Anonymous wrote:Here are some of my ideas on how society can confront, and perhaps reduce, the number of individuals committing themselves to militant Islam:

1) Change Friday Prayers
- Muslim leaders should provide prayer verses that imams can recite in Friday prayer that stresses the nonviolent and peaceful nature of Islam
- Integrate these prayer verses in other salats
- Imagine if 1.6 billion people repeated verses on nonviolence -- truly, that philosophy would sink in??

2) Connect almsgiving with nonviolence
- Every Muslim organization receiving alms from Muslims must require Muslims to sign an agreement stipulating their commitment to nonviolence. Imams and religious
leaders should stress that faithful Muslims may negate their almsgiving (and lose favor with Allah) if they support or pursue militant jihad

3) Change requirements for Hajj
- Only Muslims can complete Hajj. I am not sure how that is enforced. I think the global Muslim community -- the same organizations denouncing jihad- - should stress that only non-militants can complete Hajj. They should require all Hajj participants to agree to an Islamic philosophy of nonviolence. If they do not agree or later commit jihad, they risk losing the merit of Hajj and ultimately losing favor with Allah

4) Encourage families to report members suspected of pursuing jihad
- Family members KNOW when one of their own has gone off the deep end
- Islamic leaders should stress that family members that report their relatives to the proper authorities will earn favor with Allah, as they may help stop future jihad and the deaths of innocent people


These ideas are probably stupid or ridiculous, but it's the best that I can come up with!

Any other ideas out there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It's prohibited in all of Islam? Who did the prohibiting, if it's not the Quran? Certainly it was prohibited by someone by the time Muslims were hiding the mosaics in Hagia Sophia around 1500. Yet, if it's not in the Quran, and you said earlier that only God truly knows what's in the Quran anyway, and you also said there's no single Islam... then what is the basis for the claim about an ongoing prohibition about images including cartoons? Is there room here to start even a limited discussion about Islam in the 21st century?

I thought that Divine Messengers since the time of Moses forbid the worship of images and to make any prophet have an image to worship would be a problem but, maybe someone else who unserstands Islam better would know.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:It is important to understand the meaning of words and be a critical listener. Explaining behavior is different from justifying it. If someone intentionally spills coffee on me and I kill them in response, the explanation for what I did was that I was defying their actions, and wanted to show them I had a bigger ego than they did and will not allow anyone to mistreat me . But that, of course, isn't a justification for what I did, because, even though what they did was wrong, my reaction to it is out of proportion.

Now back to the Paris attack, it is disingenuous to state that I put all the blame on the French government and policies. That would be ridiculous, you can go back to my posts and clearly see how I not only blamed the attackers but stated that we have a lot of young Muslims who are so angry and full of hate that they have lost their sense of humanity. I will focus on the Muslim explanation by popular demand

-In the Muslim community, we have uneducated, self-taught followers who believe they are qualified to give religious verdicts and that they can make someone else's life permissible, without ever actually having studied with a single scholar. Googling fatwas and quoting random incidents from the Seerah is enough these days to become a faqih.

-The terms jihad (struggle) and Shaheed ( martyr) have been hijacked by extremist movements who might be motivated by legitimate concerns, but express that motivation in un-Islamic manners, and cause destruction & bloodshed in the name of religion whilst overlooking their own responsibilities towards their communities.

-Young overzealous youth, angered by the transgressions of Western powers, are often swayed by fancy rhetoric and enticing slogans into entering a military conflict that eventually ends up harming the very people they claim to protect

-The Muslim world lacks strong leaders and strong institutions. They are mostly led by dictators who oppress their own people and are in bed with the western world.

- You have a country like Saudi Arabia that is exporting more extremism than oil. Political identity around grievances are then used and exploited in regions with huge crisis of identity problems.

- Lots of extremists that inspire people through the web, we need to counter that narrative

- Attacks like the ones in Paris will provoke the rise of nationalist policies and parties in the West, and this is what extremists want, so they can draw a further wedge and recruit more people. Their main goal is to divide communities so they can polarize and radicalize.

