7/10 of French voters support a ban on Islamic veils

More opposition to Islamic niqabs is growing among the French public:

Opposition to outward displays of devotion to Islam appears be growing among the French people, with a survey finding that seven in ten voters would back a ban on the wearing of veils in public.

The liberal secularist values of the Fifth French Republic look set for a collision course with the burgeoning Muslim population, which has been imported mainly from France’s former colonies in the Maghreb region of North Africa.

With surveys suggesting that second and third generations of migrants are becoming more radical in their adherence to the Qur’an as groups like the Muslim Brotherhood take advantage of the emerging parallel societies fostered in ethnic minority enclaves, the issue of assimilation has become more pressing.

One integrationist proposal which appears to be gaining ground is to expand the restrictions on Islamic garb in public. In 2011, the government prohibited full face covering veils such as the burqa or niqab, and now some argue that this should be extended to head coverings such as the hijab.

According to a CSA survey for Le Journal du Dimanche, 69 per cent of French voters would support a ban on the Islamic veil in public. This, the paper noted, was an increase of eight points since 2022, when 61 per cent said that they were in favour of such a move.

Unsurprisingly, supporters of right wing parties such as the populist National Rally and the establishment centre-right Les Républicains were most in favour of a law to bar veils in public, at 82 and 80 per cent respectively. This was followed by supporters of the liberal Macronist coalition, 65 per cent of whom backed a ban.

Overall, 51 per cent of leftist voters also favour a ban, yet, supporters of the hard left Greens or the radical France in Revolt (La France Insoumise/LFI) party of Morocco-born Jean-Luc Mélenchon were both opposed at 65 and 56 per cent.

I think that can tell quite a bit about modern communists, and that perhaps they don't consider their positions as good as those of the Religion of Peace. Suggesting they consider more barbaric ideologies better than their own. That's one of the main reasons the 21st century resurgence of communism is such an awful thing - because it's clearly willing to align itself with the Religion of Peace, which does consider socialism acceptable, and has thus led to considerable disaster for many years now.

This is good to know much of the French public does consider it bad that Islamic veils have become a wide influence. And serious action must be taken against that, along with immigration from countries run by the Religion of Peace too.

Muslim infiltration in France may go back as far as 70 years

The French government is looking to ban having girls younger than 15 wear Islamic veils in public, after a chilling report about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration that spans as far back as 70 years:

French President Emmanuel Macron’s political party has called for a ban on young girls wearing Islamic veils in public and a new law against “Islamist entryism” after a bombshell government report found that the Muslim Brotherhood has waged a multi-generational campaign to infiltrate institutions and control Islamic communities in service of instituing Sharia law to the West.

Former French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, who leads President Macron’s Renaissance party in the National Assembly, proposed on Wednesday that the ban on wearing veils in public be extended to girls under the age of 15. France became the first European country to impose such a ban for adults in 2011.

However, Attal argued that the government must go further in the wake of the publication of a government report, which found that the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood has sought for at least seven decades to subvert France and other European nations through clandestinely entering institutions and taking control over various facets of Muslim communities to promote Sharia practices to Islamise the West.

According to the report, the movement has seized upon supposed social justice campaigns through its various Muslim association proxies against “Islamophobia” — a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood — and the veil ban to create a veneer of legitimacy in public discourse and to rally Muslim communities to their cause.

Meanwhile, local arms of the Brotherhood, in which trained Islamist activists are installed as managers at community shops, sports groups, private education, financial services, dating sites and elsewhere, have been established to control all aspects of life within Islamic communities and enforce strict Muslim practices, such as forcing the veil on women and girls.

The report found that this has resulted in a “massive and visible increase in little girls wearing the veil”, including girls as young as five or six years old, who are described as the “baby lion cubs” of radical Islam in France.

Thus, the Macronist party has called for fresh legislation to make “an offence of coercion to wear the veil against parents who force their minor daughters to wear the veil,” which they argue contravenes gender equality and child protection principles, Le Figaro reports.

