Muslims In France Complain Of Widespread “Islamophobia”
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?
Sri Lanka expels 600 Foreign Nationals Including 200 Islamic Clerics
“Sri Lanka has expelled over 600 foreign nationals, including around 200 Islamic clerics, since the Easter suicide bombings blamed on a local terror group, a minister told AFP Sunday….Home Affairs Minister Vajira Abeywardena said …’we have reviewed the visas system and took a decision to tighten visa restrictions for religious teachers’”.
Kudos to Sri Lankan authorities. In less than a month Sri Lanka learned fast, moving from appeasement to a no-nonsense strategy in protecting its people from jihadists. Its leaders did not fold in the face of Islamic supremacist loudmouths.
While Sri Lanka was still in a state of shock following the deadly Easter Sunday jihad bombings, the country looked like it was doomed in the midst of a sudden, deadly jihadist onslaught. Churches were shut down while the country deployed thousands of security forces to protect mosques. This disappointing news followed earlier dispiriting news that “Indian intelligence officials had warned their Sri Lankan counterparts of the attack just hours before the first bomb was detonated, but the Sri Lankans failed to act.” To add to the blow, its own archbishop Malcolm Ranjith met with Muslim envoys from jihad sponsoring states who assured him that the jihad bombings had “no connection to Islam,” and he shamefully and shamelessly believed them.
But then appeared a sudden ray of hope: Sri Lanka banned the burqa on security grounds, and ignored the reactive outrage of Muslim leaders. Hilmy Ahmed, vice-president of the All Ceylon Jamiyyathul Ulema organisation, which represents Muslim clerics, in the face of the ban, accused Sri Lanka of “interfering with the religion without consulting the religious leadership”. Then, in a followup sweep, Sri Lankan authorities raided the headquarters of jihadist group National Thawheed Jammath–suspected of involvement in the Easter bombings, and discovered the existence of another suspected jihadist group. The two groups called for a jihadist “war against non-Muslims.”
Sri Lanka moved impressively amid its jihad crisis. It has now “expelled over 600 foreign nationals, including around 200 Islamic clerics” in a tough stance that should be noted and similarly replicated in all Western countries when jihadists are discovered to be spreading their doctrine of hate and murder against infidels.
“Sri Lanka Expels 200 Islamic Clerics After Easter Attacks”, Agence France-Presse, may 5, 2019:
COLOMBO: Sri Lanka has expelled over 600 foreign nationals, including around 200 Islamic clerics, since the Easter suicide bombings blamed on a local terror group, a minister told AFP Sunday.
Home Affairs Minister Vajira Abeywardena said the clerics had entered the country legally, but amid a security crackdown after the attacks were found to have overstayed their visas, for which fines were imposed and they were expelled from the island.
“Considering the current situation in the country, we have reviewed the visas system and took a decision to tighten visa restrictions for religious teachers,” Abeywardena said.
“Out of those who were sent out, about 200 were Islamic preachers.”
The Easter Sunday bombings that killed 257 people and wounded nearly 500 were led by a local cleric who is known to have travelled to India and had made contact with terrorists there.
The minister did not give the nationalities of those who have been expelled, but police have said many foreigners who have overstayed their visas since the Easter attacks were from Bangladesh, India, Maldives and Pakistan.
“There are religious institutions which have been getting down foreign preachers for decades,” Abeywardena said. “We have no issues with them, but there are some which mushroomed recently. We will pay more attention to them.”
The minister said the government was overhauling the country’s visa policy following fears that foreign clerics could radicalise locals for a repeat of the April 21 suicide bombings, which targeted three Christian churches and three luxury hotels….
Zakir Naik, Jihadist Islamic Preacher Who Paid Non-Muslims to Convert Accused of Money-Laundering
Zakir Naik is one of the most popular Islamic preachers in the world.
Jihad Watch has frequently covered his antics in the past.
“Zakir Naik travels the world debating non-Muslims, and many converts to Islam have claimed that it was his stellar performances in these debates that convinced them of the truth of Islam. I myself would love to debate him, but in light of this story, it may have to be in a prison cell. It is interesting that a person so renowned worldwide for his comprehensive knowledge of Islam would even be accused of complicity in jihad terror strikes. But no Western authorities are likely to ponder the implications of that,” Robert Spencer noted in 2016 when Naik was accused of inspiring Jihadists in Bangladesh.
