eXc: Nous aimons la liberté, l'état de droit, l'héritage des Lumières, la séparation de l'église et de l'état, l'humour. Nous n'aimons pas le fascisme, le communisme, l'antiaméricanisme, l'antisémitisme, le racisme, la bureaucratie, les totalitarismes. Nous estimons que le plus grave danger que courent les démocraties libérales est de céder à l'islamofascisme. Lire plus

Robert Redeker: English translation

Posté le jeudi 28 septembre 2006 par Sittingbull

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 frre World.

Sittingbull @ 20:33
Catégorie(s): LIBERTÉS etPosts in English etTranslations eXclusive to eXC


Laisser un commentaire


78 réponses à “Robert Redeker: English translation”

  • 28
    bissexuel Meuf:

    Encοre un poste réellement fascinant

  • 27
    JFM:

    Art13. Moi je crois plutot qu’Eisntein et moi on regrette l-antisionime qui est le pire des nazismes. Le panarabisme et son frère jumeau l’islamisme massacrent et violent les Noirs par centaines de milliers, gazent les Kurdes, uent des milliers de Berbères et vous osez, vous osez parler de « pire des fascismes? » De toutes les causes dans le monde vous prenez parti pourb ceux qui sont traités avec le plus de mansétude par leurs ennemis, pour ceux qui sont les mieux nourris, pour les seuls qui essaient de mettre des bombes dans les maternités et les seuls qui veulment finir kle travail de Hiotmer. On vous venir monsieur le Nazillon.

  • 26
    unique bearded dragon:

    Genuinely when someone doesn’t be aware of then its up to other visitors that they will help, so here it occurs.

  • 25
    Robert Redeker om pseudo-elitens antirasistiske dobbeltparodi — FrittForum.info:

    […] i sitt eget land, etter at han i September 2006, skrev en kronikk i avisa Le Figaro, med tittelen Hva skal den frie verden gjøre stilt overfor islamistenes intimidasjon, som da var kritisk til […]

  • 24
    Annika:

    Ubersetzung: Are you insinuating that Redeker’s work was inaccurately translated? If it were the case, don’t you think he would have spoken up publicly to assuage vile and viciousness? It would have being easier than facing a fatwa, losing his job, moving to a secret location… etc.

    Europeans should find inspiration rather than suspicion from Redeker’s words; for you need many Redekers to claw yourselves out of the graves you’ve dug. The strength of one’s own convictions shouldn’t be so difficult to comprehend. “To thyself be true”

    Excerpt: Within a day after publication, the piece was being condemned on al Jazeera by the popular on-air preacher (and unofficial voice of Osama bin Laden) Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi. In Egypt and Tunisia, the offending issue of Le Figaro was banned. As for Redeker himself, he soon received a large number of threats by letter and e-mail. On an Islamist website, he was sentenced to death in a posting that, in order to facilitate a potential assassin’s task, also provided his address and a photograph of his home. Fearful for himself and his family, Redeker sought protection from the local police, who transferred the case to the national counter-espionage authorities. On their advice, Redeker, his wife, and three children fled their home and took shelter in a secret location. Since then, they have moved from city to city, at their own expense, under police protection. Another teacher has been appointed by the French Ministry of Education to replace Redeker, who will probably never see his students again. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-redeker-affair/

  • 23
    Übersetzung:

    Many authors have written that their books and articles were of no meaning when someone tried to auto translate them and read them. Sometimes the meaning was exactly the opposite of what they had to convey. Translation does not only require knowing meaning of words, but it also involves knowing the technicalities involved in different languages.

  • 22
    Michelle Malkin » The forbidden op-eds:

    […] Redeker’s full piece (via Paul Belien, Extreme Center, and others; thanks also to Fausta, vigilantly blogging the […]

  • 21
    Robert Redeker og ondskaben « Snaphanen:

    […] Men det er ikke den sidste form for totalitarisme.Der vil komme andre. Ondskaben forsvinder ikke .“.Vi kan bekæmpe islamismen , ikke ondskaben, Kristeligt Dagblad | 13.10.2010 (Ikke online) REdekers Figaro kronik oversat: “What should the free world do while facing Islamist intimidation?” […]

  • 20
    Manden der ville dræbe Robert Redeker « Snaphanen:

    […] en krypteret hjemmside opfordrede andre terrorister til at myrde Robert Redeker i 2006 efter dennes islam kritiske artikel i le Figaro i september samme år. Al Balawis anvisninger for drabet var yderst detaljeret med billeder af […]

  • 19
    art13:

    Il y a 30 ans, je regardais « Exodus », emerveillé, j’apprenais par coeur Hava Naguilla.. les temps on changés, Einstein et moi regrettons le sionisme qui est le pire des fascismes..
    Voilà.

