The incident at the lingerie-shop in Montpellier, where a hijabbed woman was at first denied employment as long as she insisted on wearing the hijab, highlights a frequent debate in French politics and society: Can French Muslims ever be just French?
French Muslims can be “just French” if they are willing to adopt to, rather than resist, the laws, customs, and understandings of French society, beginning with the principle of “laicite” (the laic state), enshrined in French law since 1905. Every effort has been made by the French state to support Muslim migrants, who have had many benefits lavished upon them: free or highly subsidized housing, free education, free medical care, family allowances.Yet we see that French Muslims have segregated themselves, creating neighborhoods that in some cases have become distinctly unwelcome to the French. These are the “No Go” areas where non-Muslims fear to tread. Then there are the hundreds of French Muslims who have enthusiastically gone off to join ISIS; the tens of thousands of Muslims who without official permission aggressively take over French city streets for mass prayers; there are Muslim students who refuse to study the history of the Crusades, or the history of the French kings, seeing these subjects as irrelevant or offensive to them; ,some have objected to studying the Holocaust, also on the national history syllabus, because it creates “too much sympathy” for Jews.”
It is not the French who are keeping the Muslims out of the larger society, but the Muslims who are refusing to be “just French.” The Qur’an tells Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as friends, for “they are friends only with each other.”(5:51) It further says that while the Muslims “are the best of peoples,” (3:110) non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6). Muslims who read those verses are not likely to want to integrate into French society; for the true Believers, it would make no sense for the “best of peoples” to want to become part of the society created by “the most vile of created beings.”
“Following the 2015 attacks in Paris, in which the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant armed group (ISIL or ISIS) killed 130 people in three incidents, Islamophobic sentiment has increased, said Nadiya Lazzouni, a journalist and Muslim activist.
“The belief that Islam cannot be a part of France’s Republic or that the French Muslim is a disguised enemy from within the country has definitely spread across the country,” she told Al Jazeera.
“It’s important to remember that after the 2015 attacks, the government and other institutions publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened, which clearly means they didn’t trust Muslims to be supportive of France,” Lazzouni said. “It was a way to affirm whether we were loyal to the nation or not.”
Nadiya Lazzouni claims that after the 2015 attacks in Paris by Muslim terrorists, “Islamophobic sentiment has increased.” There was no increase in “an irrational fear and hatred” of Islam. These 2015 attacks — which began with the murders in January of 12 cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, and of a half-dozen shoppers killed at a kosher supermarket, led to an increase in “a rational fear” of Islam and of Muslims. This rational fear was heightened in November, when there were attacks at the Bataclan nightclub, and outside the Stade de France, and at several cafes and restaurants, leaving 130 dead, and 413 wounded, including 100 critically. What should the French public have made of these attacks, by Muslims, claiming to act for Islam? Should they not have been alarmed? Should they not have read the Qur’an to find a possible explanation for such behavior? And when those who read the Qur’an then find those 109 verses commanding Muslims to wage violent Jihad against Unbelievers, to fight and to kill them, to smite at their necks, to strike terror in their hearts, should they simply have ignored those verses? Why? Those who grasp the significance of these verses cannot be accused of harboring a baseless “Islamophobia,” but, rather, they possess a perfectly rational fear of Islam and of Muslims.
Nadiya Lazzouri, a journalist and “Muslim activist,” apparently finds it unacceptable that after the 2015 attacks the French government and other institutions publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened, which clearly means they didn’t trust Muslims to be supportive of France,” Lazuli said. “It was a way to affirm whether we were loyal to the nation or not.”
“The activist said Islamophobia has been increasing at a “frightening rate” in France for years.
I can find no confirmation of Lazzouni’s claim that the French government “publicly asked Muslims to disengage themselves from what happened.” There were Muslims who, as usual, claimed that these attacks in 2015 “had nothing to do with real Islam,” but those remarks were not demanded by the government. What does Lazzouni have in mind? There was not, after the November attacks, the same public call for solidarity with Muslims that had been made after the Charlie-Hebdo attacks, perhaps indicating that there was now less interest in soothing Muslim sensibilities by reassuring them, and a growing realization that those many Muslims who dutifully took in the Qur’anic commands to wage Jihad were not to be trusted– a commonsensical conclusion which Lazzouni finds so terribly unfair.
“According to the Collectif Contre L’Islamophobia en France (Organisation against Islamophobia in France, also known as CCIF) Islamophobic attacks increased by 52 percent in 2018 compared with 2017.
“In the first four months of 2019, there have been a reported 300 attacks.
Without more information, we do not know what, according to the CCIF, constitute “Islamophobic” attacks. One would like to be able to judge the severity of these attacks. Swearing and other forms of verbal disrespect? A line of graffiti near a mosque? How many of these “attacks” involved any physical contact whatsoever? Some Muslims have reported as “islamophobic” attacks even such minor “aggressions” as disapproving looks cast in their direction, or the failure to serve them properly, or promptly, in stores, subjectively interpreted as deliberate expressions of “Islamophobia.” Should such micro-aggressions — if in fact they took place at all, and were not made up to swell the statistics on “islamophobia”–really be counted as “attacks”?
“Lazzouni pointed to former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who created a ministerial position tasked to[sic] deal with reconciling immigration with national identity.
“He created a link between the two,” Lazzouni said, adding that this paved the way for his successor, Francois Hollande, to propose stripping dual-nationality citizens of their French nationality if they were suspected of “terrorist” activity.
“The proposal did not get far following public outcry, but the damage was already done, said Lazzouni.
“It had implanted in people’s minds the creation of “two versions of France facing each other”, she said.
The “version of France” that its Muslims adhere to is based on the Qur’an. Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against non-Muslims, though not necessarily through violence, when other more effective means present themselves (as, in France today, demographic jihad). While the French have made every effort to welcome Muslim migrants, and to integrate them into the wider French society, it is Muslims themselves — not all but a great many — who choose instead to remain aloof. They are told in the Quran not to take Jews and Christians as friends, for “they are friends only with each other.” (5:51) After all, as Muslims, they are the “best of peoples” (3:110) and the French, like all non-Muslims, are “the most vile of created beings.” (98:6). There is no place in France that Muslims cannot go, but there are many places in France that non-Muslins do not dare to go; these are the “No-Go Areas” where young and aggressive Muslims dominate, and even the French police enter these neighborhoods only in groups.
“For Jawad Bachara, CCIF president, the state leads anti-Muslim discrimination.
“Islamophobia is institutionalised within France,” Bachara told Al Jazeera. “There are two laws, one in 2004 that bans the hijab from public schools, and one in 2011 that bans the full face veil, that directly target the individual liberties of Muslim women.”
Jawad Bachara mischaracterizes the 2004 law. It did not just “ban the hijab” but banned the wearing of all religious symbols, including the Jewish skull-cap, and large crucifixes, from public schools. It was based on the felt need to reinforce the 1905 laic law on the strict separation of church and state..
