Share |

Sunday 18 July 2010

Grenoble Riots: Street Jihad?

Friday night bore witness to rioting in the French city of Grenoble, where Muslim ‘youths’ torched cars and shot at the police. It is also reported that the following night also witnessed unrest. The death of the armed robber Karim Boudoudha in a gun battle with the police 24 hours earlier served as the catalyst for the violence. His unknown accomplice in the robbery of the Uriage-les-Bains casino escaped with more than 20,000 euros. Boudoudha was no innocent, having received three previous convictions for armed robbery, and yet certain elements within Grenoble’s young Muslim population appear to have regarded him as some sort of hero and thus decided to go on the rampage in a petulant display of anger with the French authorities.

Grenoble residents therefore had to suffer as dozens of cars were torched and the sound of unrest filled the night air as an armed mob roamed the city, shooting at the police and threatening members of the public. It is reported that a tram was held up in the city’s Villeneuve district and its passengers forced to disembark by a mob of 30 carrying baseball bats and iron bars. Two men have been arrested.

Video Footage of Grenoble Riots

In general, mainstream reporting of the event has not focused upon the obvious Islamic aspect of this unrest, but has instead deployed the standard narrative of this being a product of socio-economic deprivation and referring to its perpetrators simply as ‘youths’. Although one expects this sort of approach from the BBC which strenuously seeks to avoid mention of Islam if at all possible when reporting such matters, even the Daily Telegraph employs this approach in this instance:
These high-rise neighbourhoods, built in the 1950s and 1960s to house a growing population of industrial workers and immigrants, have become near-ghettos where unemployment is high, public services are poor, and resentment boils.
During the 2005 riots, some 300 buildings and 10,000 cars were burned, while 130 police and rioters were hurt. Since then, unrest has flared often after residents have run ins with the police.
Police and government officials have a lingering fear that the poor suburbs could explode again because the underlying causes – high unemployment, few opportunities, drug trafficking and a sense of exclusion from society – have changed little.
Police unions have raised concerns about a rise in violent crime spurred by the recession and a resurgence of drug trafficking in some areas.
The Telegraph avoids mentioning the faith background of the perpetrators and their ethnicity, but the people conducting this violence, as everyone knows, are not French ‘youths’: they are Muslim immigrants or those descended from the Muslim immigrant population. It is probable that this outburst of violence in Grenoble was also a sign of discontent connected to the National Assembly’s decision this week to ban various types of Islamic veil such as the burqa and niqab, but we won’t see mainstream media outlets joining the dots to reveal an all-too apparent and obvious picture of seething Islamist resentment in France.

Prior to Nicolas Sarkozy’s election as President, many amongst the French electorate had been given the impression that he would deal with such rioters in a suitably condign fashion, having referred to those who participated in the 2005 riots as “canailles” and “racailles”, but he has not. Moreover, he has shown considerable accommodation towards Islam, which is not something that ordinary French voters would desire, particularly those who have the misfortune to live cheek by jowl with Muslim populations.

As in the UK, the French mass media is predisposed towards citing “socio-economic” causative factors for such violence, mistakenly attributing it to relative economic deprivation and ‘racism’. However, only a certain type of youthful malcontent is prone towards such wanton acts of hatred and destruction: the doctrinaire Muslim male. The roots of this violence are ideological, and the only effective way in which it can be prevented is through removing an ideology which commands its adherents to look upon all non-adherents as innately inferior.

When resident in a non-Muslim majority society, the doctrinaire Muslim male looks around himself and thinks not only that he is superior, but also that it is his divinely ordained duty to lord it over the kuffar. It is felt to be his ‘duty’ to use any means necessary to either change that society so that it conforms to his ideology, or to physically attack it and its symbols should its people refuse to submit. This latter course of action is only undertaken once a critical demographic mass has been reached so that there is a secure and supportive Islamic refuge out of which such people can operate. That threshold has now been reached in France.

