From lefigaro.fr:
“Nos compatriotes musulmans ont peur aujourd’hui”
“Nos compatriotes musulmans ont peur aujourd’hui”, a déploré ce soir sur BFMTV le premier ministre Manuel Valls après le dénouement tragique de la traque des auteurs des attaques de Charlie Hebdo et de Montrouge.
“Nos compatriotes, il faut dire les choses clairement, nos compatriotes musulmans ont peur aujourd’hui. L’un de mes meilleurs amis me disait qu’il avait honte d’être musulman aujourd’hui. Il ne faut pas qu’il ait honte”, a affirmé le locataire de Matignon. “Nos compatriotes musulmans ont peur aujourd’hui”, explique à BFM-TV Manuel Valls.
Manuel Valls has a Muslim friend. Oh, so many now have Muslim friends. In Israel, among Haaretz writes, having a “Palestinian” friend was, for quite a while, practically de rigueur. And this friend of Manuel Valls told him he’s afraid, afraid as a Muslim. But he doesn’t mean afraid, does he, in the sense in which Jews now have a perfect right to be afraid all over Western Europe, where even to wear identifying marks has been discouraged by the police, and where Muslims have attackerd Jews with impunity all over the place. And he doesn’t mean afraid, does he, in the sense in which Christians, in Syria, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in many parts of Lebanon, in Egypt, in Aceh and other islands of Indonesia, are afraid of Muslims, who have killed them, individually, in groups, en masse. No, he means he thinks perhaps Muslims will become suspect in the eyes of non-Muslims, will suffer the consequences, economic and social, of a non-Muslim citizenry finally aroused from its torpor by too many Muslim attacks, and too many self-evidently absurd attempts, by Western leaders and Muslim leaders alike, to claim that these attacks, dozens, hundreds, thousands of them, by Muslims against non-Muslim targets, “have nothing to do with Islam.”
And what other emotion does this Muslim friend of Manuel Valls feel? He feels “shame.” Why? Is it because he thinks that possibly, just, he understands the real link between the observable behavior of Muslims in this and many other cases, and what he knows are the prompting sources of that behavior, in Qur’an and Sunnah, and yet he cannot allow himself to think logically about this, or to ask himself, at long last, the key question: Why, knowing all this,, do I remain a Muslim? How much longer can I continue to think of myself as a Muslim, and engage in the mendacity that the defense of Islam, in the face of all this and of inquiries from non-Muslims, will always require?
There are a dozen French people murdered for offenses against Islam. There are four people, all of them Jews, who died as the result of a Muslim seizing control of a kosher market, because the offense of those who ran that market, or who shopped there, was that of being Jews — and that was enough, in the view of a great many Muslims all over the world, to warrant their being subject to the threat, and the possibility, of death. But right now Manuel Valls wants to talk about the Muslim who is full of fear in France “for Muslims.” After every attack by Muslims — in Madrid and Amsterdam, in Paris and London, in New York and Washington, everywhere that Muslims are still greatly outnumbered so have to worry — they proclaim how worried they are, about themselves, themselves, and though nothing ever happens to them, the worry always turns out to be unnecessary, non-Muslims hop to it with alacrity, offering to “ride with Muslims” or make sure they will otherwise be safe, and Western leaders think it right and seemly to speak, repeatedly, about how important it is to sustain this imaginary non-existent solidarity (it’s a one-sided solidarity, for Muslims are told, in their mosques and texts, “do not take Christians and Jews for friends” and much more that is much, much worse), how important it is right now, at this very moment, to reassure Muslims that we know, we are sure, they are fine, they are safe, they are innocent, they are moderate, they are extremely completely and totally moderate Muslims, and besides, why should anyone worry about what level of Muslim faith they have since Islam itself is all about peace and tolerance and non-violence and should not be slandered, and further besides, Islam had nothing to do with it.
- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
One Response
I find this sort of statement to be absolutely, bl**dy obscene, to be blunt. It makes me sick. And it makes me really, really, really angry; to see all this simpering sympathy for those pooor, ppooor, persecuted Muslims, all those bleatings of how the Muslims comfortably ensconced in large numbers within the West (in Australia, for example, there are now five or six times as many Muslims, as there are Jews, and the number of Muslims if it continues to swell will outstrip the number of those who – not Muslim, not converted to Islam – identify as animist or atheist or Christian Aboriginal Australians), in the wake of murderous attacks, by proudly-declared Muslims, upon this or that group of non-Muslim citizens.
What *should* have happened is that those in authority in France should have spoken not in grief but in incandescent – but rationally-focused -fury. And they should have said something like this: today, we know that our artists, our cartoonists and our journalists, are afraid, afraid unto death; and our Jews are afraid; we are ashamed that we have not been able to protect and defend them as we should, that we have betrayed them, and we resolve henceforward to do better, to protect and defend them, and we will deploy the full might of the Republic against who who would do them harm.
Robert Redeker, he who had to leave his job and flee into hiding because of Muslim threats against himself and his family – why? because he published in Le Figaro a coolly rational examination of Islam, its violence and primitive barbarity – should have been publicly invited to return to France, and invited to dine at the Presidential Palace, invited to address (on the subject of Islam, and Mohammed) all French politicians in assembly, and invited to speak at the grand rally in Paris, with a presidential level of protection then and henceforward; and Le Figaro should have been encouraged to reprint, on the front page, the offending article (in which Mohammed is defined as “a master of hate”), and surrounded with a ring of steel. A similar ring of steel – ostentatiously displayed – should have been thrown around the Great Synagogue, and the Jews told not to close it, not to cancel services, but instead to proceed with their worship, protected by the army of France.
And not *one* finger should have been lifted, of the police or anyone else, to ‘protect’ the mosques of France; instead, every single one of them, or at least the most prominent and/ or those already suspect, should have been suddenly and overwhelmingly raided, and searched (using the works, including military-issue sniffer dogs – perhaps the Israelis could have been asked for assistance) and their gang bosses detained and interrogated and investigated.
That’s what should have happened.