As for the 2011 law banning the full face veil, but only in public (which Bachara fails to note) , that law was enacted, in the first place, for obvious reasons of national security. There have been cases where female terrorists managed not to be identified because they were wearing the niqab, and even more cases where male terrorists escaped detection by wearing the niqab. In the second place, that banning of the veil also was important to foil common criminals who have been wearing niqabs, in the commission of their crimes — the niqab has proven particularly useful for criminals who have, properly niqabbbed, gained entry to jewelry stores in order to successfully rob them.
“Most Islamophobic acts see mosques attacked or Muslim women who wear the hijab assaulted,” Bachara said.
How many mosques in France have been seriously “attacked”? What is the nature of those “attacks”? I can find online only one example of a working mosque that suffered anything more than the most modest of damages: that was the Al-Salam mosque in Toulouse, which did burn down. Another mosque, under construction, was party burned. In other cases, one or a handful of shots were fired, always when the mosque was empty: a single shot was fired at a mosque in Le Mans; several shots were fired at a mosque in Port-la-Nouvelle. Some empty bullet casings were found outside another mosque. At a Muslim prayer hall in Corsica a boar’s head and entrails were left outside with a note (“Next time you will be next”), swastikas and “sieg heils” were also painted on the outside walls of the Grand Mosque in southeastern France. The same swastikas and sieg-heils were painted on a mosque in Castres. Possibly another handful of mosques have had some minor damage: one or a few shots fired (always when the mosque was empty). These attacks are all deplorable, of course, but over the past 18 years, that’s not exactly a record of nonstop violent expressions of “Islamophobia.”
As for “assaults” on hijabbed women in France, I found listed on-lne only one attack, on a niqabbed emirati woman, by another woman who had lived for several years in Arab countries and had had her fill of what she saw as symbol of female oppression and tried to pull off her face veil. I can find not even a single example listed of “Muslim women who wear the hijab.[being] assaulted.”This does not mean there were no such incidents, but it does strongly suggest that there could not have been many such incidents. Possibly a dozen, or even two or three,that went unrecorded? In other words, in the 18 years since 2001, there may have been between 1 and 2 cases annually of hijab-snatching. Wouldn’t that be a reasonable estimate? The numbers of attacks on mosques and assaults on hijab-wearing women are absurdly small, compared to what Bachara and Lazzouni and other defenders of the faith want people to believe.There has been no tsunami of “islamophobia.”
“But there is also discrimination at work, such as the recent incident at the French [Etam] lingerie shop.
There is no mention, in this recital of islamophobic woe about the Etam incident, of what both the law (the El Khomri law requires employees to show ‘total neutrality” in their appearance), and sensible business practices call for under the circumstances; a hijabbed saleswoman would likely not be a good fit as a saleswoman in a lingerie shop.
“CCIF offers legal and psychological assistance to victims.
“[But] some people do not report Islamophobic acts due to fear of reprisals,” said Bachara.
“Following the announcement of the state of emergency in 2015 after the attacks, there was a suspicious climate in France coupled with police raids on homes, which contributed to silencing people in a way.”
It is perfectly understandable that after the attacks in France during 2015 –on Charlie Hebdo, on the kosher market, on the Bataclan night club, on the Stade de France, on several cafes and restaurants, that there would have been a heightened state of alert, including “police raids on homes” thought to be connected to terrorists. This “suspicious climate” is deplored by Bachara, who thinks that there may have been a great many acts of “Islamophobia,”but that innocent and frightened Muslims did not, in that supposed climate of fear, dare to report them.
“Bachara said the government’s own data on Islamophobia is unreliable because it only counts attacks where charges were pressed.
“Here at CCIF, we count situations and procedures that do not necessarily end up going to court,” he said.
Why might such cases end up not going to court? One possibility is that the complaint was made up, or exaggerated, and the Muslim who made the complaint was getting nervous about being found out, and chose not to continue..Another possibility: the public prosecutor might have judged a particular charge too flimsy to proceed with. Bachara doesn’t mention these as conceivable reasons why certain “situations” (where Muslims complain of “Islamophobic” attacks) do not “end up going to court.”
“According to Abdellali Hajjat, professor of political science at Nanterre University, there was a conscious movement of thought that in 2003 drove France’s historical secularism into what he called “neo-secularism.”
“Secularism in France was enshrined in law in 1905 and stipulates the separation of church and state, focused on three principles: the neutrality of the state, the freedom of religious practice, and public powers related to the church.
“The way Muslims are stigmatised in France today is perpetrated by the neo-secularism rhetoric, which consists of spreading the principle of religious neutrality beyond state officials, and then applying it to citizens,” Hajjat said, adding it was “hostile” to freedom of expression.
“Centre-right and centre-left movements or parties, represented by Manuel Valls (prime minister under Hollande) or by Nicolas Sarkozy, were more focused on an extending logic of this neo-secularism principle.”
“This rhetoric, which reached its peak in the 2004 ban on the hijab, had to do with the September 11 attacks in the United States and, before that, the attacks on French soil in 1995 and 1996 that were linked to the Algerian civil war, which Hajjal said changed the public perception of Muslims in France.
The French are being accused of allowing themselves – how dare they?–to be affected by reality. Attacks by Muslims in France in 1995 and 1996, and the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., “changed the public perception of Muslims” in France. How could they not have been? Of course the French have been affected in their views of Muslims by those attacks, and also by the nearly 35,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists worldwide since 9/11. Hajjat finds this so unfair; sensible people will beg to differ.
“There were also intellectuals who had, since 1989, argued for a ban on the hijab and who are still part of the public scene, he added.
“People like [author] Elisabeth Badinter and [philosopher] Alain Finkielkraut, as well as the late [industrialist] Pierre Berge, took it upon themselves to convince the political elite that there was a Muslim issue in France, and that the only solution was to completely ban the hijab in public schools,” he said. “They completely reduced the headscarf-wearing woman to the piece of fabric on her head.”
Hajjal continues to mistate the 2004 law, which did not “ban the hijab” alone, but applied to all “ostentatious” religious symbols, including the Jewish Kippah and large crucifixes (small ones, on chains and hidden from view, were allowed). It was not Badinter and Finkielkraut and Berge who convinced the French elite there was a “Muslim issue in France,” but the behavior of Muslims themselves, whose display of disaffection from the French state, and contempt for the French Unbelievers, remain so disturbing. Nor did Badinter and Finkielkraut and Berge claim that banning the hijab in public places was a “solution”; it addressed only one small part of the Muslim challenge to the secular French state.
“However, Hajjal added, Emmanuel Macron, the current president, “adheres to the original version of secularism because he is surrounded by a heterogeneous cabinet from diverse political backgrounds that have truly different ideological visions.”
“Lazzouni, the activist, said Islamophobia is still not yet recognised as a crime on the same level that anti-Semitism is.
