Anti-dhimmitude in France: Imam is deported after court ruling

And no doubt his 18 dependents will continue to receive generous benefits paid for by French taxpayers who have no say in the matter.

Still, it's a start.

Okay, I'm butting in again here. Someone yesterday said that Canadians are naive, and that there are weapons of mass destruction. Well, there are no weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair apologized for this a few days ago, claiming that even though there are no weapons of mass destruction, he's still glad that Saddam is not in power. Did America invade to find Weapons of mass destruction that were given to him by America and Britain?

There are no weapons of mass destruction, check it out here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

America did support Saddam, check it out here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2694885.stm

And, yes, we do have right-wing papers in Canada, The National Post and The Sun, which are both losing money b/c hardly anyone will read them.

Secondly, Canada has decided to let in both Al-Jazeera and Fox (snort, snicker, guaffaw) News. But who watches Fox News for anything other than a laugh? I mean, seriously, Bill O'Reily, NO ONE takes him seriously. He's just a loud mouth a**hole who thinks he knows everything, is this where you get you're news from? No wonder so many are uniformed. I mean, FOX 'NEWS' who watches that for real news, seriously, Bar, you're going to have to do a lot better than that, and you're the one whose completely naive.

The war in Iraq has swelled the ranks of Al-qaeda, Bar, why don't you get informed:

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article3529.html

And, what precisely does cutting taxes for the rich have to do with a state of war. How is cutting taxes for the rich helping the war effort?

There is more to this story. The Venissieux imam's brother is under arrest, charged with taking part in planning terrorist acts.

But the main problem is the French reaction. This imam is no different from a thousand, or five thousand, other imams in France, nor from hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of those who attend, or do not attend, their mosques. The only difference is that he spoke out publicly, and on a matter where all right-thinking French people felt they could express their indignation: lapidation for a woman taken in adultery.

But why should that, and that virtually alone, arose indignation? It is a little like those people so offended by the treatment of women in, say, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan or Iran, but seemingly unconcerned -- no, really unconcerned -- with the larger, much more significant matter: the treatment, or would-be treatment, of all Infidels, and of their civilization. The imam of Venissieux could have ranted all he wanted about "the Jews" or "their friends, the Christians," his every word could have been instinct with the expression of murderous hostility toward them, with the call of Jihad -- and no one would have cried out (oh, except for a few odd men out, such as Alain Finkielkraut or perhaps Alain Bescancon), and they can be safely ignored.

It should be obvious that the entire Western world is avoiding the Big Question. Last night's debate, in which the word "Islam" was not used, where one heard only references to a "war on terror" -- a stupid phrase, a maddening phrase, a dangerous phrase -- was typical. In France the hit of the television season is a series about a schoolroom -- all cartable and cahier and tablier -- in France in the 1950s, when there was still a zero-de-conduite atmosphere, and that supreme contribution of France to world civilisation, the dictee, was inflicted on submissive students. The nostalgia for that schoolroom (and the significance of the schoolroom -- consider the openining of Madame Bovary, or the various famous novels about odd schoolboys, or even the comic Petit Nicolas series -- would require a Richard Cobb to limn properly). But what that series is really about is not so much nostalgia for the tablier, as for a world of disciplined education that is no longer possible, for now the indiscipline brought by Muslim students -- who have been known to threaten and beat up both Jewish and, to a lesser degree, Christian classmates, who make indiscipline a great headache, who force parents in certain cities to place their children in private schools, who inhibit or shout down teachers who attempt to discuss such subjects as World War II (and the persecution and murder of Jews), or anything to do either with Israel or the United States (try mentioning the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, or NATO to a roomful of children to a roomful of Muslim immigrants, whose knowledge of the world comes from the mosque and Al-Jazeera, and the new Hezbollah station allowed to beam its brainwashing into France).

