall.?
Flip the argument here, we rightfully condemn when Islamic countries institute modesty laws, why is this any different?
-32
superpt17May 6, 2026
+23
I think the answer to why we can't segregate men and women is obvious if you're not a muslim. Next step we will segregate the blacks and the whites and then the catholics and the muslims. See the problem?
23
KyleFlounder6 days ago
My counter argument to that is there are already female segregated spaces. There are female only gyms, female only bathrooms, female only locker rooms. Do we jump to the same conclusion of segregation here? Do we point this as an issue and say "Next there will be black bathrooms only!"
The difference is you do not respect religion nor the people practicing it, despite saying you do. In a Mosque, there is an expectation of segregation. Anyone entering a Mosque is probably doing it willingly, and should expect that. In a bathroom, it's the same concept, they're usually gendered and you expect that going in.
0
superpt173 days ago
+1
You're comparing apples to oranges. Gendered bathrooms and locker rooms exist for physical privacy regarding biology and undressing. Segregation in a religious or social context isn't about biological privacy; it's about separating men and women during intellectual, social, and spiritual participation. Equating a toilet to a community gathering space is a false equivalence.
Furthermore, saying it's 'voluntary' ignores social reality. While legally voluntary, if the only way a woman can participate in her family's or community's spiritual life is to accept being separated (often in a secondary space like a balcony or a back room) that's a coerced choice, not a free one.
Finally, democracies protect what people do inside private places of worship. The issue (especially in the context of France) arises when religious expectations of gender segregation are demanded in the public sphere, where society's rule is equal and integrated access for everyone.
1
KyleFlounder3 days ago
Lol at least put effort into your response instead of ChatGPT garbage. I can see the writing style from a mile away.
Calling social pressure coercion is such a bad faith argument. Do we call family dinners coercion? Dress codes? Going to school? You see how dumb that sounds....? Also, women are not even required to attend the mosque. So when a woman chooses to go, you do not get to automatically frame her(who you clearly don't give a f*** about anyway) as a victim with no agency.
Yes, public segregation is not a good idea. But a mosque is not a public space it's a place of worship with religious norms, entered voluntarily. The entire space isn't usually segregated, but that depends on the size of the mosque and if they can afford the real-estate. My mosque has segregated areas and shared areas, as most do.
Once again, racial segregation was a terrible comparison. It was state backed separation. It was built on the belief of supremacy. It was not voluntary. That is not what Mosques represent.
Also you never answered me about female only gyms because it shatters your argument. There's other examples but that's all I need to render yours null.
Once again, take a step back and see what you're trying to attack here. Because I think you're a bigot trying to defend a bigoted legislation. I'm not denying the MSB is a real issue for France, but attacking regular people's rights is not the way to combat that. If anything it will push for more radical opinions and segment French society even further.
0
superpt173 days ago
+1
Let's go point by point:
1. Women's gyms exist because women get harassed or stared at by men while working out. If you're arguing that mosques segregate because the men will distract or make women uncomfortable during prayer, that's really not a great defense of the men.
2. When you say she doesnt have to go that's a massive cop-out. Yes, she can stay home. But if her only option to participate in her community's spiritual hub is to be put in a separate (and usually worse) room, that's not real equality. 'Separate but equal' rarely is.
3. Most important of all... Nobody is trying to make laws about what pivate mosques do inside their own buildings. The French debate is entirely about preventing those private, religious gender-segregation rules from being forced into the public, secular sphere...
People like you are the reason why Europe is getting less and less tolerant...
1
gbbmilerMay 6, 2026
+13
The obvious answer is that one ought to be allowed to express religion publicly exactly insofar as it does not impose on the freedom of others.
The trickier question is public conduct of private belief while acting as a public agent (politician/diplomat/police/fireman/teacher). My take is that passive conduct like wearing a hijab or a yarmulke should be acceptable, but active conduct like leading a prayer should not be. I’m fine with the president privately saying a prayer before eating at a state dinner (quietly / to themselves) but not leading the group in it.
