I'm not a good graphic manipulator and never bothered to follow Linux Format's GIMP course, but if I were, there would be a graphic on the right showing a French flag with the stripes burning, and a fist (mine) with a thumb pointing upwards. Rioting is always ugly but people don't riot just for fun. Last month, the Asians in Birmingham learned that they could not treat people with flat-out contempt and get away with it forever. This time, it's the turn of the French to learn a similar lesson. (More on this at Pickled Politics, Dictator Princess, Samizdata, Opinionated Voice.)
You see, over here we've been hearing that the French like to call London "Londonistan" because of the number of Algerian extremists who supposedly made London home, yet when it came down to rounding people up after 9/11, it was only actually a few dozen people. The French, apparently, get tough on people who don't adopt the French lifestyle, deporting anyone who states plain Islamic positions on certain aspects of gender relations and those who have two wives, rather than a wife and a "bit on the side" like some of their politicians including a recent President.
I find it really difficult to feel sorry when a country which considers schoolgirls in headscarves a threat to its integrity is getting torn apart. Of course, this isn't what's causing the riots. What caused it is a common factor in riots: police brutality and harrassment:
Across the road from the market, 57-year-old Boubaker acknowledges that delinquency is a problem.
He often chides small groups of youths hanging around outside his flat. He agrees the police have a job to do, but says that often they are too aggressive and pick on the wrong targets.
His 19-year-old son is regularly stopped when out with friends - especially if they are black - by police who demand to see their ID.
"Each time he goes out he has to prove who he is," says Boubaker, "even right outside his own front door."
(Is there any better argument against bringing the wretched idea of compulsory ID cards in here in the UK?)
The same local has more to say about police treatment of local Arab and Berber youths:
It's the way they stop and search people, kneeing them between the legs as they put them up against the wall. They get students mixed up with the worst offenders, yet these young people have done nothing wrong.
There's also the matter of systematic employment discrimination, which of course was cited as a major factor in the 2002 riots in northern England. In France, more than a quarter of university graduates of North African origin are unemployed; blacks and Arabs have barely any profile in public life, with not a single non-white mainland French MP and no black or Arab TV presenters. And this in a country whose population of immigrant descent is vastly higher than the UK's, which does manage to find room for them in the major political parties and in the media.
Reading the comments on the BBC's riot comments page, the same two themes come up time and time again: the rejection of multiculturalism, the concentration of the Arab poor in out-of-town slums, the racism. Why should anyone be surprised that out-of-town slums are causes of trouble given their reputation (Borehamwood, New Addington) in this country where they are few and relatively small? Comparisons with the US, Canada and the UK is generally unfavourable. This comment came from someone in Philadelphia:
One half of my family lives in France, and it's common when I go there for them (not just the family) to make "comments" about immigrant Muslims and jokes about Jews. Each time they look for a smile or laugh, I reply "We're Americans. Your jokes are not funny to us." French society is long beyond repair and the proverbial fan in spinning up; preparing itself for the hit. I liked France much better when I couldn't understand what they were saying.
(You also get a few ill-informed comments about the two youths whose deaths sparked the riots, who were supposedly running from the police although police dispute this. "Serves them right" is a common theme. Another moron, called "coruja" at Pickled Politics, suggests that "in the future when European countries âinviteâ cheap labour/citizens of their former colonies over they should insist these people be sterilised first". What a jerk.
Frankly, my only regret is that the violence is the work of irreligious delinquents and isn't the resistance of Muslims to the harrassment of their people. The main reason girls can't wear headscarves in French schools is not just the racism and post-Algeria rancour of the French population and the presence of anti-religious Marxists among their teachers, but the fact that the mainstream religious Muslims are weak, as indeed they are in their home country; nobody can say of Pakistani girls here that isolationist, kafir-bashing Salafi jihadis are breathing down their necks. (Which is why I've got no time for anyone who dismisses Pakistanis as grave-worshipping bumpkins.)
Really, the French reap what they sow. I hope their rivers and crops remain dry and their cities and forests burn until they get a clue or perish.
The French, apparently, get tough on people who don't adopt the French lifestyle, deporting anyone who states plain Islamic positions on certain aspects of gender relations and those who have two wives
Well surprise surprise. It is France, you know. 'Plain Islamic positions on aspects of gender relations' like wife beating is OK? And polygamy is illegal in France, as it is in all civilised Western countries. As is wife beating.