Similarly, the extraordinary success of Aziz Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran" (was it one of Oprah Winfrey's picks?) is owed not to literary merit, but to the usual message-of-hope it provides. Those who will not take their Islam -- or their anti-Islam -- straight up, find it can be taken in small doses, and only if something oblique is treated. So the Islamic Republic of Iran is caught as a persecutor of women, and Islam itself, its teachings and attitudes, is tangential. And the message of spiritual uplift -- don't worry, girls, you can read great books, or Great Books -- and see that what they offer is a Lesson in Freedom. Well, yes, but the main lesson that "Lolita offers is a lesson in how to use words. And the same with Jane Austen. Freedom is a sine qua non, but it is, in a way, the moral homily that the book provides that is so much in a spirit that Nabokov, at least, would decry.

But the popularity has to do with an attempt to come to grips with, obliquely, and in an unstated fashion, with the problem of Islam. No one wants to really face up to the truth, just as few have taken it upon themselves, even among the Iranian exiles, to study the history of the treatment of non-Muslims in Shi'a Iran. It was the Pahlavis, and not Ayatollah Khomeini -- who would have agreed with the forced conversions under Shah Abbas in the 1660s, of Armenians and Jews (see Bat Ye'or, "The Decline of Eastern Christiantiy Under Islam"). Khomeini was not a sport. Jews were still being beaten to death for having dared to go out in the rain into the 1950s; Mary Boyce describes the horrific life of Zoroastrians under Muslim rule in the 1970s -- and has offered other studies of how a Zoroastrian people were, by steady and intolerable pressure, islamized over the centuries. "Reading Lolita in Teheran" is a substitute for this; Man, or rather Woman, Will Triumph. Just get 7 students together, read a few books, and keep the home fires burning. No, what the author might have done that would really have gone beyond the Oprah-Book-Club stage of analysis, would have been to ask herself: Could any one of these booksk ever have been produced, much less been made widely available, in any Islamic society, ever? The answer is No. And that is what real "moderates" born into Islam must be asking themselves: what accounts for a 1000 years of no science, and no art except the occasional verses of a handful of poets who were writing not with Islam but against it. Firdowsi, Sa'adi, Khayyam -- can these in any sense be claimed for Islam? How would they fare in the Islamic Republic of Iran, or in today's Saudi Arabia? No, the book's popularity, like that of the French program, has something to do with an unrecognized attempt by Western consumers, with Islam -- but an attempt that is groping, uncertain, inhibited, afraid.

And here is the apology by Blair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3699510.stm

If America really wants to stop the bad guys, well, look at North Korea and Iran, the Iraq war has made them so edgy, now both countries are building up arsenals. Also, I think that it would be best to stop supporting dictators and propping them up:

http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73e.htm

By the way, I know that the first article I posted on the first post claims that Saddam might have been creating WMD, were these going to be with the help of what was leftover by the Americans and British?

Linda,

I can give you some links, too:

1.- There WERE (before the America-led invasion of Iraq) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that were moved to Syria before the war:

"A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites",
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

"Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief",
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

"Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials",
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm

2.- The America-led coalition jailed a brutal dictator and a declared enemy of America, who was trying to resume WMD production --including nuclear--, before the America-led invasion of Iraq,

"Iraq planned WMD programs. NYT misses headline",
http://davidm.blogspot.com/2004/09/iraq-planned-wmd-programs-nyt-misses.html

3.- There HAD BEEN collaboration between the Hussein regime and Islamicists, including al-Quaeda "affiliate" al-Ansar al-Islam,

"The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections",
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

By the way, who are you trying to defend?

One down, a few million to go!

A drop in the ocean of woman hating , wife bashing Islamic Clerics - perhaps they could all be dropped in the ocean from 3,000ft!! Leaving Taxpayers to fund their wives and progeny. Get wise you Dhmmis and refuse to give ANY WELFARE BENEFITS to these blood sucking bastards.

I'm not trying to defend anybody, merely pointing out the facts. And what does One down, a few million to go, mean? What the hell does that mean? I'm not going anywhere.

Yes, America has stopped a brutal dictator that was once supported by the West:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

And, again, was America invading to find those WMD's that were given to him by the States?