13
LincolnHighwaterMay 6, 2026
+95
I honestly find it offensive and ridiculous when people emigrate to a country and then demand that country change to suit their personal religious beliefs.
Why did you emigrate if you don't like the country? If your purpose was to change it, then f*** off back to your own.
95
Key-Demand-2569May 6, 2026
+7
Alternatively, the boring but more acceptable reality is through slow cultural change.
It’s an offensive or even scary thought to many people regardless…
But if you move to France or Morocco or Denmark or Egypt, etc. with your own personal religion and you slowly convert people in your community through just talking about it and genuine conversation…
… and over time that winds up eventually changing the culture and values of a lot of the broader population?
Then sure. That’s how it should be done “properly.”
Go be Muslim somewhere, go be Christian somewhere. Be a good human being and invite people to share your religion if they’re open to it.
Cultures change over time even without immigrants from outside your country’s borders, that could happen with someone whose family has been native to the region for hundreds of years even.
But like you said it’s ridiculous and offensive to immigrate and then demand legal recognition of your personal beliefs. Religious or not.
If I moved across the world to a country where (as an atheist even) they had laws that were absurd, extremely offensive, and against my morals, like say “It’s okay to soccer kick a child in the head if they use profanity around you.”
…even **then** as a recent immigrant I wouldn’t really be trying to call for changes to the laws.
I’d be trying to figure out how to move somewhere where my beliefs aligned more with the culture and just not kicking kids in the meantime.
7
Mindless-Peak-1687May 6, 2026
+24
Sounds very reasonable to me.
24
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
+1
Provided that it's based on made up stats and conspiracy theories that are directly lifted of former "judeo-bolchevic" conspiracies, not really.
1
RoseyOneOneMay 6, 2026
+490
Seems fair
490
SlavasonicMay 6, 2026
+139
What’s the actual policy though?
139
Protean_ProteinMay 6, 2026
+89
Also a fair question.
89
waterfireearthfarmerMay 6, 2026
+12
So what’s the fair answer?
12
Protean_ProteinMay 6, 2026
+108
Multiculturalism requires recognition on everyone’s part of shared/underlying/universal values and a willingness to think critically about one’s own traditions, culture, religious convictions, doctrines, morality, and social milieu.
We can’t expect everyone (or anyone, really) to do this perfectly, but we can set up political and social institutions in such a way that children are educated, and society more generally encourages everyone, into understanding that their own assumed place in the world is not granted special status in the public realm. In private we can hold any beliefs we like (though we do not have the right to act on any that contravene the law); in public we must operate on the basis of shared public reasons that anyone can accept, regardless of background.
108
diptherialMay 6, 2026
+24
I agree with this and I think it's the only option in an equitable multi-cultural and multi-faith society. I think of this idea of tolerance of others and belief in civil institutions that maintain order as a "meta-religion", one that allows the free (albeit restrained) expression of faith and culture for everyone.
I'm personally not religious, but I know that there are people, including members of my own family (Catholics), who don't see their faith like I described above. For them, it overrides everything, including the law, family ties, even self-preservation. I don't know how to fit people like that into a tolerant society.
24
Protean_ProteinMay 6, 2026
+23
You can’t. The law needs to come down hard when they try to go around it.
23
flatfisher6 days ago
I understand the good intention, but unfortunately it's a nonsense to ask a truly religious person to put their faith after the law : to a religious (theist) person, human's law is insignificant compared to their creator's law. It just happens that it is usually not a problem as mainstream religions have compatible values with Democracy.
0
fakingandnotmakingit6 days ago
+8
Then the law comes down in them when their beliefs go against the law.
