A recent incident at a 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.”
Yet a recent Al Jazeera report on “Islamophobia” states:
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-Muslims 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 online 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? 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 misstate 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 online statements by French intellectuals, columnists, and journalists in which they try in any way to legitimize the attacks on two mosques in Christchurch. 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, and church floors have 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?
mortimer says
Hugh Fitzgerald correctly identifies: “Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against non-Muslims, though not necessarily through violence, when other more effective means present themselves.”
In fact, all Muslims practice JIHAD OF THE TONGUE when they dissemble and deceive kafirs about the 1) meaning (conquest), 2) motive (hatred of the kafir and 3) method of Islam (jihad-struggle) that removes human rights and civil liberties from women and kafirs.
In fact, all Muslims actually DO practice the JIHAD OF THE TONGUE (lying about Islam) or they have left Islam and have become de facto apostates.
Leslie Fish says
Nobody has ever been able to answer this question for me: Just what is wrong with Islamophobia?
Charles says
Islam has an opinion of us, the non-believer. We can read that opinion it the literature of the Hadith and the Quran. Its not a good opinion either. In the literal sense its an existential threat. Perhaps we shape our opinion of the believer, based on the tenets the believer views as immutable, and the actions of the rashidun followers that they assert are exemplary. In other words, we can read and examine the literary roots of their ideology. They would be alarmed if we reciprocated those tenets in kind.
Angemon says
Where do you live, Bizarro World?
gravenimage says
+1
Emilie Green says
Enjoy these amusing images,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIKlwsJUQAAlzsE.jpg
https://i.redd.it/hihae6sl0t121.png
https://pics.me.me/hates-europeans-christians-buddhists-jews-atheists-dogs-cays-lesbians-ham-wine-beer-your-27034684.png
Raja says
Mortimer,
Is it an admission from your end that vast majority of Muslims are jihadists(not necessarily violent)? I wonder how many of these taqiyya practicing liars be useful to the nations that import them in an unbridled manner.
In the bible lying is as bad as murder. Will any Muslim take note?
Rev 22:14 & 15
14. Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
15. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Raja says
Angemon,
Muslims want to war with every “other” person and ALSO whine that they are not having a free pass for the same. They are proving to be incompatibel to any civilization.Nuisance value to foolish nations.
Shirley Ann says
No Way would a Muslim ever become JUST FRENCH, JUST AMERICAN,etc., they are Muslim First & Always. They have Captured U.K., Most of Europe & North America, with the Aid of our So-Called Politicians. Believe Me, the Muslims had “INSIDE HELP” to Conquer Western CIV.
In America, after the Muslims were Elected to Congress, the First Thing that Congress Did, was to Throw-Out the Rules about NO HEAD GEAR & Disguised Wear. All Done, to Appease the “Halal Caucus” , that instantly claimed Congress as Their Own!
No Way, are Muslims going to Assimilate, but Most of Our Own Elected Congress Persons ran to be First to
Assimilate into Islam!
Halal Bacon says
the answer is no, just ask anyone whom identifies as “African-American”
Jayell says
“Muslims in France Complain of Widespread “Islamophobia”….”
Little Mohammed: “Teacher, teacher, tell them off!!!”
Teacher: “Why, what have they done?”
Little Mohammed: “Well, all I did was tell Isaac that he was a dirty pig and knocked his kippah off, pulled Jane’s crucifix from round her neck because I don’t like it, did something a little bit rude to Susan and beat up Paul because he wouldn’t give me half his sweets after I told him they were supposed to be mine, and now they’re all being horrible to me!!”
Pathetic, isn’t it?
Or Else! says
We all know that “Islamophobia” is an Islamic think tank-concocted neologism. It’s a thin veneer of “victimhood” they use to shame people out of even being open to learning the truth about its prophet, his deeds, and those of his followers.
The left is so delusional in its Marxist view of equity, that it’s failing to recognize a true enemy of freedom.
abad says
The answer is no, Moslems in France can never be truly French.
Next question:
Can Islam ever be of French culture?
The response: A resounding No.
KWJ says
I forgot his name, but I read an article by this Muslim man who works at the Brookings Institute. (Funded by Qatar, btw.) His article was mainly about Islamic-exceptionalism. He questioned if a Muslim can be truly American and he decided yes. But his not-so-cryptic comments led me to think, that yes they can but merely by virtue that the country’s name is the USA. His article wondered which would prevail-Islamic exceptionalism or American exceptionalism (which is also secularism).
It’s like some in Sweden who call the immigrants the “New Swedes” and the “New Sweden.” This truly American Muslim he’s talking about wouldn’t represent American history, the progress we’ve made in all spheres and personal rights. Under sharia, they would be the New Regressive American. A simple but significant example would be the history of women’s bathing suits in America.