For anyone interested, I highly recommend this talk by Dr.Yasir Qadhi about the causes and roots of Muslim Fundamentalism .In this interview, he gets into the mindset of radical "Islamic" movements and unveils the psychological framework that leads to terrorism. He academically analyses the three primary combinations that must exist before radicalism is resorted to and talks about how to fight these ideologies. [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gGYVsbRvDQ [/youtube]

Thanks for that. We're just leaving for lunch with the i laws or I'd say more. But thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

I don't defend Muslima that much and I suspect she would be pretty surprised that you think I defend her at all. I do often share a perspective similar to hers so I may appear to be arguing on the same side. There are very distinct and important differences between us. She is Muslim and I'm not. She is discussing her personal beliefs and her religion. I could as easily be discussing Formula 1 racing or the difference between Gibson and Fender guitars (if you want to see a true religious war, let's discuss that). When Muslima discusses Islam, unless she says otherwise, it is implied that she means Islam as she practices it or as she believes it. If she says "Women are equal in Islam", she is providing her understanding of Islam. What you should do is discuss other groups of Muslims who don't think women are equal in Islam. Because if Muslima says, "Woman are equal in Islam" and you say, "Women are not equal in Islam", I would say that both of you are wrong. Those statements are only true within the context of specific Muslims because there is no single "Islam".

Fender guitars suck. Just for the record. My son is trading his in this weekend or next.

OK. This may not be the place, but since you wonder why some of us distrust Muslima so, I'll get into it briefly. Just one example. Muslima said "women are equal in Islam." No elaboration, no context, nothing more. As you suggest now, several of us started pointing out Muslim divorce laws, inheritance rights, marital property and custody rights, value of a woman's testimony in financial courts, and that these things are in the Quran to various extents and practiced to various extents in all countries with sharia law. Three pages later, Muslima says, "Oh, I didn't mean western linear ideas of equality, which involve equality of legal rights, instead I meant the Muslim idea of equality of responsibilities, and you all should have known that from the start." A minor issue is that it felt like dawwah, and several people pointed that out. The main issue is, it felt very deceptive, because I venture to guess that 95% of her readers had no clue about women's rights in Islam as opposed to the western idea of legal equality we all grew up with here. I'm also pretty sure that Muslima knew very well that 95% of her readers grew up with western ideas of legal equality and had no clue what she really meant about women being equal. So anyway, we did what you said, which is to point out these aspects of sharia law, but at the end of the day (and after many similar examples) many of us from those threads don't trust her and are more than used to challenging her. You're seeing that on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't watched the video, Muslima, but I must tell you that I'm often struck by your tagline, "The problem is not Radical Islam, but Radical Igorance."

There are plenty of ignorant people in the world. They are not violent, aggressive, dangerous people. Or at least not on a large level, although they may win the Darwin award occasionally.

Radical Islam and Islamic extremists are a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So Jeff, I know you'll find a new way to say that Muslima is right and I'm wrong, even if it's just accusing me again of non-existent contradictions. I'm starting to think you're really full of it. Have at it.

I am sorry that this has become an issue. I was trying to compliment you on your post. The only thing I might accuse you of is poor reading skills. You quoted a post that said, "these actions are inexplicable". You wrote, "I agree". Then, you provided an explanation. How can you both agree that the actions are inexplicable and then explain them? It's not a big deal and I shouldn't have mentioned it. I was simply confused by your post because of this contradiction.

This has nothing to do with Muslima and I don't understand your obsession with her. I didn't mention her once.

Apology accepted. If "I'm sorry it has become an issue that you have poor reading comprehension and you can't write clearly" is an apology. Whatever, it'll have to do.

Lots of people are irritated by Muslima, not just me. I know you can verify this. Her victimhood mentality is irritating, the drumbeat about how CH is sonebody else's fault. Her rhetorical style is irritating, where she responds to important points only with insults and then obsesses about irrelevant side issues. Her misrepresentation is Islam is irritating. (On this thread I just noticed her claiming that you can't cite the Quran to talk about Islam, and I didn't have the energy to take on that BS by pointing out that Muslims, including her on the other threads, cite the Quran all.the.time. But boy, you should have seen her on those other threads. "Women are equal in Islam" and "Islam offers protection and sexual fulfillment to women captives.") Don't call it an "obsession", that's just an ad hominem. I and others are merely pointing out what we've noticed about how you always defend her, even when she's full of crap; you never question her crap even when it's blatant crap; and in fact you've frequently jumped in to challenge the posters who were questioning her crap. To the extent Muslima affects me at all, it's probably to cause a knee-jerk reaction to distrust her. Your own role in defending her crap probably causes me (and I venture to say, others here) to come down even harder on her. Laudable? Not exactly, I'll admit that. Understandable? Completely.

A little Saturday morning introspection. You're welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

You are missing the point if you think the cartoonist died because of imams rulings or because of the cartoons. There are lots of underlying issues that are being ignore as if these events happened in a vacuum.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/why-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-is-not-about-images-or-free-speech-commentary/2015/01/08/3b058c10-9778-11e4-8385-866293322c2f_story.html

mass murder has nothing to do with "underlying issues". It is mass murder. that's it. there is no justification. do you understand that?