You can believe that being gay is a sin. But gay conversion camps is illegal. So you can't act on a family member being gay by sticking them in one or pressuring them into one. If you do, you should get arrested, because conversion camps is illegal
You can believe that you have the right to marry someone underage. The law should prohibit all underage marriages. The law should not recognize marriages where one person is underage. And if sexual relations are discovered, then the partner who is not underage should be charged with r***. (Obviously depending on the laws of the country i.e. Romeo and Juliet laws)
8
Protean_Protein6 days ago
+3
We can remind religious people that even if we agree that “God’s law” is above human law, their interpretation of God’s law is not the same thing. They cannot insist that they are the arbiter of God’s law simpliciter—without qualification or dispute.
3
JimbosForever6 days ago
+7
>in public we must operate on the basis of shared public reasons that anyone can accept, regardless of background.
Which, in itself, is a cultural stance incompatible with some of the cultures we try to incorporate.
"Tolerance of the intolerant" if anyone's curious.
7
Protean_Protein6 days ago
+7
There’s more nuance to this. My spiel above was a quick and dirty version of post-Rawlsian liberalism. The purpose of wording things that way is to be as permissive as possible without generating contradictions or harm. Where cultures or religions or traditions violate the space of public reasons, they are wrong and must be jettisoned.
We don’t, for example, allow people to slaughter goats in their backyards for Eid at will. Either a permit must be obtained and all laws regarding food and public safety followed, or it simply isn’t permitted. That doesn’t mean that people can’t celebrate Eid. But such celebrations must respect the demands of public reason and safety.
7
Lonely_File70056 days ago
+2
the answer is it's dog-whistle for far-right from a governement with no majority in the parliament low house
2
falconthunder2714May 6, 2026
+11
There are already a bunch of Indian nationalists seething in the comments lmao
11
CampEmbarrassed170May 6, 2026
+21
Meanwhile There’re millions of illegal khanglus soon to be kicked out of West Bengal and would get to sneak over the border and vote again. I understand your frustration.
21
falconthunder2714May 6, 2026
-23
Stick to your usual rallies in support of goons and rapists. Don't make a fool of yourself by talking about things you don't know anything about lmao
-23
Tiennus_KhanMay 6, 2026
-19
The hypocrisy is that center-right to far right politicians in France claim to fight islamist "separatism" when muslims don’t integrate enough in social life, but then when they blend in too much it becomes "entrism" and it’s terrible as well. It seems like muslims are bound to "undermine the Republic" no matter what they do, so it’s really about attacking religious freedom for one specific group
-19
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+131
[removed]
131
mindful-hedonismMay 6, 2026
+89
Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who was one of key architects in drafting of the Indian constitution, had this to say about Islam.
The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It’s the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only.
It seems true, which is why they demanded they separate state for muslims, as they owed no allegiance to india & could not relate w our freedom struggle
89
crimsonhuesMay 6, 2026
-51
As thoughtful and eloquent that is, it’s the Hindus that are now pushing religious ideologies, not just the Muslims.
-51
mindful-hedonismMay 6, 2026
+55
If Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis, & Sikhs of India don’t have a problem with the Hindus, then it’s not the Hindus. They are not the one doing 9-11 like attacks or carrying out ISIS like executions, or grooming girls in the UK. Krishna is the greatest, now go meet him never happened
55
CampEmbarrassed170May 6, 2026
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
Visible_Pair30176 days ago
+1
Yet muslims are overrepresented in the French army but underrepresented in the French parliament.
1
GettierProblem6 days ago
+1
This was the same charge levied against Catholics in the United States historically as well as against Jews throughout history.
1
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
-35
You acting as if that's something specific to Muslims.
MOST people would choose their beliefs over their nation. Prime example would be the people who dodged the Vietnam draft in the US or Germans who betrayed the Nazis.
Islam is a belief like any other. Just because it comes in the form of a religion doesn't mean it can't be thought of like any other belief. And anyone who isn't a coward or under duress would choose their beliefs over whatever the government decided.