That same year, Christine Douglass-Williams noted that Naik had been accused of staging his mass conversions.
It keeps getting worse for the wildly popular Islamic preacher Zakir Naik. Described as the “third most popular guru in India,” deemed “the rock star of tele-evangelism and a proponent of modern Islam,” and whose Peace Channel boasts 100 million viewers, Zaik’s reputation has been taking a global flogging lately. Now comes word that Naik, also well known for his “gift” of eliciting mass conversions to Islam, has been actually paying people to convert to Islam. Mumbai Police investigators say Naik and his non-profit Islamic Research Foundation have “illegally converted around 800 people to Islam by paying them using funds received from abroad.”
Now, fittingly, Naik is being accused of money laundering.
Indian prosecutors have charged controversial Islamic preacher Zakir Naik with money laundering.
Mr Naik, who lives in exile, is accused of acquiring $28m (£21m) worth of criminal assets, a claim he denies.
Indian authorities have also accused him of spreading hate speech and inciting terrorism.
Mr Naik, 53, promotes a radical form of Islam on the channel Peace TV. It is banned in India but has an estimated 200 million viewers worldwide.
If it has 200 million viewers worldwide, wouldn’t that make it mainstream, not radical?
Rep. Tlaib Got Into Politics Out of “Fear” of Americans After 9/11
After the Islamic terrorist attacks of September 11, Americans became fearful of Islamic terrorists. And terrorists, and their supporters, became fearful of Americans.
The media insists that we empathize, not with the fears of the former, but of the latter.
Americans may be killed by the thousands, but we are never allowed to be victims. Much like the Christians of Sri Lanka, a day will pass and the media will switch its attention to the “backlash fear” group.
Here’s Rep. Tlaib’s “backlash fear” story.
“I was probably my second year in law school when 9/11 happened. And I was — I was really terrified of what was going to happen to my husband, who’s only a green card holder at the time,” she said.
“I immediately called my brothers and told them to be very careful who you hang out with, telling my sisters, you know, just be real careful out there, and being really afraid of my fellow Americans.”
She added that the attack and the fear pushed her toward public service and becoming more involved in her community.
“It really pushed me to be more involved, and I got really curious and really angry. And I think that combination got me, you know, in front of a number of issues in the city of Detroit,” she said.
After 9/11, some Americans rushed into the buildings and into the military to serve their fellow Americans.
And some people with American papers rushed to fight Americans, on foreign battlefields or in the war at home.
If only the media had as much sympathy for Americans as it does for their enemies.
What Makes a Jihadi?
Secular Western analysts of Islamic militancy typically miss the boat when seeking the root causes spurring Muslims to engage in violent jihad. Since the analysts themselves have no galvanizing religious faith upon which they build their lives, they can’t imagine that religious faith could be a serious motivator for anyone else — they are blinded by their own bias.
Hence, we often hear in the mainstream media that what really motivates new recruits joining ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, etc. is not religious conviction but rather a desire to flee poverty and disenfranchisement (as John Kerry argued in 2014), to topple politically corrupt regimes, to escape the dreariness of a meaningless future, or to combat other social injustices. Only motivations as powerful as these could compel a terrorist to face death willingly. Religious motivations, as everybody knows (in the world of secularism), are silly and groundless, so they cannot provide an adequate foundation to explain the terrorist’s mindset. Their dismissal amounts to this: “Since I cannot conceive of the possibility that religious faith might be of ultimate importance, to the point of sacrificing my life in its pursuit, it must not be possible for anyone else (except, of course, for those who are mentally unbalanced).
As a result, we find that though militant Muslims ascribe their actions to their religion (quoting copiously from the Qur’an, reciting authoritative martial accounts of their peerless prophet, slavering over the sensual delights of paradise promised to those who kill and are killed for Allah (Qur’an 9:111), our elite analysts know better. “Islam,” they say, “has nothing to do with terrorism and militancy and conquest. It is a religion of peace. These militants have hijacked Islam and perverted it — they don’t really believe it, but are using it as a front for their real agendas — economic advancement, destruction of political enemies, and so on.
However, when one gets a chance to listen to militants who describe how they were originally recruited, it becomes clear that our secular analysts haven’t got a clue. Time and again, seasoned jihadis recount that clear teachings from the Qur’an and Sunna (authoritative accounts of the actions and declarations of Muhammad) convinced them that jihad for the sake of Allah was the only acceptable path for one seeking to be a true Muslim.