So, a Muslim can be French because they would change the culture. It’s like Turkish Muslims who love Erdogan and think he has made them more able to live their “Muslimness” in a (previously) more secular state. In Iran the devout Muslims didn’t like the 50s-70s culture when it was not sharia compliant. After Ayatollah Khomeini took away all those freedoms, his fans felt they were getting back to Iranian Muslim roots. (Others think their roots are the kings pre-Islam invasion.)
Many are not assimilating and just duplicating. Now, in America we did have ethnic neighborhoods, this Little Italy, China Town, Jewish section, Irish, etc. But when people moved to the suburbs everyone got mixed together, at least my town was multi-ethnic though predominantly Anglo-Saxons but we mixed and did the same things each with their customs from Italy, etc. Dearborn, MI doesn’t appear to be working that way, from what I’ve heard and seen on video because they don’t seem to be mixing with the natives.
A French female journalist went into a cafe in a Muslim community and they told her she couldn’t be there-only men allowed. She said, “But this is Paris!” He replied, “That’s how we do things here.” Forget shaking hands with men there too. That’s not French life. France is famous for its wine, fashion, perfume, beaches, art, and so on, much of it being haram to many Muslims.
somehistory says
The only way to please these creeps is to fall down at their dirty feet, tell them how wonderful they are, and then commit suicide.
It was in France, now many years ago, that they would regularly set fires to cars on the streets…for no reason. They would riot all night, setting fires , breaking windows, and complaining that they weren’t getting a fair deal from the French.
I believe it was also in France where the creature in the full burqa, face totally covered, went into a store’s restroom and murdered an innocent person. “It” was caught on camera going in and coming out of the restroom, dressed all in black, head to toe. More than enough reason to ban all face coverings in public places.
moslims want to break all laws of any government in the country they invade and then not face any blame or condemnation. They want to be praised for no reason, bowed to as if they are holy, and “respected” no matter what they say or do. The acts of terror are supposed to create “terror” in the hearts and minds of the public so that the public bows and scrapes at the sight of any moslim, and they don’t like it that it is not working like that. They don’t want suspicion or looks of disapproval…they want so much fear, people will be afraid to show dislike or distrust.
Counting a look of disapproval as an act of “phobia” and wanting the “offender” prosecuted is their way of saying that they are to be fawned over and worshipped or else; while at the same time, they treat others with total disrespect and break laws meant for everyone to abide. We are supposed to fear them and fawn so they won’t kill us.
If the woman in the photo got a very deep tan and opened her mouth wide, she would look very much like omar…and she wants to create just as much trouble for non moslims.
Raja says
Jayell,
You have summed up the Muslim psyche brilliantly even as they do this day in and day out…..
Lydia Church says
They sow violence, bloodshed, and hatred all over the world… and then they turn and wail like victims over…”islamophobia”? That is the just harvest they have coming to them, others will hate islam, and rightfully so! It’s sort of like “wow… a real Einstein moment!”
tim gallagher says
Well said, Lydia. That was my exact reaction to this. What the hell do they expect when they always treat non-Muslims so appallingly. As you say, the hatred of Islam from non-Muslims is the “just harvest” for the Muslims’ behaviour.
Dennis says
Heretofore the world of Islam was restricted to countries in the Middle East and Asia. Today, the impact of Islam has travelled across the globe. Islam brings with it a belief system that is foreign and decidedly unacceptable to the new locales that it is now inhabiting. They bring to these newer locales a way of dress that is totally out of place in those free based societies where genders are substantially equal, and these free based societies do not accept religious domination of culture or government, and they do not force a religious belief on its people. The despotism that is built into the Islamic belief system is, from my perspective, now being seen by these free societies as an abomination, and I hope that, in fact, we are seeing a real movement here and worldwide of a process of rejection that will “kill” off this belief system that otherwise intends to dominate, subjugate and overthrow everything that our free world societies have favorably created. I can only root for that as being what might actually be happening.
I truly am concerned for Europe and particularly France. I hope that it is not too late to turn back the tide of Islam that seems to have adversely affected their free society. While I recognize that some of their problems with open migration is based on the EU open door policy, we, here in America are beginning to see the same results from some of the immigrants that have come to the U.S. and are Islamic believers. What seems to be an obvious result of allowing these believers into our countries is that they bring with them a built in hate that is inconsistent with what our free societies practice, as here in the states we believe in due process, equal treatment, tolerance and being affirmatively neighborly. Europe and France also had similar expectations of its people. Islamic’ s simply do not abide that conduct. They are taught to hate all of us “others,” especially those of Jewish persuasion, and wherever they go they commit acts of violence. We must protest that conduct vigorously. We must prosecute those who promote that hate, a hate which invariably leads to violence as you can determine with the growth of what we here refer to as “no go zones” of Islamic communities that are spreading thru Europe. Unless our leaders and right thinking people conclude that Islam is the anti-thesis of what we have created here in the free world, in the same manner that we treat Communism, Fascism, Nazism and adverse Socialism, this world that we live in is lost. I hope that both my country and your’ s will soon see the light and reject the foreign and unacceptable conduct that is Islam.
The real enemy is the belief system of Islam. ISLAMOPHOBIA is a real and rational concern, as so ably stated in this article.The dangers will continue to exist unless and until the free world accepts the reality that all of the problems facing us are related to the belief system that calls its followers to dominate, overthrow, subjugate, reach paradise through hate and violence. That is our enemy. Until and unless we reject the concept of “political correctness” which precludes us from stating and accepting the fact that this belief system is the reason this world is in conflict, all the rhetoric about Islamophobia is meaningless. What we all should be doing is setting in motion everything we can to recognize that it is the sardonic promotion of the belief system of Islam that is the instigator of the clear and present danger that the free world is facing. Our battle should be to pursue a continuing ream of broadcasting that the belief system is responsible for the violence this world is facing due to its instructing its followers to overthrow all of us others, and until the belief system comes around to rejecting its teachings in that regard, the rest of the world will stand against their principles and diligently act in whatever manner is necessary to stop these believers from endangering our free world societies. That is the only place this battle can be won.
FYI says
The hijab is worn in honor of {Al}LAH,the pagan Arab god of islam.
A god who teaches in his koran ,that the reason the testimony of a woman is HALF that of a man,is because as muhammed said due to” the DEFICIENCY of a woman’s mind”
muhammed{APFHs,allah prays for his salvation}is described by Linda sarsour,the taqqiya-merchant as being a “feminist”…..the same muhammed who said the vast majority of souls in hell are women {sahih muslim 241} because they are “TAKFURNA”{Ungrateful}
Al Lah the misogynist,chauvinst pagan Arab god of the muslims
Emma says
In medium-sized town in USA, resident in my apt. building wears head-scarf, all you see is oval face. Her arms, torso completely covered to the hands. THEN she’s wearing black tights that end at shin. Her shins, ankles, feet are bare except for flimsy HIGH-HEELED sandals. How can I respect this crazy contradiction? Modest?
rubiconcrest says
A strong case can be made for Muslims living in fear of Islam as well. It is not just non-Muslims.
CRUSADER says
“So shall we in the rout of life
Some thought, some faith, some meaning save,
And speak it once before we go
In silence to the silent grave.”
— George Orwell
Carolyne says
I really, really like that, Crusader.
gravenimage says
Muslims in France Complain of Widespread “Islamophobia”
……………………
In other words, the “filthy French” are not surrendering to Islam fast enough.
E T says
“WE ought not to be deceived or embarrassed by the attacks of the orientalist on the origin of JIHAD, nor lose self-confidence under the pressure of the present conditions and the weight of the great powers of the world to such an extent that we try to find reasons for Islamic jihad outside the nature of this religion, and try to show that it was a defensive measure under temporary conditions. The NEED for jihad remains, and will continue to remain, whether these conditions exist or not”.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Nowadays in the western world you can be charged with islamophobia if you simply criticize the totalitarian Islamic ideology.
Linde Barrera says
I love the country of France. French people need to be less friendly and more vigilant about Islam and those who believe in and adhere to this vile doctrine. I hate Islam but I do not advocate hatred, harm or killing Muslims. I am Islamophobic and proud of it.
Giacomo Latta says
How could any of these suspects of violence possibly be linked to Islam? Authorities searched their their pockets and in no case did they find a card which said ”Official member of the koran followers society (terrorism, enslavement and Allah-approved rape section).
Ewanda says
Muslims take it so personally….. these laws that seem to target them like no burkas, no niqabs, no beating women, no raping infidels, no adulterating kafir food, etc. They seem to forget that they are the first arrivals whose ways have made people think whether they want to welcome a custom or not.
if Incas or Aztecs, or Mayans came to a Western 21st century Country and wanted to practice ripping out hearts of citizens there would immediately be legislation to prohibit such a practice. We didn’t need a law restricting burkas because no one was really wearing them and committing crimes dressed in them. Now we see the wisdom of making new laws for new situations.
Muslims should be celebrating their differences ….. sarcastically speaking. I am sure there will be more laws around the corner as we become more and more acquainted with Islam. Like Hygiene Laws … who wipes themselves with pebbles anymore anyway?
Ade Fegan says
French in France complain of widespread islam
.. but where is the sympathetic ear there ?
gravenimage says
Very important point.
DP111 says
Best solution to Islamophobia is for Muslims to leave France.