There are no WMD's, Blair admitted as much in a recent apology (see above link), and, just a few hours ago, it was confirmed that there are no WMD's:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041006/ts_washpost/a9790_2004oct5

True, Saddam was a horrible dictator, that is now replaced by a puppet regime that will suck Iraq dry and leave. But don't worry, I'm sure that there are many other countries that would love to have Western democracy imposed upon them. We all love voting, right? How many Americans aren't exicited to vote every four years, from a wide open field of..wait for it..two men? Yes! How exciting! After all, democracy is doing great here in the West, Bush wasn't actually elected, but that is a technical oversight. Don't worry, although Bush is widely expected to probably lose the popular vote, that means he will win presidency again, correct? That's just common sense! Then, you can name him emperor, and, hey, remember what a good job he did running buisnesses? Well, I'm sure that he'll prove very adept at running more and more larger entities and conglomerates into the ground, he's always done that very well!

As we all know, the media is supposed to be the vanguard of a free democracy, correct? They're supposed to keep the ppl informed, correct? Why they've stopped doing that is a mystery. You all know that America supported the Taliban and Saddam, correct? Well, what is the big freakin' secret? Why not just tell everyone? CNN, ABC, NBSC, and certainly not Fox news, have bothered pointing this out. Why not just say: "Okay, we supported dictators in the past, but we're not doing that anymore, and we sincerely apologize to the Iraqis for supporting Saddam, and we apologize to the Afghanis, as well." Why not just be open and honest about it?

Now, I will concede that America did fix it's mistake by removing a dictator, but it was done completely the wrong way. Who the hell goes into a third world country, and fires the entire army?Why didn't Bremer, or whoever was in charge at that time, simply remove all the top officials, the Ba'thists, keep the lower ranks, re-indoctrinate them, and then put them back into society? Is it any wonder that there are more and more insurgents. Oh, but the Iraqis themselves are so happy about voting, I saw on tv that they were so excited, that they rushed out with their guns and immediately began clearing space for polling booths. Yes, they are excited! 'Specially, since, I dunno, things like jobs, and maybe I dunno, food, are somewhat scarce. Allawi himself has claimed that "Iraq is now free from corruption and greed. Well, did Haliburton leave? And, you wanna talk Sept.11th attackers, well, what about the Saudis?

Morgene, I have to agree with you. As a female, if any cleric starts threatening my personal safety like that, well, i think we should lock 'em up in a room full of women, let 'em get the crap beaten out of him, then deport 'em. but don't give him a ladder, just kick him off and watch him go splat! At least France is more assertive when getting rid of radicals, but the headscarf thing won't work. That'll probably just breed more fundamentalism. But at least they are very assertive in kicking out the radicals. Britian should be tougher on the radicals, as well.

Epg, I apologize, for some reason I thought you were referring to me. I think I'm just being defensive. Sorry!!

Hey everybody I think Linda is yet another muslim/leftist troll on the make. Notice how her posts have gone from "I'm just a moderate Canadian trying to make sense of this crazy old world" to more and more pointed attacks against the USA and Britain and democracy in general. According to her earlier comments here (done in that timid, liberal "I'm not sure but.." way) most muslims in the West are just "poor, decent people trying to make a living while faced with western racial-discrimination (when everyone in Europe knows that the only discrimination going on is in favour of the muslims). She ridicules Fox News but makes no such negative comments against the loathsome blood-drenched Al-Jazeera with it's daily diet of islamic propaganda. For Linda a tiny bit of knowledge seems to go a long way. Notice too the gradual introduction of the topic of Palestine into "her" posts - I'm just waiting for the anti-Jewish venom to start. Yes, the more I look at "her" posts they more I'm convinced that "she" is a muslim borg - the best attempt yet on JW by a muslim trying to subvert from within but I think the game is now up. Anyone else agree or am I the last to realise this.

LOVE LIFE - HATE ISLAM !!