“Anti-Semitism is fought against with determination by the government, and that’s great,” she said. “We are just demanding that all forms of racism are fought with the same vigour.”
Antisemitism is a real and ancient phenomenon, a pathological condition with deadly consequences; it resulted in the murder of six million innocents not so long ago. ‘Islamophobia” is a term made up in the last few decades to inhibit, and ideally to shut up, islamocritics, by labelling them as “Islamophobes,” possessing an irrational fear and hatred of Islam and of Muslims. Islamophobia, in turn, is described as a form of “racism” though no one has been able to explain why a religious faith — an ideology — should be considered a race. And the word itself, which should mean “an irrational fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims,” is routinely applied to all islamocritics, whose fears are not irrational, whose criticisms of Islam are sober, measured, and evidence-based — the evidence being both the observable behavior of Muslims during the past 1,400 years, and the contents of the Qur’an.
“Hajjat agrees and says that Islamophobia, as a form of racism, is also considered legitimate rhetoric.
Hajjat can say that, and so can Nadiya Lazzouni, and in Great Britain, Naz Shah, and Baroness Warsi, and in the U.S., the entire membership of CAIR, but it still won’t make it true. For the nth time, let it be repeated: Muslims are not a race and “Islamophobia” is not “a form of racism.” Write it 100 times on your mental blackboard.
“There’s no social backlash to anyone that holds Islamophobic views,” he said. “This happens because the public squares in which they have a platform to spread their ideas is [sic]run by people who share the same rhetoric.”
Everywhere the word “islamophobic” appears, simply substitute the word “Islamocritical”; for “islamophobe” substitute “islamocritic,” and for “islamophobia” substitute “islamocriticism.” Do not be inveigled into accepting, and starting yourself to use, the twisted language of Muslim apologists.
“For example, Laurence Rossignol, the former minister for families, children and women, infamously compared women who chose to wear the veil to “negroes who were in favour of slavery.”
Rossignol was describing the phenomenon of Muslim women who accept the symbols of their own subjection, and even defend them, as akin to “negroes who were in favor of slavery.” Was his remark “infamous” because it was false, or because, much more worrisome for Muslims, it was true?
“[With] clear Islamophobic voices rising within the government, [there is an] idea that Islamophobia is an opinion rather than a crime,” Lazzouni argued.
“We need to focus on other fields than the legislative one to fight efficiently anti-Muslim racism,” she said.
In the advanced states of the West, an opinion by itself is never a crime. We do not punish mere opinions. Lazzouni wants to criminalize islamocriticism — which she persists in calling “islamophobia.” She refers to “Islamophobic voices rising within the government” but does not offer a single name of such a “voice,” or a single example, of what she considers to be their “Islamophobia.”
“In the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque attacks in New Zealand, in which at least 50 Muslim worshippers were gunned down by a far-right white supremacist, “columnists, so-called intellectuals and journalists were given a platform to try to explain and therefore legitimise this terrorist act by saying it was an act of revenge [for acts committed by ISIL],” said Lazzouni, explaining that combatting Islamophobia requires more than documenting and giving legal advice.”
I have been unable to find on-line statements by French intellectuals, columnists, and journalists in which they try in any way to legitimize the attacks on two mosques in Colombo. Perhaps Nadiya Lazzouni would like to offer an example. And when she says, cryptically, that “islamophobia requires more than documenting and giving legal advice” surely she means this: that French society, working alongside the French state, should silence at its source all “islamophobic” — that is, islamocritical –voices. Not through legislation alone, or even mainly, but through social and economic pressure, Muslims will find the most effective way to silence islamocritics.. For example, Muslims and their supporters could engage in protests outside newspaper offices and television studios, in order to demand that “islamophobic” writers and talk-show guests be prevented from having their views disseminated in print or from appearing on television to discuss Islam. No laws are needed for this effective censorship. We already have seen, in this country, that the major social media platforms, without needing any prompting from governments, have made it difficult to access islamocritical sites.
In France,Lazzouni and Hajjat paint a picture of Muslim woe, of a government indifferent or hostile to the needs of its Muslim community. “Islamophobia” is supposedly on the march, and the French don’t care. These Muslim apologists have got it all backwards. In reality, a succession of French governments — from Sarkozy to Hollande to Macron — have not been indifferent at all, but have struggled with the problem of Muslim immigrants failing to integrate into French society, indifferent or hostile to their non-Muslim French hosts, and posing a physical threat to the larger society that has, to its own secret sorrow, taken them in and given them refuge.
Though they claim it is they, the Muslims, who feel threatened today in France, the facts tell us otherwise. It’s not mosques, but churches, that are being vandalized, often with their crucifixes and statues broken, church floors been urinated and even defecated on), by Muslims asserting themselves and demonstrating their contempt for Infidels. In 2018, when there was not a single attack on a mosque in France, there were 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) registered in France.. It’s not Muslims who are assaulted on French streets, but non-Muslims, especially Jews, by Muslims. It’s not Muslims who dare not enter certain areas, but non-Muslims who are afraid to enter the No-Go areas that many Muslim neighborhoods across France have become. It is not the so-called threat of “Islamophobia,” but rather, the spread and use of this insidious word — describing a fake condition, a phony worry — in order to shut down “islamocriticism,” that should concern people in France. Well-informed and relentless criticism of Islam is now indispensable for the survival of the West. Islam’s ever-increasing presence in France, as elsewhere in Europe, the result of large-scale migration, conversions to Islam, (especially among prisoners), and sky-high fertility rates, has become a tremendous problem.
There is no simple solution to this problem. Is there a hard one?
ntesdorf says
If the Muslims don’t like ‘Islamophobia’ they know where to go ….Saudi Arabia or Iran.
keya says
They won’t go anywhere. They are invaders and want to see the whole of Europe bow down to their filthy cult
Naram-Sin says
How many infidels will Muslims have to rape and/or murder before people stop being afraid of them?
gravenimage says
+1
Necrophage says
The answer is: ALL of them.
William A Carr says
The basic problem with the Muslims is that they do not regard the multitude of free things they have been given as gifts from the French (or other nations) but as their rights. They are supported in this belief not only by their sense of entitlement as Muslims but also by the liberal leftist govts. (and the pope) who believe all migrants have the rights to the same things that the citizens of the countries that ‘welcome’ them. Not withstanding the fact that they have not and will never contribute anything much to the countries in which they chose to plant themselves.
mortimer says
What sort of woman is the best advertisement for a shop selling HAUTE COUTURE? Well, obviously, the best representative of a FRENCH CLOTHING SHOP is a woman who wears the products herself and looks beautiful in them.
Why would a woman covered in a black bag want to sell HAUTE COUTURE in the first place? Why doesn’t she sell BLACK BAGS to women who want a black bag?
Isabella says
It makes so much sense
gravenimage says
Exactly, Mortimer.
