Paris: Muslims riot, injuring five, after Muslim tries to strangle police officer ticketing his wife for wearing face veil

“The law should be applied, and applies to everyone.” That principle, so hard-won in the West, is rapidly giving way. “5 injured in clashes at burka riot outside Paris,” by Nicolas Garriga and Angela Charlton for the Associated Press, July 20:

TRAPPES, France (AP) “” About 250 people hurling projectiles clashed with police firing tear gas west of Paris, in apparent protest over enforcement of France’s ban on Islamic face veils. Five people were injured and six detained in the violence, authorities said Saturday.

The interior minister urged calm and dialogue, insisting on both the need for public order and respect for France’s Muslims. The incident in the town of Trappes on Friday night reflected sporadic tensions between police upholding France’s strict policies of secularism and those who accuse authorities of discriminating against France’s No. 2 religion.

A few garbage dumpsters in the area were torched and a bus shelter shattered in the Trappes unrest. Spent tear gas capsules lay on the road Saturday near the police station at the center of the violence.

A 14-year-old boy suffered a serious eye injury in the violence, from a projectile of unknown provenance, Prosecutor Vincent Lesclous told reporters. Four police officers were injured and six people were detained in the violence, said an official with the regional police administration.

The violence came after a gathering of about 200-250 people to protest the arrest of a man whose wife was ticketed Thursday for wearing a face veil. The husband tried to strangle an officer who was doing the ticketing, the prosecutor said.

France has barred face veils since 2011. Proponents of the ban “” which enjoyed wide public support across the political spectrum “” argue the veil oppresses women and contradicts France’s principles of secularism, which are enshrined in the constitution. In addition to small fines or citizenship classes for women wearing veils, the law includes a hefty 30,000 euro ($39,370) fine for anyone who forces a woman to wear one.

The law affects only a very small proportion of France’s millions of Muslims who wear the niqab, with a slit for the eyes, or the burqa, with a mesh screen for the eyes. But some Muslim groups argue the law stigmatizes moderate Muslims, too. France also bans headscarves in schools and public buildings.

The Collective Against Islamophobia in France urged Interior Minister Manuel Valls, who recently joined Muslim leaders in a fast-breaking sundown feast for holy month of Ramadan, to crack down on insults and attacks against Muslims.

Valls urged calm after the Trappes violence, and pledged to stand against “all those who attack Muslim buildings or our compatriots of Muslim faith.”

But he also came down firmly against those who attack police.

“There is no valid reason for the violence seen in Trappes,” he told reporters in the southern city of Marseille, which has seen a wave of urban unrest. “The law should be applied, and applies to everyone.”

The CCIF said in a statement that it was contacted by the veiled woman ticketed in Trappes on Thursday, and that she said the police officer yanked her by the veil and pushed her mother.

Police argue they are doing their jobs and that veiled women are breaking a well-known law.

Trappes is deploying extra riot police Saturday night to try to head off any new violence.

Trappes was among many towns around France that saw rioting in 2005 by disillusioned youth in neglected housing projects, many with origins in former French colonies in North and West Africa.

Valls acknowledged the “difficulty our fellow citizens have living in these working class neighborhoods, especially young people. What they need is jobs, hope, training.”

“Only in dialogue can we find the solutions to the problems of our society, of joblessness, the sentiment of discrimination and exclusion,” he urged.

“Violence leads to nothing.”

Yeah, dialogue. That’ll fix it. It always has.

France: Muslims besiege police station -- "In twenty years Trappes will be Chechnya"
France: Muslims terrorize and drive out butcher for the crime of selling pork
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Have the French had enough multicultural enrichment yet?
    I think maybe they deserve what they allowed from their elite EU leadership.

  2. says

    “A 14-year-old boy suffered a serious eye injury in the violence, from a projectile of unknown provenance, Prosecutor Vincent Lesclous told reporters.”

    Did Jules Verne write this?

  3. says

    Clearly the Jihad in Europe has moved from dawa and peaceful inner struggle to violent imposition of Islamic norms over land Muslims control.

    What will Europe do to their violent jihadists once they become armed with more than Roman candles? Maybe the Serbs will side with the Muslims and put free Europe down hard for resisting?

    Sarc off

  4. says

    Flagrant flouting, and utter contempt for the law and standards of the host.
    If that was done in a person’s home, the host would be fully entitled and supported by the law in ejecting them into the street.
    These migrant ethnics are doing this very same in the home of the French.
    France is a place these fkrs can’t claim to have occupied “first”!!
    They’ve chosen to leave their backward desert shitholes and move to somewhere civilised and progressed. France has allowed them in.
    France doesn’t forbid the wearing of fabric prisons. They can do whatever floats their boats in private.
    The requirement is, that people need to be identifiable in PUBLIC places.
    My advise for what it’s worth is, the government should take very firm action on this insulting unlawful behaviour, and at all costs support the policemen who are trying to enforce the law.

  5. says

    “disillusioned youth in neglected housing projects, many with origins in former French colonies in North and West Africa.”

    When Islam meets Africa and then they come together to Europe wonderful things happen….

    Is there ANY rational explanation for importing such people into Western Europe?

  6. says

    “But some Muslim groups argue the law stigmatizes moderate Muslims, too. France also bans headscarves in schools and public buildings.” –from the article.

    Looks like these AP “journalists” are trying to help make the Islamic supremacist/victimhood argument that Muslims are being singled out by these laws, when in fact France bans all obvious religious symbols, religious garb, etc., in schools and public buildings.

    Some background on the burqa/niqab ban here:
    http://www.meforum.org/2787/france-ban-the-burqa

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/999jpabw.asp
    77% of Muslim women who wear hijab in France say they were threatened by Islamists into wearing it.

  7. says

    Well, France, your “enlightened” PC/MC leaders have allowed all these muslims into your country. You’re not alone, there’s a lot of that going around lately. But now there are enough muslims among you that you’ve entered the “critical mass” zone of islamic population. You have riots, plots, no-go zones, attacks on your soldiers, mass-Jew-murders, streets blocked by their praying masses…and this is just the beginning; oh, yes it’s going to get MUCH worse.

    Unfortunately, it’s a bit late in the game for “dialogue.” So, what to do? Well… stop dicking around with these cretins! Non-citizens involved in uncivil disobedience? Arrest and summarily deport, without right-of-return. Citizens? Arrest, prosecute and sentence them to the maximum allowable penalties. No “dialogue,” no exceptions, no apologies.

    You can either crack-down on these muslims NOW…or keep “dialoguing” until they’re dictating terms to YOU–in what you thought was YOUR OWN country. Make no mistake that that’s exactly what they want–that’s why they’re there.

    The water’s getting hotter…it’s starting to boil. Do what you have to do, and do it NOW. Before your whole country becomes a muslim “no-go” zone. Or, maybe you’re OK with that? In which case, you are doomed…

  8. says

    The veil is to hide that…
    Muhammad was a rapist.
    It is a historical fact.
    Instead of accepting responsibility for his actions he blamed the victim.
    Muhammad then invented of the veil and head scarf rule.
    AKA Muhammad’s HEAD SCARF EXCUSE.

