Løvfen og de tiltettende no-go-zonene

Er islam et politisk parti?

Vi har skrevet om dette før, ved ulike anledninger; det dreier seg om islam som politikk, eller bedre: Islam som et stort politisk Parti, som «noe» som legger seg over alt, som kleber seg til det meste, nærmest som en gedigen blekksprut med fangarmer inn i enhver krink og kron, og som er tydelig i sin kjerne: Vi skal omvendes … eller betale «jazya», - dhimmienes «beskyttelsesskatt» - selv om dette står som en totalt fremmed tanke for de fleste muslimer vi kjenner, og for de mange muslimer som har vært på banen som aktører, store eller små, de siste tiår – for her trekkes vi (objektivt) mot samme mål, mot samme «utopia». Det fremgår ganske enkelt av «de hellige tekstene» og de fleste muslimer vil før eller senere nettopp vurdere disse, skal de beholde noe av sin identitet, stolthet – og sitt ansvar som muslimer – og som fromme muslimer, i det minste:

Hodne-saken - er islam et politisk parti?

Er islam en religion? (Hodnesaken)

Vil Gule ta selvkritikk ndgj. religion?

She is not dangerous, she is in danger (Om Hodne, Mawdudi etc)

Merete Hodne, Gud, Allah og bl a våre advokater og domstoler, (om ytringsfriheten I filosofisk perspektiv, advokat Ellingsen og HRS  bl a)

Gule selvkritikk?

Gud, Gule, evidensnevortiker, normativ ekstremisme, Allah off the hook? Pluss Aristoteles og

“hvor er professorens hjerne”?

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2012/06/gule-oikofascist.html

Gule, asylkapitalisme, definisjon av "godhetsapostler" som normativt .... ?

Strutse-ekstremisten Lars Gule - med ref. til hans egne definisjoner i link

Alla is dead - er islam en religion? Bynum m fl

 Islam er ikke hvilket som helst politisk parti, ingen hvilken som helst ideologi. Islam er mørk, farlig og brutal kommunitarianisme, en totalitær kommunitarianisme: Se om disse termene her, og om hypemagi og det juridico-religico mennesket og og se her fyldig om homo oeconomicus og loven som er "skrevet på hjertene"

Islam styrer scener og nerver, sjel, kropp, alt vev, alle scene, og bein i ditt liv, din psyke, dine holdninger, dine innsikter, ditt klesvalg, ditt hjerte og din eksistens, hvis man tar de på alvor og underlegger seg den i sin totalitet, slik den selv krever av den troende. Du må sluke den helt, ikke bare partielt, skal du være from og «feilfri» overfor Allah og profeten. I Vesten i dag, kan islam fremstå som mild, tolerant og muslimer som flittige, ærlige og likandes mennesker, akkurat som vi selv ser på oss selv som. Men det er her …

En som ikke ser, kan like vel forstå mye, men en som ikke forstår, han kan like vel ikke se mye. En sånn person risikerer både ikke å se noe og ikke forstå noe. Han hører dessuten også ofte dårlig, selv om han har ørene på stilk. Løvfen er en slik: Han har store øyne og store ører, men hverken ser eller hører – det viktigste. Hvilket organ er det Løvfen forstår med? Kan man spørre.

En sånn person bør ikke begi seg inn i politikken, eller bli innvalgt i politikken. Like vel har det skjedd. «Man» har so gar valgt ham til "Stas-minister", - i Sverige. Og selvsagt er han hypermagiker og islamofob, i den forstand at han ikke ser islam som «medvirker» i noe som helst; han tier om islam, og samtykker da i prinsippet, om enn aldri så indirekte «i» islam. Men dette ser han ikke, selvsagt. Hvordan kunne han? Vel, han har moderert seg, det er den gode nyheten, men hvor langt rekke den? (Se under: Julie Dale).

Vi tar først for et par norske kommentatorer som kan opplyse oss, og så, under disse norske, kommer vi til formidable Judith Bergmann, som er svensk jurist, og som forklarer tingene på en måte som forteller meg at vi – her på Nei til islam – har hatt rett hele tiden (og noe som har gitt seg umiddelbart, for oss, og som noe vi har tatt som en selvinnlysende sannhet, men da en sannhet som ikke mange har vært villig til hverken å se eller høre. Det vil kanskje «bedre seg etter hvert», men det vil ta lang, lang tid før det kommer noen helhjertede eller uforbeholdne erkjennelser fra «det norske miljøet». Vi begynner:

Nina Hjerpset Østlie sa det slik: Statsminister Stefan Löfven får stryk etter de forbløffende uttalelsene om gjengkriminalitet og innvandring i et intervju med SVT Agenda.

 I det katastrofale intervjuet kom Löfven med det som ikke kan karakteriseres som annet enn virkelighetsfjerne påstander om at dagens kriminalitetsbilde ikke har noe med innvandring å gjøre, at «man ikke så det komme» og at man derfor ikke har forberedt seg på det heller. Man tror knapt det er sant at noe slikt kan komme fra en statsleder i et rasjonelt, opplyst land i 2019.

Etter intervjuet har det som fremsto som en svært sliten og virkelighetsfjern Löfven fått gjennomgå av både sine egne og politiske motstandere. Det er selvfølgelig ikke uten grunn. Advarslene har vært mange og velbegrunnet, men Löfven og hans parti har vært blant dem som har vært mer opptatt av å fornekte realitetene enn å debattere dem. her

Julei Dahle sier det nå slik:

– Vi kan inte skydda oss mot allt, men vi ska göra allt vi kan för att skydda oss, sier Sveriges statsminister Stefan Löfven. Det de skal beskytte seg mot, har ingen ting med islam å gjøre, forklarer han videre.

Svenskenes statsminister har tatt til tastaturet for å forklare terroren i Frankrike. Han forklarer at det verken er en konflikt mellom Frankrike og islam eller mellom Sverige og islam. Det finnes bare noen ytterst få ekstremister, men ut over det står samfunnet samlet, hevder Löfven.