Aussie Infidel says
Mortimer, Would that be her best and blackest black? And should it be just a hijab? Or a niqab? Or a full burka? After all, her face might be offensive to the French – with charges of even more Islamophobia!
mortimer says
Oz, Mohammed said only the eyes and fingers should be showing.
mortimer says
Muslims who want to remain unassimilated will not be employable in certain lines of work. They have to decide if they are going to assimilate or if they are going to return to a Berzerkistan where they can have Sharia law rammed down their throats every day and have Sharia coming right out the yingyang.
Isabella says
That makes also so much sense
Demsci says
Quite the logical, sensible, rational remark, Mortimer.
To expand on that; can society some day agree that there are “Islamic Nations” and then there are “Democratic Nations”. And yes; “Islamic persons and Democratic persons”. Both mutually exclusive.
And that, all things considered, a person should have to choose where his/ her highest loyalty lies? And to let THIS consideration trump all other considerations? When society considers it a choice adults can be held accountable for?
Even going so far as refusing entry in a democratic country a person who “clings to Islam”??? When the people in the Democratic nations can perfectly live with the case that the Islamic nations follow the reverse policy” (that is them expelling or discriminating against democratic persons)?
Of course I now am in “La la land”, DISCLAIMER.
but I imagine that self proclaimed Democratic Nations tell the self proclaimed Islamic Nations; for them the following exchange would be perfectly acceptable;
that your self-proclaimed democratic citizens may settle here, and ALL self proclaimed Muslims are proposed to settle among you. When we exchange though, it must be one-on-one, because we expect the stream eventually to become very one-sided from the Islamic Nations towards the Democratic Nations.
For citizens of Democratic Nations it should be easy to declare primary loyalty to the Democratic system. And these Nations should then refuse all newly arriving self-declared Muslims. Later, on voluntary basis, or based on anti-democratic actions and attitude, Muslim citizens of Democratic countries should, if they are consistent, leave to Islamic countries, in exchange for citizens of Islamic Nations that disavow Islam.
This will not solve all immigration problems but it might solve the problem of large scale Islamic Immigration into democratic nations, with so many of them arrogantly, stubbornly refusing to assimilate, to the democratic constitution and laws, over and above any Islamic laws and loyalties.
I think the case for the difference of a Democratic Nation and an Islamic one can be made quite well.
I think adhering to Islam is a personal choice, which must be respected, but also something a person must be held accountable for, regardless of whether one describes him/ her self as a moderate/ radical, because the distinction can’t be made reliably.
In contrast to the distinction between a self declared Muslim and a self declared Democratic person. Most of the time anyway.
CRUSADER says
Roach infestation!
Naturally, folks are going to freak out over that.
So, what’s wrong with reacting to the violence and horrid behavior
of radicalized Muslims in the midst?
TheBuffster says
“So, what’s wrong with reacting to the violence and horrid behavior
of radicalized Muslims in the midst?”
There’s nothing wrong with it if the reaction is thoughtful and intelligent. Unfortunately – on both the Islamic apologist side and the Islam – critical side the reactions are often knee-jerk, which is usually not helpful.
But to me the worse reaction of all is the censorship reaction.
If people cannot air their fears, worries, knowledge and misconceptions without being (figuratively) drawn and quartered in the public square, then knee-jerking as well s truth-telling will just go underground, as well as all the fears, worries, and misconceptions.
CRUSADER says
Nothing “knee jerk” as a trigger about it.
What most Islamic-Critical siders harp on are CLEAR CUT:
Riots, Rapes, Murders, Mayhem….
Stealthy creeping Shari’ah….
Guandolo Moment: Understanding The Threat is The Solution.
Here is John Guandolo on Jamie Glazov video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAimdKm5bEg
TheBuffster says
CRUSADER, I appreciate that video. I’ve listened to John Guandolo a fair bit.
Please see my reply to Gravenimage in this thread.
gravenimage says
Buuffster–again, with all respect–I don’t think that supporting Jihad terror and opposing it are one and the same, nor that opposing it is “knee-jerk”.
TheBuffster says
Graven – I don’t think supporting jihad terror and opposing it are one and the same, nor do I think that opposing it is knee jerk. Maybe I was too hurried and general in my response and – eh, I don’t think I conveyed my intentions clearly enough.
I’ll try to correct that here.
Reacting to the radicalized Muslims in our midst – if that means reviling those Muslims and even being wary of Muslims in general without *reviling* them all – is, in my judgment, reasonable, intelligent and just.
Robert Spencer, in my view, recognises the differences in Muslims and understands the variety and levels of knowledge and obedience among the billion + Muslims in the world. He doesn’t smear them all with the radicals’ tar. And most of the prominent anti-political Islam activists, speakers, and writers I know of and respect are on that same page with Robert Spencer.
But when it comes to comment sections in various places online, there are plenty of people who react to Islamic terrorism and sharia ambitions of radicals with a knee-jerk reaction that generalises out to all Muslims. This leads them to react unjustly even to cherry-picking Muslims as if they’re out to impose Sharia on the world (when they don’t even want to live by it themselves).
That’s an understandable overreaction to the radicals’ actions and to knowledge of terror cells and radical propaganda operations in our countries, but it’s not what I call an intelligent or thoughtful response, and it isn’t likely to gain the ear or the sympathy of those who need to see that opposing jihad and Sharia is not the domain of careless, emotion-driven minds.
I’m not criticizing people like Robert Spencer or Bill Warner or any of an array of reasonable and fair-minded fighters against jihad and Sharia and the doctrine from which they spring. I’m criticizing the non-prominent people I see online who talk like they want to roll over the whole lot of Muslims with a steam roller and let God sort ’em out.
Those people are not helping.
I see too much of this and it’s been bugging me a lot lately.
There. That’s what I should have said. Unfortunately the first time around I didn’t have enough time, but instead of passing it by, I said something, poorly.
I’m not good with drive-by postings.
gravenimage says
Sorry for misspelling your name, Buffster.
I think there is a difference between hating Islam–which is truly horrifying–and hating all Muslims. Jihad Watch has never done the latter–and I agree.
But if you are saying–and I imagine you are not–that we have to soft-pedal our condemnation of the savagery of Islam itself, then that is not something I can do.
CRUSADER says
“TheBuffster” ~
You said:
“….generalises out to all Muslims. This leads them to react unjustly even to cherry-picking Muslims as if they’re out to impose Sharia on the world (when they don’t even want to live by it themselves).”
Well, that’s really vague! Who are these Muslims that are being cherry-picked on ? And who are all these Muslims that don’t want to live by Shari’ah? Sure wish they’d stand up and be recognized and do something more about it all!
Few of us at Jihad Watch, is certainly seems, have much sympathy for the victimhood Muslims pull, and if there are snowflake Muslims out there, then coddle them all you wish, “TheBuffster”, but most of us here would rather them to become brave and make the first move, since we aren’t going to be spending our time trying to figure which Muslim is less nasty and which Muslim is likely not really a Muslim but needs a helping hand to come out of their closet….