-35
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+19
[removed]
19
[deleted]May 6, 2026
-25
[deleted]
-25
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+9
[deleted]
9
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+2
[deleted]
2
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
+1
? Gulf countries are literally the main "pure" islamic countries. Every other country uses a mixture of western and Islam law (e.g. in Egypt)
Various western countries (e.g. the US) were also built my immigrants (and literal slaves) so I don't get your point? Also, afaik a significant portion of immigrants to gulf countries are still Muslim.
> They have money, that's why they are nice to live in.
Which kinda contradicts your earlier point about religion being the main factor. Almost as if if a country is wealthy religion is of minor importance.
1
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+2
[deleted]
2
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
+1
1) Dubai isn't a country
2) The law permitting non married people to live together is less than 5 years old. This also kinda supports my point about slow dilution. Christian countries also used to ban premarital relations at some point.
3) There are churches in Egypt and many other islamic countries. There is no islamic law banning non-islamic places of worship from existing in a Muslim country.
1
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+2
[deleted]
2
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
+1
> everyone knows dubai isn't a country.
Except you apparently
> It's the best representation of the gulf
Afaik UAE is literally the only gulf country that doesn't criminalise sex outside of marriage.
> and it's new era of liberalism.
Has nothing to do with liberalism. They are also best buddies with Israel who are wholly right wing.
> How manyu islamic countries ban lgbt marriages and how many christian?
How many Christian countries exist (not majority Christian countries, specifically countries that label themselves as religious states) and how many islamic countries exist?
> Is there even 2 islamic countries that are fine with a gay parade?
No? Same way most churches won't officiate gay marriages.
> North Africa had many different religions before islam came in
Still does
>, and isn't even in the gulf dumbass.
Egypt is an islamic country moron, which was the general topic. Gulf countries were just an example.
> I mentioned temple and synogauge, never even mentioned a church.
Why TF would countries with barely any Jews or Hindus have temples and synogauges?
1
PlumpBulldog6 days ago
+1
Here’s the test. Draw Krishna, Jesus and the Prophet. Then see which of those drawings gets you murdered.
1
50cent9644May 6, 2026
+11
Do you think muslims in US, UK and other European countries would choose the respective country they have migrated to over their religion? I don't think so they will always side with their brotherhood.
11
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
-7
What?
That's literally what I said in my comments. In general people will always choose their beliefs (whether religious -based or not) over their "country".
Why are you acting as if I said something else?
-7
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+156
[removed]
156
ChiniBaba096May 6, 2026
-4
… most Muslim men do not marry Christians or Jews and are actively encouraged not to… but you are allowed to be afraid of what you don’t understand
-4
tryndamere12345May 6, 2026
-51
I think the bombs and colonialism the west has been sending Muslims majority countries is why we seen no bridges being built. When they build bridges we bomb it
-51
MayafoeMay 6, 2026
+21
Such a lazy, disingenuous reply
21
Emergency-Style7392May 6, 2026
+13
God stop with these damn excuses, historically the islamic countries are just as imperialistic as the west, how do you think islam became the second biggest religion (maybe 1st for devoted people now)
And then even today, turkey, qatar, saudi arabia, uae have massive influence and are part of the bombings
13
NeonvaporeonMay 6, 2026
+4
Fun fact, a Muslim leader was one of America's first allies, Hyder Ali of Mysore (southern India.) The US also helped many Muslim-majority countries, such as Egypt and Bahrain, with their industrialization in the mid-20th century. The US and west at large are plenty capable of being friendly with Muslim states, and the reverse is equally true. We have cultural differences, that's all.
The conflicts between the West and Muslim states have very rarely been over the religion itself (in modern times, that is.) Muslim extremists have been a target of the GWOT, but the states haven't really. Daesh, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, JNIM, they are all extremists, not representative of the common people.
4
FerricDonkeyMay 6, 2026
+10
That's rather a one sided look at the relationship.
10
Going-undergroundjamMay 6, 2026
+115
Well said, shame the UK can’t say the same too
115
GK0NATOMay 6, 2026
+35
If you tweeted this in the UK you'd be arrested
35
NessieMay 6, 2026
+4
They turned me into a newt.