France has every right to deport people who don't adhere to its basic, civilised norms. There are plenty of (ghastly) countries where wife beating and polygamy are acceptable.
Dear Indigo Jo
I do believe that the situation here is very bad in many aspects, but why say "the French" as if everybody in France thought the same ?
Then why mix two different issues ? Headscarf ban at school is yet another issue. Mixing it with what's happening in our poor country (and has much more to do with poverty and racism than religious issues) does'nt help to understand what's going on.
But that's just my opinion.
I know you like to put a little french bashing in your blog but please do not mix everything.
As to the so-called Londonistan I don't really have an opinion. I guess some people who clearly broke the law in France went to London because of the freedom of speech you guys have.
But then I find your post very interesting.
Ma'a salama
It was only a matter of time before a situation was sparked in the tinderbox of the French suburbs. While the French Government has ruled with its laissez faire approach, many of its inhabitants suffer the effects of inequality, unemployment, and marginalisation, particularly North African migrants. Instead of sidestepping this reality by deluding itself with the imagined notion of a community sipping wine in Châteaus with sexy French girls, the Government would have been much better of remembering the Revolution! One resident has summed up the situation by saying;
âAnything could have started it,â ⦠âWhen youâre an immigrant here, youâre just stuck in your sh*t. Does it really surprise you itâs going up in flames?â
"And polygamy is illegal in France, as it is in all civilised Western countries."
Its not illegal America
Also Old Pickler you seem to like using the word civillized a lot. How do you define it?
Polygamy is illegal in America, and all civilised countries.
Civilised, for practical purposes, denotes Western Europe and North America.
Assalaamu alaikum,
"And polygamy is illegal in France, as it is in all civilised Western countries."
I thought that if immigrants to France (or maybe those who are granted asylum?) already had more than one wife, then it was legal for them.
But how ironic... Yusuf already mentioned Mitterand, who was basically polygamous for decades. Since the second woman - the "mistress" - had no legal rights and his daughter had to remain secret, that's considered civilised? Whereas if he could marry her and her daughter could be protected legally, and her daughter could be acknowledged, that would be "uncivilised"?
"Civilised, for practical purposes, denotes Western Europe and North America."
So Australia's out? And South America? Eastern Europe doesn't make the cut? Maybe those Eastern European countries that have been admitted to the EU? And I assume you only mean non-Muslims in Western Europe and North America...
Anyway, by your definitions, I'd be proud to be called "uncivilized".
But really, don't you feel silly writing that?
"Civilised, for practical purposes, denotes Western Europe and North America."
Oh
I was pretty sure it was an adjective rather than a pro-noun.
Are you including Central America as part of North America?
I only ask because the position of women there is pretty bad especially in Guatemala.
Ann, the fact that men have mistresses does not make polygamy right. Giving 'rights' to the mistress takes rights away from the first wife. And of course women have affairs too, so by your logic, polyandry should be allowed. If something is wrong, making it legal does not justify it. Polygamy is simply legalised promiscuity for men only.
This is beside the point, though. The point is that polygamy and wife beating are not the way things are done in France. If Muslims want to act like that there are loads of (horrible) countries for them to do it in.
Shamilaskov - I agree about Guatemala.
More racist delusions from the BNP reject. Stupid pRickler.
Not racist - Islam is a belief system not a race. I would imagine from her name that Ann is a different race from that of most Muslims in the UK, who are a different race from most of those in Iraq, who are, in their turn a different race from most Muslims in Iran.
Islam isn't a race, but it might as well be as no Muslim population has ever permanently renounced Islam en masse.
The Soviet Communists temporarily suppressed Islam in Central Asia only for it re-emerge after the fall of Communism, while the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans (except Bosnia, greater Albania and Eastern Thrace) were de-Islamified mainly by outright ethnic cleansing.
Islam isn't a race, but it might as well be as no Muslim population has ever permanently renounced Islam en masse.
Their choice not to. Race isn't a choice.
You could say that jews are not a race either in the sense that they are part of the larger semitic race. In other words they are a culture/tribe or religion. Therefore couldn't it be argued that being jewish is a choice and so being anti-jewish isn't racism?
"If Muslims want to act like that there are loads of (horrible) countries for them to do it in.
Shamilaskov - I agree about Guatemala."