Appreciate your kindness and thoughtfulness, “TheBuffster”, but you seem to be more in line with efforts to coax Muslims into apostasy, and I wish you well for doing that.
Mostly, Robert Spencer and Bill Warner and so many Counter-Jihad-ers are far too busy keeping up with the mayhem of Islam and pointing it all out — so that we in Kafir-land can prepare our defense….and at other times, our offense.
This is going to be the FIGHT of OUR LIVES !!!
Not wearing kid-gloves will be crucial.
David Horowitz has much to tell about Street Fighting….
Cheers to the Freedom Center!!!!
CRUSADER says
“TheBuffster” ~
You may (I would hope) appreciate what Ravi Zacharias says here:
” A good questioner will always have a follow up question….
That extraordinary credential….
Vertical gives the basis for the Horizontal….
Ask ANY Muslim (who has converted), 9 out of 10,
how did you come about to know….
‘What I don’t have!’ ”
(minute marker 35:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2zrHxbucOM
Marian Borron Paul says
I wonder why. Animals run wild, real people don’t like that.
gravenimage says
Muslims In France Complain Of Widespread “Islamophobia”
……………………..
How *dare* the “filthy French” object to Jihad terror attacks at concerts, and being raped and having their throats cut? What terrible “Islamophobia”! sarc/off
Terry Gain says
Islam should not be tolerated even if Muslims are temporarily peaceful. The ideology, as you know GI, is supremacist, totalitarian and bent on conquest. This is why we hate Islam. And we hate it even if some of its adherents are peaceful.
Wellington says
I would tolerate Islam as I do Nazism and Marxism. What is imperative is not a “toleration matter” but rather an “exposure matter.”
If the West en masse, including the vast majority of the elites, would describe Islam in the negative, then toleration of it would pose really no more of a threat to the West than does Nazism and Marxism. Yes, the threat would not be eliminated, as it surely has not been with Marxism on that most stupid of sites in Western nations, i.e., college campuses, but it would be greatly diminished. And thereafter statutory and even constitutional changes could occur that would place Islam where other heinous ideologies belong—on the margins of society occupied by the confused, the haters and the losers.
While we’re at it, Terry, why not not any longer tolerate Nazism, the KKK, Marxism, anarchism, Satanism, et al.? Your approach to save freedom (admirable) would result in limiting if not destroying freedom (not a good idea).
Proper identification, not banning, is what is optimal. Thereafter, trust in freedom to survive those who would destroy it. But as long as the West pretends that something that would destroy freedom is something good, ah, therein lies the real problem. You haven’t figured this out yet. Perhaps someday you will.
Terry Gain says
I don’t think you will ever figure out how to combat Islam, Wellington. You tight with one hand behind your back when you concede it is areligion.
gravenimage says
Terry, no one has ever successfully defended against Islam by pretending that it is not an evil religion.
TheBuffster says
Well said, Wellington.
CRUSADER says
The more one studies Islam the more the religious aspect goes out the window….
because the political ideology eclipses most anything else about its rituals and borrowed scriptures, tailored to suit Bedouin values and excuse the antics of raiding parties…. Conquering principles are rank in Islam, and masked by “religious” facade… to give a screen to the expansionist, colonizing imperialism which Islam imposed onto the world.
Most Muslims seem to follow a cultural path which Islam has provided, but if they were truly devout, they would become nearly as “radicalized” as the Jihadists, themselves. Instead, for most Muslims their Islam is a comfort — something they were brought up with, their family members are part of, and they seldom know enough about another alternative….
gravenimage says
Terry, I agree with Wellington here.
Terry Gain says
Quelle surprise.
gravenimage says
Terry–with all respect–I don’t believe that changing our Constitution for Muslims is the way to defend against Islam.
CRUSADER says
Terry Gain, are you arguing that the way to defeat / contain Islam is to treat it as the ideology which Bill Warner has proposed: political islam — that which affects non-Muslims ?
Separate the “religious faith” aspect of Islam, since the political ideology is the part which imposes itself on non-believers and hurts the rest of society?
Michael Copeland says
“The belief that …. the French Muslim is a disguised enemy … has definitely spread” she told Al Jazeera.
Muslims are instructed that they are the enemy of non-muslims: it is Islamic doctrine.
The Koran, part of Islamic law, says:
The kuffar are for you a clear enemy 4:101
Terrorize the enemy of Allah and your enemy 8:60
KILL the unbelievers wherever you find them 9:5
gravenimage says
Here’s another reason for the French to be “Islamophobic” from today:
“France: hundreds of illegal migrants storm French airport, occupy an entire terminal”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/05/france-hundreds-of-illegal-migrants-storm-french-airport-occupy-an-entire-terminal
keya says
Those illegal immigrants did a favor by occupying an airport terminal. Now they should be booked for a one way ticket back to Africa.
CRUSADER says
Former Trump campaign guru Steve Bannon is making a surprise cameo in France’s European election campaign, ostensibly to help populist ally Marine Le Pen win. But he’s proving an inconvenient interloper and giving Emmanuel Macron’s side a lifeline.
The European elections slated for Sunday quickly became a two-horse race in France, an echo of the final duel of the May 2017 French presidential vote. That battle pit Europhile centrist Emmanuel Macron against far-right Eurosceptic Marine Le Pen, who ultimately stumbled to defeat after a rough campaign, to Brussels’ visible relief.
Since winning Elysée Palace, Macron has worn his ambitions for a strong Europe on his sleeve. But he has also faltered at home amid the pavement-pounding persistence of the anti-elite Yellow Vest movement. Le Pen, meanwhile, rebranded her rabble-rousing father’s National Front as the National Rally – inviting no lesser light than the President of the United States’ one-time right-hand-man, Steve Bannon, as a guest of honour for the showy launch in March 2018 — and has sought to capitalise on the angry zeitgeist.
Flash forward to these European elections and the French president is facing the real prospect of finishing second to the far-right populist force, led by 23-year-old campaign flagbearer Jordan Bardella under Le Pen’s watchful eye. Polls place the National Rally and Renaissance, the banner championed by Macron’s La République en Marche party, neck and neck with more than 20 percent of voter support each, well ahead of a crowded peloton. Voters in France will cast ballots on Sunday for one of 34 domestic party lists, with each faction’s vote determining how many MEPs, if any, each will send to the European Parliament.
With just days to go before that ballot, the EU’s motley collection of nationalists, Eurosceptics and populist right-wingers are poised to improve their lot in the 2019-2024 chamber. Nearly a dozen such leaders, including Le Pen, joined forces for a rally in Milan on Saturday hosted by Italy’s League leader Matteo Salvini.