I got better.
4
Brief_Hospital_1766May 6, 2026
-10
Yanks are so thick. I'm embarrassed for them because they're too thick to be embarrassed themselves.
-10
Brief_Hospital_1766May 6, 2026
+11
No you wouldn't, you donut 🤣🤦🏻♂️
11
deedee21486 days ago
+1
Sure, Jan. Remind me which country checks your phone when you enter to see if you've said anything bad about their dear leader.
1
jahathebrnMay 6, 2026
-18
You really wouldn't. Good to know people are still getting confused by the paid right wing shills on social media though.
-18
GK0NATOMay 6, 2026
+14
[Over 12k+ have been arrested in the UK For hate speech on social media ](https://x.com/BasilTheGreat/status/2009907467707396554/photo/1)
14
LincolnHighwaterMay 6, 2026
+11
Who is Basil the Great and why do we trust his graph?
11
Substantial_Pop3104May 6, 2026
+5
He’s a saint. I trust him.
5
Joben86May 6, 2026
+3
If a random twitter account posts an unsourced graph that agrees with my beliefs why *shouldn't* I trust it? I trust me, and it agrees with me, therefore it must be true!
3
Ok-Neat20246 days ago
-2
The source is a random guy on twitter that pulled it out of his ass,
Also
UK has about 70m population
China, 1,4 billions population
Yet UK that is a lot less authoritarian than China has ~12,2k arrests and China only ~1,5k?
The math is not mathing.
-2
Draehgan6 days ago
+2
UK choose multiculturalism without "guard-dogs", they are bound to bend toward the most radical religion imo
2
RoomyRootsMay 6, 2026
+77
Right, religion shouldn't be messed in Politics. None of them, including Islam, Judaism and Christianism.
77
Tortellobello45May 6, 2026
+13
As a practicing Christian, i agree.
13
NeonvaporeonMay 6, 2026
+7
Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. Seems clear enough to me.
7
_Solani_May 6, 2026
-41
That an interesting sentiment and personally I am inclined to agree, however do you remember what happened during the last US election when listnookors found out that a bunch of muslims were supporting the Republicans?
Cries of betrayal and condemnations abound. How dare they vote according to their religious moral beliefs! Are they stupid, don't they know it's not in their best interest! After we all struggled to include them and they do this?!
But the thing is, as citizens they are allowed to vote for whomever they believe is the best for them even if non religious folks disagree with their choices. That's how democracy works after all. And if the majority of the population in a democracy decides that they do in fact want religion in politics then that's what they will get.
Respecting the rule of the majority means that what the public views as good or bad will change over time as the population itself changes. If the majority of the population becomes muslim then they are technically well within their rights to turn it into a religious state. 🤷
**Edit**: Not sure why I need to clarify this but my comment is obviously not an endorsement of a religious state. I am merely pointing out that in a democracy there is never a guarantee that you will be in the majority so you when you find yourself in the minority you do still need to accept the will of the majority. Even if you really strongly disagree with it.
Respecting democracy means the government won't always be run according to your moral ideals.
-41
RoomyRootsMay 6, 2026
+22
Absolutely not. A religious state is fundamentally corrupt you can see this is a global scale that whenever religions and cults enter politics they will create issues to those outside its scope and favor their own. People criticize Islam, justifiably, for things like inserting Sharia Law, but the evangelical wherever they gain power immediately deteriorate equality.
True democracy MUST be secular. A government should work for citizens as people not as cultists.
Your example illustrate exactly why people need to be smart enough to separate religion from politics. It's trivial to fall for conservationism when it's the scope you view politics.
22
_Solani_May 6, 2026
-12
Do you think my comment is an endorsement of a religious state? 🤨
>True democracy MUST be secular
No, in a democracy the only thing that matters is what the people want, literally the only thing. It's the will of the people and if the vast majority of the people want a to bring religion into politics then they have every right to.