No offence Old Pickler but I imagine you'd find most countries/cultures in the world to be "horrible". Now and throughout history women have been subordinate to men almost everywhere. I doubt most men in Britain actually see women as being equal to them. I read a report in some paper just today saying that a high percentage of women working in UK law firms experienced sexual harrasment from their male co-workers. This is in Britain among educated people.
What I'm saying is I think its oppurtunistic to attack Islam on the basis of its view of women when you look at the global context. Likewise its oppurtunistic for people on the left to attack the US on the basis of racism towards blacks (like during Katrina etc) when you look at the global context.
Old Pickler,
"Polygamy is simply legalised promiscuity for men only."
If you are going to agree that men and women are eqaul and should be treated eqaully than dont be so stupid as to think that they are the same because they are not. The nature of man and woman are different. It has only been very very recently that men practiced monogamy. It isnt natural to them. Men, by thier nature need to and should be able to have more than one woman. Men and womens sexual needs are different, and if you try to hip me to some pyscho BS, I'm gonna go digital on you.
The nature of man and woman are different. It has only been very very recently that men practiced monogamy. It isnt natural to them. Men, by thier nature need to and should be able to have more than one woman
How very convenient. Why then do women have affairs? Of course in Islam, women's promiscuity is punished, whereas men's is legalised by 'marriage', though I would not dignify polygamy with the word 'marriage'.
Shamilaskov - I know that there are problems in the West regarding sexual equality but these are nothing compared with the Islamic world, where female subordination is enshrined in law.
Shamilaskov - I know that there are problems in the West regarding sexual equality but these are nothing compared with the Islamic world, where female subordination is enshrined in law.
Well I'd say that a culture of a place is more important than the laws. Take Turkey for example which still has many honor killings despite women's equality being enshrined in the law. In Ache province in Indonesia they adopt many elements of islamic law but the position of women is still fairly good as in the rest of Indonesia and they certainly don't have honor killings. Likewise in Mauritania domestic violence (and polygamy by the way) are very rare despite the country having islamic law. The key element is culture.
Does the fact that an apparently high number of well educated men in the UK see women as objects suggest that sexism is still part of this culture?
The point I was trying to make is that women's subordination (or worse)seems to be a pretty universal thing among cultures. It seems to me a strange thing that you'd pick that in particular to attack Islam with.
Shamilaskov - laws do make a difference, though. Of course some men (especially Muslim men) see women as sex objects. However, we have equal pay, good rights for women on divorce, equal opportunities legislation etc that mean that women here have much more power than women in Islamic and other backward countries. This means that it doesn't matter as much what men think of women.
A Muslim man at work who is junior to me may not like my attitude or the way I dress. Tough. He still has to do what I tell him. He may be able to boss his wife about when he gets home, but here in the UK she can divorce him if it becomes unbearable, or if she decides to leave the religion, and she will still, likely as not get custody of the kids.
"This means that it doesn't matter as much what men think of women."
I think your view of history is very misguided if you believe that government is more important than culture. It also seems strange to me coming from a self professed liberal.
Anyway you haven't answered my point about the universiality of female subordination.
Shamilaskov, of course laws matter.
In Jordan, for example, honour killing gets a reduced sentence. In the UK it is, rightly treated as murder. An immigrant from Jordan living here might carry with him the backward culture of Jordan, but he would be constrained from honour killing for fear of punishment.
In Iran, a woman's witness is half that of a man, as is her inheritance etc. You're not telling me that equal legal rights do not matter.
Of course female subordination happens elsewhere. However, you're not telling me that a country where rape victims get stoned is somehow no worse than a civilised country like the UK.
Here in the uk, women have equal rights. None of this equality in difference crap.
I've tried to be polite but like so many people operating within the liberal-conservative dialectic nowadays you seem to be completely incapable of saying anything relevant. Instead you resort to this pathetic "bubble gum philosophy" that's just supposed to gain an emotive reaction by spewing popular stereotypes that aren't relevant to the debate.
Which country exactly has executed women for being raped?
I know Saudi Arabia executes many rapists as the media often points out and you don't get much more "fundementalist" than them.
Lets forget religion for a moment and look at things completely rationally. If the majority of cultures in the world see women as playing a subordinate role in society and only a few cultures have the opposing view whats likely to be closer to the "natural truth"?