European credibility on the line —
Macron’s forces, meanwhile, have struggled with former European Affairs minister Nathalie Loiseau, untested as a politician, at their campaign’s helm. Tagged as technocratic, short on charisma and gaffe-prone, Loiseau was even left off Renaissance campaign posters last week, in favour of Macron, as the French president rolled up his sleeves to get involved in the race down the stretch. The move is an unusual one, but a second-place finish to Eurosceptics in France would be an embarrassment for Macron and compromise his European aspirations.
Enter Steve Bannon….
The American eminence grise has made a sideline of aiding populist forces all across Europe in their bid for power for more than a year in the run-up to this month’s elections. Bannon set down his bags in Paris this weekend at the Bristol, a luxury hotel steps from the Elysée Palace. He received French media for interviews in a lavish suite, praising Marine Le Pen’s resilience and championing her chances for glory at the ballot box. The Journal du Dimanche, one of the newspapers to interview Bannon there, noted “each of his nights during this week in Paris in one of the Bristol Hotel’s most beautiful suites costs €8,000, six times a minimum-wage earners’ net income”. The paper took notice of the so-called palace’s proximity to the Champs Elysées, “where so many shop fronts were smashed” by Yellow Vest protesters, leaving the contradiction to suggestion.
In an interview Bannon gave to Le Parisien from his room, he reprised nearly word for word his praise for Le Pen’s thinking at her party’s 2018 convention in Lille, likening the nation state to a precious gem. The political divide between left and right is no longer pertinent, he said then and now. What matters today is whether “you consider the nation state as an obstacle to be overcome or as a jewel to be polished, loved and nurtured”, he’d told the rapt crowd in Lille.
Indeed, amid the spectacle of Brexit, Le Pen’s party has dropped its pledge to extract France from the EU and the euro currency, instead proposing rolling back the bloc’s federalist pretenses from the inside and advocating for little more than a club of independent nations.
Existential threat —
Macron, for his part, calls Sunday’s European vote the most important since the European Parliament first held direct elections in 1979 “because the Union faces an existential risk”. His camp paints the European project, perhaps paradoxically, as the best way to retain sovereignty amid the lurking hegemonies beyond EU borders.
“Behind the nationalists… there is submission to foreign forces, submission of the French nation,” Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire told BFM TV over the weekend. “Fundamentally, there is real capitulation. The nationalists have given up on the European continent being independent and sovereign in the face of China and the United States.”
With Bannon ensconced at the Bristol, centrists saw their opening. Treating the foreigner like a walking illustration of a hypocrisy they might not otherwise have articulated so well, Renaissance reps highlighted the irony in domestic nationalists allying with foreign nationalists who may harbour conflicting objectives.
Trojan Horse —
“The new far-right international… is materialising to destroy the European Union, and today the National Front [National Rally] is the useful idiot in that political programme; it’s Trump’s and Putin’s Trojan Horse,” Pascal Canfin, number two on the Renaissance list, said Sunday.
Bannon’s visit also happened to fall just as a corruption scandal involving Russian influence was taking hold amid Austria’s ruling right-wing coalition.
And just last week, after French television aired a report showing footage of National Rally heavyweights — including party number two (and Le Pen companion) Louis Aliot — meeting with Bannon in London to discuss party financing, a cross-party clutch of French lawmakers demanded an inquiry. The footage was from Alison Klayman’s behind-the-scenes Bannon documentary “The Brink”, which notably highlights the frequent contact between the American former banker and National Rally executives.
Macron didn’t waste an opportunity to spotlight Bannon, either. “I see for the first time complicity between nationalists and foreign interests, for whom the objective is the dismantling of Europe. Lobbyists like Mr. Bannon, who is close to the American powers that be, say so,” he told French media on Monday. “The Russians and a few others have never been so intrusive in financing, helping extremist parties. We can only be disturbed. We mustn’t be naïve.”
“Who today is trying to divide Europe or weaken it? Precisely those who have an interest in doing so. To the East. Or to the West,” French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said Monday, alluding to Russia and the US. “Mr. Bannon comes to Europe, to France, to say how much of an interest there is for him and for President Trump for us to change Europe’s scope and the values that enabled us to build Europe,” Philippe added.
Uninvited guest —
In effect, Bannon’s highly remarked-upon visit put Le Pen and her party on the back foot, scrambling to distance itself from the meddlesome visitor.
“The National Rally has not asked [Bannon] for anything,” Nicolas Bay, a party MEP, told France Inter radio on Sunday. “We led this campaign in a perfectly independent manner without any foreign influence,” Bay said.
And as Bannon’s controversial visit continued on Monday, Le Pen told franceinfo she only learned about his visit through the media. She said the former Donald Trump aide had “no role in the [RN] campaign” and said she last met with him three months ago. “He is in Paris for business because he is in the process of selling one of his companies to a big French bank, so it has strictly nothing to do with the campaign,” Le Pen said. Bannon, meanwhile, was singing Le Pen’s praises, simultaneously on another channel.
Le Pen’s remarks struck a sharp contrast to Bannon’s own stated reasons for visiting the French capital. He told Le Parisien that he came to Paris “because, of all the elections that will take place next weekend in Europe, including in the UK with Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party, the most important one by far is here in France. Without a doubt.” Asked why he didn’t attend Salvini’s populist confab in Milan on Saturday, Bannon replied, “I wanted to go, but given how things are going in France, I’ll be more useful here where I will give interviews in the media to talk about the RN.”
The party in question doesn’t seem to feel the same. And the discrepancy wasn’t lost on observers. “RN executives’ very annoyed reaction over the turn Bannon’s interference has taken shows that they do perceive the gap between calling oneself nationalists of a middle power and being seen to be chaperoned by a nationalist from a foreign superpower at precisely the moment it is proclaiming ‘America First’,” France Inter radio editorialist Thomas Legrand opined on Tuesday.
Indeed, during his talk-of-the-town stay in Paris, Bannon also provided insight into his larger mission — for the nation state that retains his loyalty, after all. “My theory is that political ideas move like capital markets. That’s why I spend so much time in Europe,” he told Le Parisien. “Trump wouldn’t have been elected president without Brexit. It gives an impetus. If populists score higher than 30 percent in the European elections, it will provide that impetus that will help Trump for the 2020 campaign.”
(France24 News)
Ade Fegan says
Well then I suggest you abandon islam if offends the people of your host country so much
Wellington says
If truth be told (and truth is in spare commodity these days), the real problem is not Islamophobia, fake word that it is and full of projection to boot, but rather Islam itself.
Yes, forget Islamophobia because this is fakery in word form of the highest order. Unfortunately for mankind, and particularly Western nations which have ceased to comprehend how deleterious to freedom Islam is, Mo’s warped creed, called Islam, gets a pass and Islamophobia is given credence. This is not only about as dumb as you can get but about as ass-backwards as you can get.
Terry Gain says
Some people are so tolerant of Mo’s warped creed that they call it a religion.
gravenimage says
Dear Terry, saying that Islam is an evil religion is not expressing tolerance of it.