På Facebook skriver den svenske statsministeren fredag kveld at konflikten står mellom samfunnets majoritet og ekstremister.

Frankrikes ambassadör i Sverige, Etienne de Gonneville, konstaterade i SVT:s Agenda att attacken i Paris och händelserna efter den inte är en konflikt mellan Frankrike och islam. Konflikten står mellan samhällets majoritet och radikala och våldsbejakande extremister. Det är lika giltigt i Sverige.

Löfven forstår terror som løsrevet fra samfunnet, og oppfatter terrorister som ensomme ulver. Han klarer dog å nevne ordet «islamistisk», til tross for at han kun bruker ordet «islam» når han skal beskrive hva terror ikke er.

Gärningsmännen är av allt att döma motiverade av våldsbejakande islamistisk extremism.

Den typ av religiöst eller ideologiskt motiverat våld som vi nu sett i Frankrike har drabbat även vårt samhälle. I terrorattacken på Drottninggatan i Stockholm våren 2017 miste fem människor livet och många fler skadades. Det som hänt i Frankrike de senaste dagarna kan inträffa även här. Vi kan inte skydda oss mot allt, men vi ska göra allt vi kan för att skydda oss. Terroristernas omänskliga mål och metoder har ingen plats i vårt samhälle. her, på doc

Og enda mer fra doc: Enda mer krypende feighet: Löfven nevner ikke islam i forbindelse med Nice-terroren. Av: Tore Kristiansen   4. november 2020, 21:31

 Sveriges statsminister Stefan Löfven fordømmer terroren i Nice, men er vag om hvem som faktisk sto bak udåden. Foto: Jonas Ekströmer/TT / NTB scanpix

Sveriges statsminister tar avstand fra terroren i Nice. Men lar være å nevne ord som islamisme og jihad. …

… Han utspill i denne forbindelse var dessverre ikke særlig overbevisende, og etterlater en viss tvil om hvor «ille» han egentlig synes det er, når det er snakk om terror som utføres av islamister.

Han finner i hvert fall ingen grunn til å nevne hvem som står bak, og hva dette sier om de bevegelser, det tankegods og den ideologi som gang på gang står sentralt i massedrap på uskyldige verden over.

… Fria Tider har omtalt Löfvens tamme fordømmelse, og påpeker nettopp poenget med at han unnlater å berøre hva slags krefter som står bak ugjerningene. Det er heller ikke første gangen han opptrer på en så krypende måte: «Sveriges statsminister Stefan Löfven har fördömt terrordådet i Wien på måndagskvällen. Men likt tidigare undviker han ideologin bakom.»

Slik uttalte Löfven seg om saken:

«Jag fördömer starkt terroristattackerna i Wien ikväll, en av dem nära en synagoga. Mina tankar är hos offren och deras familjer.

Vi måste alla stå enade mot attacker mot vårt öppna samhälle», skriver statsministern på Twitter.

Med andre ord en temmelig generell og lite presis fordømmelse av «alle som er slemme», og støtte til deres ofre.

Han har også sørget for at publikum ikke får anledning til å si sitt om en slik opptreden fra den svenske statsministerens side:

«Även denna gång har Löfven stängt av kommentarsfältet.»

 Også Norges statsminister Erna Solberg har fordømt terroren. Hun klarte i det minste å nevne at dette hadde noe med muslimske land og kulturer å gjøre.

«– Vi må verne om våre felles verdier og menneskerettighetene. Vi må aldri la oss true av terrorister. Vi oppfordrer politiske ledere i muslimske land og religiøse muslimske ledere i hele verden til å ta avstand fra ekstremisme og beskytte ytringsfriheten …

Også hun er ganske ullen og vag med hensyn til å gå klart i rette med de islamistiske grupperingene og det forstokkede tankegods det her er snakk om.

Kommentar: Tankegods? Hva i all verden tenker Kristiansen på her? Generelt dårlig tankegods? Noen generelt svake eller forstyrrende personlighetstrekk? Er det islam – proper, som jeg pleier å si – han tenker på? Eller er dette tankegodset et utslag av manglende verbal impulskontroll – bare?

Dette er for dårlig, Document. Kristiansen bør skjerpe seg. Islam er ikke noe «tankegods» - for det har den egenskapen at man kvitte seg med det, med litt egeninnsats «with a little bit of my friends». Men islam? Islam kvitter man seg ikke bare med. Islam er ingen intellektuell småting eller noe tankespinn. Islam bygger på Allah og Allah serverer ingen muslim noe tankegods.  

… FrP-politiker Sylvi Listhaug … var dette et klart eksempel på «feighet» fra Norges side, og alt annet enn noe vi bør være bekjent av fra vår statsminister:

«Den norske regjeringen går som vanlig på gummisåler og er mest opptatt av å ikke støte noen. Feighet er ordet for det. Vi har friskt i minne den forrige karikaturstriden. Da utenriksminister Jonas Gahr Støre la seg på kne for totalitære krefter fremfor å stå opp for våre verdier», skrev Listhaug.

Solberg har ikke kommentert dette ytterligere. https://www.document.no/2020/11/04/enda-mer-krypende-feighet-lofven-nevner-ikke-islam-i-forbindelse-med-nice-terroren/

Selve godbiten her, kommer fra, fra Judit Bergman: Report Warns of Islamic Radicalization in France

Av: Judith Bergman   4. november 2020, 13:15

A report published in July by a commission of inquiry of the French Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, has found that «Islamist radicalization» is a «reality» in France. Pictured: The Palais du Luxembourg in Paris, where the French Senate is located. (Photo: Lionel Bonaventure/AFP via Getty Images)

A report published in July by a commission of inquiry of the French Senate, the upper house of the French Parliament, has found that «Islamist radicalization» is a «reality» in France. The commission of inquiry, made up of approximately thirty senators, interviewed a large number of researchers, politicians and other experts on the subject.