Which country exactly has executed women for being raped?
Iran for starters.
If the majority of cultures in the world see women as playing a subordinate role in society and only a few cultures have the opposing view whats likely to be closer to the "natural truth"?
Natural is neither here nor there. Disease is natural. Violence is natural. The point of civilisation is that we move beyond nature, and advanced civilisations have moved beyond 7th century Arabia.
Countries that are successful, eg the US, the UK etc are ones in which women have equal rights in law. Muslim countries, excluding oil (discovered and paid for by the west) are abysmal failures, and - guess what- they treat women as subordinate. The least awful Muslim country is Turkey where women have equal legal rights, ie Islam is excluded from public life - and though not a patch on the US or the UK, is at least tolerable, at least in the cities where they are more secular.
OP wrote: "Of course some men (especially Muslim men) see women as sex objects."
Uh, yeah, right. It's the Muslim guys who have kept the institution of the Page 3 Girl alive and well all these years.
Get real.
Salam alaikoum...Nice post but one correction, Azouz Begag is part of the French government. So that ups it to 1 non white mainlander instead of zero.
Again, too, one thing I find the most disturbing in this whole situation is the amalgamation of violence and immigration. The so called "racaille" aren't immigrants. And like Boubaker said, if you are brown, you are asked to justify your existence daily. My headscarf guarantees I get stopped for an ID check (it happens to me frequently) and my husband has been treated like a second class citizen (accusations of fake and falsified ID) despite being born and raised in France. And don't get me started on education... (don't want to "amalgamate" myself...)
Uh, yeah, right. It's the Muslim guys who have kept the institution of the Page 3 Girl alive and well all these years.
Actually a lot of internet porn is accessed in Muslim countries. And prostitution, either acknowledged, or under the farcical muta (temporary 'marriage') system is a huge problem in Iran. Saudi men come over to Dubai at weekends to drink and whore their time away, then go back and infect their wives with aids.
"Which country exactly has executed women for being raped?
Iran for starters."
Proof please
"Natural is neither here nor there."
Nature is very much here and there. It really gets me angry when westerners brag about how great their enlightened civilization is but they don't even know the philosophies its based on.
"Disease is natural."
Not a human action. Not relevant.
"Violence is natural."
Not according Rousseau it isn't. It is according to Hobbes but his theories aren't the basis of modern liberal democracy.
"The point of civilisation is that we move beyond nature"
Till we get where?
"and advanced civilisations have moved beyond 7th century Arabia."
Are you a broken record are something?
The fact that you have to keep throwing these ad hominem statements around suggests you don't have much confidence in your ability to argue through reason.
The point of civilisation is that we move beyond nature, and advanced civilisations have moved beyond 7th century Arabia.
You have a point here. Muslims tend to view the Khilafah Rashidun as a perfect system of government, when in fact it was severely flawed.
Sure it flourished under four brilliant leaders, but the real test of a regime is its ability to survive an inept leader, an area where Muslim states have always been weak.
The kind of regime which would be best for the Muslim world would be one which bears the same relation to the Khilafah Rashidun as the United States of America bears to the ancient Roman Republic.
It's interesting that Old Pickler identifies secularism and women's rights as reasons for the West's superiority, when this doesn't hold up well under historical scrutiny.
Islamic civilization was already badly behind the West when the latter changed from "Christendom" to "the Free World", and traditional Christian society was arguably more anti-woman than Islamic society.
Under Shari'ah inheritance is split 2-1 in favour of sons, while traditionally in the West the eldest son inherited everything. Primogeniture was crucial as it allowed the West to create hereditary monarchies which were limited enough to allow inept kings to be pushed aside.
By contrast, Muslim (eg Ottoman) heirs faced lethal rivalry to ascend to the throne. This resulted in paranoid regimes which suppressed all opposition, meaning that an inept Ottoman sultan could do far more damage to his kingdom than an incompetent Christian king could...
Old Pickler: "A Muslim man at work who is junior to me may not like my attitude or the way I dress. Tough. He still has to do what I tell him."
In Kuwait, women are managers, professors, business owners, ambassadors, university deans, etc. Men work for them and do what they say (no matter how the women dress). When I first came here as a computer consultant, I worked in a government computer center where my supervisor and manager were both women. Some of the men (very religious and educated men, as a matter of fact) had asked specifically for this Ministry because they wanted to work with her, since she was a very good manager. These were some of the things that made me realize that all of the stuff I had been told about Muslim countries and Muslim women was a bunch of garbage.