If the voting majority of the country want a secular government then that os what is correct for that country at that time. If the majority wants a religious government then that is also what is correct for that country at that time.
Your feelings on what is right or wrong are secondary to what the majority of the population wants because that's literally how democracy operates.
Again not an endorsement of religion, just an endorsement for respecting the nature of democracy and the fact that what the majority of a country want is not always what we ourselves want.
Respecting democracy and the subjective and ever changing nature of the will of the people is somehow a controversial take on listnook. Go figure 🤷
-12
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+4
[removed]
4
_Solani_May 6, 2026
-1
>This is another false equivalency used to distract from the main conversation
What false equivalency, I was literally explaining how the will of the majority works. If the feelings about what is right and wrong change according to the population then whether or not a government should be secular will also change.
You are making a lot of assumptions about the intent of my comment but it literally boils down to, yes you guys feel this way but your feelings are irrelevant if you are no longer in the majority, cause that's by definition how democracy works.
'This is right' or 'this is wrong' will change depending on time and place.
Secularism is popular now in the states but that is not necessarily how it will always be and if it does happen to change in that direction I am wondering how listnookors are going to handle it.
Will you be able to respect the rule of democracy if the majority of the country decided they want it to be a Christian/Islamic/Jewish/ state?
Considering the fact just reminding you that the will of the majority is the only thing that matters led to a massive amount of down votes and some really crazy rants I'm going to say probably not.
Serious question though, hypothetically if the majority of the US voted to become a religious nation state (which religion is irrelevant) would you have the grace to accept the outcome or would you abandon democracy and fight against it. Alot of listnookors love democracy only so long as they are in the majority, the minute they aren't the ones in power they lose their minds. That is the point my original comment was making yes you guys think a secular government is inherently necessary in a democracy but that's not actually true, all that matters is the will of the people, what ever that will happens to be at the time . 🤷
-1
KodiskiMay 6, 2026
+5
The words used before "but" usually means nothing
5
hemuni6 days ago
+1
[ Removed by Listnook ]
1
[deleted]6 days ago
-1
[removed]
-1
[deleted]May 6, 2026
-26
[removed]
-26
IjatsuMay 6, 2026
+6
Most educated american opinion on listnook, knows nothing, doesn't live there, still has strong things to say.
6
Radiant-Guest9545May 6, 2026
-12
This seems like lip service.
I don't know about this guy in particular, but if you seek to erase every possible visible trace of Islam from your society, you cannot also claim to be ok with Islam.
Same way you can't claim to be "only against illegal immigration" while also campaigning to make legal immigration harder.
-12
TigereyesxxMay 6, 2026
-47
A lot of North Africa colonised by the French is muslim..
-47
JeanKuuleMay 6, 2026
-19
Just a reminder for those who aren't in France, it's considered true that all leftist are Islamists. Don't care that you are atheist or just someone who care about people, leftist = Islamist
-19
SovietCykaMay 6, 2026
-90
Sick now do Christianity in the US
-90
FruloopsMay 6, 2026
+72
How is this relevant to the French minister?
72
[deleted]May 6, 2026
+16
[removed]
16
SovietCyka6 days ago
-11
How isn't it?
-11
BigButtBeads6 days ago
+5
I believe its on the other side of the planet
Not even the same country or religion
5
SovietCyka6 days ago
-4
Be exact
-4
UnsuccumbedDesireMay 6, 2026
-47
The antidote to radicalism is not secularism but epistemic humility. We should be moving towards a society full of truth seekers.
-47
LincolnHighwaterMay 6, 2026
+56
Some are convinced they already *found* the truth and are demanding others adopt their views
56
DDoubleDDogMay 6, 2026
+42
Religious fanaticism is opposed to truth-seeking.
42
magnetocorleoneMay 6, 2026
+17
Good luck with that
17
Ok-Neat20246 days ago
+2
What are you implying you personally think epistemic humility as well as truth seeker mean?
130 Comments