The commission found the consequences of radicalization alarming, particularly the «dissemination of behaviors that… directly affect freedom of conscience, equality between men and women, and the rights of homosexual persons».

«[T]his religious revival, for some, is accompanied by a desire to affirm their belief in the public space, in the company, in the school, and of recognition by institutions and public services, which conflicts with the laws of the Republic and secularism».

«Radical Islamism», states the report, «is polymorphic, insinuating itself into all aspects of social life and tending to impose a new social norm….»

«Above all, we are witnessing the constitution in certain neighborhoods of an Islamist ecosystem made up of shops, food, clothing, as well as drinking establishments based on a halal standard… Reinforced by propaganda using the learning of Koranic Arabic, the dissemination of extremist literature in specialized bookstores and on market stalls, the desire to impose radical Islam is also based on a discourse… on the internet and social networks… It is a matter, through social and ideological pressure, of enclosing the lives of inhabitants of these neighborhoods, to disqualify any other perspective, to separate from their fellow citizens…»

The report also mentions the role of mosques in the growth of Islamist radicalization:

«France has large mosques, capable of accommodating more than a thousand faithful during Friday prayers… The construction of religious buildings is a vector in its own right of the assertion of Islam in French society. Capable of raising the capital necessary for these constructions, Islam is, contrary to popular belief, a ‘rich’ religion».

The report quotes former Prefect Michel Aubouin, who said that, «the construction of each mosque has cost an average of over 2 million euros», so that all of these religious buildings represent «financial capital of several billion euros».

In addition, according to the report:

«A growing fringe of Muslims are also observing all the theological precepts: daily prayers, wearing the veil, the necessary distance between men and women, respect for food prohibitions, so many rules that Islam places in the public space».

All this, according to the report, means that French society must face «a reality, sometimes disputed and too long underestimated: French society must now face the challenge of ‘Islamism’ as an ideology». Aubouin is further quoted as saying, «It may anger my former colleagues, I will answer you sincerely: there is a form of myopia and a great ignorance of political Islam.»

The report, on page 51, goes on to describe what it sees as the political ambitions of extremists:

«The Islamists… are now trying to get into the political game by using democratic institutions to promote their societal project, despite their lack of representativeness; at the same time, the will of successive governments to institutionalize an Islam of France gives them the opportunity to become legitimate and privileged interlocutors of power».

The report quotes, among many others, Alexandre del Valle and Emmanuel Razavi, authors of the book The Project: The Strategy of Conquest and Infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in France and in the World (2019).

«According to the authors, ‘the re-Islamization of France is a symbol for the Muslim Brotherhood.’ If the Islamists manage to achieve it in the universal homeland of human rights, then the project will have succeeded. ‘They want to bring down the Republic'».

The report quotes another expert, Mohammed Sifaoui: «Under the guise of Islamophobia, political Islam was able to thrive by making people believe it could be nonviolent». As the report points out:

«The religious communitarianism of the Muslim Brotherhood in French society… is not about living in the margin, but [about] penetrating all fields of social and political life, especially since the Brotherhood is part of a long-term logic».

As Naëm Bestandji, one of the founders of the group «Ni putes ni soumises» («Neither whores nor submissives»), who was also interviewed for the report, points out:

«Islamism is fundamentalism. The political project… does not fit into the temporality of our policies, but over several generations… They are not opposed to society, they want to invest in it: unions, schools, associations, etc., to make their values ​​prevail…»

According to Bestandji, this precept also holds true for electoral politics:

«The Islamists have chosen two methods: create their own lists or infiltrate the lists of other parties… They are not in a timeframe of three to four years, but they consider that the fertility intrinsic to the Muslim community is an exponential factor for the electoral mass, until the day when they reach critical mass and can constitute a political party».

Nadia Remadna, president of the organization «Brigade of Mothers», who was also interviewed for the report, spoke along the same lines: «The Islamists constitute an army which prepares the field. They work with young people and are in a long-term dynamic.»

The report concludes that there is a risk of political infiltration from extremists in general and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular, especially in municipal councils.

The report sets forth 44 proposals in a multi-pronged effort to deal with radicalism. These include measures to combat the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as introducing a ban against Youssef al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the organization, and other Muslim Brotherhood ideologues; boosting intelligence in order the better to detect Islamist radicalism, and improved training of elected and local officials on secularism and radical Islam. The report also suggests proceeding more systematically, such as dissolving associations that disseminate incitement, discrimination, hatred, and violence. The senators are also calling for religious associations to be transparent about their resources, especially those coming from abroad. Any association wishing to benefit from grants from local communities would also have to commit to «signing a charter including respect for the values ​​of the Republic».

At the same time, France’s new Prime Minister, Jean Castex, recently said that he would be «uncompromising» in the defense of France’s official secularism, and promised to fight «radical Islamism in all its forms» as «an absolute priority».

Senator LR Jacqueline Eustache-Brinio said in July, «all of France, except the West, is affected by radical Islam… We have to act now or never».

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16529/france-islamic-radicalization

Kommentar: Følgende artikkel bør få noen og enhver til endelig å forstå at islam er politikk, at islam i praksis og funksjon er ett stort politisk parti, med ett overhodet – Allah og profeten – og like mange små gapende og skrikende munner som det er i alle gjøkereir rundt omkring i verden, munner og gap som en sliten gjøkemor mater og mater, mer og mer og ustanselig og stadig mer og mer, døgnet rundt.

Og så var det snakk om for ca 10-15 år siden at det ikke fantes noe som heter «no-go-zone» i Europa. Folkene som tviholdt på denne fantasien, viste seg å være så virkelighetsfjerne at det er vanskelig å tro at de kunne være ansatte på universiteter. Det samme gjaldt taqiyya, den lovlige løgnen: Den ble påstått ikke å finnes, ikke å gjelde, og at å påstå noe annet var «sykelig» «farlig» og å påstå at den fantes – og at den faktisk var ute og gikk på lyse dagen - lå like opp til grensen for rasisme, eller behandlingstrengende islamofobi, mente noe av disse forstyrrede menneskene (med sin uhyrlige makt over unge studentsinn). Nå vender realitetene seg igjen mot disse «demagoger» og frontkjempere for islam, forkledd som de var i humanismens tankegods, et gods som de fleste fornuftige mennesker har forkastet for godt. Å kritiserer eller raljere litt med hamanismen og humanismen, ble oppfattet som hat, se Bør "hefferne" nå ta kvelden?.  Og se denne om Gule som en mulig «sterk oikofob» og en som faktisk forsvarer taqiyya ved å ville at vi skal forties om den, Gule om bl a taqyiyya, pluss konsensustekningen og derfinisjonene hans og hvordan islam skiller seg klart, avgjørende og dramatisk fra kristendommens fundamenter.

France: An "Inverted Colonization"

by Guy Millière November 15, 2019 at 5:00 am

• Soon after, Muslim organizations that had asked for students to have the right to wear the veil in schools also asked for a change in the school curriculum -- in history, so that Muslim civilization would be presented in a more "correct" and "positive" way.
• "If the way I dress disturbs you, leave my country". — Signs at a demonstration, October 27, 2019.
• "Any criticism of Islam is now blasphemy." — Ivan Rioufol, columnist, Le Figaro, November 4, 2019.
• Details lead one to see that the anti-Christian acts were mostly acts of church vandalism, the anti-Semitic acts were very often violent attacks against Jews or cemetery desecrations, and that the anti-Muslim acts were almost only anti-Muslim graffiti or the laying of slices of bacon the entrance to a mosque or in the mailbox of a Muslim organization. No Muslims were physically attacked.
• "We are not in a project of assimilation." — Yassine Belattar, former advisor to French President Emmanuel Macron, October 27, 2019.
• Éric Zemmour has suggested that France is threatened not by a risk of "partition", but by an inverted "colonization".

On October 12, 2019, a meeting of the Regional Council of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté was held in Dijon, a quiet town in central France. A woman wearing a long black veil was in the audience, apparently accompanying a group of students. All at once, the head of the National Rally party group at the Regional Council, Julien Odoul, rose and said that the presence of a woman wearing an Islamic headscarf in a public building was incompatible with the values ​​of the French Republic:

"We are in a public building, we are in a democratic enclosure. Madame has all the time to keep her veil at home, in the street, but not here, not today. It's the Republic, it's secularism. It's the law of the Republic, no ostentatious signs."

He was neither threatening nor violent, yet his words immediately upset others in the room. A boy, apparently the son of the veiled woman, rushed crying into her arms. She then left the room slowly, accompanied by other children.

The event was immediately highlighted in newspapers and television throughout France. Odoul was described as a provocateur and a "despicable Islamophobic racist". The leaders of French political parties asked Marine Le Pen, president of the National Rally party, to apologize and to expel Odoul from the party. She replied that Odoul had been "clumsy" and "should have remained silent". She did not, however, expel him from the party.

A petition, "How far will we let hatred towards Muslims go?", in the newspaper Le Monde, described France as "a country where Muslims are stigmatized" as "victims of racism", "segregation" and "ostracism". Without mentioning a recent terrorist attack at Paris police headquarters where four police employees were murdered by a colleague, Mickaël Harpon, a convert to Islam, the text denounced the decision of some public agencies to "monitor the signs of radicalization among their Muslim employees".

The petition also did not mention that it was this attack that prompted public institutions to establish preventive measures. The petition was signed by 90 Muslim writers, actors and university professors, as well as a few non-Muslim intellectuals. Since then, more than 230,000 people have signed it.

A few days later, another petition, signed by a hundred Muslims, was published in the weekly Marianne. The entry was entitled, "The veil is sexist and obscurantist". The entire text was about the Islamic headscarf:

"Wearing a veil is an ostentatious sign of a retrograde, obscurantist and sexist understanding of the Qur'an. Veiling women exists to stigmatize their presence in the public space".

Since then, debates on the Islamic veil in France have proceeded non-stop.

From the US or the UK, such discussions might look strange, but France is a country where belonging to a religion has long been considered a private affair that absolutely must not invade the public sphere.

Additionally, the widespread appearance of the Islamic hijab in France is relatively recent. It has quickly become much more than the sign of a religion. Many now regard the veil as a banner of radical Islam, and as the symbol of an organized attempt profoundly to transform the society of France.

Attempts to bring the hijab into French schools and high schools on a large scale began in 1989. Soon after, Muslim organizations that had asked for students to have the right to wear the veil in schools also asked for a change in the school curriculum -- in history, so that Muslim civilization would be presented in a more "correct" and "positive" way.

A few years after that, teachers began reporting to the Ministry of National Education that it was now impossible to talk about the Holocaust in class without being interrupted by Muslim students' statements that were negative and anti-Semitic. The Ministry of National Education obligingly modified history programs; Muslim civilization is now described in French textbooks as having brought much to the world and to Europe. Any reference to the continuing practice of slavery in the Muslim world, or massacres committed by Muslim warriors, was withdrawn.

At the same time, as the Ministry of National Education remained deaf to what professors were reporting, several of them decided to write a book, Les Territoires perdus de la République ("The Lost Territories of the Republic"), published in 2002, under the direction of the historian Georges Bensoussan.

The book may have prompted Luc Ferry, Minister of National Education at the time, to ask an academic, Jean-Pierre Obin, to launch an investigation and write a report, which was delivered in September 2004. It emphasized that the situation was extremely serious; that history teachers could not talk about the Holocaust in the presence of Muslim students; nor could they talk about Israel or the Crusades. Furthermore, as the theory of evolution did not conform to the Koran, biology teachers, could not speak about evolution. Wherever Jewish students were in contact with Muslim students, the report continued, they were harassed, and when a serious incident took place, school officials did not punish the aggressors but instead advised Jewish parents to enroll their children somewhere else. Muslim girls, the report pointed out, did not wear a headscarf inside school, but an increasing number were not only wearing it as soon as they were outside the school grounds, but also harassing Muslim girls who did not wear one. The mainstream media immediately said that the report was "Islamophobic". The report had no effect.

Meanwhile, the suburbs of large cities where Muslim communities were growing became neighborhoods where girls and women who did not wear the veil were insulted, assaulted, sometimes raped or even subjected to gang rapes in cellars. In Vitry, near Paris, in October 2002, an unveiled Muslim young woman, Sohane Benziane, 17, was burned alive. In Marseille, another unveiled Muslim woman, Ghofrane Haddaoui, 23, was stoned to death. When non-Muslim families, who did not want to submit to the law of gangs and Islamists, gradually left, the neighborhoods became places where every woman knew that to go out unveiled was dangerous.

To many, the veil became a sign of oppression against women, and associated with areas that were becoming no-go zones -- zones urbaines sensibles ("sensitive urban zones"). In 2006, there were 751 of these in the country, where non-Muslims were generally excluded, apart from exceptional circumstances.

In these no-go zones, in the autumn of 2005, riots broke out. The French government was confronted with a situation beyond its control, and had to rely on Muslim organizations and imams to restore the calm. No-go zones had become autonomous Muslim areas on French territory.

In the years that followed, the Muslim population grew larger and Muslim organizations gained even more importance, especially the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- then called the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), which is now called Muslims of France. Popular preachers, such as Hassan Iquioussen or Tariq Ramadan (since 2018, indicted for several rapes), said in the mosques that the hijab is an "Islamic obligation" stemming from the need for women to be "modest". These preachers added that forcing Muslim women not to wear a veil in public spaces was a way to "force them to stay at home". They accused whoever opposed the veil of wanting to "exclude" Muslim women from society. Muslim women belonging to those organizations began to repeat these views.

By now, the Islamization of France has gained considerable ground. Veiled women can be seen everywhere. Other women know that if they wear a dress or a skirt that might be seen as immodest, they run a risk. Zineb El Razhoui, a journalist who used to write for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, has said that all French women, including non-Muslim women, are now threatened. She went on to document the explosion of the number of sexual assaults in France: 235,000 complaints for rape or attempted rape were filed in 2018 -- 62,000 more than in 2016. In 2005, 9,993 complaints of rape or attempted rape were filed, a figure at the time considered alarming.

The result is that El Razhoui has received thousands of death threats, in both Arabic and French.

Georges Bensoussan, in his book Une France soumise ("A Submitted France"), published 15 years after The Lost Territories of the Republic, noted what is happening to all French women: a widespread fear of going out alone, especially in the evening.

In debates on television, veiled Muslim women invited to speak say that wearing a veil is their "choice" and that the French must "adapt to Islam".

On October 27, a demonstration against "Islamophobia" in Paris gathered hundreds of veiled women. They held signs saying, "If the way I dress disturbs you, leave my country" and "Stop the persecution of Muslims". One of the organizers interviewed on television said:

"Muslims in France are suffering under growing persecution. They want to forbid us to be Muslims. France is our country. Those who do not like it must go elsewhere. "

On October 30, French President Emmanuel Macron claimed to react and gave an interview to the weekly Valeurs Actuelles. "I fight with all my strength against sectarianism", he said, but immediately added, "I do not want to fall into a trap and I will never say: sectarianism equals Islam".

A columnist, Ivan Rioufol, wrote in the daily Le Figaro that everyone knows the only sectarianism in France today is Islamic sectarianism and that those remarks were laughable. He also wrote, "The mechanism of intimidation is triggered .... Any criticism of Islam is now blasphemy."

Macron is not the only person who avoids using the word "Islam". All debate on the topic has disappeared from newspapers and television stations in France. Virtually all French journalists, when they speak of the no-go zones, use only the official term: "sensitive urban areas".

The journalists note signs of "radicalization" among young people in the suburbs, but do not dare to say what kind of "radicalization". When a knife attack is committed by a Muslim (knife attacks against passers-by are now frequent in France), the assailant is described as having committed an "inexplicable" act or as suffering from a mental disorder. Although the convert to Islam who murdered four police employees at the Paris police headquarters was originally described as having committed a "terrorist act", a few days ago, the French Ministry of Justice said that a thorough examination of the facts had led the judges to conclude that what had happened was merely a "professional dispute" with no terrorist motive.

On October 31, the French Ministry of the Interior said that 33 policemen had been reported to their superiors as having been "radicalized", yet they were not removed from the police force. When Alexandre Langlois, Secretary General of the Vigi Police Union, stated in June that the number of "radicalized" policemen in France is actually far larger, he received a year's suspension.

It would be misleading to say that Muslims are persecuted in France. An official report on the figures of anti-religious acts in France in 2018 noted that more than a thousand anti-Christian acts had been committed; 541 anti-Semitic acts (64% more than in 2017), and 100 anti-Muslim acts. Details lead one to see that the anti-Christian acts were mostly acts of church vandalism; the anti-Semitic acts often consisted of cemetery desecrations and violent attacks against Jews, and that the anti-Muslim acts involved almost only anti-Muslim graffiti or laying slices of bacon at the entrance to a mosque or in the mailbox of a Muslim organization. No Muslims were physically attacked.

As Jews represent less than one percent of France' population, the number of attacks against Jews is alarming. Sammy Ghozlan, president of National Office of Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA), said on television that almost all aggression against Jews had been committed by Muslims.

Since 2012, terrorist attacks by Islamists in France have claimed 263 lives. On October 29, an 84-year-old veteran, Claude Sinke, opened fire on the Bayonne mosque in southwestern France, and injured two people. That was the only violent attack against Muslims committed in France.