Some Muslim countries have had women prime ministers - do you think that they can't tell men what to do?
(Actually, your statement is laughable even if you just consider how many women have drivers, who are male and do whatever their employers tell them.)
And if you think that women aren't respected, see how Muslim men treat their mothers.
Seriously, why do you keep claiming that "Muslim countries are like this" and "in Muslim countries, they do this" when you really don't have a clue? And don't seem to want to hear from anyone who does? I used to think you were sincere but misguided, but no matter what anyone tells you, you just keep saying the same things.
And just a note about inheritance: it's not always that women get 1/2 of what men get. It's based on their financial responsiblities, so men usually get more because they have to support their female family members, but in some cases, women get the same as men. Inheritance is complicated, and I'm not an expert, but for example, when someone dies (and has children), his mother and father each gets 1/6 of his estate. And that's not the only case.
You people are so gullible, always going off on tangents. All it takes to be distracted is the usual bunch of nonsense being put out by this pathetic BNP reject pRickler, and you all start acting out.
The topic is on France, not this charlatan's views on polygamy. I agree with Yusuf that the racists are reaping the harvest of their own hatred.
Old Pickler,
"Why then do women have affairs?"
Oh yes Pickler women have affairs but compare that number to that of men and you will see or ignore completely my point about men and women.
"Of course in Islam, women's promiscuity is punished..."
During the time of Prophet Muhammed (sallalahu alaihi wa salam) how many men and women were punished, not for promiscuity, but for fornication? When you find out that number then we can talk about who Islam punishes.
"...whereas men's is legalised by 'marriage', though I would not dignify polygamy with the word 'marriage'."
Well how does your Bible dignigy polygamy?
"In Iran, a woman's witness is half that of a man, as is her inheritance etc. You're not telling me that equal legal rights do not matter."
I doubt that Shamil is a SHia but I dont think he is in a position to talk about Shia fihq. Secondly in regards to a female witness there are some instances where two women are required but not all because there is just some info that only women would be privy to.
Women half less than half or no financial responsibilty so why in the world should she get more than what she needs? A womans' money is her own, a man has a religions (sharia) obligation to provide for his wife and children. Those are the conditions of thier marriage.
"...or if she decides to leave the religion, and she will still, likely as not get custody of the kids."
Why the heck should women get custody of thier children? For a person who champions eqaul rights between men and women it seems that all of the responsility of raising children falls on the mother.
"Saudi men come over to Dubai at weekends to drink and whore their time away, then go back and infect their wives with aids."
All of which is haram and punishable in Islam. YOu see what happens when Muslims act like kafirs? They go to Dubai, have sex with whores and infect themselves with diseases. This is what happens when you dont fear Allah (azawajal)
Dr.M
You know you cant keep giving Muslims every excuse under the hot sun as to why thier actions are justifiable. You are a hizbi. The Quran and Sunnah yes haram and halal, discouraged, recommended. Please use that as your guide.
No to Muslims in France rioting!!!!!!! Go home French Muslims and memorize some Quran.
"I doubt that Shamil is a SHia but I dont think he is in a position to talk about Shia fihq."
I wasn't aware I had.
Shamil,
THe best compliment I can give you is that you arent a Shia. I didnt say you were commenting on Shia fihq but Old Pickler doesnt know the difference between the Muslims and followers of the Quran and Sunnah and what goes on in Rafidah Shia Iran. To people like here all those rag heads and swarthy people look and think alike.
Bikhair,
What is a Hizbi? Anything to do with Hizb Tahrir?
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
*What is a Hizbi? Anything to do with Hizb Tahrir?*
Not just HT, but partisanship generally.
Thanks Yusuf.
Oh ok, in that case I gladly accept the label, even though I think you were a bit hasty...
Samizdata has a nice discussion following the entry on France. Very friendly to Muslims in particular.
By the way, I don't think there's anything in the Bible condeming polygamy. Christianity only began to reject it once it became the Roman state religion, because the pagan Roman Empire was hostile to polygamy. So really, hostile to polygamy is a "Western" not a "Christian" viewpoint.
Note also that the first festival which was celebrated on December 25th was the pagan festival of Sol Invictus.