Friday, September 29, 2006

Another Islamist death threat

FT.com :
A French philosophy teacher has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving death threats for an article he wrote attacking Islam and the Prophet Mohammed.

The teacher, Robert Redeker, was writing in response to the angry reactions around the Islamic world to a lecture by Pope Benedict XVI two weeks ago, in which he drew a link between Islam and violence.
Redeker's article has been removed from Le Figaro's website, but here's a translation. If you've got a blog, reproduce it. (Via Michelle Malkin, where there's much more info) :
What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?

The reactions caused by Benedict XVI’s analysis of Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by Islam to stifle what the West values more than anything, and which does not exist in any Moslem country: freedom of thought and expression.

Islam tries to impose its rules on Europe : opening of public swimming pools at certain hours reserved exclusively for women, ban on caricaturing this religion, demands for special diets for Muslim children in school cafeterias, struggle to impose the veil at school, accusations of Islamophobia against free spirits.

How can one explain the ban on the wearing of thongs on Paris-Beaches* this summer? The reasoning put forth was bizarre: women wering thongs would risk “disturbing the peace”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent while being offended by displays of beauty? Or were the authorities scared of Islamist demonstrations by virtue squads near Paris-Beaches?

However, the authorization of the veil on the street is more disturbing to public peace than wearing a thong, because it invites complaints against the upholding the oppression of women .This ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. At the very least it is the result of the insidious Muslim pressure on the minds: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam is trying to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological watch. Islam presents itself, like defunct Communism, as an alternative to the Western world. In the way of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive string. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles Western conscience, which is attentive to others: it claims to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor supposedly came from Moscow, today it originates in Mecca! Again, today, western intellectuals incarnate the eye of the Koran, as they have incarnated the eye of Moscow. They now excommunicate people because of Islamophobia, as they did before because of anti-communism.

This opening to others, specific to the West, is a secularization of Christianity that can be summarized thus:the other person must come before myself. The Westerner, heir to Christianity, is the that exposes his soul bare. He runs the risk of being seen as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as marks of decadence. They are weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of useful idiots, self-rigtheous consciences drowning in nice feelings, in order to impose the Koranic order on the Western world itself.

The Koran is a book of unparalleled violence. Maxime Rodinson states, in Encyclopedia Universalis, some truths that in France are as significant as they are taboo. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities as political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, by then a prevalent custom in Arabia (….) Mohammed soon sent small groups of partisans to attack the Meccan caravans, thus punishing his unbelieving compatriots and simultaneously acquiring the booty of a wealthy man.”

There is more: “Mohammed profited from this success by eradicating the Jewish tribe which resided in Medina, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” And: “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, a good housewife, called Sawda, and in addition to the little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to ten simultaneous marriages .”

A merciless war chief, plunderer, slaughterer of Jews and a polygamist, such is the man revealed through the Koran.

In fact, the Catholic church is not above reproach. Its history is strewn with dark pages, for which it has officially repentaed. The Inquisition, the hounding of witches, the execution of the philosophers Giordano Bruno and Vanini, those wrong-thinking Epicureans, in the 18th century the execution of the knight of La Barre for impiety, do not plead in the church’s favor. But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent. Going back to Jesus is akin to forswear the excesses of the Church. Going back to Mahomet, to the conbtrary, reinforces hate and violence. Jesus is a master of love, Mahomet is a master of hatred.

The stoning of Satan, each year in Mecca, is not only an obsolete superstition. It not only sets the stage for a hysterical crowd flirting with barbarity. Its importis anthropological. Here is a rite, which each Muslim is invited to submit to, that emphasizes violence as a sacred duty in the very heart of the believer.

This stoning, accompanied each year by the acciedental trampling to death of some of the believers, sometimes up to several hundreds, is a rite that feeds archaic violence.

Instead of getting rid of this archaic violence, and thus imitating Judaism and Christianity (Judaism starts when it abandons human sacrifice, and enters civilization; Christianity transforms sacrifice through the Eucharist), Islam builds a nest for this violence, where it will incubate. Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites spurn violence, by delegitimizing it, Islam is a religion that exalts violence and hatred in its everyday rites and sacred book.

Hatred and violence dwell in the book with which every Muslim is brought up, the Koran. As in the Cold War, where violence and intimidation were the methods used by an ideology hell bent on hegemony, so today Islam tries to put its leaden mantel all over the world. Benedict XVI’s cruel experience is testimony to this. Nowadays, the West has to be called the “free world” in comparison to the Muslim world; likewise, the enemies of the “free world”, the zealous bureaucrats of the Koran’s vision, swarm in the very center of the free World.
And via Western Resistance, here's a letter from Robert Redeker to his friend the philosopher Andre Gluksmann:
Dear Andre, greetings. I am now in a catastrophic personal situation. Several death threats have been sent to me, and I have been sentenced to death by organizations of the al-Qaeda movement.