    Because of Muhammad’s psychopathic lack of accountability
    “Hijab police” continue to persecute non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries.
    A Norwegian woman in Dubai found this out recently.

    Muhammad is Satan
    It is a historical fact.
    Head scarfs flaunt a greater purity, Nazi swastikas did this too.
    Islamists shout “God is great” like a “Heil Hitler” praise
    as upturned hands display, same as a Nazi stiff arm parade.
    Prayer rug thugs, like SA brown shirts try to impose untruth.
    Exaggerated bows are as pretentious as the steps of a goose.
    Honor killing death squad,
    Adolph would be so proud.
    Islamic religious police are just Sharia’s godless Gestapo.
    Lock-step bootlick lunatics: Ditto

  9. says

    Yes Myxlplick, it is an absolute military threat to the sovereign territory of France.
    I hope they see it that way too, and crack down big time and get the anti western democratic society, anti France migrants and or their descendants, right back to their rightous natural habitat hellholes.

    Yes George, if the French don’t take concerted and decisive action against behaviour that contemptuouslt flouts the law of their sovereign land; behaviour which demands special favour, contradicting and with attempts at supervening the social philosophy and the law; as a test case for the civilised world, if they are not successful, the west is done.
    We can all lay down our hands. I’ll go for my burka fitting or my stoning, depending on the munificence of the new fkn world order.

  10. says

    I think it is important for those of us, on the side of freedom, who understand the nature of civilizational jihad warfare and the threat Islam poses to free societies everywhere, which France is an irreplaceable part of, to describe these “riots” in military terms in regard to numbers.

    It will be a subtle clue for the laymen to understand the nature of the threat.

  11. says

    I work in health care as a registered nurse.
    In recent discussion the matter of vitamin D and the fact of its importance for health, and how it can be acquired came up.
    It is common practise in health care for those who are deficient, to give a supplement.
    It is also international common knowledge, that reasonable natural amounts can be acquired from exposure to sunlight on the skin. Not to the point of chronic sunburn of course, because the that holds undesirable effects, such as skin cancer.
    Now we’re not in 7thC ignorance of these unequivocal health facts, I’d be fascinated to hear how the women of islam still living in their fabric prisons in the 21stC are permitted to receive this essential life and health giving vitamin.
    Or does the tradition give a s..t, cos women are breeders, sex gratifiers, housekeepers and otherwise defective subordinate rubbish???

  12. says

    France must uphold its own laws without fear or favour.
    And if this government cannot do it, French citizens must elect a government that will insist on all its citizens obeying its laws.

  13. says

    @watcher

    On the bright side, you in Australia have a government that is making it very difficult for asylum seekers (just about all are Muslim) to jam their way into Australia illegally.

    Now their boats will be intercepted and they will be settled in Papua New Guinea, former head hunter territory.

    “Rudd announces deal to send all asylum boat arrivals to Papua New Guinea

    No asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will be allowed to settle in the country, PM says”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/19/kevin-rudd-asylum-boats-png

  14. says

    “disillusioned youth in neglected housing projects, many with origins in former French colonies in North and West Africa.”

    This sentence is a masterpiece of liberal speak. How do these writers get away with this sickening, cowardly bullshit?

    “Disillusioned youth” : the French society has let the Muslim youth down. The French are morally obligated to live up to the “illusions” (delusions) of the Africans and other Muslim immigrants.

    “neglected housing projects” : The French people are guilty for not maintaining the free homes they give Muslims.

    “former French colonies in Africa” : a reminder that French colonialism and imperialism is to blame.

  15. says

    The French are very quick to fine and arrest critics of Islam, but treat the muslims with kid gloves. Bridget Bardot has spoken out against the savagery of Islam on a number of occasions, and has been arrested and fined multiple times. Never mind what she said was true, appreantly her crime was she dared to speak out.
    The French may soon have another totalitarian force over taking over their country- just like the Nazis

  16. says

    Will Paris fall like Constantinople to the savagery of Islam? Unless we act, history will repeat itself. It doesn’t help that Europe and North America are rife with liberals who despise western values and Christianity, and want the Muslims to prevail

  17. says

    “Yeah, dialogue. That’ll fix it. It always has.”

    Awwwww Robert… I hope your time working on JihadWatch isn’t making you jaded and cynical ? 😀

  18. says

    Well, this one is not conceptually difficult.

    Arrest all 250 of those involved in the riot. Deport those who shouldn’t have been in France; fine those who expressed sympathy by walking alongside the rioters; jail those who committed any act of violence. Give a tough sentence to the man who assaulted the policeman – in addition to the 30,000 euros he owes for veiling his wife.

    The problem is the logistics. Are there enough policemen to arrest that many people at once? Is there space in the jails? Can you force them to show their passports when it’s impossible to enter their streets? Can you extract a fine when they don’t have any income?

  19. says

    How long will Europeans put up with angry Muslims rioting over this & that & the other thing, before they finally say “Enough is enough, dammit!” and start deporting these savages?

    We have NO obligation to welcome or tolerate people who are hostile to everything we stand for.

    Human rights & enlightened Western societies are worth FAR too much, to piss them away in a misguided effort to placate angry Muslims — or the fabled “moderate” Muslims, who always seem to be MIA when we need them.

  20. says

    Message au gouvernement français : si vous cherchez à comprendre le dialogue des Musulmans, lisez le Sira. Mahomet a pratiqué le dialogue en envoyant des assassins pour trahir les membres de leurs propres familles, de leurs clans et de leurs tribus.

    Les Muslumans pratiquent le dialogue selon le modèle « idéal » de Mahomet, c.-à-d. le mensonge, la trahison, l’attaque et l’assassinat.

  21. says

    How did western society get to the point where it felt some kind of obligation to give Islam a pass for every violation against civility? Islam takes everything, and gives back nothing. I have zero respect for Islam- it is a savage demonic death cult, that promotes violence and rape. WHY would anyone tolerate such a garbage religion? Every time a Muslim whines about being victims of ‘racism’ or hate, remind them that their religion drips with venom for Jews and Christians. I’m sick to death of Islam, there is NOTHING positive about it. Europe needs to wake up to this. And liberals who are filled with self hatred and want the jihadists to win, they are just as bad. Why don’t they all just defect to the middle eastern islamic fascist state of their choosing?

  22. says

    The rule used to be go to Rome, behave like the Romans…these modern breed of savages are rewriting all our civilzed rules and norms doing our societies insidious harm and our sophisticated leaders are too polished and soft to know what to do to cure this anomie…SMH

    Jail that rascal and deport his family while he is jail and send him back to his Arabian desert the second he has done his jail term so he can go enjoy all the ninja gear he ever desires in his outback desert

  23. says

    To see how bad things have got here google “Marie-neige Sardin”. This poor woman has been disgracefully treated by the so-called justice system and is now on hungerstrike though the only publicity for this is within the French counter jihad. The MSM couldn’t care less.