  • 18
    Dror:

    […] W przedwczorajszym “The Timesie” (dotarłem po zajawce z “Rzeczpospolitej”) znaleźć można mocny kawałek poświęcony pewnemu francuskiemu filozofowi o niespotykanej wśród galijskich intelektualistów skłonności do pisania prawdy. Myśliciel ów, Robert Redeker ośmielił się napisać artykuł, w którym nazwał Koran księgą pełną przemocy oraz stwierdził, iż islam pochwala przemoc i nienawiść. […]

    Merci : pas besoin de plombier en ce moment.

  • 17
    M S Sheikh:

    Hi Cataloun,

    You seem to have lost your voice? Don’t worry you will get well soon in fact as soon as you are talking to people who agree with you. It is sad that a seemingly intelligent and educated person is taking refuge in such a childish way.

  • 16
    Cataloun:

    A mon avis il perd ses boulons le Sheikh Blanc. Il explique à Ataulfo ce qu’Ataulfo pense maintenant. Et en gras encore. En pleine Palladiotie aigûe.

    Ooops sorry, Sittingbull, couldn’t help it. Won’t happen again.

  • 15
    M S Sheikh:

    Hi Ataulfo,

    « I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed. »

    Let us be clear about what you are saying here.

    You believe that although the professor’s views are repugnant you still accept his right to freedom of speech.

    You also believe that Danish cartoons are OK. You are not ready to condemn the cartoons and the vilification of Islam and its prophet by the pope as even repugnant.

    The above shows that you believe in absolute freedom of speech.

    You condemn attack on the professor by individuals but it appears that you have nothing to say about the punishment given to him by the courts of law.

    Am I right?

    “I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”

    Here you are against the legislation of truth and falseness but then you accept the “benefit” from the legislation of truth and falseness!

    Here you are for and against freedom of speech!

  • 14
    Ataulfo:

    « You cannot be against a law and in favour of it also. What you are saying is that if someone’s view are pleasant and according to your or a group of people’s taste or likes to which you belong or whom you favour then they fall within the realm of free speech otherwise everything else is outside the realm of free speech »

    Sheikh, if you are unable to understand plain English sentences, please tell us so we don’t waste our time.

    I repeat: I am in favour of freedom of speech; and Mr. Faurisson’s views are repugnant; AND they should not be forbidden; AND it is not the same to tell blatant lies in order to fuel antisemitism as making fun of Mohammed.

  • 13
    Ataulfo:

    « Crystal clear contradiction. What is the difference between falsness and spreading of lies? »

    1) these views are false and repugnant

    2) lies and repugnant views are not and should not be forbidden.

    No contradiction whatsoever. Comprende?

  • 12
    M S Sheikh:

    “This doesn’t mean that we have to continue the dialogue with someone who shares Mr. Faurisson’s mendacious, repugnant views.”

    I have read some of Faurisson’s arguments some of which I found ridiculous. I don’t mean to promote what he or any other person says about the Holocaust. My purpose for this discussion’s sake is not to go into what someone says and whether he is telling the truth or not but to put you people to test on your claim and belief in freedom of speech. What I am trying to argue with you people is that you cannot eat your cake and still have it. Either you are for restrictions on freedom of speech or not. Personally I am for restrictions.

    The thing to consider is whether it is true or not

    “It is not. It’s a deliberate, disgusting lie.”

    “Concerning the main point, you are trying to equate Muhammad’s drawings and revisionism. I am for total freedom of speech.”

    “Again, I am against these laws. But lying to demean Jews and spread antisemitism is not the same thing as drawing Muhammad.”

    “I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.”

    You cannot be against a law and in favour of it also. What you are saying is that if someone’s view are pleasant and according to your or a group of people’s taste or likes to which you belong or whom you favour then they fall within the realm of free speech otherwise everything else is outside the realm of free speech.

    “While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legalised….. we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies,”

    Crystal clear contradiction. What is the difference between falsness and spreading of lies?

    Cataloun:
    23 oct 06 à 15:51

    It is sad that you are again resorting to personal and childish attacks.

    “Mr. Seikh seems confused, as we have often seen here and elsewhere. Being for free speech does not mean we have to respect all manners of speech, especially the vile, repugnant venom spread by the likes of Faurisson and Irving.”

    What is your view about the Pope’s recent venom spreading address at a German university?