One such recruit, 38 year-old “Alex” ( a pseudonym used for his protection now that he has been captured by government forces), belonged to the Maute Group, a local terrorist group on Mindanao Island in the Philippines that gave its allegiance to ISIS and carried out a five month siege of Marawi City, effectively leveling the city center and killing over a thousand residents in the process. Alex said of his recruiters, “They said ‘they’re the ones fighting for the true jihad. We’re going to fight to the death to defend our religion and we will reap our rewards in the afterlife,” Most influential in his decision to join the Maute Group along with his 13 year-old son (who died in battle) was the terrorist group’s charismatic leader Abu Dar. Alex recalls that “Abu Dar was a great speaker, even better than Omar Maute [one of the founders of the terror group]. He was very knowledgeable about the Qur’an. You will really believe him.”
Still fresh in our minds today are the suicide bomb attacks Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, carried out by nine local Muslims (with the support of some 60 other Sri Lankans now under arrest and the apparent help of a larger Islamic terror network, perhaps ISIS). Authorities are now reporting concerning the nine suicide bombers that they were all “well-heeled” and “well-educated,” from middle- to upper-middle-class families, once again putting the lie to the claims of John Kerry and expert Western analysts that terrorists are made primarily by poverty and social victimization.
Sadly, the culprit turns out to be the religion of Muhammad as taught in the Qur’an, Hadith literature and the early histories of Islam, all revered Muslim documents. Historical Islam is inherently jihadi, and the more seriously a Muslim entertains patterning his/her life after that of Muhammad, the more he/she is drawn to totalitarian violence against all who resist submission to Islam. Its capacity to woo willing pawns eager to kill and be killed for the sake of Allah so that they may earn a ticket to paradise must not be underestimated.
Read the rest here.
D.C. Muslims Want Restaurants Open at 4 AM for Ramadan
Washington D.C. has a sizable Muslim population. And while Rep. Ilhan Omar has gotten a lot of attention, there are more Muslim aides and staffers than ever before.
Some of them would like D.C. restaurants to open at 4 AM.
Katherine Ashworth Brandt, a former congressional aide now studying political management at George Washington University who founded the campaign late last year, is urging Washington restaurants to expand their hours next month to accommodate Muslims celebrating Ramadan, the 30 days of fasting that begins May 5 this year for most Muslims.
“I want this to be a common business practice,” said Brandt, 34. “I want customers to be able to expect that places will be open when they need them during Ramadan.”
Restaurateurs participating in Dine After Dark would open around 4 a.m., to give Muslims two hours before sunup to eat before abstaining from food and drink for the rest of the day, or close around 10:30 p.m., about two hours after sunset, when observant Muslims break their fast.
For an eatery to open at 4 AM, the employees have to start work anywhere from 1 AM to 2 AM.
Making this Ramadan accommodation a common business practice would be expensive for employers and miserable for employees.
But, as usual a convenience issue for Muslims seems to trump the comfort and welfare of non-Muslims.
As an Orthodox Jew, we keep fasts certain times of the year. Some of them begin very early in the morning. We don’t expect places to open at 4 AM for our convenience. There’s a great deal of entitlement embodied in such an attitude.
Muslims in Washington D.C. don’t need to go out in the morning. They can prepare their own food ahead of time. Microwaves and toaster ovens make it easy to have a meal without expecting businesses to accommodate you or workers to go without sleep.
But instead, also as usual, an Islamic entitlement is portrayed as a civil rights issue.
Depending on their business models, some restaurants would expand both morning and evening hours. Two extra hours may not be enough to serve all Muslims’ needs, Brandt acknowledged, but it’s a start.
It’s never enough. Everything you give is only a starting point.
“All of us need to be more considerate of other people’s traditions and holidays and know that these are important no matter what religion you subscribe to,” she said
How about being considerate of employees earning minimum wage and having little enough time to spend with their children?
Consideration is never given to infidels. Only demanded from them.
Jihad Leader on Notre Dame: “The Cross was Broken, a Sign of Good Omens. We rejoice Over Anything That Hurts Them.”
And he threatens more: “Behold, the rivers of blood flow! We will return to water the paving stones of their nightclubs/With the blood of the unbelievers we shall meet.”
Meanwhile, Western social media giants and others are on the hunt for “Islamophobia.”