  24. says

    The civilised world is relying on France to hold the line! We all know that the muslim cult is above the law, recognising only its own 7th century mantra
    The Islamic occupation of the West is no less of a threat than was the islam-inspired Nazi occupation, except it has been achieved by stealth without a shot being fired
    Firm action is required – a few deportations may serve to show that enough is enough
    If France is weak, we will all suffer
    This evil tsunami is more sinister than just an occupation to rob us of benefits – its aim is total domination, subjugation – the establishment of a caliphate with heritage Europeans being reduced to the status of dhimmi slaves, eventually being wiped out altogether – this is genocide by any other name. If they do not work, if they do not obey our laws, if they do not learn our languages and integrate peacefully( will never happen ) – send them home before it is too late!

  25. says

    “Qatar’s money jihad on Europe” (2012.)

    “Marine Le Pen, who leads the right wing National Front party, recently warned that Qatar’s influence over French Muslims was growing. She also said that, if elected, she would defend French sovereignty from the meddling of Islamist governments that support political religious movements in France and threaten to ‘destabilize our country.’

    “‘The massive investments which Qatar has made in suburbs are made because of the very high proportion of Muslims who are in the French suburbs,’ Le Pen said. ‘We are allowing a foreign country to choose its investments on the basis of the religion of this or that part of the French population or of French territory. I think this situation could be very dangerous.’

    “Le Pen also said Qatar was ‘playing a double game’ by presenting itself as an ‘enlightened’ country to Western democracies while at the same time supporting Islamist groups in the Middle East and North Africa.

    “‘I say solemnly, the Qataris are financial supporters of Islamic fundamentalists, madmen of Sharia. The French have a right to know that, especially in Libya, the jihadists who are now in power and whose first action was to apply Sharia, were financed and armed by Qatar,’ she said.”

    http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/qatars-money-jihad-on-europe/

  26. says

    Czechoslovakia did it, during the small historical window of time when they were one of the most progressive liberal democracies in Europe. They deported millions of Czech citizens who were Germans, deemed to be a threat to the state after the horrors of the Nazi war on the world. Hugh Fitzgerald, who wrote essays here at JW for years, made the case with copious and cogent substance and argumentation (though he was a bit gingerly when adverting to the citizen part).

  27. says

    “The law should be applied, and applies to everyone.” I sincerely welcome that premise. If the West and Europe have authority and want to use it to address the misinterpretation and understanding of the Sunna of Muhammad they must be liberal and all in all. Let them concentrate in the mosques on how the Muslims observe their prayers in addition. Correcting them in that ritual is the stepping stone to peace prosperity. The Sunna is for all and sundry to protect.

  28. says

    Diana. Probably, I will be discussing with you for you are inclined to listen and receptive to learning

    You said: What matters is that so many Muslims today believe that he did them and copy his supposed example.
    Response: Remember what happened before Muhammad! Only Joshua and Caleb obeyed Moses (MUSA A.H). When Moses returned from Sinai and found his people worshiping the golden calf he refused to be in their camp. So, what do you and I to do to correct those Muslims disobeying Moses and Muhammad? Imagine what Joshiah did when Helkiah handed him the Torah found? Now the Qur’an is available as the Torah in the time of Helkiah but only that we do not have the equivalent of Helkiah in the Muslim community. Supposing I am to be like Helkiah, will you support me?

    You said: You are saying that there are Muslims alive today who honestly believe that the Torah teaches that a non-Jew can dispossess the Jews of their ancestral lands solely because those Jews do not acknowledge a supposed prophet.
    Response: I do not belong to that camp. I have telling Rabbis to look for the Muslims who understood Islam and help them by contributing to establish the caliphate. I understand that by giving the Jews Jerusalem does not mean that I as black man a Muslim will not go there and stay whenever there is need for that. The Jews do not know how to argue and get Jerusalem because they do not understand the terminologies in the Qur’an. My understanding is that Jerusalem belongs to the Children of Israel and the land should be given to them.
    I argued in an article that initially Syria Khaybar, Fadak and the settlements of Jews in Madina belonged to them. They gave it to the Muslims. Why not claim their land today? I was about to be killed! So, unless the Jews come out openly to read and understand Qur’an and then fight for their right by associating with Muslims like me, I am sorry for them.
    You said: There is nothing like that in the Torah or even in the Tanakh. Over a period of a thousand years, the Jews frequently refused to acknowledge prophets – sometimes because they were false prophets and sometimes because the Jews did not want to obey a real prophet. But the prophet never had the right to dispossess the Jews. He just kept on preaching, whether anyone listened to him or not.
    Response: Yes. That is what the perfected simplified completed simplified written and oral law of Moses- the Shari’a/actions of Muhammad- is experiencing now. I preach but no one is interested in what I am saying. They regard me as a false prophet because like Saul, I am not wealthy.
    You said: If there are Muslims live today who believe that Muhammad was right to dispossess the Jews of Medina, that is very bad news for the rest of us.
    Response: Know that the Jews migrated to Syria, Fadak and lastly to the land with palm tree and lava tracks according to the description in Torah where that prophet will come. The Rabbis do not know about this and they hearken not to understand its importance. Muhammad was under the command of Allah. Like the Levis who slaughtered their brothers, he cannot do anything once Allah commands him. Know that, they were given the opportunity to practice their Islam in Khaybar and Syria. If you do not appreciate that action of Muhammad, you should not be questing to have Jerusalem.
    I hope you will be free sincere and unprejudiced in your thinking and search for the truth. I always ask the Rabbis for the actual meaning of the Torah and I found most of them in agreement with the life of Muhammad. There thousands of similarity.

  29. says

    Above, our latest Mohammedan, trying his da’wah technique on ‘Diana’ – ROFLMAO, he thinks he can convert *her*? – seriously! – sez: “I always ask the Rabbis for the actual meaning of the Torah and I found most of them in agreement with the life of Muhammad. There thousands of similarity. ”

    NONSENSE.

    There is a vast, and indeed bottomless gulf fixed between the TaNaKh on the one hand, and the unholy and accursed texts of Islam, on the other.

    Just one example: holiness is one of *the* central characteristics of YHWH, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom I as a Christian hold to be also God and Father of Yehoshuah the Messiah. YHWH constantly tells his people – ‘Be ye holy, as I am holy’.

    Holiness barely rates a mention in the Islamic texts.

    Another point to bear in mind: in the TaNaKh, humanity is created in the image of God, after the divine likeness.

    And a further point: in the TaNaKh, God, YHWH, the Holy One of Israel, is absolutely and utterly faithful and dependable, abounding in steadfast love, making and keeping covenant. In the Christian scripture, it is said plainly, ‘God is Love’.

    Whereas in the Islamic texts, allah is unknowable and infinitely capricious, and is even described (admiringly) as the best of Deceivers. No Muslim can *trust* ‘allah'; not as a Jew or a Christian is able to trust YHWH. ‘allah’ does not love…not at all, not in the way that YHWH loves.

  30. says

    Time to revisit a classic article from 2009.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

    Outlaw the hijab
    N. Maruani
    07/08/2009 20:54

    The author, N Maruani, analyses and summarises the views of an Iranian woman, one Chahdortt Djavann, resident in France, and who is either an apostate or a Muslim In Name Only, who makes some very cogent arguments in support of a total ban on the Islamic female slave rag.