    1. Quod Erat Demonstrandum
    By providing a link to a known Holocaust-denying site, M S Sheikh is wittingly, or unwittingly putting this blog under a possible danger of criminal charge in many states.
    I personnally have no time to waste arguing with an however well-meaning indivudual, but still ignorant of the contradiction between giving any credit whatsoever to a site founded by a notorious racist, and associate of several Nazi-apologists, Right-wing nuts, Ku Klux Klan members, on the one hand , and on the other hand pretending to show known humanitarian
    issues of the past in a favourable perspective. Unless the said gentleman, through further research possibly, has acknowledged the mistake of confusing free speech with hate speech, free thought with free lunch,
    I’ll stop bothering him with my nitpicking.

    The purpose of providing the link with a bloody picture was to show you the price someone had to pay when he exercised the freedom of speech we are discussing and nothing else. Although I have the dubious luck of living in a country where the variety of freedom of speech is absolute, I would not use any material for grotesque purposes knowingly.

  • 11
    Ataulfo:

    Mr. Seikh seems confused, as we have often seen here and elsewhere. Being for free speech does not mean we have to respect all manners of speech, especially the vile, repugnant venom spread by the likes of Faurisson and Irving.

    On the other hand, as you rightly say, choosing these persons to make a point does say an awful lot about someone; especially if you call the Nazis free-thinkers (see below).

    I would like to raise another issue. While I don’t think truth and falseness should be legislated, we must not forget that what these laws punish is the spreading of lies, with the intention of fueling anti-semitism.

    It is as repulsive as free speech gets, short of promoting murder.

  • 10
    Cataloun:

    Ataulfo

    If the issue were Free Speech, M S Sheikh might have chosen one of hundreds of Ad Hoc illustrations.
    There are many cases in which Free Speech is ,to use his or her own wording, legally « stifled » in « Europe-America ».

    Protection of Privacy
    Medical Secrecy
    Defense classification
    Pornography
    Banking and Finance Information
    Copyright laws
    And what else

    All have something to do with Free Speech.

    No.

    He or she chose to reiterate the fallacious ( in my view ) equivalence
    of Holocaust-denial to the recent Redeker debate. In this he (or she ) might have been inspired by President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric.
    Maybe M S Sheikh is trying to develop his or her own program of civilian nuclear energy in his or her basement. In which case I hope he or she is following the manual carefully, or we’ll have a spectacular home hazard incident, probably followed by an unusually hilarious class-action suit.

    Unfortunately he or she also inserted a link to a site owned by the so-called CODOH, and did it to document one of his or her argument.
    That is coherent with the known tactics of CODOH, namely to use the issue of Free Speech as a bait to attract uninformed public to their extremely unpopular Holocaust-denying literature.

    It could be that M S Sheikh is him- or herself a victim of that very
    scheme and , just like a dismayed buyer of ineffective Internet-Viagra pills would , tries to peddle again his junk through the same channel.
    The safer is in my opinion to treat him or her as an unsavory form of spam.

  • 9
    Ataulfo:

    « Please note I have repeatedly tried to explain that it is the freedom of speech that is the issue not the Holocaust. If you cannot distinguish between the two then I am nay we are wasting our time »

    What’s your point, Sheikh?

    I told you repeatedly that I am against laws curtailing freedom of speech; of course, the people who attacked Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long long time.

    This doesn’t mean that we have to continue the dialogue with someone who shares Mr. Faurisson’s mendacious, repugnant views.

    « The thing to consider is whether it is true or not »

    It is not. It’s a deliberate, disgusting lie.

    Concerning the main point, you are trying to equate Muhammad’s drawings and revisionism. I am for total freedom of speech.

    Again, I am against these laws. But lying to demean Jews and spread antisemitism is not the same thing as drawing Muhammad.

  • 8
    M S Sheikh:

    Please note I have repeatedly tried to explain that it is the freedom of speech that is the issue not the Holocaust. If you cannot distinguish between the two then I am nay we are wasting our time.

    Whether a known Holocaust denying site says something or some other site does that is immaterial. The thing to consider is whether it is true or not. The professor was attacked because he used his right of free speech or in this case broke the law of the land by saying what he thought. And it is true that he was attacked for what he had said.

    As to « Please note the facts reported (if true), took place in 1989. Anyway, the people that beat Mr. Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long time (unlike Faurisson himself) »

    The time since does not matter. David Irving was tried and convicted in 2005/06 in Austria for his denial in 1989 although at the trial he said that he « Does not now believe in what he said in 1989 ».