CRUSADER says
How do you two, Wellington and Terry Gain, square and level
with what Bill Warner presents in his Political Islam claims?
Bill Warner PhD:
Political Islam, not Religious Islam —–
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYfkEftce8
Wellington says
CRUSADER: I agree with Bill Warner and I would expand upon his commentary by noting that totalitarian systems in general are complete ways of life. Marxism, as an example, is not just an economic system but an entire philosophy about existence. Nazism too. All totalitarian ideologies, by they religious or secular, are about controlling everything, in short they are control-freak ideologies.
I noticed that Warner acknowledges there is a religious component to Islam as well as a political component. This is true. Like me, he doesn’t care what Muslims eat or in which direction they pray, et al., but when their rules and regulations impact upon non-Muslims, that is where Western societies must draw the line. I think Warner might be slightly guilty of separating the political element of Islam from the religious a little too finely. They’re often so intermixed that you can’t distinguish between the two. For instance, both religiously and legally in Islam it is forbidden to mock Allah, Mohammed or the Koran. With a religion like Christianity it is blasphemous to mock God, Jesus or the Bible but Christianity, unlike Islam, does not in its theological blueprint expect punishment in this world by others for doing so—but Islam does.
Terry’s idea of not regarding Islam as a religion really is a road to legal Nowheresville. Virtually no Western lawyers or judges, including those who comprehend how iniquitous Islam can be (and there is not enough of these people to date) are going to go along with this “idea” of Terry’s.
Acknowledge Islam as a religion, which it surely is though a very troubling one for free societies, and NEVER cave into any Muslim demands that would weaken freedom and Western law. I do believe that were Islam widely viewed as a religion for losers, barbarians and the confused, much as Satanism is (and which is also a religion), then the rest would take care of itself though some tweaking of statutory and even constitutional law should occur to insure that Islam is looked upon as a heinous belief system, a heinous religion, and which could lead to many good things like massive restrictions on Muslim immigration and absolute forbidding of things like polygamy and death for apostasy which, if they occurred, should result in prosecution to the full extent of the law, including the death penalty where it exists (for the record, I not only support the death penalty but would argue that it is both stupid and immoral not to have it for the gravest offenses, for instance treason and first-degree murder).
Thanks for posting Warner’s video. He’s always worth listening to.
Demsci says
I guess, Wellington, that you know what is or is not realistic. And I confess to be more of an experimental thinker if I can.
And then I dream of a time when a democratic nation declares that:
A democratic nation cannot also be an Islamic Nation. The laws and tenets are just too different. And vice versa. But it can respectfully accept the choice of other peoples to choose to live in an Islamic Nation.
And that a democratic person cannot also be an Islamic person. But it can respectfully be accepted by many democratic persons that people choose Islam.
But that it would be policy that democratic nations have the democratic persons and Islamic nations have the Islamic persons. Everything equal in reverse, in a respectful way.
This is then regardless whether the Democratic or the Islamic person describe themselves as radical or moderate, as knowledgeable or ignorant about his/ her religion/ democratic choice.
Blindly trusting the other sort of person is just too much to ask.
CRUSADER says
Wellington ~
“….Christianity, unlike Islam, does not in its theological blueprint expect punishment in this world by others for doing so—but Islam does….”
This is certainly so. And, Christians are less likely to do damage to those who blaspheme, although Christians feel that it isn’t beneficial to trash Christ or the Faith, and it certainly delays any progress toward gaining salvation through acceptance, since there is little acceptance of Christ by blaspheming Christ. Grace is for all of us. But we must open that door which Christ knocks upon, and walk through the threshold of acceptance….
Where Bill Warner is clear about is where Islam affects the Kafir, and that should be disallowed, not just showcased but banned. If the religion cannot get banned, the ideology certainly needs to be banned. Realize, the whole situation — pushed by the Marxists / Globalists / Islamists is only going to get far worse than now. Desperate times will bring about bold measures.
Heck, for the time, the American Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and American Constitution were bold and brash and — also seen as desperate !
Certainly US Laws (and elsewhere) need to be shored up to resist and defang Shari’ah’s encroachment into American society. Shari’ah, nevertheless, is creeping ever more….
Liberal mindset is embracing Muslim mindset. It’s happening all around. The Left sees Islam as a critical attack dog to break down the values and foundations of current society in order to build what Marxists / Globalists envision… Islam always has processed “useful idiots” in order to achieve its own spread of dread….
I also heavily “support the death penalty ….would argue that it is both stupid and immoral not to have it for the gravest offenses, for instance treason and first-degree murder…”
Capitol Punishment is useful as a tool for Law Enforcement and Investigations.
Cheers, then.
FYI says
muslims are always bawling about something:if they hate the west so much then go live in an islamic paradise like Somalia or Abdoolistan…
As for that pathetic muslima in the lingerie shop:she better not try to remove her facial hair.
Al Lah,islam’s one-legged pagan Arab god, CURSES women who remove their facial hair in order to look nice.
{Sahih Bukhari vol 6 bk 60 hadith 408}
what sort of god does that?A god who despises women.
Just imagine, that the virtue-signalling masters of false piety,the hijabbed muslimas,honor a god who says women are inferior to men and stupid.
{the reason the koran says a woman’s testimony is HALF that of a man k2:282 was because,as muhammed said{APFh,allah prays for him} due to “the deficiency of a woman’s mind” Sahih Bukhari # 2658}But what would muhammed know eh ladies?He was a Fat,cross -dressing,illiterate moron{abu dawud 40:4731,Sahih bukhari 2442,k 7:157,hey I’m just using islamic sources…}who had a 9 year old “wife” and didn’t even get to die a martyr,having being poisoned in a somewhat ironic twist, by a Jewish woman whose husband he had killed}
Al Lah : a misogynistic,chauvinist creep
Ilhan Omar and Linda sarsour:
They “pray” to this god,they wear hijabs in honor of this god,a god who hates women.
A god who teaches in his koran that women are stupid and inferior to men.
Terry Gain says
Muslims don’t hate the West. They love it. Who else submits so easily? It is said that the only thing Muslims recognize is strength. This statement is not true. While it is true that Muslims recognize strength, they also recognize weakness. Given the profound weakness of western leaders, I think Muslims are showing great restraint in not celebrating their advances.
CRUSADER says
Good call, Terry Gain.
Muzzies like to back the strong horse. They can sense weakness.
The West has become very weak due to moral decay. Ripe for picking!
There also are many things to gain in controlling the West, look at how
Islamic empires had accrued so much from conquering, dominating and
turning into dhimmis the former citizens of Byzantium and North Africa and
Spain — all who worked at their cultural crafts which Islam appropriated
and absconded with….
Oh yes! Muzzies like the West very much — for its booty! and for the
self praise which bolsters the Arabist mindset of controlling others as
submitted foe.