    I shall quote a few excerpts from Maruani’s account of Djavann’s work:

    ‘Djavann points out that no regime has ever forced women to go about with their navels showing, whereas the veil is imposed upon several hundred million women around the world.

    ‘She writes that the veil cannot be presented as a personal choice, disregarding centuries of Islamic history.

    ‘She adds that it is inappropriate to probe the motivations of every young girl wearing the veil when what is at stake is a political agenda.

    ‘Djavann explains further:
    **”The veil has never been innocent or innocuous. It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries.” ** {my emphasis – dda}.

    ‘…ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:

    “The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance… If this weren’t the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?…

    **It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law.”** {my emphasis – dda. This is perhaps THE key point. The Slave Rag is a badge, a uniform, a flag, a statement of loyalty and a statement of intention…and it is as menacing as, or even more menacing than, the Swastika flag above a Gestapo HQ – dda}…

    Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system cannot, because

    **”the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system.” ** {my emphasis, again, – dda}.

    To repeat: “The veil [and Djavann means by that, I think, *all* forms of the Islamic female cover-up costume, even the most apparently demure, the head-bag that pretends to be like the nun’s wimple, but is not, for its meaning is entirely different – dda] is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system”. END QUOTE.

    And that, my friends, is why the French ban on hijab of any kind in schools and public buildings, and this further ban on the wearing of the niqab or face-covering, the Islamic female slave mask, in public places, is so very, very important; and why the Muslims are so viciously infuriated.

    The French have – with an unerring instinct, and let us not forget, that this is the nation that *does* fashion, that *knows* the meaning of women’s clothes and has done so for centuries – zeroed right in on an apparently little thing that is in fact a great big deal.

    The French need to be encouraged, loud and clear; told that, having gone so far as to institute a ban, they *must* enforce it, no matter what, even if they have to call in the army…enforcing it is in a very real sense the test of whether France will survive and prevail.

    Battle is now joined.

    If the French can win this first battle, they may go on to win all the others that await them down the track.

  31. says

    And now for a classic from the archives.

    French high school teacher and political thinker, Robert Redeker.

    Does anyone remember him? New posters may never have heard of him.

    Meet Robert Redeker:

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/09/writer-of-anti-islam-article-gets-death-threats.html

    He published a lapidary little essay in Figaro in 2006.

    They ‘disappeared’ it from their online archives, but in the comments to the link I just gave, you will find the text of the article, charitably supplied by a long-ago jihadwatcher, Sebastien, in full.

    Here is Sebastien’s posting:

    Sebastien | September 28, 2006 4:57 PM

    “I can think of three recent times in France where high school teachers have made national headlines because their intellect made nationalal waves beyond the classroom.
    The most celebrated is Louis Changnon, the Evry history teacher who was sued for racism because he mentioned that Mohammed was a thief. He won his case,
    Another is the professor Etienne Chouard, a teacher from Marseille http://etienne.chouard.free.fr/Europe/Presentation_(in_English).htm who had a huge influence in provoking the ‘No’ vote on the 29th of May 2005 European Constitution referendum.

    And here we have Robert Redeker, who once again has proved that you cannot keep a keen intellect from expressing itself when the truth is silenced.

    Beauty, courage and truth are what make our civilization what it is. Supress it and it comes out even harder. This is not over, not by a very long shot.

    The article in question has disappeared from the Figaro site, so I reproduce it here for JW records.

    For those looking for the soundbite quote; here it is: “Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence” (The Qu’ran is a book of extraordinary violence)

    Robert Redeker (Philosophe. Professeur au lycée Pierre-Paul-Riquet à Saint-Orens de Gammeville. Va publier Dépression et philosophie (éditions Pleins Feux).

    Les réactions suscitées par l’analyse de Benoît XVI sur l’islam et la violence s’inscrivent dans la tentative menée par cet islam d’étouffer ce que l’Occident a de plus précieux qui n’existe dans aucun pays musulman : la liberté de penser et de s’exprimer.

    L’islam essaie d’imposer à l’Europe ses règles : ouverture des piscines à certaines heures exclusivement aux femmes, interdiction de caricaturer cette religion, exigence d’un traitement diététique particulier des enfants musulmans dans les cantines, combat pour le port du voile à l’école, accusation d’islamophobie contre les esprits libres.

    Comment expliquer l’interdiction du string à Paris-Plages, cet été ? Étrange fut l’argument avancé : risque de «troubles à l’ordre public». Cela signifiait-il que des bandes de jeunes frustrés risquaient de devenir violents à l’affichage de la beauté ? Ou bien craignait-on des manifestations islamistes, via des brigades de la vertu, aux abords de Paris-Plages ?

    Pourtant, la non-interdiction du port du voile dans la rue est, du fait de la réprobation que ce soutien à l’oppression contre les femmes suscite, plus propre à «troubler l’ordre public» que le string. Il n’est pas déplacé de penser que cette interdiction traduit une islamisation des esprits en France, une soumission plus ou moins consciente aux diktats de l’islam.

    Ou, à tout le moins, qu’elle résulte de l’insidieuse pression musulmane sur les esprits.

    Islamisation des esprits : ceux-là même qui s’élevaient contre l’inauguration d’un Parvis Jean-Paul-II à Paris ne s’opposent pas à la construction de mosquées. L’islam tente d’obliger l’Europe à se plier à sa vision de l’homme.

    Comme jadis avec le communisme, l’Occident se retrouve sous surveillance idéologique. L’islam se présente, à l’image du défunt communisme, comme une alternative au monde occidental.

    À l’instar du communisme d’autrefois, l’islam, pour conquérir les esprits, joue sur une corde sensible. Il se targue d’une légitimité qui trouble la conscience occidentale, attentive à autrui : être la voix des pauvres de la planète. Hier, la voix des pauvres prétendait venir de Moscou, aujourd’hui elle viendrait de La Mecque !

    Aujourd’hui à nouveau, des intellectuels incarnent cet oeil du Coran, comme ils incarnaient l’oeil de Moscou hier. Ils excommunient pour islamophobie, comme hier pour anticommunisme.

    Dans l’ouverture à autrui, propre à l’Occident, se manifeste une sécularisation du christianisme, dont le fond se résume ainsi : l’autre doit toujours passer avant moi. L’Occidental, héritier du christianisme, est l’être qui met son âme à découvert. Il prend le risque de passer pour faible. À l’identique de feu le communisme, l’islam tient la générosité, l’ouverture d’esprit, la tolérance, la douceur, la liberté de la femme et des moeurs, les valeurs démocratiques, pour des marques de décadence.

    Ce sont des faiblesses qu’il veut exploiter au moyen «d’idiots utiles», les bonnes consciences imbues de bons sentiments, afin d’imposer l’ordre coranique au monde occidental lui-même.

    Le Coran est un livre d’inouïe violence.

    Maxime Rodinson énonce, dans l’Encyclopédia Universalis, quelques vérités aussi importantes que taboues en France. D’une part, «Muhammad révéla à Médine des qualités insoupçonnées de dirigeant politique et de chef militaire (…) Il recourut à la guerre privée, institution courante en Arabie (…) Muhammad envoya bientôt des petits groupes de ses partisans attaquer les caravanes mekkoises, punissant ainsi ses incrédules compatriotes et du même coup acquérant un riche butin».

    D’autre part, «Muhammad profita de ce succès pour éliminer de Médine, en la faisant massacrer, la dernière tribu juive qui y restait, les Qurayza, qu’il accusait d’un comportement suspect». Enfin, «après la mort de Khadidja, il épousa une veuve, bonne ménagère, Sawda, et aussi la petite Aisha, qui avait à peine une dizaine d’années. Ses penchants érotiques, longtemps contenus, devaient lui faire contracter concurremment une dizaine de mariages».

    Exaltation de la violence : chef de guerre impitoyable, pillard, massacreur de juifs et polygame, tel se révèle Mahomet à travers le Coran.

    De fait, l’Église catholique n’est pas exempte de reproches. Son histoire est jonchée de pages noires, sur lesquelles elle a fait repentance. L’Inquisition, la chasse aux sorcières, l’exécution des philosophes Bruno et Vanini, ces mal-pensants épicuriens, celle, en plein XVIIIe siècle, du chevalier de La Barre pour impiété, ne plaident pas en sa faveur.

    Mais ce qui différencie le christianisme de l’islam apparaît : il est toujours possible de retourner les valeurs évangéliques, la douce personne de Jésus contre les dérives de l’Église.

    Aucune des fautes de l’Église ne plonge ses racines dans l’Évangile. Jésus est non-violent. Le retour à Jésus est un recours contre les excès de l’institution ecclésiale. Le recours à Mahomet, au contraire, renforce la haine et la violence.

    Jésus est un maître d’amour, Mahomet un maître de haine.

    La lapidation de Satan, chaque année à La Mecque, n’est pas qu’un phénomène superstitieux. Elle ne met pas seulement en scène une foule hystérisée flirtant avec la barbarie. Sa portée est anthropologique. Voilà en effet un rite, auquel chaque musulman est invité à se soumettre, inscrivant la violence comme un devoir sacré au coeur du croyant.

    Cette lapidation, s’accompagnant annuellement de la mort par piétinement de quelques fidèles, parfois de plusieurs centaines, est un rituel qui couve la violence archaïque.

    Au lieu d’éliminer cette violence archaïque, à l’imitation du judaïsme et du christianisme, en la neutralisant (le judaïsme commence par le refus du sacrifice humain, c’est-à-dire l’entrée dans la civilisation, le christianisme transforme le sacrifice en eucharistie), l’islam lui confectionne un nid, où elle croîtra au chaud.

    Quand le judaïsme et le christianisme sont des religions dont les rites conjurent la violence, la délégitiment, l’islam est une religion qui, dans son texte sacré même, autant que dans certains de ses rites banals, exalte violence et haine.

    Haine et violence habitent le livre dans lequel tout musulman est éduqué, le Coran.

    Comme aux temps de la guerre froide, violence et intimidation sont les voies utilisées par une idéologie à vocation hégémonique, l’islam, pour poser sa chape de plomb sur le monde.

    Benoît XVI en souffre la cruelle expérience.

    Comme en ces temps-là, il faut appeler l’Occident «le monde libre» par rapport à au monde musulman, et comme en ces temps-là les adversaires de ce «monde libre», fonctionnaires zélés de l’oeil du Coran, pullulent en son sein.”

  32. says

    From the link just above, the full English translation of Redeker’s article that appeared in Le Figaro in 2006.

    “What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

    “The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.

    “Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe: opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

    “How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on the Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wearing thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

    “However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding of the oppression of women.This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on people’s minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques.

    “Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

    “As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch.

    “Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world.

    “In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive chord. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet.

    “Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca!

    “Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as they once did for anti-communism.

    “This openness to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus: the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the one that bares his soul. He runs the risk of being seen as weak.

    “With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence.

    “They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-righteous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

    “The Koran [as also the Hadith and the Sira – dda] is a book of unparalleled violence.

    “Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo.

    On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”

    ‘There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.”

    ‘And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages.”

    “A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

    “Of course, the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is littered with dark pages, for which it has officially repented. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor.

    “But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true principles of the Gospels, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

    “None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswearing the excesses of the Church.

    “Going back to Mahomet, on the contrary, reinforces hate and violence.

    “Jesus is a master of love; Mahomet is a master of hatred.

    “The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its meaning is anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.

    “This stoning, accompanied each year by the accidental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

    “Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate.

    “Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

    “Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran.

    “As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world.

    “Benedict XVI’s cruel experience bears witness to this.

    “Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the free World.”

    Thus wrote M Redeker, philosophe, in 2006; seven years ago.

    And was instantly deluged with death threats, and had to give up his job as a teacher in a lycee, and flee into hiding.

  33. says

    “The jihad in Europe has moved from dawa and peaceful inner struggle…. ”
    It’s a matter of scriptural fact, that approximately a mere 3% of the teachings refer to the inner jihad. Over 60% of the Koran speaks to the dealing with infidel/unbelievers, the outer jihad.
    I think it would be reasonable to say if these percentages were reversed we’d see a far more civilised cooperative assimilatable people.
    Except of course for the primitive, inequitable, murderous, mutilatory, sharia.
    That’s something I don’t think is amenable to reason, logic, ethics, morality, or any argument about justice by western standards.
    It’s pie in the sky to think there’ll be a common ground to such an extent that harmony is possible.
    The Islamists of the primary streams and various sects are destroying each other for Gods sake.
    It’d be fair to say, when there are only two Islamists left on the planet, one will find fault with the other, then there will be one.

  34. says

    The Jihad undertaken in Europe is not the Jihad explained by Muhammad. The Jihad explained and practiced by Muhammad in the first instance demands one the Jihadist to be educated in the teaching of Muhammad. He must then practice Ibadat as done by Muhammad. he then calls those who voluntarily have understood that Muhammad acted on the written and oral law of Moses according to the actions of the Levi clans of the Children of Israel in Madina until the time they were moved to Khaybar by him.

  35. says

    Watcher,

    I’ve read in some if the links up there that there were 400, not 250 Jihadists assaulting the police station. In American military terms a full Battalion is between 300-1000 men, the Muslims mobilized a Battalion strength force in hours.

    This is clearly a military threat to the sovereign territory of France.

  36. says

    “if these percentages were reversed we’d see a far more civilised cooperative assimilatable people.”

    They WILL be reversed, and very soon.

    The Collapse of the Islamic World
    by Abdel-Samad (a German-Egyptian political scientist, historian and author.) He calls for an “Islam light” in Europe without shari’a, jihad, gender apartheid, proselytism and “entitlement mentality”

    Part 1: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8696

    Part 2: http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=8697

  37. says

    Please let us stop talking about the Qur’an if one is ignorant of it. About 90% of the Qur’an talks on previous civilizations and how they reacted to the Shari’a Allah sent to them through their prophets and messengers. The main civilization were the Children of Israel. The matter of Jihad comes up after 8 A.H. That Jihad is to understand the message and deal with the Muslim hypocrites.

  38. says

    I tell you what Salah, my earnest hopes and prayers accord with your optimism.
    My fear is, that if such a clear minded country such as France capitulates to this,
    The domino effect is predictable.
    The UK has sold its citizens out with its pathetically ignorant apologism, as has the US? Shame shame shame.
    I live in Western Australia. Geert Wilders couldn’t secure a speaking venue here earlier this year. WTF.??
    Government has just sworn in a federal member of parliament who wouldn’t swear allegiance on the Holy Bible.
    No he swore in on the Koran.
    Yep in Australia.
    He pleaded “I can’t help who I am”.
    And he won’t be able to help who he is when he’s undermining the fundamentals of our civilisation, I’ll wager.
    May the real God help us in the civilised world
    .

  39. says

    An “Islam Light” is as preposterous a notion as a “Nazism Light” or a “KKK Light” or a “Serial Killers Light”.

    No, sorry. An “Islam Light” is much, much more preposterous than those other “Lights”.

  40. says

    “if such a clear minded country such as France capitulates to this,
    The domino effect is predictable.”

    I agree with you, but isn’t up to us, the people, to get rid of our PC elites? Egypt just did it, why can’t we?

  41. says

    You’re right, there’s no such thing as “islam light”, but if some Muslims decide to reject shari’a, jihad, gender apartheid etc… aren’t they subtly rejecting Islam itself? don’t they deserve our respect? They may call themselves Muslims if they want to, but deep inside, we all know that they aren’t.
    Do we really care about the label “Muslim”? all we care about is a world without jihad, without sharia and without gender apartheid.

  42. says

    Hi Miriam, check out this brave woman, this brave veiled Muslim woman, denouncing the Muslims’ assault on St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral in Egypt.
    At the risk of her life she’s holding a sign that says:
    “Down with Facist, Nazi, Killer Islam”

  43. says

    All I see in that YouTube is a bunch of bored unemployed Muslim teenagers and young men wearing Charlie-Brown type shirts and some woman in a burka remonstrating in rapid-fire Arabic for like 10 minutes.

    Until I see a complete word-for-word translation of what she is saying, I can’t begin to evalute what’s going on.

  44. says

    Very well put, George. My compliments. France should listen to you. Probably won’t though. Its loss. Ours too since the West as a whole should stand against the massive tyranny of mind, spirit and flesh which Islam unchecked imposes upon anyone when it can. Take care, my friend.

  45. says

    George is exactly correct.

    Dialogue is a sop to the faint of heart. What is needed is direct action and deportation.Somalia would be a good destination.

    Any muslim found rioting, protesting, praying in the street or causing a disruption of any kind gets automatic deportation, and their brothers, sisters, in-laws, cousins, aunts, uncles, all relatives. The lot. Any refugee returning to their hell hole of origin for a visit is not permitted re-entry.

    And we’ll see how long the belief lasts in the face of a return to the pestilential hell holes they have come from.

  46. says

    How do you deport French Citizens from France?

    Yes, you can deport non-citizens. If the offence is sufficiently serious, you can even rescind permanent residence.

    But how can you deport a French Citizen without first removing citizenship? And how can you remove citizenship unless the person is a dual national and actually has somewhere else to go?

    Many of the Muslim rioters are in fact dual nationals and do have somewhere else to go. But the logistics of removing citizenship are very complex even then.

    The constitutions of European countries are simply not set up for the assumption that revoking citizenship is a commonplace or straightforward penalty.

  47. says

    The Czechs and their entire country, LL, were occupied and brutalized by Germany in a way that went far beyond what Muslims have done to America so far, even with 9/11, the Boston bombing, etc., so the comparison is not very apt. Also, Germany in 1945 was reviled far more than Islam is today, even though Islam deserves significantly more scorn by the world at large than has occurred to date. Moreover, under present American law, it is highly unlikely to impossible (I’d say the latter) to simply start deporting Muslims en masse.

    Understand, I appreciate the sentiment and would dearly like to see a Muslim-free America, though I would settle for Islam being looked upon by the vast majority of Americans, including most elites, as negatively as are the KKK, Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Marxists, anarchists, et al. If this occurs, I believe this would be enough to thwart Islam’s designs on America almost completely, with it being relegated to a fringe ideology adhered to, at best, by very confused human beings, though I have to consider the possibility that even then new laws, perhaps even a constitutional amdment, might be necessary to rid America of the Islam menace, which is unique in certain ways.

    The Czechs riight after WWII slipped through a time window that, at least yet, does not exist for America or other Western nations. Damn shame but that’s the reality. Perhaps, though, such a time window will appear again for America, France, The Netherlands, Britain, etc. Don’t rightly know at this point.

  48. says

    I knew someone would try to argue that the Czech circumstance for their program of forced relocation of a large population of Czechs (most of whom were citizens, and many of whom had roots in Czechoslovakia going back generations, even centuries) was sufficiently different from our current Western circumstance such as to exclude our ability to take similar actions against our Muslim citizens.

    Now the next step is to actually construct that argument such that it is cogent and persuasive. Personally, I have yet to see one.

  49. says

    Rather more than deporting an action done by Muhammad for the Jews in Madina to practice the Torah but also to create safe towns as recommended in the Torah. Was the migration of Muhammad to Madina not a copycat of safe towns?.

  50. says

    Muslims like you who either a) actually don’t follow the Sunna because they are schizphrenically delusional about the nature of Islam; or b) are pretending not to follow the Sunna to fool the Unbelievers into thinking Islam is less dangerously predatory than it is, are not worth our time to engage — since in the case of a, it would be foolhardy to try to have a conversation with a delusional person, and in the case of b, discussions with fanatically mendacious enemies only serve a pragmatic function perhaps as a spectacle to other non-Muslims who need to learn more about Islam and about Muslim psychology.

  51. says

    Hadith Sahih Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 38, Number 4348:

    Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

    A blind man had an Ummu Walad (a female slave who has borne a child to her master), who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He (the blind man) forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

    He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

    He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

    Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

    Meaning: murdering those that insult islam and the prophet become Halal for capital punishment. I disagree, I think Muslims in Europe understand full and well the religion of their murdering prophet, and this is not compatible with western society.

  52. says

    Gee, I thought I had done that. Damn. Would be interested, though, in the legal argument you would present before the United States Supreme Court, if given the opportunity, for the deportation of Muslims en masse from America, especially those with American citizenship. Sorry to tell you, LL, had you such an opportunity I’d bet heavily it would be 9-0 decision against your argument.

  53. says

    Then who is kicking against and denying the Shari’a? The Shari’a of Muhammad spells out the necessity of protecting life property honor lineage and human rights. On top of this he destroyed a mosque in which some hypocrites spread mischief and hate speech. We are now in era different from that of Muhammad. There is no knowledge of the scripture in practice. Certainly deporting his followers is part of the Shari’a of Muhammad provided that they are given the opportunity to correct but then refused. That is if the USA will educate the followers of Muhammad as per the facts in ISBN 1468070444 and then refused to comply throwing them out of USA becomes an obligatory act.

  54. says

    “had you such an opportunity I’d bet heavily it would be 9-0 decision against your argument.”

    If today we had a circumstance similar to 1942, it’s not unlikely (much less impossible) that today’s Justices would rule 9-0 against an argument in favor of interning American citizens in camps — even though the Supreme Court did not rule against the actual internment of Japanese-Americans (and German-Americans and Italian-Americans). As august as the Supreme Court is, it is not immune from cultural fashion; which ordinarily is a good thing, as in law just as much as in theology, we don’t want interpretation/exegesis to be confused with revelation set in stone.

    That good thing translates as a bad thing, today, insofar as the cultural fashion militates against doing things we need to do to protect our society from horrific mass-murderous attacks in the context of an organization of people waging (in their minds) a hot war against us. But since it’s a fashion, there’s hope it will readjust over time. Let’s just hope too many of us do not get murdered and maimed before we do so. How unconcionably slow that process of reason will be we have some indication of, when even people in the Counter-Jihad demonstrate psychological and intellectual reflexes consonant with that retardation.

  55. says

    Sorry my dear Lemonline! You are again exhibiting your total and gross ignorance of the meaning of Islam explained by Muhammad in a period of 23 years. If you are prejudiced then know that Muhammad demanded to have a source better than the Qur’an and Torah for guidance for him to follow. What have you achieved in adopting a system of life outside the Torah and the Qur’an? Racism and hating the Jews telling lies about Muhammad? Did Muhammad not protect them?
    I am sure if you are rich enough to read from http//sbpra.com//allamadrsanisalihmustapha you will regret your statement.Please read your rubrics carefully to know that you cannot describe call address one who follows not the sunna as a Muslim. He is an unbeliever. The one who pretends to follow the sunna is a hypocrite. So, please fix mutakallim in his proper epigee.

  56. says

    Well, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the violent Muslims of today are following Muhammad’s true example or a distorted idea of his sunna. The point is:

    (1) These people are violent and a danger to their societies.

    (2) They justify their violence by citing, with great consistency, the example of Muhammad.

    So anyone who claims adherence to the example of Muhammad is highly likely to be a danger to our society because he is highly likely to believe that Muhammad encouraged violence.

    Now, maybe you believe Muhammad was justified, but I would shudder if Muhammad came to live in my town. Just look at his track-record.

    (1) For nine years he not only preached Hellfire but also incited riots in the streets of Mecca. The Muslims were known in Mecca as “Muhammad’s gang of thugs”.

    (2) But not until he actually declared war on Mecca, backed by seventy warriors from Medina, did the Meccans pass the death-sentence on him.

    (3) Muhammad escaped. It took him just eight years to return to Mecca with an army of ten thousand and demand that everyone do as he ordered or be killed.

    His track record with the Jews in Medina is no better.

    (1) Yes, he set up the Compact of Medina, but he had lived in Medina for less than a year before he placed himself outside its protection by becoming a highwayman. The Compact actually stated that it would not protect people like that.

    (2) He definitively broke the Compact of Medina in April 624 (just 19 months after his arrival) by expelling 1700 Jews. Their only crime had been to refuse to convert to Islam.

    (3) After that there was no pretence that the Compact still existed. He ordered the assassination of anyone who criticised him. At one time the blood of Jews was halal simply because they were Jews.

    (4) In August 625 he expelled another 1800 Jews for no other reason than that they had refused to hand their real estate over to him. Who did he think he was, expecting people to hand over their property on demand? But the Jews already knew that he was a thief.

    (5) In the spring of 627 he killed 600 Jews and sold another 1000 into slavery. This time their crime had been to remain neutral when a third party attacked the Muslims. Frankly, they would have done better to join the invaders – after everything Muhammad had done in Medina, getting rid of him would have been the morally correct thing to do.

    (6) In the summer of 628 he attacked, defeated and subjected to vassalage the remaining Jews in Arabia. They hadn’t actually done anything. Muhammad’s logic was partly that (a) they might oppose him later, and partly that (b) his previous expedition had failed, and the Muslims were desperate for something else to loot, so he took them to loot the Jews.

    This is what the earliest pro-Muslim history books say. So it’s not surprising that some modern Muslims think it’s what Muhammad did and are trying to copy his example.

    But if you think that kind of behaviour is wrong, it only proves that you are a better person than Muhammad was. Frankly, this is not a difficult thing to be.

  57. says

    Good! This is an example of the hadith that are regarded as unreliable for it has no chain of narrators. Abdul Ibn Abbas was 16 years when the apostle died. According to rules in hadith narration he did not quote his source.
    Please examine the hadith carefully and see the fun about it.
    Assuming that the blind man killed his slave. The Shari’a involves intimidation, provocation and ignorance by the blind man that if one abused Muhammad, that one has to be brought to Muhammad. No one has the right to take the law to himself. It was not Muhammad who ordered for her murder. She was already murdered. Because one has to be educated before the Shari’a is passed on him, nothing the prophet can do. You do not punish an ignorant one. In the end, if you believe in the hereafter, Allah will do the final Shari’a.
    There are books on the Shari’a stipulating what you and others do not know.There are guidelines, sets of procedures etc.

  58. says

    That is according to you persistent belief and misunderstanding. You and others do not know that Muhammad Shari’a has its root from the Torah. No other tribe with Islam and hence law lived in Madina besides the Levi clans. If they commit an offense, Muhammad will pass judgment on them according to their Torah. It is after that punishment that it is incorporated as his Shari’a. If Muhammad were to pass a punishment on them not based on their Torah, he is liable and becomes a believer. If you have read the 365 prohibitions in the Torah, you will see that all that transpired in the six years after hijra were from the Jewish behavior. When the Jews were moved to Khaybar, no further punishment was prescribed. The followers of Muhammad committed offenses different from those committed by the Jews. Their main crime was hypocrisy. Muhammad did not approve the murder of Ubayy ibn Salul despite the demand of his son and Umar for that. Please listen to us and be guided. It is unfair when the truth is told to be rejected. This is the behavior of some of you.

  59. says

    But what I’m saying is that it doesn’t actually matter whether Muhammad did these things or not.

    What matters is that so many Muslims today believe that he did them and copy his supposed example.

    You are saying that there are Muslims alive today who honestly believe that the Torah teaches that a non-Jew can dispossess the Jews of their ancestral lands solely because those Jews do not acknowledge a supposed prophet.

    There is nothing like that in the Torah or even in the Tanakh. Over a period of a thousand years, the Jews frequently refused to acknowledge prophets – sometimes because they were false prophets and sometimes because the Jews did not want to obey a real prophet. But the prophet never had the right to dispossess the Jews. He just kept on preaching, whether anyone listened to him or not.

    If there are Muslims live today who believe that Muhammad was right to dispossess the Jews of Medina, that is very bad news for the rest of us.

  60. says

    Diana

    above, you wrote –
    “Well, this one is not conceptually difficult.

    “Arrest all 250 of those involved in the riot. Deport those who shouldn’t have been in France; fine those who expressed sympathy by walking alongside the rioters; jail those who committed any act of violence. Give a tough sentence to the man who assaulted the policeman – in addition to the 30,000 euros he owes for veiling his wife..”.

    Yes. Exactly.