There is no positive connection between the host society and the doctrinaire Muslim population, for the latter exists within the former as a parasite, drawing economic sustenance from the wider society and weakening its vitality and ability to resist. Although I will not be popular with mainstream opinion for choosing to characterise the problem of Islamisation in a metaphorical manner that in a bygone age would have been non-contentious, it is appropriate to treat it as an infection of the body politic of the host society. The bearers and replicators of the lethal virus (those who embody and propagate its meme-complex – doctrinaire Muslims) need to be either rendered harmless through apostasy/conversion or removed to return the societal body to a state of normalcy and health. At best, our mainstream politicians seek to administer palliative care to the patient, and thus seek to provide society with anodynes such as banning veils and minarets, which although dealing with some of the external symptoms of Islamisation, allow the virus to rage unchecked and grow stronger.

Geert Wilders is the only ‘doctor’ to have diagnosed the cure for the ailing patients of Europe: a purging of the body politic from doctrinaire Islam and establishing a cordon sanitaire to prevent further infection. I hope that France is not beset by further violence, and that her politicians finally face up to the task of confronting Islamisation head-on, for anything less is a betrayal of the French people. Vive la France!


  1. Hello Durotrigan,

    I thank you for your link to this post on Grenoble - it is vastly superior to the French reports that, as you point out, are only concerned with "whitewashing" - pardon the racial reference. I accidentally rejected your comment because I was using my iphone - a dangerous practice, but I had a copy of the message in my gmail account, so I posted it. I will also link to this article in a report I'm working on now (provided I stay awake). Glad to have discovered your site.

  2. Wonderful detail. I read your comment about what the police did to the members of the EDL. It made my blood boil.
    Wonderful taste in background for your blog, too....great minds and all that!

  3. It has become a fashion to relate EVERY SINGLE act of a Muslim with Islam. First of all, regarding your ridiculous statement about the duty of male Muslim to enforce his ideology upon others: there is NO compulsion on non-Muslims to accept Islam hence you cannot force them to do so by ANY means. "Your religion to you, and my religion to me". A verse from the Quran as a proof to your ridiculous claim there. As for these so called Muslims, you don't become a true follower by calling yourself a Muslim, or offering a couple of prayers here and there. Secondly, I am a Muslim, I live in this area where the riots took place and I strongly condemn these inhumane acts. You so proudly link this with the religion not providing a single proof whether these youngsters were religious at all. Because if they followed what truly Islam teaches then they would never have dared conduct robbery, do riots, and upset the peace of a community. Islam is no different than any other religion on this earth when it comes to peace. The socio economic problems are not a pretext but a reality. Now by saying that, I in no way defend the acts of these individuals because you fight for your rights in a civilized way by acquiring education and then conveying your message and not by acting like animals. I think its about time that people like you stop accusing a religion for what the individuals do just because they happened to be born as the so-called followers of that religion.

  4. A.N., thank you for your comment. I am in no doubt whatsoever that there are many innately good decent people who see themselves as Muslim, but I cannot concur that their goodness flows from the doctrine of Islam. Tell me what there is of any worth within Islam that cannot be found in any other religion or secular system of belief. I can certainly point to much in the Qur’an that is vile and indeed violent, but I can point to nothing of value that is not found elsewhere. You know as well as I that your holy book commands that people such as myself – atheists – should be killed (I call that murder by the way), so please don’t play the innocent and pretend that you are unaware of such core tenets of doctrine. Then again, you may not be. After all, Ibn Warraq the famous apostate thought that the religion he was brought up with was innately good until he actually read the Qur’an and was so revolted by its contents that at great risk to his personal safety he rejected Islam.

    Across the planet there are many millions of people who are trapped within Islam – nominal Muslims – because they are unable to leave for fear of great violence being done to them. You know that many are killed for attempting to do so. Such people are victims, and I view them with pity. They need help to escape. This is not a question of race, it’s a question of ideology.

    If you are what I term a doctrinaire Muslim (i.e. you believe in the veracity of the revelation of the Qur’an) then you ought to leave France and set up home in a predominantly Muslim state. Our ways of life and modes of thought just don’t mix in a positive fashion. I don’t want to live in Pakistan, Algeria or Saudi Arabia, and I’m not going to impose myself on those countries. If you want to live in France, give up your religion and take up something more worthwhile instead. Stamp collecting is rather less harmful.

  5. Thanks for linking Tiberge. I enjoy your site for its perspective on events in France.

    Mobiles and kindred devices can be somewhat infernal machines, for many is the time that I've pressed the wrong button and sent a half-mangled message to the wrong person. I'm guessing that your iphone is a pretty smart, but alas, the technology is never smarter then we fallible users.

  6. Hello Judith. Thanks for dropping in. I love your recent blog posting and the style in which its written: witty, pithy and beautiful. Could this apply to yourself I wonder?

  7. I have already proved one of your statements false. And I shall correct you further. To be honest, I feel sorry for people like you who have closed themselves in a mindset that sees nothing beyond hate against Muslims. I don’t think I need to convince anyone about what Islam offers that other religions don’t as everyone is wise enough to make their choice but I would like to correct your misunderstandings (?) or a typical “saying what I hear” behavior. As I said before, nowhere does Qur’an order to forcefully convert anyone to Islam. On the other hand it says: “Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord, with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious!” [Al-Qur’an 16:125]. And “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error” [Al-Qur’an 2:256]

    What does the story of Ibn Warraq prove? One person out of a billion rejecting it proves nothing. It’s his choice, so he’s done it. However, I can quote you hundreds of non-Muslims who convert to Islam every year after reading Qur’an. As for you referring to Qur’an as teaching violence, I see very well what you are pointing at as I have encountered countless of non-Muslims like you who have taken things out of context (whether on purpose or not, I don’t know). Qur’an nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE, orders indiscriminate killing of be they Christians, Jews, Atheists or anyone else – On the other hand it says “Killing an innocent human being, is like killing the whole of humanity and saving one is like saving the whole of humanity”.

    Nonetheless, Muslims are ordered to stand up for themselves in a defensive battle. If you are attacked then you are to respond to that aggressor until the aggression is stopped. Verses that speak in regards to battle are in the defensive context. However, many non-Muslims have taken it out of context. One of the stories that is cited is that of atheists attacking Muslims at that particular point in time and Muslims being ordered to defend themselves, if they kill you, you can kill them in defense. The order was given not because the other side was atheist but because they started killing Muslims. Now could you please enlighten me, where doesn’t this happen in the 21st century, in any other religion or any secular society? One does whatever one can to defend him/her self. It was in a defensive background. Now, I cannot fully blame you either for taking it out of context as there are some misguided Muslims as well who have deliberately taken it out of the framework to serve their political purposes or justify their aggressive stand. Any verse taken out of context misses the whole of point of the message.

    However, I can cite you Bible which orders to kill Non-believers (in Deuteronomy 17). Bush, an ardent Christian, who used Biblical verses in his speeches while declaring war on Iraq terming it as a command from God. He killed millions of innocent Muslims and got away with that. I don’t see anyone pointing finger at Christianity? I don’t see anyone pointing finger at Bush? Double standards I believe?

    For your information, I have friends who have turned atheists and believe me no one has even touched them for doing so. Those who don’t follow the religion because they don’t bother to read what it says are also free. They are free individuals and they may do as they please.

    Thanks but no thanks. I am sorry but I see your mentality no different than those extremists of every ideology/religion who cannot tolerate a different belief than their own. The way likes of you have started naming Islam is quite funny to be honest. Yes I believe in my religion and I believe in Qur’an but guess what! I don’t impose myself on anyone. Why? Because “Your religion to you, and my religion to me”!

  8. Durotrigan, I am very impressed with your ability to express the key facts simplistically. You are a very intelligent person with a great understanding of the core issues. Genius !

  9. A.N. where (which country) do these "turned atheist" friends of yours reside ?

  10. Mr/Miss Curious, you are right to be curious as people often think that a person in a Muslim country can not believe in any other faith other than Islam. 2 of my friends including one of my uncles who is an atheist reside in Pakistan, 1 resides in Syria and one resides in the US. Everyone has his/her own perspective and they have the right to object and ask questions to what they don't feel convinced about. I am not a blind follower either. I myself have done and still do that.:)

  11. A/N : as with all these dreary tropes about Islam (what constitutes an "innocent", clearly a knock-off from the Talmud as anyone who has watched Schindler's List could tell you, etc.), the question is always who are you trying to convince ? I'm sure none of the infidels on this site could care less about your cod theology.

    I tell you what, by all account Bin Laden's sidekick Ayman Al-Zawahiri is a very clever fellow and his zubeeba speaks of his piety. Why don't you go and convince him that he has got Islam arse about face, then you can come back and tell us all about it.


  12. ONLY if you cared reading my post, you would have noticed that I don't give an ounce of importance or attention to what your or anyone else's belief is. The writer of this blog made an unjustified statement and so I corrected him. He made more bogus statements, hence my response. As far as extremists such as Laden or Zawahiri are concerned, they are nothing more than a stain on this religion because it is due to people like them that a common Muslim like me faces baseless criticism from people who just love to take shots at others. When you try to malign some one's faith then don't expect the other side to quietly accept every nonsense. However, incase you have failed to notice, its Mr.Durotrigan who's trying to make me give up my faith. But why am I not surprised, its a typical behavior of attacking Muslims while ignoring what your think-alikes are saying.

  13. A.N., my perspective and comments are far from unjustified. As for me attempting to compel you to give up your faith, I said nothing of the sort. I 'invited' (to borrow your term) you to give it up if you wish to continue living in a non-Muslim majority state. Our worldviews don't mix. If you choose to adhere to your belief in the divine message of the Qur'an, go home to Pakistan and leave the French and the rest of us in peace. I’d also be delighted if you could persuade several hundred thousand of your co-religionist compatriots in the UK to take the same one-way trip. We're not interested in da'wah.

    Incidentally, whilst we're on the subject of 'unjustified' assertions, why have you brought Bush and the Iraq War into the equation? Nowhere in the tens of thousands of words I have written on this blog will you find one single statement from me condoning either that war or the war in Afghanistan. I have called for an end to these wars and I see them as pointless. I call for a divorce between incompatible viewpoints and cultures, between Islam and the rest, not for war. You claim that I'm full of hate, yet you will find no advocacy of violence from me on this blog.

  14. A/N:

    you say Al Zawahiri is an extremist, but you don't deny he is a "good" muslim, and I am sure he knows more about the witless paraphernalia of Islam. I repeat, convince him of the error of his ways.

    As for maligning your "faith, go back to your stone age villages and no-one will ever give you a second thought.


  15. The rioters are not so much pro-Muslim as they are anti-French, anti-European, anti-white. The ongoing conflict has ethnic and racial grounds. Religion is secondary. Wilders is wrong in his thinking that combatting Islam will solve the problem. The troubles in Northern Ireland were not about the nature of Protestantism and Catholicism, they were about a strife between two populations with different historical backgrounds, identities and grievances.

  16. Edster:
    Dude, are you serious? I am laughing my head off here! Since when did “extremist” = “a good human being”. But if its still not clear to you then here you go: No religious extremist (be it a Muslim, Christian, Jew or anyone else) can be a “good” human being if he/she hurts another human. And yes, incase you’ve missed again I am counting in Zawahiri, Bin Laden and all their followers.
    But I am surprised how you guys so conveniently choose to ignore the destruction caused by your people, your leaders in our countries which is 1000 times worse than what you claim about every Muslim doing to you. When your leaders bomb our stone age villages, when they indiscriminately kill millions of innocent men, women and children for their greed then believe me I find ourselves far better in our thinking because atleast we do not generalize.

  17. I have proved your claims false. If you think you are right then justify your claims (lets say your assertion about every "male Muslim's ‘duty’ to use any means necessary to either change that society so that it conforms to his ideology, or to physically attack it and its symbols should its people refuse to submit"....?) The problem is you think you know everything about Islam where as the truth is that you don’t.
    What kind of logic is that you give up your faith if you are living in a country that follows a different faith?! You call that an “invitation” to give up my faith? Its not called an invitation, its called setting a “condition” (let me remind you what you said: "If you want to live in France, give up your religion and take up something more worthwhile instead. Stamp collecting is rather less harmful.") Not only is this an arrogant tone but also an insulting one. Where has your secular belief gone now? I am astonished how people are quick to point finger at other communities for the lack of freedom of expression but brush it under the carpet when it comes to their interest. Double standards again! So much for your free thinking there. And ofcourse, with a thinking like yours, I am not surprised that your views don’t mix positively with people like me but fortunately, not everyone here is like that. Some are open minded (fortunately), many are innocent, and naive while others are just plain intolerant. I leave it up to you to decide which category fits you best.

    The way you are defending yourself for your viewpoint against violence is just a demo to you for the way an innocent Muslim is perceived at on daily basis. The blame goes to those extremists, so called Muslims who have ruined the image and message of Islam, it goes to the western media and political leaders who, for their own political purposes, have deliberately made Islam and every Muslim look like monsters and it also goes to people like you who love to point finger at Muslims but don’t bother to know whether what you are saying holds any truth at all.

    I brought Bush and Iraq war in to the discussion to show you the hypocrisy and double standards of the so called liberal, and open minded people. I mentioned him in relation to his references about Christianity while declaring war. But I do not view every Christian with a “Bush lens” on. My best friend is a Catholic, a strong believer of Christianity, but I do not generalize and start insulting her for what Bush has done. As long as she as a person behaves in a civilized manner I couldn’t care less about why she follows a particular religion.

    Now lets get back to your article and the typical connection you have made there between Islam and violence: my only point is, you have misunderstanding about Islam because you have not only misinterpreted things and taken them out of context but you also relate every single act of any Muslim to his religion. Those who cause trouble in the name of religion are wrong as well as those who do it for their personal motives. Bottom line: please avoid generalization and seek the truth before you make any claim.

  18. I don't usually blog, but I will comment here.
    I have come to regard Islamics and Muslims as militants as this is how they predominantly conduct themselves. I don't see or hear other professed non-violent Muslims of Islamics doing much of anything to stop it, or at least condemn it, beyond a few quiet individuals comments.
    Therefore, I wonder if they do not speak out because it may be true that they cannot do so out of fear, the very fear spoken of here, that violence will be visited upon them for doing so. That they do not speak out more openly and more often seems to verify this.
    I am reminded of the saying, "All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men (and women) do do nothing."
    Also, I cannot condone any 'religion' wherein it's males believe they have a right to kill their females for 'straying'.
    Unless and until the 'professed non-violent' Islamics and Muslims, begin more openly and loudly to condemn, AND bring to justice, those of their faith who condone and commit this violence, then society has the right to act in accordance with it's laws to protect the population against it.

  19. I am confused where A/N stands. (?) He/she does not seem to be doing a good job expressing his/her views.
    Also A/N sounds very angry and on the verge of militant him/herself, thereby verifying the viewpoint of this blogsite.

  20. Hi Anonymous. I think that we’re at one on our view of doctrinaire Muslims. You’ve also appositely quoted Edmund Burke and the facilitating role of the indifference and/or inaction of decent people when confronted with evil. I know that there are many nominal Muslims in the UK and elsewhere who are decent people, but they are shackled both by a residual loyalty to their religious identity and by the real threats to personal security that would be brought to bear upon them and their relatives were they to speak out. Through not speaking out they facilitate the spread of Islamic ideology and practice. We in non-Muslim majority states therefore have the moral right to prevent all further Muslim immigration as well as a duty to ourselves and to our descendents to preserve our liberties and birthright.

    Admittedly, A.N. is a bit tetchy, and I cannot be bothered replying to his most recent comments and won’t reply to any others that he posts. He’s writing on here out of his duty to perform da’wah and I’m not interested. Just as a dog cannot help but bark, a doctrinaire Muslim cannot help but perform da’wah, and I have grown exceptionally wearisome of this rabid canine religious yelping. I don’t believe in religious revelation full stop, so don’t see any benefit to be gained from arguing about the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead or why someone thinks that the Qur’an is a divine revelation for humanity. If someone does genuinely believe that, then they’re an anti-rationalist nutjob. I know that the Qur’an is a repellent book and that the man who claimed to bring this ‘message’ to humanity was an utterly execrable example of a human being. There’s nothing positive about Islam. A.N. could expunge himself of anger and hate if he embraced Bahai’ism, Sikhism or a non-literalist Christianity, but I don’t think that he’ll do so.

  21. A.N. I'm sorry you've had to defend yourself to these chumps with unsubstantiated opinions


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.