“Jihadi Ideologue Celebrates Notre Dame Cathedral Fire, Threatens Jihad Against France,” MEMRI, April 17, 2019:
The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here.
On April 17, 2019, the influential jihadi ideologue Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, based in Jordan, posted a poem on his Telegram channel celebrating the devastating April 15, 2019, fire which destroyed large parts of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. The poem portrays the burning of the cathedral as just punishment for France’s colonial-era crimes against Muslim nations and the Christian Church’s persecution of Muslims, and threatens future jihad against France. The post includes an eight-second video showing the cathedral’s spire, topped with a cross, collapsing in the blaze.
The following is a translation of the poem, whose author is unknown:
“The cross was broken, a sign of good omens
And the building collapsed in a fiery blaze.
Oh accursed Paris, “rejoice” over tidings
Of humiliation, burning, and poverty.
Let me not find a deceiver to lament them
Or one speechless with grief for the ancient monument.
By no means! We rejoice over anything that hurts them,
So beware, oh hypocrites, beware!
The land of Syria has not forgotten their crimes, nor has
Africa forgotten centuries of captivity.
How many mosques, have the cannons erased their traces
In our land, how many ruins of colonialism?
How much have our peoples been degraded in the name of the Church?
Behold, the rivers of blood flow!
We will return to water the paving stones of their nightclubs
With the blood of the unbelievers we shall meet.
France thought it would defeat our Lord,
But he who tries to defeat the Omnipotent one will be defeated.
French Stonemason at Notre Dame Tells of Working with Muslims “Who Hate Us” and “Pray On the Site”
I received this email from a French-speaking contact. The tweets at the link are in French, but the summary provided here is sufficient to give you an idea of what is being said. The fact that the Africans pray on site indicates that they are not just Africans, but Muslims, and their hostility to the French may be a result of the contempt that the “best of people” (Qur’an 3:110) often have for “the most vile of created beings,” i.e., unbelievers (Qur’an 98:6).
Does this mean that the Notre Dame fire was an arson jihad attack? Absolutely not. Once again, however, it raises the possibility that it could be, and the question of whether or not the French government has the will even to investigate a possibility that could be so politically explosive, or to tell the truth about what it finds if it shows up its policies in a negative light. Will there be such an investigation? Will the renovation workers at Notre Dame be looked into? Or would the political fallout be too great for the Macron government if something inconvenient was found?
Here is a link to a series of tweets by a French traditional stone carver who worked on different monuments’ sites including Notre-Dame cathedral. He tells of his experience of seeing many African workers hired “who hate us” and “pray on the site”, one attacking him and others physically, that he was fired but not the African attacker, his complaint at the police station where a female police officer started deafeningly screaming after him when he mentioned the attacker was African, that she wore a hand of fatma on a necklace, which is a North African symbol.
“Les tweets d’un tailleur de pierre du chantier de Notre-Dame” (“The tweets of a stonemason at the Notre Dame site”), LesObservateurs.ch, April 18, 2019.
Hugh Fitzgerald: The Fire at Notre Dame and Muslim Schadenfreude (Part Two)
Here are a few instructive tweets from members of the French Student Union:
The first is from Hafsa Askar, vice-president of the Lille branch of the National Union of Students, who in December 2017 had tweeted “all the whites ought to be gassed, this subhuman race.” Nothing happened to her for expressing this genocidal wish; just imagine the national uproar if a French woman had tweeted a similar sentiment about Muslims or blacks. The very day of the Notre-Dame fire, Askar tweeted “I don’t give a damn [“je m’en fiche”] about Notre-Dame. I don’t give a damn about the history of France. Go right ahead, use my name.” Later, having received many angry responses from French people, she shut down her Twitter account.
The second is from Majdi Chaarana, former president of the Lyon branch of the Union of French Students, and now a member of its National Committee.
He tweeted “Quelqu’un a des nouvelles de Quasimodo? Sa maison crame.”
“Any news from Quasimodo? His house is on fire.”
These displays of nastiness, written while Notre-Dame was still engulfed in flames, did not go over well among the French.
My informant, an ex-Muslim now in Paris, reported:
Thousands of Muslims have demonstrated their joy [at the burning of Notre-Dame].
Numerous French Muslims have taken to social media to express, in a half-Arab half-French patois, their joy at this tragic event. I will let you see for yourself.