While this is important news, it's a terrible shame Macron himself is undermining efforts to enforce safety for youngsters by attacking Israel over its army campaign in Gaza (as are the UK and Canada), because all that does is send a message to Islamofascists that the French government isn't really serious about their objections. Exactly why somebody needs to tell Macron this is just as unacceptable as Islamofascism in France's area too.

BOOK REVIEW: ARSENAL

Good fiction is another medium for waking up people to the dangers of Islam.

Tammy Swofford’s suspense novel Arsenal, the title referring to strategic thought rather than to the military battlefield or acts of militant jihad, lives up to its genre label. The plot, well delineated and plausible, deals with the search for an Islamic treasure, namely, a pouch containing the hair of Muhammad the Prophet. Early on in the novel, the voice of a minor character describes the mission of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West, deemed decadent by the devout, and lays the foundation for the suspense plot that rushes to fulfillment in the second portion of Arsenal:

“'Just as we are to recite the Qur’an in a measured tone, we must also move in a measured and quiet manner in the West. We do not move as a lion, but we move as a panther'” (19).

Along the way, Arsenal, points out the dangers of geopolitical Islam and the West’s gullibility thereto, particularly the lack of Western understanding of the 1998-2007 wordcraft sword of Islam as expressed by the thoughts of the character Ahmad as-Sirjani:

“Universal Values. Two simple words….The words would sound secular, adaptable to the Western ear. But the cryptograph would be Qur’anic….It was time for a paradigm shift” (103).

Genre and political aspects aside, what makes this novel an outstanding and readable piece of writing is threefold....

Read the rest at Always On Watch.

12-YEAR FBI VETERAN SAYS FDLE REPORT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED

John D. Guandolo, a veteran FBI agent, has given his opinion on the FDLE's abysmal report on the Rifqa Bary case for the Center for Security Policy (Hat tip: Jihad Watch):

[Note: John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At the request of the Center for Security Policy, he prepared an assessment of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's (FDLE) investigation of the Ohio-based parents of former Muslim Rifqa Bary, the 17-year old apostate from Islam who has sought refuge in the state of Florida. The FDLE report is provided here, and is available as searchable text for the first time, below his analysis. The significant errors and omissions that Mr. Guandolo and other experts have found in this FDLE investigation show a failure in FDLE's professional responsibility in handling the Rifqa Bary case. Governor Crist and FDLE management need to get new investigators on the job, start over, and this time do it right. A life may be at stake due to FDLE negligence-- and willful blindness-- in conducting this investigation.]


John D. Guandolo:
Response to FDLE Investigative Report on Rifqa Bary Matter

Upon my review of the report filed by the FDLE regarding the Rifqa Bary Matter in Florida, I offer my professional opinion.

1. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Investigative Summary OR-73-1741 encapsulates the investigation into allegations made by Fathima Rifqa Bary (hereafter referred to as "Rifqa Bary") that she is or may be in physical danger from her father, Mohamed Bary, or others. Point 4 on page 2 of the report states Rifqa Bary believes her life to be in danger from an "honor killing" by her family or others, which she states is in accordance with Islamic Law. The report finds: "Ms. Bary's concern that she may be killed because of her conversion from Islam to Christianity remains a subjective and speculative concern..." and concludes there is no conspiracy to commit violence against her. The investigators in this matter offer this opinion void of any knowable facts. In fact, a due diligence review would reveal the existence of authoritative Islamic Law texts officially translated into English. This review would further reveal Islamic Law - which is real law - has requirements and rules as to how to deal with those who leave Islam [eg The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, "Umdat al-Salik" also known as "Reliance of the Traveller" - publicly available]. If it can be shown (1) there is a requirement in Islamic Law for killing Ms. Bary as a publicly declared apostate from Islam, (2) that her parents adhere to Islamic Law, and (3) that she did, in fact, leave Islam and convert to Christianity, then the FDLE has a professional responsibility to include these facts in this report, and investigate this matter fully. There is nothing subjective about this - these are all ascertainable facts. I would hope the Florida State's Attorney's Office has done their due diligence on this matter and is aware of this

2. Mr. Bary's comments to the Investigators claiming there is "absolutely not" any concept of Honor Killings under Islamic Law can also be comparatively and factually reviewed against Islamic Law. There are, in fact, rules and requirements as to how apostates should be handled within the context of Islamic Law, and these facts must be reviewed by FDLE if a professional and factual report is to be completed.

3. It was noted that the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) -Columbus (Ohio) and the Staff Attorney for CAIR were present during the interview of Mr. Bary by FDLE Investigators. Absent from the FDLE report was any mention that CAIR is a known Muslim Brotherhood entity and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial - the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history - revealing HLF as a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States. All defendants in this case were found guilty in November 2008 and are serving long prison terms. These facts about CAIR were testified to at trial, and accepted as legally true. They are irrefutable - the documents demonstrating these facts were stipulated to by the defense. The Muslim Brotherhood's (MB) creed is "Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our guide: the Koran is our constitution; Jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our inspiration," and their stated objective in America is a "Civilization-Jihad" to destroy the United States from within, and the MB exists to implement Islamic Law here in the United States. All of these facts are relevant for two critical reasons. First, these material facts should be made known to the State Attorney's Office and any Judges involved in this case as a matter of course. Secondly, when representatives from an organization that is objectively known to be hostile towards to the United States and unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history, are allowed to be present during a law enforcement interview of someone, it raises questions as to why they were allowed to be present at the interview at all. These facts further demand an objective look to determine if the Muslim Brotherhood itself has a position on Islamic Law and Apostasy. One of the MB's two stated objectives is to implement Islamic Law in North America (and across the globe), and it is known they call for adherence to Islamic Law wherever Muslim communities exist. The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law: Reliance of the Traveller is approved as valid Islamic Law by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a known Muslim Brotherhood entity, as proven in the HLF trial. In Reliance of the Traveller, Investigators will find specific legal doctrine on how apostates are to be treated under Islamic Law. Furthermore, the Muslim Brotherhood has a history of officially addressing the issue of Apostasy. In 1984, Ismail R. Al-Faruki , the Founder of IIIT, stated: "That is why Islamic Law has treated people who have converted out of Islam as political traitors...[Islam] must deal with the traitors when convicted after due process of law either with banishment, life imprisonment, or capital punishment...but once their conversion is proclaimed, they must be dealt with as traitors to the state." Apostasy is also specifically addressed in Peace and the Limits of War, published by IIIT and written by Louay Safi, the former Executive Director of IIIT, Malaysia, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (a proven Muslim Brotherhood entity), and the Executive Director of the Islamic Society of North America's (ISNA) Leadership Development Council. ISNA was proven to be a Muslim Brotherhood entity and is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history - HLF. The book is also approved by the Secretary General of ISNA. In it, Mr. Safi notes that individual apostates cannot be killed for a "quiet desertion of personal Islamic duties," but can be put to death as "just punishment" when the apostate deserts Islam publicly (p. 31).

4. This is a statement of facts regarding this matter:

* There are requirements in Islamic Law regarding someone who deserts Islam
* The Muslim Brotherhood's objective is the implementation of Islamic Law in the United States
* Rifqa Bary has left Islam and become a Christian
* Rifqa Bary has made statements to FDLE officials and others that her parents have threatened to kill her because she has left Islam
* The Bary's appear to be adherent to Islamic Law
* The Bary's appear at an interview with two Muslim Brotherhood representatives doing business as CAIR, a group known to be hostile towards the United States which is also an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history
* The Muslim Brotherhood supports the killing of Muslims who publicly leave Islam

5. It is my professional opinion that sufficient Probable Cause exists to believe that Ms Bary's concerns for her personal safety are based in a realistic and factual understanding of her situation, and, therefore, a further criminal investigation is warranted.

John D. Guandolo is a 12 ½ year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This is a very good response to a bunch of so-called investigators who clearly are captives of political correctness of the worst kind. Guandolo is a good man, just like Dave Gaubatz, and this should stand proudly alongside the latter's FPM interview as something important for reading.

IMPORTANT TRIAL EVIDENCE: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S PLANS TO REPLACE CONSTITUTION WITH SHARI'A

A most interesting development in the Holy Land Foundation trial in Texas has taken place: As the Dallas Morning News reveals, the Muslim Brotherhood's goals in the US included replacing the Constitution with Shari'a law (Hat tip: Hot Air):

Amid the mountain of evidence released in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, the most provocative has turned out to be a handful of previously classified evidence detailing Islamist extremists' ambitious plans for a U.S. takeover.

A knot of terrorism researchers say the memos and audiotapes, many translated from Arabic and containing detailed strategies by the international Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, are proof that extremists have long sought to replace the Constitution with Shariah, or Islamic law.

[...]

The documents – introduced in recent weeks as part of the prosecution's case in the trial of the now defunct Holy Land Foundation and five of its organizers – lay out the Brotherhood's plans in chillingly stark terms.

A 1991 strategy paper for the Brotherhood, often referred to as the Ikhwan in Arabic, found in the Virginia home of an unindicted co-conspirator in the case, describes the group's U.S. goals, referred to as a "civilization-jihadist process."

"The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions," it states. This process requires a "mastery of the art of 'coalitions,' the art of 'absorption' and the principles of 'cooperation.' "

Success in the U.S. "in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global movement," it states.

A transcript of a Brotherhood orientation meeting recorded in the early 1980s includes discussions of the need for "securing the group" from infiltration by "Zionism, Masonry ... the CIA, FBI, etc. so that we find out if they are monitoring us" and "how can we get rid of them." Discussions later turn to "weapons training at the Ikhwan's camps" in Oklahoma and Missouri.

Closing arguments today

Many similar documents are among several hundred pieces of evidence that are part of the trial of Richardson-based Holy Land and the five defendants. They are accused of illegally raising money for Hamas, which was declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in 1995. The defendants are not accused of violent acts here or abroad.

Perhaps they should be. They certainly raised money for committing acts of violence, didn't they?

"The fundamental thing underlying the Brotherhood ideology is the need to establish the caliphate," or the spread of Islamic law, Mr. Farah said. "That's what the documents show: This was a structured, organized movement here."

The Muslim Brotherhood is the parent organization of Hamas, formed in 1987 in the Palestinian territories to combat Israeli occupation. The Brotherhood remains active in many parts of the world, dedicated to increasing fundamentalist Islamic influence. A key goal is to place nations under Shariah.

Shariah is a Muslim system of rules and laws based on the Quran that govern all aspects of life, including food, dress and religious tithing, or zakat. In nations living under Shariah such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, there is little or no distinction between religion and state. In its most fundamental form, Shariah also mandates harsh criminal punishments, such as stonings and cutting off thieves' hands.

I once had a thought: what if Islam established a presence in 19th century America? Just think how much nightmare and chaos there would've been then. You'd have gangs worse than that of Frank and Jesse James turning up, and it'd take a good portion of the military to deal with them.

And lest we forget: CAIR is one of the unindicted co-conspirators on the list. It's time already to make that indicted and order them to turn up for trial.

Read also this important item at the Jamestown Foundation and another one at The American Thinker.

NEWSWEEK MAKES YET ANOTHER STAB AT LIBERAL CREDIBILITY, REGURGITATES MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD REFORM MEME

This is how overeager faux sophistication filters downward through self-consciously bourgie cocktail parties, until it hardens into conventional wisdom. Allahpundit calls it "disgraceful from beginning to end", which are strong words coming from the center-right's most measured blogger.

This began with that absurd Foreign Affairs article that tried to outweigh the MB's overwhelming and fundamental commitment to sharia with half-uttered suggestions that maybe some time in the future the MB might be less genocidal (also: they love kids!) The fact that it's appearing in a popular news magazine instead of an elite foreign policy journal doesn't make the argument any less stupid. Or any less execrable.

Bonus question: Is the reapproachment between the MB and the American realist-Democratic camp being driven by media coverage of MB reform? Or are partisans in think tanks and newsrooms making excuses for policies that are being informally floated by realists and Democrats?

[Cross-posted to Mere Rhetoric]