Why France?


The following are excerpts from Andrew C. McCarthy's Islam and Free Speech:

France’s population of 66 million is now approximately 10 percent Islamic.

As night follows day, when Muslim populations surge, so does support for jihadism and the sharia supremacist ideology that catalyzes it. The reason is plain to see, even if Western elites remain willfully blind to it: For a not insignificant percentage of the growing Muslim millions in Europe, infiltration – by both mass immigration and the establishment of swelling Islamic enclaves – is a purposeful strategy of conquest, sometimes referred to as “voluntary apartheid.”

One of its leading advocates is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi...He is a copiously published scholar graduated from Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning for over a millennium, and thus oversees both the International Union of Muslim Scholars and the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Thanks to his pioneering of the highly trafficked IslamOnline website and, especially, to his hugely popular al-Jazeera television program, Sharia and Life, he has become the world’s most influential sharia jurist.

Qaradawi is the sharia backbone of the violent jihad to exterminate Israel – a tiny country surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Muslims. The sheikh also vows that Islam will “conquer” both Europe and America, but acknowledges that this conquest will require a strategy more suited to a determined minority that knows it cannot win by force of arms. The key, he asserts, is dawa, the Muslim equivalent of proselytism. In radical Islam, it is hyper-aggressive, pushing on every cultural cylinder, pressuring every institution, and exploiting the atmosphere of intimidation created by jihadist terror to blur the lines between legal advocacy and extortion.

In France, dawa presses against laïcité, the credo of secularism through the strict separation of religion and the state. Qaradawi is quite clear that “secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” He is equally adamant that Muslims, who are bound to live in accordance with the strictures of sharia, must reject a secular framework because “acceptance of secularism means abandonment of sharia, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions.” Thus, he elaborates, “The call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of sharia is downright apostasy.”

This nexus between free speech and Western democracy is worth pausing over. Notice that, in focusing on the incompatibility between Islamic law and democracy’s secular, pluralist underpinnings, Qaradawi draws the inevitable conclusion that democracy equals apostasy. The term apostasy is not invoked idly in radical Islam. As explained in Reliance of the Traveller, a classic sharia manual endorsed by al-Azhar scholars, the renunciation of Islam is a death penalty offense.

Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. It is the plinth of freedom’s fortress. It is the ineliminable imperative if there is to be the robust exchange of knowledge and ideas, the rule of reason, freedom of conscience, equality before the law, property rights, and equality of opportunity. That is why it must be extinguished if there is to be what Qaradawi calls a “place of religion” – meaning his religion. For all its arrogance and triumphalist claims, radical Islam must suppress speech because it cannot compete in a free market of conscience.

To sustain their movement, therefore, Islamist leaders must separate Muslims from secular society. In the West, this means forming Islamic enclaves in which sharia gradually takes root as the de facto and, eventually, the de jure law – enabling Muslims to resist the challenge of critical thinking under the guise avoiding the near occasion of apostasy. Over time, dominion is established over swaths of not only physical territory but legal privilege. Qaradawi puts the matter succinctly:

Were we to convince Western leaders and decision-makers of our right to live according to our faith — ideologically, legislatively, and ethically — without imposing our views or inflicting harm upon them, we would have traversed an immense barrier in our quest for an Islamic state.

The key to the conquest strategy is to coerce the West into accepting a Muslim right to resist assimilation, to regard sharia as superseding Western law and custom when the two conflict. For precisely this reason, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – a bloc of 56 Muslim countries (plus the Palestinian Authority) – has decreed that “Muslims should not be marginalized or attempted to be assimilated, but should be accommodated.” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Islamist president of Turkey who has systematically dismantled that country’s secular, pro-Western system, similarly pronounces that pressuring Muslims to assimilate in the West “is a crime against humanity.”

Free expression is the gateway to assimilation. Consequently, radical Islam cannot tolerate it.

As a result, France is now rife with Zones Urbaines Sensibiles – “sensitive urban areas.” The government officially lists some 751 of them: Islamic enclaves in the banlieues, often referred to as “no go zones” because the indigenous populations discourage the presence of non-Muslims who do not conform to Islamic standards of dress and social interaction, and of public officials – police, fire-fighters, emergency medical teams, and building inspectors – who are seen as symbols of the state’s effort to exercise sovereignty in areas Muslims seek to possess adversely.

