Le Figaro On Islam


Le Figaro magazine: ( am afraid it will attacked and burned soon:mad: )

What should the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?
The reactions caused by the analysis of Benoit XVI on Islam and violence highlight the underhanded maneuver carried out by the same Islam to stifle that which the West has, of more value than anything which exists in any Moslem country: the freedom to think and to express oneself.

Islam tries to impose on Europe its rules: opening of swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, prevention of caricaturing this religion, requirement of a particular dietary treatment for Moslem children in canteens, the battle to wear 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: the risk of “disturbing public order”. Did this mean that bands of frustrated youths would become violent, faced with displays of beauty? Or were they scared of Islamist demonstrations by the brigades of virtue on the approaches to Paris-Beaches?

Moreover, the non-prohibition of the veil on the street is, by inviting complaints for upholding the oppression of women more properly “disturbing public order” than the wearing of a thong. It is not inappropriate to think that this ban represents an Islamization of sensibilities in France, a more or less conscious submission to the diktats of Islam. Or, at the very least, that it is the outcome of the insidious Muslim pressure on the senses: even those who protested the introduction of a “Jean Paul II Square” in Paris would not be opposed to the construction of mosques. Islam attempts to force Europe to yield to its vision of humanity.

As in the past with Communism, the West finds itself under ideological scrutiny. Islam presents itself, in the image of defunct Communism, as an alternative to the western world. In the manner of Communism before it, Islam, to conquer spirits, plays on a sensitive nerve. It prides itself on a legitimacy which troubles the western conscience, attentive to others: to be the voice of the oppressed of the planet. Yesterday, the voice of the poor pretended to come from Moscow, today it comes from Mecca! Today again, intellectuals embody the outlook of the Koran, as they embodied the outlook of Moscow yesterday. They excommunicate people for Islamophobia, as yesterday they did for anti-communism.

In the opening up to others, specific to the West, a secularization of Christianity appears, whose bottom line is summarized as follows: the other person must always pass in front of me. The Westerner, the heir to Christianity, is to be the one to make his soul exposed. He runs the risk of passing himself off as weak. With the same ardor as Communism, Islam treats generosity, broadmindedness, tolerance, gentleness, freedom of women and of manners, democratic values, as signs of decadence.

These are the weaknesses that it seeks to exploit, by means of “useful idiots”, those of good consciences imbued with fine sentiments, 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 as equally important as the tabus in France. On one hand: “Mohammed revealed in Medina unsuspected qualities of political leader and military chief (…) He resorted to private war, then the current institution 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.”

Additionally: “Mohammed profited from this success by eliminating from Medina, by means of massacre, the Jewish tribe which resided there, the Quarayza, whom he accused of suspect behaviour.” Finally “After the death of Khadija, he married a widow, fine domestic, (called) Sawda, and also little Aisha, barely ten years old. His erotic predilections, held in check for a long time, led him to embark on ten marriages jointly.”

complete article on :

What will the West do? stay politically correct or defend itself from these intruders?


The west will remain politically correct because of the need to protect the victim. The west and I am beginning to believe that some aspects of liberalism believe that “these people” (insert Muslim, dark skin, poor or whatever) can’t do better for themselves so lets give them things as compensation for their oppression. While unfortunately many in this country can’t recognize this, many smart Muslims have. So just as this article insinuates, they are playing on the political correctness of Europe to get into the position that they want to be in. Kind of like the child who is hurt and when they realize the serve that the family is providing them because they are injured, they extend their recovery to get as much attention as they can.

Especially in Europe which is so tolerant of everything exept for Christianity, you will find that they are not going to realize that they are in trouble until Muslims forcefully call for an end to support of gay relationships and abortion. By then it may be too late. It makes me think of a comment that I believe was attributed to Bishop Sheen something along the lines of respecting a person, their right to their religion but not having to respect their religion.

I am weary of Islam. As we have heard, they are allowed to lie in times of war,isn’t this jihad, so how do you know what is true? I have read some of The Qu’ran, no I am not a scholar but I have an English translation, have read it, not the whole thing and not with bias, I read it before alot of this stuff started when I was “investigating” all religions I was a Cafeteria Catholic searching to find Truth and honestly, The Qu’ran was somewhat scary in some parts.

Individual Christians have done wrong things (I don’t think the goal of the Crusades were wrong, I think some people got emotional and took somethings too far BUT our “founder” and leader Christ did not call for or stand for his followers to force people to come to him. As I understand it, Muhammed was (as he gained power) active in promoting violence. So while some peaceful Muslims don’t like the way things are, can they really say this is not what The Prophet wanted? The more fundamental, radical Muslims are allowed to interpret many aspects of the Qu’ran as tolerant and promoting violent and they would appear to be correct.

Also Muslims say that Christians have done things but the key is have done. On this large a scale you will not find Christian agression and surely not tolerance in the Christian community. If anything other Christians would counter-demonstrate against the violent Christians. Also, even if Christians have done wrong, two wrongs don’t make a right. You can’t justify current wrongs because of past wrongs. I don’t justify ignorance in other minority communities because they may have been wronged in the past. You have to move on in a positive direction, it just seems like people like to make excuses. When I plegded a sorority in college we used to have to recite the following:

Excuses are tools of the mentally incompetent
Used to build monuments of nothingness
Those who use them rarely amount to anything
But excuses…

[LEFT]I am sorry for the rant but I think that too many people, sometimes on both sides, don’t really think about things they just reflect their feelings. I can not judge the heart and the eternal destination of anyone, but I am allowed to judge actions and as far as what is going on in the Muslim world, I don’t like what I see. Afterall, who is everyone fighting against in the world? In Asia, In Africa, In Europe, In North America?



Great post; If the West does not wake up and hold strong to it’s tradition and religious heritage, it will be too late. Wherever Islam became dominant ( by number), Christians were persecuted. This is still happening now in all Muslim countries and this will be thefate of politically correct West.


Thanks, inJesus

I wish that was where we all were :slight_smile: . But really I felt bad about the rant. I tried not to offend, but I think that that is part of the problem. People are so afraid to offend that they are scared to ask questions or speak truth.



Heather, you shouldn’t regret your earlier post. You said you have read some of the Quran and it’s scary in parts - in English. Apparently, the Arabic (original) version is much, much scarier.

We are getting a sanitized version in the West. Here is an article that talks about the way Islam is being marketed to unsuspecting Westerners:


This is an interesting article, too. It says that most of what is translated into English as “marriage” actually says in the Quran something more along the lines of, in polite language, a “physical relationship”. This is in stark contrast to Jesus, who elevated marriage to a sacrament.


What I find to be the most disturbing aspect of all about Islam is that our leaders continue to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by extremists.

But the truth of the matter is, that when Muhammed was in Mecca and had not yet gained the upper hand, he was telling his followers to lie in wait, to be patient, not to compel their religion on anyone.

Then the slaughter in Medina took place.

After that, all of the peaceful teachings of Muhammed were cancelled out. In other words, once Muhammed had victories on the battlefield, he felt secure enough to bring in phase 2 which was to spread Islam by the violence until his followers took the whole world.

So, the Meccan period of peace was cancelled out by the coming violent phase of Medina. Just as Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament, in Islam the Medinan phase is the fulfillment of the earlier peaceful phase.



yes Eden correct…i speak Arabic and the translations are made “softer” to Westeners.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.