Rokhaya Diallo is a French citizen, both Muslim and black, who describes herself as a “writer, journalist, film-maker, television host” and “militant.” She’s a stout Defender of the Faith of Islam; when the offices of Charlie Hebdo were firebombed in 2011 for mocking Muhammad (just as the paper always did with Jesus and Moses), Diallo refused to denounce the attackers and instead criticized Charlie Hebdo, demonstrating her indifference to freedom of speech. In her own television appearances and in her writings, her every third word is “racism,” and her every fourth word is “islamophobia.” She believes that the French are inherently racist, that there is a “racism sanctioned and spread by the state,” and it is her duty to endlessly discuss race, racism, racists. Her mind is neither wide nor deep. Her spoken and written pieces usually begin in one of two ways: “As a black woman…” or “As a woman who is both black and Muslim….” She has been interviewed by Al Jazeera on “Race,Religion, and Feminism in France.” She has written a few books. You can guess their titles. That’s right: “Racism. A Guide.” She has also published “Afro,” which consists entirely of photographs of black Parisians who are described as “unafraid” to wear Afros, as if they were in any danger; “France Belongs to Us,” (“Us” being non-whites, that is, blacks and Arabs, staking their claim to the country), “France: One and Multicultural,” and “How To Talk To Kids About Racism.” You can see Diallo on television debate shows, constantly interrupting her interlocutors, and speaking a mile a minute, never answering but merely drowning her critics in a torrent of verbiage, here and here. She now appears regularly at the Washington Post, writing about Racism and Islamophobia. Did those at the Post who thought she would be a fresh new voice worth hearing not realize that she has only these two topics — racism and islamophobia — and has nothing new to say about either? Recent pieces for the Washington Post have been “French Islamophobia Goes Global,” and ”Don’t Let France’s World Cup Victory Erase The Issues of Black French People.”
After the Notre-Dame conflagration, Diallo, who is always so free with her comments, tweeting away like nobody’s business, and appearing on all sorts of talk shows, never listening to her interlocutors, always cutting them off to make some inane claim, had no comment to offer about the fire. Her last tweet about the country which has given her so much, and which she so clearly despises for its supposed “racism,” was “Nique la France” (“Fuck France”). That sums up Diallo’s appeal to all the malcontents, both Muslims and anti-white racists, who take whatever they can from the French government and French people, and who, in return, offer only resentment, contempt, and hatred. No comment from someone who always has a comment is itself telling: Notre-Dame is not her concern. It’s not part of her France. Its destruction doesn’t move her. Days later, Rhokaya Diallo still has yet to express a syllable of sympathy.
So that’s how many French Muslims have reacted to the partial destruction of Notre-Dame. Some of them have been cheering the news, in tweets using the smiling emoji to express their happiness. Some Muslims who are leaders in local chapters of the Union of French Students have expressed not solidarity with, but contempt for, both the French, and for France. “I don’t give a damn about France,” tweeted Hafsa Askar, Vice-President of the Lille branch of the Union of French Students. “I don’t give a damn about French history.” Yet she complains about being made to feel that she is not part of France. And she added in another tweet that “jusqu’a les gens ils vont pleurer pour des bouts de bois vs. aimez trop l’identite français aloes qu’on s’en balek objectivement c’est votre desire de petits blancs.” Roughly translated: “[I don’t give a damn about France] and that includes the people who cry over sticks of wood you love your French identity while we don’t give a shit objectively it’s just your lower-class-white delirium.”
The Notre-Dame fire, which touched so many in the Western world, offered a perfect opportunity for Muslims in France to express sympathy for, and solidarity with, the French people, to show that they could identify with the supreme symbol of French civilization, and to mourn the damage caused by the fire. Instead, many Muslims chose to celebrate online the destruction, with thousands tweeting their pleasure, along with smiling emojis to emphasize the point. Some even suggested the fire was retribution for jokes having been made about Mecca. Then there were the Muslim officers of the SNEF, the Union of French Students, who went beyond mere expressions of pleasure, and made jokes about the church in flames, calling it Quasimodo’s place. and loudly proclaming that they didn’t care about the church, or France, or the French, whose sorrow was mocked as the hysteria of lower-class whites (“petits blancs”). This could have been a moment for Muslims, beyond a handful, to demonstrate fellow feeling; instead, it was a display of Muslim resentment and hostility and Schadenfreude that will not, in France, be forgotten.