    This is a test, and the French need to come down **hard**. Like the proverbial ton of bricks. And then, at the next test, they need to do it again.

    xactly.

    Every face-veiled female – and in addition, every Mohammedan who riots, etc. in support of such face-veiled females, who are basically doing the equivalent of parading around with a swastika armband on, since the Islamic female slave rag is the functional equivalent of the black flag of Jihad – should be treated exactly as fare-jumpers were treated when David Gunn and William Bratton started in to clean up the New York subways.

    It *would* require a massive deployment of police – and, perhaps, the Army, and perhaps even the recruitment and swearing-in and basic equipping and training of able-bodied Infidels as assistant police and army reservists, so as to have maximum numbers – but I think it might work.

    Ever read Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘Tipping Point’? He talks about the ‘broken windows’ theory of how crime spreads. *I* think that a mosque functions pretty much exactly as a ‘crack house’ functions. Islam is *set up* to create a sort of ‘urban blight’. It *uses* the ‘broken windows’ principle; it drives things downhill. The answer is to come down **hard** on the initial apparently trivial breaches of public utility and order.

    Here’s part of chapter four from ‘Tipping Point’, entitled ‘the power of context’. (I think the whole book conveniently brings together some ideas that the counter-jihad should think about, hard; especially if you read it in conjunction with Sam Solomon’s two books on how the Islamisation process works, ‘The Mosque and Its Role in Society’ and ‘Al-Hijra: The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration’).

    “With felonies – serious crimes – on the subway system at an all-time high, Bratton decided to crack down on fare-beating. Why? Because he believed that, like graffiti [which Gunn had already tackled, head on] fare-beating could be a signal, a small expression of disorder [and what else is the Islamic female slave rag – symbolising sharia and the intention to impose sharia – but an expression of disorder, if worn within any non-Muslim country? – dda] that invited much more serious crimes.

    “An estimated 170 000 people a day were entering the system…without paying a token…

    “First, he picked stations where fare-beating was the biggest problem, and put as many as ten policemen in plainclothes at the turnstiles. The team would nab fare-beaters one by one, handcuff them, and leave them standing, in a daisy chain, on the platform until they had a “full bag”.

    {Okay…first lesson here, for the French, is to muster **visibly overwhelming force, no matter what it initially takes**, and **focus on the places where face-veiled women are frequently seen scuttling in the wake of their swaggering bearded male owners**. It may take the army, the riot squad, the dog squad. So what; if necessary, *use* the army. The bigger the initial Infidel display application of force, the *less* likely the Muslims – being bullies and cowards – are to try anything major. – dda}

    “The idea was to signal, as publicly as possible, that the transit polcie were now serious about cracking down on fare-beaters.

    {Any French posters listening in? – translate these passages from Gladwell, and share with your local police chiefs. – dda}

    “Previously, police officers had been wary of pursuing fare-beaters because the arrest, the trip to the station house, the filling out of necessary forms, and the waiting for those forms to be processed took an entire day – all for a crime that usually merited no more than a slap on the wrist.

    “Bratton retrofitted a city bus and turned it into a rolling station house, with its own fax machines, phones, holding pens and fingerprinting facilities. Soon the turnaround time on an arrest was down to an hour.

    {Now for the bit that applies, in spades, to the French situation. – dda}.

    “**Bratton also insisted that a check be run on all those arrested**.

    “Sure enough, one out of seven arrestees had an outstanding warrant for a previous crime, and one out of twenty was carrying a weapon of some sort.

    {Note: I’ll BET that if the French ran a Bratton-style ‘background and weapons check’ on twenty veiled Muslimahs plus owners plus *every* Mohammedan who turned out in support of same, it would be a lot more than one in seven who would turn out to have a criminal record – whether violent crime, identity crime, immigration violations, and/ or welfare fraud, and it would be a lot more than one in twenty who would turn out to be carrying a weapon. – dda}

    ‘Suddenly it wasn’t hard to convince police officers that tackling fare beating made sense.

    “For the cops it was a bonanza”, Bratton writes, “Every arrest was like opening a box of Cracker Jack. What kind of toy am i going to get? Got a gun? Got a knife? Got a warrant? Do we have a murderer here?”

    ‘After a while the bad guys wised up and began to leave their weapons at home and pay their fares.” END QUOTE

    Imagine what might happen if the French resolutely set out, street by street and suburb by suburb, to enforce the burka / face-veil ban; and did so using the methods by which Bratton tackled fare-jumping, with the additional proviso that overwhelming force, instantly deployed at the smallest hint of trouble, will probably be required. And if they added the various measures that you have suggested.

    The Mohammedan colonies within France would probably explode into open jihad mode; but that is going to happen anyway, and better for it to happen ‘prematurely’ (from the Muslim POV) with the Infidel side having ‘forced the issue’ and selected the battlefield.

    Let it be the *Infidels* who up the ante.

  61. says

    Pursuant to my posting above.

    To repeat a couple of passages from Redeker’s exquisitely-worded essay, that are directly relevant to these riots in Paris.

    “Comment expliquer l’interdiction du string à Paris-Plages, cet été ? Étrange fut l’argument avancé : risque de «troubles à l’ordre public». Cela signifiait-il que des bandes de jeunes frustrés risquaient de devenir violents à l’affichage de la beauté ? Ou bien craignait-on des manifestations islamistes, via des brigades de la vertu, aux abords de Paris-Plages ?

    Pourtant, la non-interdiction du port du voile dans la rue est, du fait de la réprobation que ce soutien à l’oppression contre les femmes suscite, plus propre à «troubler l’ordre public» que le string. Il n’est pas déplacé de penser que cette interdiction traduit une islamisation des esprits en France, une soumission plus ou moins consciente aux diktats de l’islam.”

    English translation, from that which is supplied at the following link:

    http://extremecentre.org/2006/09/28/robert-bedeker-english-translation/

    “How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs [sic: that is, ‘the wearing of ‘le string’, i.e. the string bikini – dda] on the Paris-Beaches* this summer?

    “The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wearing thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”.

    “Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

    “**However, the authorization of the veil on the street [literally: “the non-forbidding of the wearing of the Islamic veil on the street” – dda] is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding of the oppression of women.

    ‘This ban [that is, the ban on ‘le string’ – dda] represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam.” END QUOTE.

    I am sure that M Redeker was very happy to see a ban on the niqab becoming law, at least on paper; and now I am sure he is watching anxiously, from a secure undisclosed location somewhere, and hoping against hope that his countrymen will muster the courage to *enforce* the ban.

  62. says

    Sorry my friend. I think this is a civilized forum where retirees with an in-depth knowledge of the heavenly scriptures and of relativity contribute to peace and stability. They should be gentleman and not rogues or those with a sinister motive. Please do not include me in your category. Yes, I can give infusion to a dead man or attempt to resuscitate him. This is not applicable in the teaching of Muhammad. One is responsible to one self and according to Muhammad no one will justify his failure to understand the last Message.

  63. says

    Good, the old Muslims misunderstanding of Islam in spite of the piles of dead satirists, death threats, and censorship.

    Great, explain that to Muslims LOL, not me :).