Some of these zones inevitably evolve into hotbeds of jihadist activity. As the Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern notes, there has been no shortage of Internet traffic suggesting, for example, “the killing of France’s ambassadors, just as the manly Libyan fighters killed the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi.” In a low-intensity jihadist thrum stretching back several years, the torching of automobiles has become a commonplace – as many as 40,000 cars burned annually. Perhaps most alarmingly, over a thousand French Muslims, more than from any other Western country, are estimated to have traveled to Syria to fight for ISIS – meaning many will return to the country as trained, battle-hardened jihadists. Beyond the direct ISIS participants, moreover, the Washington Post has reported that a recent poll found 16 percent of French citizens expressing some degree of support for ISIS – an organization whose rule over the vast territory it has seized is best known for decapitations, rapine, the execution of homosexuals, mass graves, and the enslavement of non-Muslim communities.

Once one grasps the voluntary apartheid strategy, it becomes obvious why radical Islam’s inroads in France, and elsewhere in Europe, seamlessly translate into demands for the enforcement of sharia’s curbs on speech and artistic expression. What is not so obvious is just how profound a challenge to the West this constitutes.

- The above is from Andrew C. McCarthy's 38-page broadside, Islam and Free Speech.


Anonymous 5:33 PM  

As I have read some of the reactions to the atrocious terror in France, I have come to a small realization. Terror attacks, even large ones in the hearts of our cities, won't make some liberals change their minds and stop apologizing for Islam. As long as Islam exists, and no matter what jihadists do, there will be lots of people explaining why the horrors don't have to do with "true" Islam. The same was true of communism. So long as it existed, many liberals found it persuasive as an "alternative." Only when it died in its home of the Soviet Union and Soviet communists themselves rejected communism, did a lot of liberals finally become amenable to grasping the idea that communism had been fundamentally bad. When conservatives said it, liberals wouldn't listen, but when the communists said it, then liberals could suddenly understand. The same will perhaps be true with Islam. Only if Islam fails is some dramatic way, if it decimates itself with nuclear weapons and large numbers of Muslims for some reason openly give it up and reject it as anti-human, will liberal defenders finally concede Islam was a totalitarian system, unlike Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Judaism.

But the more important realization for me was that I therefore had to change my goal when I am critical of Islam, or I will be constantly demoralized. My goal should not be to win the argument, since as long as Islam exists, adherents and their liberal apologists will argue in defense of Islam's innocence.

My goal then should be simply to do my best to maintain in my own speech an uncensored approach to the core Islamic texts. If I simply defend my own speech from censorship, and speak honestly, that is already an accomplishment with respect to Islam -- free speech in my own little corner of the world. We must not be demoralized about failure to persuade everyone else. Stand politely and gently for free speech in your own corner of the world.

Citizen Warrior 1:41 AM  

I believe you can change someone's mind. Not all liberals are unable to be persuaded. Not all conservatives understand the threat either. Everybody is different. But you have the right idea: To convince people to look. If they look and they look honestly, their eyes will be opened. Our task is to get better at reaching people.

Unknown 8:52 AM  

Muslims can not give up Islam because they are never shown how utterly stupid it is, anyone who points out the absurdity of Islam, especially in Europe and the UK will be arrested and prosecuted with the full force of the law whilst muslims can protest with posters and banners calling for the death of anyone they disagree with and the powers that be will just shrug of off as muslim free speech.

Walter Sieruk 12:05 PM  

Why France ? Maybe because the French people believe that human beings have the right to chose what to believe in. As it is termed "the right of freedom of religion." As well as other basic human rights. Even though these rights may happen to clash with the ideas and doctrine of Islam. Furthermore,Islam has the strange and terrible power to warp and sicken the way people think. For example, some jihad-minded Muslims might view basic human rights, as the French believe, in as Something that is "bad." Moreover, those same Muslims who have this warped ,sick and even wicked Islamic mindset to actually think of the evil ,heinous carnage of that Paris jihad massacre as something that is "good." To those people who have this type of warped, sick and wicked worldview. The Bible teaches "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..." Isaiah 5:20. [N.K.J.V.]

Anonymous 1:54 PM  

Change is inevitable. Knowledge is Immortal. We need to be educated about Islam. Keep learning while you still can.

Anonymous 9:54 PM  

follow japan model

Islamic Terrorism: Why There Is None in Japan

Islam, Pop culture and the demographic demon

goal of muslim immigration

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP