Submission or Surrender? France Erases Her Own History to Placate Muslims & Blacks….

The Frogs are almost boiled:

Click to enlarge image…

French history erased in new wave of revisionism

Parents and teachers across France are up in arms over new textbooks which carry accounts of French history revised to avoid insulting ethnic minority pupils. They say common sense has been sacrificed to political correctness in French schools.

Natives of France now fear their identity will soon disappear along with their history.

Fear of offending Muslims?  The existence of infidels is enough to offend Muslims. The soldiers of Allah are commanded to “kill the unbelievers down to the last one…” (click for more)

This is from last year:

A history teacher has been suspended in France for spending “too much” class time on teaching the Holocaust.

The ministry’s report cites that in meeting with investigators, the teacher used the word “Holocaust” 14 times while using the more neutral term “massacre” only twice.

Seriously? She’s brainwashing her students because she used an internationally recognized term for the heinous crimes committed against Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and other “undesirables” by Nazi Germany? It’s hard to imagine a more preposterous condemnation. (More)


Political correctness gone mad:

France’s new history textbooks are enraging parents and teachers who call it political correctness gone mad.

Dimitri Casali, history professor and best-selling author on the newly-banished giants of France warns of dire consequences of the new educational policy.

“If we don’t teach our minorities the history of their adopted country, they won’t feel French. We’re already seeing riots on our streets,” Casali exclaims.

In the new textbook, the Crusades are now called insulting to Muslims, the Sun King Louis 14th is labeled imperialist and Napoleon is mocked as the Colonel Gaddafi of his day. The star of the new school books is  Mali’s previously little-known King Kankou Musa  who ruled over the West African country in the 13th century.

The purge even extends to literary giants like Victor Hugo, author of the world classic, Les Miserables.

France is already breaking up, believes Professor Casali, because its young people have no sense of identity. Parents are deeply concerned too.

Father-of-three Jean-Noel Villemin from Paris says, “We need to study even the worst pages of our history because you cannot understand politics today if you don’t understand history, if they want to understand and vote properly.”

Legal action is seen as the only way to stop the erasure of France’s national history.

“Schools now give 10 per cent of their schedule to the medieval African Mali Empire. I’ve studied it, and what exactly is its contribution to world development?” asks Parisian lawyer Marcel Ceccaldi.

Thousands signed a petition after lessons on the French Revolution were replaced by study of the African kingdom of Monomotapah, which many say they have never heard of. The Ministry of Education refused to be interviewed, but gave RT this statement:

“We are changing the school curriculum to reflect globalization. Monomotapah is being taught because it is important to have a view on other world cultures such as Egypt, China and India,” the statement reads.

A new European Parliament report has backed compulsory school lessons on the benefits of the EU, from “a very young age.” Critics say pupils are learning less and less about their own countries and warn that states which stop teaching their past will simply consign themselves to history.


I could care less about African history.   Look how they live in the twenty first century.  Take Nigeria,the government can’t properly redistribute the massive oil wealth among the extremely destitute citizens and then there is the Boko Haram Islamic organization that is trying to impose strict Wahabbism and sharia laws thru violence.  The French should not be ashamed for the colonialnization and slavery of black Africans because it was African kings like king Kankou Musa that sold black Africans into the trans Atlantic slave trade. Why all this glorification of African kings and queens? Most Africans are living in extreme destitute living conditions and it is not the fault of France or other former European colonial powers. It is the fault of the African governments that are in control of their countries.French history should be made mandatory to all the school students in all the public schools in all of France. Why should French students be forced to study about African countries that are  too primitive and full of tribal reprisals and political tyranny as the norm?


More on this story. This Middle East Online report has additional information, but has a markedly different emphasis from the prior report. Here, Muslims have supposedly thrown up their hands in disillusionment with French democracy, which has “failed” them, turning instead to Islam, even as the report acknowledges “many residents are drawn to an Islamic identity rather than simply rejecting or failing to find a secular one.”

France has so rudely decided to continue being French (unmitigated Gauls, if you will), and expected people who come to live there to do likewise.

“State is not ‘halal’: resentful immigrants turn to Islam in France,” by Thibauld Malterre for Middle East Online, October 7

France’s Muslim suburbs becoming “separate Islamic societies” cut off from the state

‘Most people in France  French people do not object to mixed marriages, but in the suburbs we were surprised to find a very large proportion of Muslim respondents said they were opposed to marriages with non-Muslims.’

6 thoughts on “Submission or Surrender? France Erases Her Own History to Placate Muslims & Blacks….”

  1. Stupid frogs. I’m glad that there are people there pushing back against this, I guess the stereotype that the French just roll over is true mainly for the government but not necessarily the French themselves. There is one frog ancestor way back on my family tree who has been ashamed but feels just a wee bit better now.

  2. Black roadshow starting 15 October 2011 in the city of Blois, running in France the rest of 2011 and throughout 2012

    “Black France
    present through
    three centuries”

    Just imagine if somebody started a roadshow with the title

    “White France”

    and a poster with a blond woman with blue eyes, a redhead, and a brunette, just to show the diversity of Europe? What would be the reactions?

    Discussing the identity of France as such, is taboo, and racist organizations like SOS Racism, with a Dominique Sope as the spokesperson, was in the forefront to stop any debate about French identity, not so long ago. The president and the integration minister were two of the persons who had to back off from starting debates about French identity, in France.

    Seems now, that the facts about French history and French identity would have gotten in the way of this Black project.

  3. Quote:
    Thousands signed a petition after lessons on the French Revolution were replaced by study of the African kingdom of Monomotapah, which many say they have never heard of. The Ministry of Education refused to be interviewed, but gave RT this statement:

    “We are changing the school curriculum to reflect globalization.

    Does the guillotine frighten you, you misplaced idealists?
    It will come out again. The same people who used it before will use it again.
    And you will be very, very sorry you ever tried to make France your own!
    One more for the barber! One more!

  4. Agree eib, and folks should remeber the french masth teacher who committed suicide yesterday after a very unfriendly student/teacher meeting. It seemsthe students thought she as too tough (asnd that mesans tht the trouble making students were almost certainly mohammedans) and I suspect that she then recieved NO support from the infantile left wing education board. Her death is on their hands and may the people of France destroy these left wing scum who are working at turning France into just another islamic cesspit.

  5. Does anyone remember Robert Redeker?

    The threads included a clear map of how to get to his home, with the words “This pig must have his head cut off.” Another threat read “You will never again be safe on this earth. One billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill you.

    “one billion 300 million?”….. excremists?

    That’s not a a ‘tiny minority…’

    Teacher forced into hiding after writing article describing Qur’an as “book of extraordinary violence”
    Say we’re peaceful, or we’ll kill you. Robert Redeker Update: “Teacher forced into hiding after attacking Islam,” from the TimesOnline, :

    A philosophy teacher today described how he was forced into hiding after a newspaper article in which he attacked Islam provoked death threats against himself and his family.
    Robert Redeker, 52, from Toulouse in south-west France, is receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article describing the Koran as a “book of extraordinary violence” and Islam as “a religion which … exalts violence and hate”.

    He told French media today that he had no regrets about writing the article and that it was part of his job as a philosophy teacher to ask difficult questions.

    In an interview with i-TV he said that he had received several e-mail threats targeting himself and his wife and three children and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist internet sites.

    “There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: ’This pig must have his head cut off’,” he said.

    Another e-mail says: “You will never again be safe on this earth. One billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill you.”

    And interviewed over the telephone from a safe house by Europe 1 radio, he complained that the education ministry had left him alone and abandoned. He said the ministry “has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help.”

    He accepted that his detractors had “already won a victory of sorts.”

    “I cannot do my job. I have no freedom of movement. I am in hiding. Already they have succeeded in punishing me … as if I was guilty of holding the wrong opinions.”

    Dominique de Villepin, the French Prime Minister, said that the threats were “unacceptable”.

    He said: “We are in a democracy, everyone has the right to express his views freely — of course while respecting others. That is the only restriction that is acceptable on this freedom.

    “This shows to what extent we live in a dangerous world… and how vigilant we must be to ensure people fully respect one another in our society.”

    The Paris state prosecutor’s office today launched a preliminary inquiry for “criminal conspiracy in relation with a terrorist enterprise”, asking the intelligence agency to look into the death threats.

    Gilles de Robien, the Education Minister, yesterday expressed “solidarity” with M Redeker, but also warned that “a state employee must show prudence and moderation in all circumstances”.

    Even when “one billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill” him.

    Michelle Malkin has the text of Redeker’s article, along with the one by German historian Egon Flaig that was banned in Egypt.

    Michelle Malkin

    The forbidden op-eds

    September 29, 2006

    I asked yesterday for translations of the op-eds criticizing Islam that have been banned in Egypt and that have forced one of the authors, Robert Redeker, into hiding in France.
    Thanks to all the readers who have e-mailed their translations. Spread these far and wide. E-mail them to your friends. Post them on Egyptian online forums. Anywhere. Everywhere.

    Here’s Redeker’s full piece (via Paul Belien, Extreme Center, and others; thanks also to Fausta, vigilantly blogging the story):

    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 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.
    Of , 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 here is a translation of German Professor Egon Flaig’s piece (thanks to reader David by way of Diotima – if there is a link for this, please send):

    Islam wants to conquer the world

    by Egon Flaig

    “For we want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again, who were lucky enough, to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam’s lap. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be”.

    These are not the words of Al Qaeda, they were taken from the programme formulated by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al Banna, in a speech. The Brotherhood today has millions of adherents and spread out far beyond Egypt. Its intellectuals are working in Europe and the United States; they count as “moderates” and are treated accordingly by the media. Re-conquest of “lost” territory according to plan is part of the agenda of states, that is political communities, fighting about territorial power. How can it be part of a religion’s programme? Is Islam a religion like any other?
    Since the beginning of the classical period between the ninth and the eleventh century Islamic jurists have divided the world into two parts, namely the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”. This dichotomy is independent of where Muslims live in large numbers, or even form the majority, but depends on where Islam rules supreme – by applying Shariah – or where it does not rule. So, this dichotomy is not religious in nature, but political. Between these two parts of the world naturally exists a state of war, until the House of War is no more and Islam rules the world (Sura 8, 39 and 9, 41). Thus, according to classical teaching, for the Muslim community there is a duty to wage war against the disbelievers, until those either convert, or submit. This war is called jihad.
    While Jesus’ missionary call meant to convert all peoples, but to leave their political order untouched, Islam’s aim is to submit all non-muslims politically, but to leave their religion untouched, if it is a religion of the book. God’s general call to jihad is based on surah 9, 29. It is true though, that minute factions of islam did not accept this interpretation. The Shiites accept it, but demand that a true imam must be leading the Muslim community (and has been waiting for such a one for more than 13 centuries), so that for the time being they only feel bound to defensive jihad, in the case of attacks on the Muslim community.
    On the other hand, the other factions, e.g. the so-called Kharijites, have radicalised the content of Sura 9.29: for them, jihad is an individual duty of each able-bodied muslim, which counts as a sixth pillar next to the other five cardinal duties. In the consequence of such teachings: when everyone has to either take part in the collective war against the unbelievers, or, should the Muslim community be too weak for the time being, has to wage war alone or in small groups, then assassinations and terror attacks are right. What the Kharijites demand for offensive jihad, most proponents of orthodox Sunnah-teachings demand for defensive jihad: when Islam is being attacked, or islamic territory is being invaded by infidels, jihad becomes an individual duty, e.g. a fatwa of the Grand Mufti of Cairo’s Al-Azhar university – against Israel – leaves no doubt about that. Any enemy power that acts according to the Hague rules of warfare and strictly distinguishes combatants and non-combatants will be in great difficulty. The state of war lasts so long, until the House of War is destroyed, and the world is conquered. This is why Majid Khadduri calls Islam a “divine nomocracy on imperialist foundations”. Peace treaties, which Islamic rulers closed with non-Islamic rulers, were only considered as cease-fires; this is why as a rule, they were only closed for no more than ten years. Two schools of jurisprudence permit no more than three to four years of peace. The short deadlines made it possible for the militarily superior Muslims to constantly blackmail their adversaries; this way throughout the centuries huge amounts of money and humans went to the Muslim side. When the paradigm of power shifted, Muslim rulers had to change their practice.

    Thus in 1535 Suleiman the Magnificent made a peace with the French king which was to last for the lifetime of the Sultan – a break with tradition. Christian theologians tried to define, in the face of a plurality of states, what could be deemed a “just war” and what could not be deemed such. To wage war just in the interest of faith for the most part was not considered just. For Muslim scholars on the other hand, the “house of islam” is a political unit, which does not permit internal war, therefore only war for the sugjugation of infidels was considered legitimate and even a duty, as the famous fourtheenth-century scholare Ibn Chaldun categorically states: “In Islam the jihad is prescribed by law, because it has a universal calling and is supposed to convert all of humanity to Islam, be it of their own free will, or by force”.
    The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

    The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.
    The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye’or’s evaluation therefore is more than justified: “Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest”.Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

    The incredible speed, in which in 90 years an Arabian empire spanning from the south of France to India developed, with no single conqueror guiding the expansion, is unique. The world’s most succesful imperialism was admired by no less than Hegel: “Never has enthusiasm as such done bigger deeds”. If “enthusiasm” could do such a thing – what was its source? The answer is simple: martyrdom. Something happening in 963 in Constantinople may illustrate this: the emperor Nikephoros Phokas had just swept the Muslim invaders from Crete; now, he was planning a big war, to liberate eastern Anatolia and northern Syria from muslim rule. A council should help him: he pleaded with the bishops, to elevate soldiers dying in the war to the status of martyrs. Paradise would then have been assured for those soldiers. The patriarch stood up against the emperor: no church council could be empowered to anticipate God’s decision, only God could decide on eternal salvation.
    A scene of historical significance. The emperor knew what was at stake. Again and again, the Byzantians had to witness the Muslim troops fighting with a ferocious courage that the Christians could not emulate. Fallen Muslims were considered martyrs of the faith and marched straight to paradise. The concept of a martyr is fundamentally different in the two religions. Christian martyrs imitate the passion of Jesus, passively submit to torture and death; Muslim martyrs are active fighters.

    Decisive for the warriors’ acceptance of death was the firm promise of eternal salvation for those who die for the faith (surah 4, 74-76). Muslims should withstand a tenfold force (surah 8, 66-67); retreat was judged to be acceptable by later scholars if the enemy was at least double as strong, as Khadduri describes. As the decisive factor in any war is the fighting human being and his readiness to sacrifice himself, being on a par technically with the Arabs and Seljuks – in the long run, they had to succumb, if their morale was not of the same kind. Higher readiness to die is an enormous advantage in a fight- foolhardy operations can be waged and dashing manoeuvers to surprise and confuse the enemy; in that way, victory can be forced, that is technically and materially almost impossible, and battles are won, that would be lost under the usual circumstances.

    Nikephoros knew about the military consequences of surah 4, 74-76; he was the first who tried to correct the conceptual military disadvantage of the Christian religion. But the bishops of the Eastern Church found themselves incapable of manipulating their theology in a way to create warlike martyrdom. This was it. The Byzantine emperors had to wage their heavy defensive wars against the permanent Saracen and Seljuk aggression without the help of religion, where they needed that help most.

    Only the Western Church changed the theological-political situation: when Pope Urban II called the first crusade in 1095, he promised the Christian warriors forgiveness for their sins: fallen crusaders avoided divine judgement and were put on a par with martyrs in that respect, although they were denied that name.

    The Pope as head of a monarchic church did just that, what the Council of Eastern bishops had not been able to do: he dispensed salvation. The papal church now could have the kind of “holy war” islam had been waging for centuries. What is the difference between Crusade and jihad? A Crusade could only be called by the Pope, and thus remained a rare occurence – compared to the countless, neverending and ubiquitarian jihads of the islamic world.

    And the goals of the Crusades remain precisely defined; in November 1095, Urban II defined reason and aim of the crusade: “it is obvious, we must give help to our brothers in the east as soon as possible. The Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have invaded the realm of Romania (Constantinople) and by invading the lands of these Christians ever more deeply, they won seven battles, killed or captured a huge number of the Christians. If you don’t oppose them now, the faithful servants of God in the Orient will not withstand this storm much longer”. The first Crusades were meant to either help Christians in need, or to liberate the holy places in Palestine or to liberate Christians that had been subjugated by Muslims. On the other hand, the Muslim scholars always kept firm to their final goal, to conquer the “house of war” and subjugate all infidels.

    Urban II was right. Had Constantinople fallen in 1100, the enormous military power of the Turk armies would have plagued Europe four hundred years earlier. Then the manifold European culture probably would never have been: no free urban constitutions, no constitutional debates, no cathedrals, no renaissance, no scientific boom, because in the Islamic world, free – Greek! – thinking was dying just at this time. Jacob Burckhardt’s evaluation – “A stroke of luck, that Europe as a whole could ward off Islam” – means, we owe about as much to the Crusades, as to the Greeks’ victory against the Persians.
    But, have the Crusades not been abused? Certainly. Crusades “derailed” and were “abused”, like the one that led to the conquest of Christian Constantinople in 1204. But that happened much more often with jihads. When slaves became scarce, emirs did not merely wage wars against non-Muslim peoples, who had to be enslaved anyway, but more and more often against Islamized peoples, under the pretext, that they were no true Muslims. That happened mainly in Africa and against black Africans, e.g. when first in 1468 Songhay and then the Moroccans in 1552 invaded Mali, or when in the 18th century religious reformers waged their jihad against Muslimized Hausa cities, which led to the creation of the Sokoto-caliphate – containing the third largest number of slaves after Brazil and the American south. Africa to this day suffers from the consequences of this permanent jihad with its genocides and mass-enslavements

    Well, and what was the political order that the Muslims waged their holy wars for with such vehemence and success? For Shariah. A political order, which for one strictly separates masters from the subjugated and secondly takes political and social order away from human influence for the most part. Let’s talk about the first aspect: According to the Shariah, the Muslims are masters, the followers of other “book religions” – Christians, Jews, Parsees, Buddhists, are subjugated, Dhimmi. These were not religious minorities, but huge majorities, especially in Syria, Anatolia or the Christians of North-Africa.

    The subjugated were not allowed to carry weapons, they were unarmed, thus not ‘real men’. Christians and Jews had to wear special colours or pieces of clothing (this discrimination was the origin of the “Judenstern”) so as to be visibly “dhimmi”; they were not allowed to ride on horseback, only on mules, to remind them of their subjugation; they paid a special tribute (jizyah), that they had to pay personally, while being given a slap on the head. They had to let themselves be beaten by any Muslim, without being allowed to defend themselves; if a dhimmi retaliated, his hand would be cut off, or he would be executed. A dhimmi’s witness did not count against a Muslim, who only had to pay half the fine for any crime committed against a dhimmi, and could never ever get executed for any such crime. On the other side, the most cruel methods of execution were reserved for the dhimmi.

    Even the discrimination against the Jews, installed by the Western Church in the 4th Lateran Council in 1215, four hundred years after Islam, and which seems so barbarian to us, did not intend and did not lead to such a degree of humiliation and demeaning of people. A special horror was brought by the Turkish rule: from 1360 up to a fifth of Christian children were abducted into slavery. They were forcefully converted. The number of slaves through four centuries must have been millions; hundreds of thousands of choice boys among those were raised to be fanatical Muslims and elite fighters, the notorious Janissaries: a politic meant to systematically increase the Muslim population and slowly exterminate Christians. It was successful. “Dhimmitude” put non-muslims in a state of radical “otherness”. To call people in this state “second class citizens” is a euphemism.
    In the same way national socialism divided humans into master-race and subhumans on racial grounds, so Shariah did it on religious grounds. As the first world-religion, Islam created an apartheid, where Christian or Parsee majorities were colonised and slowly Islamized. Islamic tolerance meant: tolerate the subjugated as humiliated and demeaned. All this is well known via studies about “dhimmitude”. But who wants to hear about the millions of victims?

    Islam religiously “cleansed” huge territories: the second Caliph made the Hijaz, Arabia except Yemen “judenrein” and “christenrein”; the alternative was either to convert, or to be forced into emigration. Except for some Old Testament cases no religion ever before had done that. In the same way the Almohadis and Almoravids “cleansed” Spain after the breakdown of the Caliphate in 1031: tens of thousands of Jews and Christians had to either convert or flee to the Christian north of Spain, or the Levant. Certainly, English and French kings and the kings of Spain later on did the same – they applied the Muslim recipe in doing it. And the pogroms? Since the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) waves of persecution again and again hit the Orient and North Africa, where Jews and Christians were forcibly converted, kicked out or massacred. The destruction of churches went on and on right until the century before last. Slowly, the rosy picture of Muslim Spain created by European anti-imperialism in the 19th century loses its fake colours. A scrupulous study of documents shows a different picture below that. In 889 in Elvira and in 891 in Seville, there were massive pogroms against Christians. In Moroccan Fez in 1033, 6000 Jews were massacred. 1058 Christian Antioch was forcefully Muslimized with torture and threats of death.

    The first large pogrom against Jews on European soil happened in 1066 in Muslim Granada, 1500 Jewish families were killed. In 1135 the Jewish quarter of Cordoba was burnt down, it might be good, not to know the number of people massacred then. In 1159 all the Christians in Tunis had to chose between conversion or death. At this time, the vital Christianity of North Africa was completely wiped out. The pogroms in Christian lands are nothing to be proud of in European history, but their scope lags behind the ones in the Muslim world. We urgently need a comparative study of religious oppression.

    Let’s talk about integration of the Jews? Nowhere under the rule of Islam, not even in the Spanish Caliphate, were Jews citizens of their own cities, they always remained subjugated. In some German cities – Worms, Augsburg and others – during the high Middle Ages the Jews were citizens, albeit of special legal satus. They had the right to carry arms and were better off than poorer Christian people. Right until the 14th century, when their situation got worse, they were far better integrated than Jews in Muslim Spain could ever hope to be. Who thinks highly of political integration cannot but prefer Augsburg to Cordoba. All this has been well known in academic circles for fifteen years. But who wants to hear it?
    To ignore the past means to re-live it. He who keeps on spreading the fairytale of muslim tolerance, stands in the way of those Muslim intellectuals, who seriously work towards a reformation of islam, which started out so promisingly in the 19th century. He steals away their chance to overcome a past, which threatens to become a horrible presence. If the reformers could achieve a radical de-politicization of islam, the muslims could become real citizens of their states. That would leave the highly spiritual religion, which fascinated not only Goethe. Hegel called Islam the “religion of sublime”. It could become that.

    More from AllahPundit on the jihadists’ death threats against Redeker.

    Brussels Journal reports:

    Pierre Rousselin, the editor in chief of Le Figaro, apologized on Al-jazeera for the publication of the article. A number of Islamic countries, including Egypt, banned Le Figaro following the publication of Redeker’s piece. Mr Rousselin said the publication of the op-ed was a mistake. He said the article did not express the paper’s opinion. The article is no longer available on the Figaro website.

    Mr Redeker has written a letter to his friend, the philosopher André Glucksmann, describing his ordeal [French text here]:
    “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. […] 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. […] There is no safe place for me, I have to beg, two evenings here, two evenings there. […] I am under the constant protection of the police. I must cancel all scheduled conferences. And the authorities urge me to keep moving. […] 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.”

    Here is a translation of Le Figaro’s cave-in.
    There is a blogger conference call being organized by One Jerusalem in support of the third critic of Islam I blogged about last night, Bangladesh publisher Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. It’s October 3. Get in contact with One Jerusalem for more info.

    Critics of Islam under fire…again
    The forbidden cartoons
    Support Denmark: Why the forbidden cartoons matter

Comments are closed.