UCLAT [l'Unite de Coordination de la Lutte Anti-Terroriste, the Anti-Terrorism Coordination Unit] and DST [Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, the domestic anti-terrorism intelligence service] are busy, but....I no longer have the right to stay in my own home (on the websites condemning me to death there is a map showing how to get to my house to kill me, they have my photo, the places where I work, the telephone numbers, and the death fatwa).

But at the same time there is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there....I am am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. I am an SDF (of no fixed abode?). From here, there follows an insane financial situation, all costs are at my own expense, including those of rents a month or two ahead, the costs of moving twice, legal expenses, etc.

It's quite sad. I exercised my constitutional rights, and I am punished for it, even in the territory of the Republic. This affair is also an attack against national sovereignty - foreign rules, decided by criminally minded fanatics, punish me for having exercised a constitutional right, and I am subjected, even in France, to great injury

Regards

Robert Redeker
Next time someone tells you it's all about foreign policy - show them that.

22 Comments:

Anonymous Elipsis said...

I was with him until:

"But what differentiates Christianity from Islam is obvious: it is always possible to go back to true evangelical values, the peaceful character of Jesus as opposed to the deviations of the Church.

None of the faults of the Church have their roots in the Gospel. Jesus is non-violent."

Nice sidestep around the genocide and torture from the God in the Old Testament. Or is God not part of Christianity any more?

11:46 pm  
Anonymous verity said...

There is always a little nit-picker who has completely missed the large point. The world is full of them.

You're a self-serving, needy little jerk. This man is in danger of losing his life for his beliefs and you're picking nits. Please, please, please become a convert to mohammedanism. You're exactly what they're looking for and you belong on their team.

We don't want you. Please go.

12:08 am  
Anonymous La Boheme said...

Verity - you should start a blog.

12:19 am  
Anonymous Rog said...

How much more of this stuff are we to witness before "The West" finally wake up and bloody well stand up for ourselves?

I truly despair, has no one got any balls?

3:50 am  
Blogger Slagella said...

She has!

4:22 am  
Anonymous Clematis Fraudster said...

"Nice sidestep around the genocide and torture from the God in the Old Testament. Or is God not part of Christianity any more?"

There is a clue here. Why do you think 'Christians' are known as 'Christians' and not 'Godians' or 'Old Testamentians'?

9:48 am  
Blogger Dr Syndrom said...

I can never understand this Insanity..

If they so much want a country that follows the Sharia, why did they leave their country in the first place? and second of all... if they manage to turn X country to the Muslim way, they'd anyway move on to another country which is free.

Its like watching someone dig their own grave in a sense.

- Mental Dribble.

9:53 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Elipsis: "Nice sidestep around the genocide and torture from the God in the Old Testament. Or is God not part of Christianity any more?"

Not really.

The text for Christians is The New Testament. That is Gods new covernant for Christians, the "turn the other cheek" stuff is in there, and the old testament is there to provide an excercise in compare and contrast for the new believers. Christianity had to do that because it was esentially a voluntary sect, Islam on the other hand will murder non believers and the only way to survive is to convert. Under that type of stricture, there is no need for persuasive texts, you simply convert or die*. No need to engage the interlect, very effective it has been too.

*not the only options. You could become a slave or a euneuch, but that choice was not really the convertees, it rather depended on which Islamic warlord captured you.

10:02 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clematis Fraudster: "There is a clue here."

Crikey, this comments section really jumps. But yes, my point in many less words.

10:06 am  
Anonymous verity said...

That website has nothing to do with me. Anyone can freely use a name.

The silly and trivial elipsis is presenting an infantile case. The God of the Old Testament, which is not the Christian testament in any case, was speaking 4,000 years ago, when humans were slowly, slowly advancing in thought and deed. He spoke for the times.

the mohammaden god jumped in, 4,000 years behind the advancement of mankind and conscience, in the year 800, when the rest of the world was refining the understanding of the human spirit. And there he is still, 1200 years later, advising beheading, supporting slavery,chopping off hands for theft, putting eyes out as a court sentence, treating women like cattle, blah blah blah.

If ever a "religion" needed to be outlawed, it's this pile of garbage.

Dr Syndrom - You seem to have missed the point. They are not here to enjoy the West, they are here to settle the West for their diety. That's why they left their homelands. Not to watch Big Brother House. Their god wants the entire world to be Dar es-islam. Do try to keep up!

1:45 pm  
Anonymous JohnM said...

They are not here to enjoy the West, they are here to settle the West for their diety. That's why they left their homelands. Not to watch Big Brother House.

I'm don't think that analysis is true.

I think the first generation came here because of the opportunity to better themselves and because they felt a link with Britain. Nothing about that generation suggests they had jihad in mind. I think that what happened subsequently was the problem. First of all, we in the west endorsed multi-culturalism and political correctness. We moved from being a country where anyone could better themselves if they made the effort, to a country where if you weren't successful then someone had to be blamed for holding you back. If you couldn't see any tangible evidence then it had to be the legacy of slavery or imperialism. Thus we educated minorities to hold the host community to blame for all their problems. Second, the wave of immigrations to Europe coincided with major changes in western society in terms of its attitudes to morality. Immigrants from an even more conservative background than Britain would have been more shocked than Mary Whitehouse. Third, the rise of Islamism has given a focus to both these elements - the west is wicked and degenerate and Islam can solve all the problems.

I don't think the real problem is Islam. If Europe still possessed the self-belief that it did even 50 years ago then we would have seen the end of this matter already. No, the real problem is the white middle class urban elite that thinks (thought) that Multiculturalism is a good idea. If they weren't in power, all the problems would be soluble.

What I'm saying is that, the danger from Islam to the west, comes not it from possessing the power to destroy it, but from the way the multiculti elite are letting them do it.

4:38 pm  
Anonymous verity said...

johnm - I agree with you up to a point, and your analysis stands up.

I do think the first ones came to better themselves. They were simple, naive people. The ones who came later are more cunning and manipulative, and they have spotted the fatal flaw in the West - multiculti crapola - and were quick to seize on it.

So it is two elements: most certainly the socialist/lefty/multiculti destructive ethos. Plus aggressive and cunning islamics out to exploit it.

The biggest mystery is, what is in it for the multicultis? They are so willing to be dhimmified they are pawing at the door. The theory of "self-hatred" has never washed with me. I think it is an excess of arrogance ("I am so superior that I can afford to give a little of my culture away because of my supreme self-confidence".).

Certainly, 50 years ago these aggressors would have been packed up and shipped out without a second thought. Today, they are being supported by the taxpayer. And, like cunning children, the barbarians know they can push, inch by inch and get what they want.

4:59 pm  
Anonymous Umbongo said...

verity

"The biggest mystery is, what is in it for the multicultis?"

Good question! Part of the answer is power: even power as a dhimmi over your fellow dhimmis is power (analogy - what was in it for the Vichy regime? It was nominal independence from the occupying German army and an area where you could do what you liked).

I commented recently on the mayor of LondON's predeliction for appeasing the followers of islam and praising multi culti. Ken is no more a genuine fan of multi culti than you (well, maybe a tad more) but he wants power and knows the way to power. Accordingly, he grooms the solid core of his support by grovelling to suicide bomber apologists, kicking the odd Jew, building the largest mosque in Europe next to the 2012 Olympic village etc.

Orwell criticised the lefty intelligentsia as uncritical worshippers of (Stalin's) power. They haven't changed except now they're worshipping at another, possibly even more sinister, altar.

5:32 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

verity

"The ones who came later are more cunning and manipulative, and they have spotted the fatal flaw in the West - multiculti crapola - and were quick to seize on it."

Cunning and manipulative - exactly the same sort of things that were said against the Jews. Still, one cannot expect anything to change in 60 years.

So you'll appreciate this joke - what is the difference between a pizza and a Jew?

A pizza doesn't scream when you put it into the oven.

*LOL*

6:41 pm  
Anonymous verity said...

anonymous 6:41. Why don't you muzzies get a sense of humour?

Are there any muzzie comedians, by the way? Well, Abdul Bari and his wig, OK. And the well-groomed, fragrant Idyat Bungawunga is always good for a cruel laugh.

Why do you insist on trespassing on sites frequented by normal people?

7:50 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dahlink, stop being such a whinging Jewbag and go and get yourself a nice pizza or something.

And never let it be said that I don't have a sense of humour - you jokers are providing all the laughs I need.

*LOL*

11:59 pm  
Blogger JohnM said...

The biggest mystery is, what is in it for the multicultis?

Several reasons.