CRUSADER says
Al-Lah, BA’AL, aka moon god
is a “misogynistic,chauvinist creep” ??
How’s that?
Mohamhead, the sicko sycophant of Al-Lah, sure…
— but how is a moon god such?
James Lincoln says
Hugh Fitzgerald states in his excellent feature article:
“The French are being accused of allowing themselves…to be affected by reality.”
This is, indeed, a profound statement.
Reality, no matter however painful it may be, has to first be recognized. Without that recognition, there can be no positive change.
abad says
“Can French Muslims ever be just French?”
In one word, Robert, “No”.
Just like Islam can never be part of German culture, Islam can never be part of French culture, Islam can never be part of Swedish culture, Islam can never be part of British culture.
It seems like French leaders are incapable of answering the question, “Why are there Moslems in France?” logically.
And maybe, just maybe, Moslems from other Moslem-majority nations need to stop migrating to France, seeing that they have a serious problem with how the French treat them.
There is NO reason for Moslems to be coming to the western world. None.
CRUSADER says
Soon, whatever ethnic culture there is which exists in a place
gets subsumed by Islam’s cloud….much like the cyborgs….
ABSORBED !
tim gallagher says
abad, that’s exactly what I was going to say. Of course Muslims can’t ever be just French or Americans or Australians or Japanese or anything else that is non-Muslim. I believe Islam is completely incompatible with our western values and is also incompatible with, say, Buddhist values. Islam is the aggressive enemy of all non-Muslim values. Islam is backward, totally barbaric garbage when compared to our western way of life. This is why Muslims are nothing but trouble out of all proportion in all non-Muslim countries foolish enough to let them inside their borders. When it comes to Islam, there is no possibility that we can get along peacefully. Muslims are an invading mob. It is them or us. Totally incompatible ways of life.
Peter Hannan says
(There’s a copy and paste error in the text: “two mosques in Colombo” should be “the mosque in Christchurch”.)
Now is the time says
I was at a dinner party in France some years ago. Someone asked me why Americans treat their black population so badly. Rather than engage in a defensive conversation where there is no right answer, I just replied that we dont treat blacks in America half as bad as the French treat their Arabs. The article above is correct, the Arab/Muslim population does not integrate and become French, whereas the non-muslim black population does. My flipping the issue back on the rude dinner guest, shut him down completely.
Lydia Church says
In reality… there is no such thing as ‘islamophobia.’ It is a fictional, nonsense term.
CRUSADER says
Right!
By using the word, it furthers its application.
By using the word, we play to the tune of the Leftists who assisted the Islamists in their propaganda warfare upon the West….
na says
First time ISIS took the responsibility of a smuggling from Belgium to Iran. They said smugglers are warriors of Alla, and two of them were “Best smuggler of the year 2012”
CRUSADER says
Sort of like base-ball…..
Eric Jones says
I have noted that predators complain when potential victims prepare to protect themselves. Always prepare to protect yourself.
CRUSADER says
Make predators complain!
Necrophage says
I have noticed that when you point out to Muslims how violent Islam is, they respond by threatening to kill you. The irony seems to be completely lost on those inbred dolts.
CRUSADER says
It’s a difficult part to persuading, convincing, de-programming Muzzies….
na says
In Paris airport during customs checking an Algerian girl(doctor) was arrested . She told customs officer(not in a polite way) “Hey monkey I am a busy woman , do you know. Bagdadi is my uncle . If he knows this incident he will chop your head”.
After this incident Algerion foreign ministry of Monarch conducting a training program “Things you should not tell/ask to a western”
na says
She did not like customs checking
na says
One news is old , A Swedish refuge called the police for Jihad training. Actually that was a wrong number. But that is a clue that already Jihad training is there in Sweden , somewhere!
na says
The phone call was “Hi Is it Jihad training camp”
Police “yes”
Refugee ” I come across one advertisement , are you starting a training camp for Jihad?”
Soon he cancelled phone.
na says
Some old news ,
Erdogan claims “Ottoman empire and Armenian genocide is a part of Turkish mythology. No proof”
Saudi imams sentenced to death for wrong prophecy , Imam said “in 2019 May Saudi will conquer Iran”
Russia couple(farmer) filed a complaint “A chimpanzee stealing their wristwatch , food etc” 2 days after this incident, Police caught a Nigerian refugee . Russian Couple have never seen a Nigerian man.
A newly arrived Arab-Swedish refugee demands free food , money from tax payers money for his 7 camels, 18 goats, 2 snakes, 1 eagle, 1 parrot, 10 rabbits, If everything is okay his next plan is to bring his 2 lions and 1 tiger to his home. He has a habit of hunting wild animals . So he is asking permission for a gun and licence for hunting.
Shea says
They’re Invaders. http://www.understandingthethreat.com
Shea says
go to saudi where they play both sides bombing the Christians in 911 and sri lanka etc and exorting islam and oil
E T says
When someone tells me I am Islamophobic, I tell them the word is made up by the OIC to con collaborators. then I say “Such horse pucky.” However, I do tell them ISIS fooling around with chemical weapons and biotoxins is something even they should be worried about. Perhaps the West should have less talk about the Islamic world and more action to make sure we are not part of it. No Allah for me, I am a God Almighty woman.
judy says
They will never be French, because they always see themselves as MUSLIM first second and third – that is their whole persona
Necrophage says
Could it have something to do with all the raping, killing, and rioting? Just a thought…
Fritz says
18 of 1000 Western people may turn to violent extremism and terrorism.
12 of 1000 Asian people may turn to violent extremism and terrorism.
1 of 10 muslims will turn to violent extremism and terrorism.
Learn the numbers.
Jehuda Ewert says
I live in Parus/Montrouge.After moving inside Montrouge only 200m all desth tgreads stopped.Here are Antisemituc stickers if a fske nstionalist group jeunenation (which uses stickers with the exact design of Hamas regarding Israel, only the original text in arsb “kill israel” switched to “israel is a kilker”. My personsl experience is that teo kind of people csll me racusr ‘because akk jews are nazis” (sound like a joke, but it is reality) racist Muslims and appeasing giid-dier non-Muslims.Slowly some non-Muslims tslk freely.The past years the group of people I coukd always very open criticize passages in Islam without getting called names have been Mudlims, invluding quite devout Muslims .Because such a thing kike integrated Mudkims exist, evrn with Kufi and Lincoln-beard, it is actually supporting Antimuslims by accepting the PC charges if iskamophobia, supporting viilent thugs by feari g backlash an apologizing or listrning to any of this stupidity painting Muslims as victims, prooagated by islamofascist worldcsliphate/worldführer activists.I don’t care that racist Muslims which are the majority feel insulted.I vare about thise taking part and are complisnt to the constitution. Which makes me apparently a Nazi, because I’m a in germany born jew. EU leaders complain how excluding is Trump saying americans first, while Nacrin acts Macron first, Merkel acts Merkel first.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the view on the ground.