Awww...Son of Albion called me a 'muslim/leftist', he resorts to childish name calling..well, that's mature...I wanna play too! Okay, you are a religious right wing loudmouth Bill O'reily wannabe moron! How's that? If you'd bothered to read my other posts, which of course you didn't, you would know that I don't hate America. And when did I knock the democracy of Britain? I ridiculed voter apathy and Bush. Everyone does it, even Americans. And if you'd bothered to read my other posts, you would know that I hate both Christianity and Islam, b/c they both suck, and so do you! And, if you'd read my posts, you would know that I don't like CNN, ABC or any of the other crappy news networks, b/c they all have a conservative bias. If you are so smart, why the f**k don't you answer the questions I asked in my last post? Go on, if I am proved wrong by you, Son of Albion, I will leave Dhimmi watch, but you aren't smart enough to answer the questions, are you?

And FOX NEWS, seriously, that's not real news! You're brain is turning to mush,

One more thing, when did I ever spew anti-Jewish venom? Did I ever say anything bad about Jews? When? What post? Go on Albion, tell me! Al-Jazeera is going to be censored here in Canada, and, like most ppl Fox News is tuned in for only one thing: a laugh.

Check out this:

http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2003/11/01/gross_fox.html

And, not everything is as simplistic as FAUX NEWS. Unlike you, I prefer journalistic integrity as opposed to loudmouth whinning. Yep! If you wanna listen to Bill "I'm a big fat loudmouth who makes a ton of money, and yet I still have to find something to complain about! O'Reily. And hey, smart guy, did you check out the links I put down, or were you just in a hurry to condemn me?

linda, why are you here?
you seem to want to fight with everyone
and make them see that you are right.
Only tangentially is this
a 'political' website.
Might I suggest you go to littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog
and add your comments there?
You'll find much to engage you.

Oh sorry Linda did I touch a nerve? Actually if you'd bothered to read any of MY posts you would know that I'm an aethist and not right wing in the Republican sense of the word (I'm a supporter of Friends of the Earth and hated Margaret Thatcher) . As for Fox News I've never seen it in my life but for you to lump it in with the islamic gore fest that is Al-Jazeera makes me realise that your reason for posting at this site is nothing to do with islam. You're just here to score liberal points off the hated Bush. As the poetess points out there are "political" websites where you can vent your hatred of all things "right wing". Endlessly going on about the rights and wrongs of the Iraq War are not really what Jihadwatch is all about. The islamic jihad started 1400 years ago - that's 1,000 years before America even existed. Even if there wasn't a George W. Bush or Republican party or a Haliburton there would still be a Jihad and people would still be dying in the name of allah. I'm not sure what question you refer to but I'm glad that saddam is in prison and I hope that Saudi Arabia has a world of hurt coming it's way in the not too distant future. Oh yes you shouldn't believe everything you read on the BBC - like you they too have an axe to grind against Bush and they are seriously pro-islamic. So let's just recap shall we ? Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch are about the real and present danger that islam and muslim immigration pose to our way of life (however undemocratic you see it as being) - they are not about how the evil conservatives control the media and America.
p,s, who is bill o'reilly and why do you go on about him so much ?

Linda:

A recent poll carried out by Al-Jazeera reports that 92% of Muslims support or approve of suicide bombings and beheadings (you only need recall the 9/11 celebrations that took place in Muslim communities to see the truth of this). Al-Jazeera 'reporters' are in close contact with terrorists and are no doubt aiding them in many ways. Yet you choose to criticise Fox News?

I think that's a fairly accurate indication of your beliefs.

If Canadians regard Fox News as being the moral equivalent of Al-Jazeera, your country is in trouble.

You mention that you 'hate both Christianity and Islam' because 'they both suck' (very mature attempt at rational debate).

Which religion would you rather live under, Linda? (of course, you wouldnt be given a choice if Islamic savages should win) Do you fancy yourself in a burkha? Have you read anything - anything at all?? - about Islam? Have you read the koran? Do you ever listen to the vile bigoted venom spewed out by Islamic 'spiritual leaders'?
Yet you claim that both religions are 'the same'. How so?

My last question - why would anyone believe the BBC? It is so obviously pro-Palestinian that a monitor was appointed.