Amongst most people it is being well meaning fools. However, with the likes of Livingstone it is short term political gain. He has built a career out of representing client victim groups. He is now making sure that Muslims vote for him. He might even understand that down the road, Muslims will create independent political parties but he figures that is some way off. For George Galloway, it is a bit of the same but I believe that he also joins the SWP/Respect in seeking civilization crisis. Your classic Marxist thinks that Capitalism is inevitably going to lurch from crisis to crisis until Socialism is ushered in, and accelerating that process obviously makes sense. I believe they think that they can win converts from amongst the Muslims but since they are obliged to avoid offending their co-Respect members by raising uncomfortable questions such as "Opiums of the people", they aren't getting anywhere. It is more likely that the far left follow Yvonne Ridley than future Siddique Khans become atheist Marxists.

Multiculturalism does two things. It identifies client groups and it demands that those client groups provide spokesmen. It's obvious that such spokesmen cannot be merely average members of that client group, they have to be exemplars. That is they have to be purer in those aspects that typify the group. In this case they have to be stricter Muslims than average. The current Miss UK would be no good as a Muslim spokewoman even though she's probably more typical of the average Muslim woman (outside Bradford, Tower Hamlets et al), precisely because she fails to be pure enough; good Muslims don't enter Miss World! The result is we have extremist like MAB, MPACUK et al. The relevance of this is that when events occur Muslims can either act like free agents or they can conform to a group norm. I know several Muslims who, when the cartoon jihad started, regarded the whole affair as ridiculous but as time has gone by have conformed to type "we must be offended". That must be because multiculturalism encourages ethnic conformity over individualism. If the only spokesmen to be heard are strict Muslims condemning the cartoons, then ordinary Muslims will struggle to oppose that view.

This is where I think we differ. I don't need to assume that all Muslims are driven by Islamist dreams. Most actors in this drama are reasonable people with normal short term aims. Multiculturalism is the factor that is drawing them and us to the same awful denouement.

BTW I'm not making a claim for the fabled "moderate" muslim. I read an article (maybe Gates of Vienna) that made me think differently about that. When we demand that Muslims recognise the split between church and state, or the freedom of the individual, we are not asking them to be moderate. No, that demand is radical. I would call it "progressive" if that word hadn't been stolen by left wing reactionaries. The ordinary Muslims who seem okay to me are not radicals nor moderates, they are in fact "weak" Muslims. These people are never going to reform Islam but we might be able to isolate them from the Islamists.

1:50 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is in it for the multi cultis is not paragraphs full of crap parading as analysis and/or explanation, but the simple notion that if you treat people with respect, then they'll treat you with respect.

If you don't declare war on others, then maybe they won't declare war on you.

If you don't drop bombs on others, then maybe they won't bomb you.

Just because you declare a war, it doesn't mean that it has to be fought on your terms, at the time and place of your choosing, and with agreed methods, or the victims that you define. Oh no.

12:48 pm  
Anonymous JohnM said...

Here's some more paragraphs by Kenan Malik explaining why Multiculturalism is crap.

In the meantime I put you in the "well meaning fool" category.

I guess I should ask why I should be expected to treat people who parade around with "Europe, Your Holocaust is Coming" banners with respect? After all they are meeting me half way.

Let me think out loud.

Let's suppose the terrorists in Iraq really are democrats and jolly nice people after all. Let's further suppose that they called America's bluff and withdrew from combat for six months. Six months of not blowing up lots of Iraqis and the occasional American. They could test the "propaganda" that America will leave when peace arrives. Then if America doesn't leave - heh presto, I'll apologise to you.

Incidentally, I've worked in the middle east, in several countries and not with the forces. Clue: there isn't much multiculturalism there.

11:07 pm  
Blogger The Pedant-General in Ordinary said...

Anonymous,

"If you don't declare war on others, then maybe they won't declare war on you.

If you don't drop bombs on others, then maybe they won't bomb you."


Let's go back to the substantive topic of this post: one individual being denied all his basic freedoms and rights for the simple act of publishing a critical newspaper article.

Exactly when did Roger Redeker "declare war" on those who have issued death threats?

Perhaps you could explain how many bombs Roger Redeker has dropped?

And whilst we are at it, in what way does this form of violent response disprove his assertion that there is quite a lot of religiously sanctioned violence in Islam?

11:19 am  
Blogger The Pedant-General in Ordinary said...

Indeed Anonymous,

it seems that you haven't even read the article at all.

Particularly the last line:
"Next time someone tells you it's all about foreign policy - show them that. "

Your argument? "it's all about foreign policy".

You are a moron. You need to get used to the idea that if you say something stupid, you are going to get called on it.

That is not persecution or Islamophobia - it is "reason". And it is "reason" that allows civilisation to prosper.

11:22 am  
Anonymous peter said...

Anyway, anonymous lying islamo-student cunt, the Bin Laden declaration of war (ha!) was in 1996, just after NATO had dropped bombs in favour of muslims (no respectful upper case M is necessary) in Kosovo.

4:40 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home