The only journalist who, in spite of court convictions and threats raining down on him, dares to speak openly about Islam, is Éric Zemmour. He has not yet been silenced. Those who have asked for his exclusion from the media have so far not met with success -- but have not given up. Zemmour participates in a daily talk show on C News television channel. Several companies that advertised on C News tried to boycott the channel until he was removed. Most French political leaders declared that they would not accept an invitation from C News until Zemmour was fired. An article signed by several left-wing journalists was published on the web magazine Mediapart to demand the total and permanent exclusion of Zemmour from all media:

"It is criminal to give him access to any audience. Racism, calls to hatred and violence against minorities are crimes! Zemmour was sentenced for inciting hatred. Hatred! The crimes against humanity committed during World War II started with hate speech."

Muslim organizations, calling for demonstrations in front of C News every week, also said that their rallies would last until Zemmour "disappears". During a demonstration on November 2, one of the organizers, Abdelaziz Chaambi, listed in a police database for his ties to violent Islamic organizations, called Zemmour a "filthy monster" and a "Zionist bastard". Chaambi was warmly applauded by the crowd.

Although C News has not, so far, bowed to the pressure, it nevertheless issued a statement that Zemmour's programs would now be broadcast after lawyers carefully checked their contents to see that any controversial material was removed.

Those who accuse Zemmour of racism or inciting hatred and violence have never quoted a racist phrase or incitement to hate or violence by Zemmour: there are none. Zemmour was condemned for saying that "in innumerable French suburbs where many girls are veiled, a struggle to Islamize a territory exists". In France today, saying that girls in the suburbs are veiled and that there is a desire to Islamize the territory ends up condemned by the courts.

Zemmour, seemingly pessimistic, said a year ago that he is "fight[ing] for the survival of France", but fears it is "a battle already lost". He has suggested that France is threatened not by a risk of "partition", but by an inverted "colonization". He could be proven right.

In September 2017, the economist Charles Gave published an article, "Tomorrow, the Demographic Suicide of Europe", in which he explained that all data indicated that unless a deep and unlikely change occurs, France, before the end of the 21st century, will be predominantly Muslim. He added that the current Muslim minority will have such weight, that in thirty years, by 2050, France will have submitted to Islam. Demographers who study the issue, such as Michèle Tribalat, confirmed the finding. Gave was immediately denounced in the mainstream press as "Islamophobic" and as having adopted "foolish reasoning".

Imams in French mosques and the Muslim world do not seem to think that Gave's reasoning is foolish, and say it openly. On March 12, the imam of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem announced:

"In 2050, France will be an Islamic country. We believe that Muslims will have a country that will bring Islam, its guidance, its light, its message and its mercy to the people of the West through jihad, for the sake of Allah ... At the time of the Ottoman Empire the Muslims had conquered Poland and Austria, and the call to prayer was recited there; the Islamic nation is able to recover its original identity, and spread Islam, Allah willing. The means at our disposal are the conversion to Islam and the payment of the jizya [protection tax, ed.], or we will ask the help of Allah to fight the infidels ".

The fight against the "infidels" is already underway.

A growing number of French citizens have been converting to Islam. Victor Loupan, a commentator on Christian radio Notre Dame, said:

"We don't know the numbers. But if you walk the streets, you will be struck by the number of white European people wearing Islamist clothing ".

A French-Lebanese journalist, Maya Khadra, said in an interview on Al-Hurra television, that one of her friends had interviewed young French Muslims in the suburbs of Paris and asked them why they accepted money from the French state while saying that they hate France. They answered: "What they pay us is the jizya [Islamic protection tax]".

One of Macron's advisors, Yassine Belattar, recently said, before resigning on October 17,

"We are not in a project of assimilation. France must get used to the fact that we remain. They do not realize what we have prepared: that is our children".

In an interview with a branch of Muslims of France called the Collective Against Islamophobia, Fatima E., the veiled woman challenged by Julien Odoul, said that her life was "totally destroyed"; that her son had "nightmares" and that she was planning to file a complaint for "public incitement to racial hatred". A photograph of her with her son was widely circulated in French newspapers; she received thousands of messages of support. Referring to her complaint, a lawyer, Gilles-William Goldnadel, spoke of "outrageous victimization". He noted that her son had attracted the attention of many journalists, but that the orphaned children of the four policemen murdered by Mickaël Harpon did not interest anyone.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15155/france-inverted-colonization

PJ Media: Is Islam a Religion?

By David Solway Aug 10, 2016 10:03 PM ET

The status of Islam should be clarified if the debate on how to defeat terrorism is ever to bear fruit. Islam, I would argue, is not a religion in the common acceptation of the term as a community of believers dedicated to the loving worship of the Divine, the sanctity of life, and the institution of moral principles governing repentance for sins and crimes, making life on earth a stage toward a higher reincarnation, an ineffable peace, or a confirmatory prelude to eternity in the realm of a righteous and merciful God.

In fact, Islam is an unrepentant politico-expansionist movement clothed in the trappings of religion and bent on universal conquest by whatever means it can mobilize: deception (taqiyya), social and cultural infiltration, or bloody violence, as its millennial history and authoritative scriptures have proven. (See Koran 13:41, which is meant literally despite the attempt of apologists to launder its purport: “Do they not see that We are advancing in the land, diminishing it by its borders on all sides?”)

There are several ways in which Islam differs from all other major religions. For starters:

• It sanctions militant proselytization, mandating forcible imposition on other peoples by coercion, threat and overt violence (Koran 8:39, 9:29, etc.), a practice unique among religions today.

• It punishes apostasy with death (Koran 4:89; Hadith, Bukhari 9.84.57), also a practice unique among religions today.

• It countenances no separation between church and state, that is, it cannot render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The scope of its ambition is khilafil, that is, the establishment of a Caliphate requiring that a state—ultimately a universal state—be ruled by Islamic law. As Muslim scholar Jaafar Sheikh Idris explains, “Secularism cannot be a solution for countries with a Muslim majority or even a sizeable minority, for it requires people to replace their God-given beliefs with an entirely different set of man-made beliefs. Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon Allah’s decree for that of man.”