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Oh so basically, it doesn't even say in the holy book that depictions are forbidden. The cartoonists died because a bunch of reactionary Imams have been stoking anger and hatred in an entire population of desperate dimwits on the basis of personal opinion. Clergy--you can always count on them to get people killed to further their personal agenda.

Ostensibly, the horrific attack against Charlie Hebdo in Paris was because of the publication’s satirical images of the Prophet Muhammad.
But to view the assault as simply about images of Muhammad is to accept a long-standing narrative about Muslim sensitivity to portrayals of Muhammad, which plays into conceptions of Muslims as superstitious savages.Just as important, arguing that this attack is about free speech misses what may be the attackers’ true motivation, which is to wreak havoc and destruction.

Regarding images: Muhammad is a powerful symbol for Muslims. The Quran calls him a “beautiful role model,” and he is considered to be the most perfect Muslim.

Charlie Hebdo has a right to publish whatever it wants. At the same time, the material was racist. It did not matter if the images were going after Muslims, blacks or Jews; it was always about reinforcing racial and religious hierarchies. In a country where women’s headgear is legislated, religious expression is curtailed and a former prime minister calls minorities “scum,” what Hebdo does seems like bullying.
In no way is there any justification for violence against the paper. However, this is a community that sees itself as besieged. What the attackers are attempting to do is capitalize on that feeling. They provided a sense of revenge and power.
It would not be surprising to find out that they hope to create an overreaction against Muslims, both at official and popular levels. This type of response would allow the extremists to create a larger pool for recruiting members and drive the larger Muslim community to feeling even more alienated.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Your picking on a minor point and ignoring the rest is really not new in this thread. The main point still stands: why do I (or any other non-Muslim) have to abide by rules or practices of Islam?

Who told you you did?

The Paris assassins told Charlie Hebdo, obviously. PP was asking what's known as a rhetorical question.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Koran says that one cannot draw Muhammad. This prohibition applies to Muslims, no? Why would others have to fulfill the obligation of someone else's religion?

The Qur'an doesn't say such a thing....

It doesn't matter. It is prohibited in the religion, regardless of the source. My point still stands.

Yeh, it actually does matter when you are spreading fallacies on the internet!

There's no part in the Quran where Muhammad says that images of him are forbidden. But the issue is mentioned in the hadith, a secondary text that many Muslims consult for instruction on how to live a good life.
The theological underpinnings of the ban can be traced back to the very beginnings of Islam in Arabia, according to John Esposito, a professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University. Early followers of Muhammad held themselves apart from their Christian neighbors, whom they believed to be too deeply attached to icons and images. The ban is also informed by one of the central tenets of Islam -- the idea that the Prophet Muhammad was a man, and not a god.
...
But the so-called "Muslim world" is not a monolith, and in fact, faithful Muslims have created images of the prophet for centuries.
...
Artwork featuring Muhammad had become less common by the 1800s, although many examples still exist in Iran and Turkey. While the practice isn’t explicitly prohibited in the Quran, a consensus gradually developed among Muslim scholars that images of the prophet just aren’t acceptable.The turning point came in 2005, according to Gruber, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet. Muslim leaders around the world came forward to categorically condemn all images of Muhammad. Unlike the paintings lovingly created by devout Muslim artists in past centuries, some of the Danish cartoons, which were widely reprinted in Western media during the controversy, were unmistakably meant to provoke.
“It was a reactionary, traditionalist response to an event that was considered extraordinarily disrespectful to Muslim sensibilities,” Gruber said of the outcry in Muslim communities. “The problem with the images is not so much that they are images but that they are disrespectful images.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-muhammad-image_n_6432370.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

Your picking on a minor point and ignoring the rest is really not new in this thread. The main point still stands: why do I (or any other non-Muslim) have to abide by rules or practices of Islam?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

I do not think the people shouting "Je suis Charlie" are hipocrits. I think they are French citizens who feel their liberty and freedom of expression have been attacked; they are saying "we will not be intimidated by these terrorists."

Do you think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved? Were they in any way at fault?

Manuel Valls, the minister of the interior, has sent out an edict to the mayors of all the cities in France where ‘Dieudo’ is planning to appear on tour: ‘Ban him or else.’ In doing so, Valls has the full support of the French president, François Hollande. The whole of the state apparatus is baying for Dieudo’s blood and screaming that Republican values are being held in contempt. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to be of any importance when it comes to Dieudo.
The latest stage of this farce occurred in Nantes yesterday, where Dieudo was due to play the opening night of his tour. A local judge suspended the interdiction order, allowing the show to go ahead. However, Valls made a successful last-minute appeal to France’s highest court, the Council of State, to reinstate the ban. The result was thousands of booing fans left standing outside the concert hall.