Thucydides said:Sunni Muslims will have to answer the question as to what school they belong to..
It would be interesting if we made the same question for our Shia brethren too... because they have schools of thoughts and sects too... and I doubt they can answer either.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhhab
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam
The majority of Muslims are hanafi and many don't know it due to the fact... it really is not that important on a day to day basis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafi
So should we also ask them what type of salafi they are?
Ie Madkali Salafis, Saudi Salafis, Jihadi Salafis, Qutubis, Sururis, Modernist Salafis, Murji Salafis, Talafis, takfiris, etc because identifying wether they are a risk to others need that identifier... albeit many would not be able to tell us.
But then again we could get real deep and ask what type of hanafi too... aka Arab hanafi, barelvi, deobandi etc
What is important is eradicating extremist ideologies. Because there are salafi and other ideologies that are generally considered extreme that have passive branches. So eradicating radicals in all forms is important because there are radical Hanafi branches as well (albeit they are typically very much smaller).
..but blanket provisions like you are proposing are much like gun control advocates telling us that everyone who has a firearm is dangerous and must be disarmed.
Good point.
And if mosques need to publish sermons, what about churches, synagogues and temples? If I do home bible study, am I obligated to publish what verse I am reading? Where does it end?
See I'm an advocate of mosques optionally recording and uploading Friday Khutba's (sermons) because it would be great in dispelling myths about Islam. But the difference in optional vs obligatory is huge, a quick Google search will show many many Friday Khutba's available online. I also find extremists fools tend to love to upload their radical Khutba's, it is just finding those hate speeches and reporting them and getting them prosecuted.
The surveillance state being built on fears of terrorism is large, intrusive, expensive and intrudes on all our liberties enough, even though it is unable to stop "home grown" terrorists. It is also quite conceivable that with a change to the definition of who is a terrorist or what constitutes terrorism, the state can be turned against anyone. This is most certainly a road I do not want to go down, and I'm pretty sure most people would not make that choice willingly either.
It reminds me of that saying to the effect; that first they came for the so and so and then they came for so and so and when they came for you, no one was left to help. Someone can give it properly but the gist of it is their.
It is a slippery slope of demonization, I agree I do not want to go down this road... but we *may* have already started down it.
Abdullah
PS I defended salafis a little bit, because I felt bad at how harsh I criticized them the other day. They are not just one group, only some salafis are the issue a lot of them are great people.