• The “religion” itself takes precedence over the transcendent values it should strive to attain: the flourishing of the individual soul, the love of God’s Creation, the grace and miracle of life, the conversation with the Divine, freedom of conscience and the inviolability of personal choice in determining one’s redemption. Instead, it elevates conformity to a set of stringent rules, down to the smallest detail, as a prerequisite to salvation, whose effect is primarily to perpetuate the faith itself at the expense of the individual votary. Admittedly, this is a literalist practice common to most restrictive and comparatively minor orthodoxies, but regarding the massive following enjoyed by Islam and its susceptibility to violence and the subjugation of other faiths and peoples to its hegemony, we are remarking a radically greater economy of scale and the havoc it can wreak.

• The propensity to violence is not an aberration but an intrinsic element of the Islamic corpus. As Lee Cary has written, Islamic terrorists are “legacy, Koranic literalists” who use terror “to enforce a dogma that defines behavioral practices that comply with the Koran and [defines] the regulations of daily life.” The much-bruited notion that there is such a thing as “Islamism,” a form of extremism that has nothing to do with Islam proper, or is a perversion thereof, is a pure canard, another in a series of timorous progressivist memes bleaching the blood out of the Islamic ideological jalabiyya. Islam, not “Islamism,” promises paradise for martyrs and jihadis killed in battle (Koran 3: 157), thus palliating and even inciting feral attitudes and fanatical actions—a patently non-spiritual way of earning beatitude.

• As Howard Kainz points out in an illuminating essay, “Islam and the Decalogue,” Islam reverses the Golden Rule, which is central to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism (Koran 48:29, 2:191, 3:28, etc.). For this reason, Kainz concludes, “Islam may best be understood,” not as a religion, but “as a world-wide cult.”

The standard rebuttal that all faiths have at one time or another shown themselves prone to violence and repression misses the essential point. All the major religions have reformed themselves, reducing or eliminating the all-too-human tendency to sanctimonious oppression—and none of these faiths, let us remember, endorsed oppression as a universal creedal or Divine imperative. Such is not the case with Islam, a communion that since its inception in the 7^th century has seldom strayed from its sanguinary path of carnage and subdual. Its incendiary prescriptions and commands, as many scholars have noted, are open-ended and contain no “sunset clause.” They are perpetual and mandatory, feeding what essayist Bill Kassel calls “religious-themed barbarism.”

Others might argue that world-historical numbers are sufficient to constitute the legitimacy of a belief system. An umma comprising a billion-and-a-half adherents is no trifling matter. Numbers, however, do not in themselves determine what qualifies as an ethically reputable, socially harmonious or spiritually viable religion or political grouping. Nazism and Communism counted in the millions of devout believers, but no reasonable person would consider such covenants as morally justifiable. Not coincidentally, both of these totalitarian movements found a natural home in Islam: Communism in the pan-Arab nationalist movement (see Eric Davis, Memories of State, and the purpose of the Eisenhower Doctrine) and Nazism in a canonical Islam already richly manured with anti-Semitic beliefs and tropes. With respect to the latter, we recall the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini’s infamous collaboration with Hitler to further the aims of the Axis powers and facilitate the Nazi “final solution” of the “Jewish question.” Islam plainly shares the same septicemic tendencies and imperial ambitions as its two erstwhile political allies, as it does their popular appeal.

Islam is, consequently, not a “religion of peace,” as our weak-minded and complicit “leaders”—politicians, intellectuals, academics and journalists—tirelessly and tiresomely claim. “Islam is not terrorizing the West because it can,” writes Raymond Ibrahim, “but because it is being allowed to”—legally as well as sentimentally, we might add. In the name of avoiding so-called slanderous stereotypes and of promoting “diversity,” the powers-that-be refuse to recognize that Islam is, in effect, a triumphalist political theology of conquest and colonial subordination wherever and whenever it manifests itself, and has shown itself to be largely immune to doctrinal retrofitting.

In response to an article I recently posted on PJ Media, titled “How to Defeat Terrorism,” a number of commenters objected to the litany of harsh measures I proposed to check the depredations of Islam, on the grounds that they violated the provisions of the First Amendment. Among the freedoms it guarantees, the First Amendment specifies that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If, these skeptics fear, one creates an exception to the Constitution and allows the government to certify what clerics are permitted to preach, such an intervention could be misused in the future against any person or institution the authorities deem unacceptable. This caveat must be acknowledged and taken into consideration, but, as we will see in the ensuing, the issue is not as definitive as it might initially appear.

Rebecca Bynum, publisher and managing editor of the New English Review, has brilliantly analyzed the doctrinal nature of Islam in connection with the extent and the limits of the First Amendment in her masterful 2011 study Allah Is Dead: Why Islam Is Not a Religion. The book is a must-read for anyone interested in examining the theological-and-political orientation of Islam, in particular for anyone who is unclear or apprehensive about the legislative purview of the First Amendment. The fundamental questions Bynum addresses are whether or not Islam “should rightly be classified as a religion, let alone an ‘Abrahamic religion’ or one of the ‘world’s great religions,’” and whether or not the Constitution protects freedom of religion “but only within certain bounds.”

An important precedent, she continues, involved the status of polygamy in the Mormon faith, a usage rejected by the federal government, which threatened Utah with military invasion unless it repudiated the practice, the Supreme Court having ruled in 1878 that it is not just to tolerate polygamy in the name of religious freedom. The ruling read, in part: “The government cannot make laws regarding religion, but can reach actions when the principles are a violation of ‘social duties or subversive of good order’.” The state complied, officially banning polygamy in the territory. As a result, “[T]he Mormon Church now has protection under the religious liberty clause, but it did not while…its members practiced polygamy.” Curiously, although polygamy is permitted in Islam (Koran 4:3, Bukhari 62.2,6), the government has not moved to prohibit it among its Muslim citizens as a violation of moral and religious principle. What’s not good for Mormonism is apparently good for Islam, the historic interpretation of the First Amendment be damned.

The Founders, Bynum asserts, “clearly meant to define religion in a Judeo-Christian context.” Islam, however, “is self-segregating, fosters ideas of Muslim supremacy and thereby sows seeds of social discord.” What kind of religion, we might ask, degrades women as second-class citizens, approves anti-Semitism, preaches hatred against “infidels,” sponsors terrorist attacks on an almost daily basis with Koranic warrant, and wishes to impose Sharia, “a parallel legal system based on inequality,” on its Western host countries?

Furthermore, as we have seen, Islam insists on territorial sovereignty and does not distinguish between theology and politics, which is why its definitional status as a “religion” is or should be moot. Its rituals, edicts, directives and precepts impact culture, politics and society as a whole on both the macro and micro levels. Bynum gets to the heart of the matter: “If Islam continues to be classified as a religion and given the full protection and benefits religions receive in America, then we will be helpless to contain it.”

Similarly, Charles Moore’s argument in The Spectator concerning terror-embattled France—that “it must close the gulf between church and state”—pertains equally to us. I would modify his statement by suggesting that the gulf should not be closed, as in Islam, but it must certainly be narrowed, which is probably what he meant to say. “[W]hat happens,” he asks, “when, in the name of one religion, men in France enter the temple of another and slit the throat of a priest, as happened this week near Rouen? The historical justification for laïcité [secularism] has been that it is necessary to ensure peace and liberty for believers and unbelievers alike. It does not seem to work in modern France, where the political resistance to the discussion of religion is such that a policy against Islamism [sic] cannot be formulated.”

It doesn’t work here either. “Free societies,” observes Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal, articulating a historically validated truism, “cannot survive through progressive accommodations to barbarians.” In the same vein, Ibrahim alludes to the statistical reality of Islam’s rule of Numbers (which refers not to the world-wide Islamic census, but to the rise of violence proportionate to Muslim immigration figures): “The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against ‘infidels’—appear.”

I would therefore agree with Bynum that, as historically and scripturally constituted, Islam is not entitled to the protectionist provisions of the First Amendment. Its exclusion would solve the problem of potential abuse of the Amendment’s terms and stipulations. Islam’s tenets and articles of belief, undeniably unjust, tyrannical and socially disruptive in their practical effects and moral implications, should be construed constitutionally inadmissible, in line with the determination of the Supreme Court in its 1878 decision. Indeed, the issue is far graver today than it was a century and a half ago.

Bynum’s final chapter furnishes a compendious list of categories that define the true nature of religion, and makes it clear that Islam does not pass muster. As she summarizes, “Just because Muslims are convinced Islam is a religious faith, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to accept it as such under our laws, laws that were meant to foster religions that exalt value, advance morality, nurture the individual, preserve wisdom, promote peace, strengthen the family and have a transcendent purpose.” I can’t but assume that Chief Justice Waite, who delivered the opinion of the 1878 court, would have concurred.

As Bynum writes in her more recent (2014) The Real Nature of Religions, “the belief system of Islam is currently the final bastion sustaining war and conquest as a religious obligation” (italics mine). Its spiritual nature and moral vision are antithetical to both the idea and the ideal of a genuine religious communion. On the contrary, its drive and aspiration are khilafil. As a result, I believe it is fair to say that Islam, which she describes as “the duck-billed platypus of belief systems,” is a theological-political hybrid intent on domination—the conversion, taxing (jizzya) or annihilation—of the non-Muslim world, defined in Islam as the Dar-al-Harb (House or Land of War). It’s there in the holy books for anyone to read. It’s there in the calls from the minbar and the khutbah for anyone to hear. It’s there in the diktats of the ulema for anyone with the stamina to comb the literature to find. It’s there in the historical annals for anyone to study. It’s there among the bodies of the murdered and the mutilated for anyone, who has the stomach for it, to witness.

To conclude. In the words of the Supreme Court judgment, the “principles” of Islam are a violation of “social duties and good order.” As such, Islam does not merit the legal shelter of the First Amendment. Measures to limit its influence—a halt to unvetted immigration, restrictions on subversive preaching, dead-bolting dissident mosques, de-licensing inflammatory imams, prohibiting the establishment of no-go zones, invigilating Muslim schools, preventing Muslim conversion tactics in prisons, and decreeing Sharia in contravention of common law and incompatible with pluralistic Western democracies—are fully justified.

We can be sure that as things now stand the Democratic Party (like the Liberal Party in my own country) will do nothing of significance to combat the growing demographic weight of Islam and the terror that flows from it—as National Post columnist Rex Murphy says, “The attacks come at such speed…[w]e need a terror spreadsheet”—but will continue to cater to the Muslim voting bloc while engineering the collapse of the classical liberal traditions that have guaranteed our freedoms and prosperity. Progressivism and Islam go hand in hand—until, that is, the day when Islam is strong enough to destroy its collaborator. Refusing to meaningfully resist the Muslim incursion into the body social can lead only to the formation of a dhimmified culture, at which point it may be too late to reclaim our patrimony. Islam is a civilizational enemy that has no business claiming asylum under the aegis of the First Amendment and our political establishment has no business giving Islam a constitutional waiver. If Pope Francis is correct when he proclaims that “religions don’t want war,” then Islam is not a religion.

Commenting on the Danish People’s Party’s call to shut down Muslim immigration, American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson writes: “As the West grapples with the threat of violent jihad, I suspect we will be seeing more consideration of whether Islam is merely a religion or rather a totalitarian political doctrine.”  Let’s hope he’s right.

(Artwork by Shutterstock.com.)

https://pjmedia.com/blog/david-solway-2/2016/08/10/is-islam-a-religion-n5691