  • 7
    Cataloun:

    Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    By providing a link to a known Holocaust-denying site, M S Sheikh is wittingly, or unwittingly putting this blog under a possible danger of criminal charge in many states.

    I personnally have no time to waste arguing with an however well-meaning indivudual, but still ignorant of the contradiction between giving any credit whatsoever to a site founded by a notorious racist, and associate of several Nazi-apologists, Right-wing nuts, Ku Klux Klan members, on the one hand , and on the other hand pretending to show known humanitarian
    issues of the past in a favourable perspective. Unless the said gentleman, through further research possibly, has acknowledged the mistake of confusing free speech with hate speech, free thought with free lunch,
    I’ll stop bothering him with my nitpicking.

  • 6
    Ataulfo:

    « I said, “… punished in the streets….”, after I came across the above link. It makes a very unpleasant reading, you would agree. Even if the Holocaust were, nothing but the whole truth, I am not for the use of argument of force with those who disagree.

    Please remember this site is about freedom of speech »

    Please note the facts reported (if true), took place in 1989. Anyway, the people that beat Mr. Faurisson deserve to be jailed for a long time (unlike Faurisson himself)

    Let’s just not forget that Faurisson is as close as just get to a Nazi in France today.

  • 5
    M S Sheikh:

    Robert Redeker: English translation
    Posté le Jeudi 28 septembre 2006
    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.

    I have pasted the above to refresh the memory of the readers of this discussion.

    « I haven’t heard anything about these guys being punished “in the streets”; they have sentenced in courts of law, even if the laws applied to their case are misguided. »

    http://www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909faur.html

    Hi Ataulfo & Cataloun,

    I said, “… punished in the streets….”, after I came across the above link. It makes a very unpleasant reading, you would agree. Even if the Holocaust were, nothing but the whole truth, I am not for the use of argument of force with those who disagree.

    Please remember this site is about freedom of speech.

    “I don’t think 1.6 billion human beings have even heard of Mr Redeker. I don’t see why such a large amount of individuals would feel the same about one fellow individual, meaning the aforementioned. Seems over the top.”

    Well, may be not 1.6 billion would you agree with a very large number? Does not that matter?

    “I think politics are no excuse to break the law in a mainly democratic state.”

    Many changes for the better happened when people broke the laws. End of apartheid in the USA and South Africa, women’s right to vote in western democracies and above all various independence movements owe their successes to breaking the laws.

  • 4
    Ataulfo:

    « they are punished in the street  »

    I haven’t heard anything about these guys being punished « in the streets »; they have sentenced in courts of law, even if the laws applied to their case are misguided.

    « in the street by extremists »

    David Irving and Robert Faurisson spread Nazi propaganda; on any given street, it is almost certain they will be the most extremist people around.

  • 3
    Letel:

    > he is made into a hero

    No, that is not true. You are twisting the facts. At the contrary, he was much criticized here in France. Most commentators were reluctant to support him, even his own unions where he works. You have here on this blog, in French, proof of that, see Bauberot’s article from Le Monde. See also the reader’s reactions on the right of the article, you will see that Redeker is in no way « made a hero ».

  • 2
    Cataloun:

    Hi M S Sheikh

    « You may have guessed by now that my mother tongue is not English therefore I am not familiar with many English language expressions that you have used.  »

    No I hadn’t. Your English looks excellent, if I may say so.
    Mine is largely self-taught. Native speakers have found it strange and funny, for whatever reason. One of which may be that I liked my teacher so much he was prone to leniency.

    « May I do that? »

    Good one.

    « When Robert Redeker uses abusive and improper language about Islam and its prophet, who is held in great esteem by 1.6 billion human beings, he is made into a hero « 

    I don’t think 1.6 billion human beings have even heard of Mr Redeker. I don’t see why such a large amount of individuals would feel the same about one fellow individual, meaning the aforementioned. Seems over the top.

    « when David Irving and professor Faurisson question some aspects of the Holocaust they are punished in the street by extremists and also through courts.

    I think politics are no excuse to break the law in a mainly democratic state.

    « What is your take on the above? »

    In many parts of the world, not only Europe and America, there is separation of Church and State. Hate speech is repressed, too, even if not the same way, for many legitimate reasons.

  • 1
    M S Sheikh:

    Hi Caltaloun,

    The whole thing is degenerating into a confusing discussion. Not your fault. You may have guessed by now that my mother tongue is not English therefore I am not familiar with many English language expressions that you have used. I therefore propose that we simplify things by defining the issue first and then discuss it. May I do that?

    Well the issue is freedom of speech and its application.

    When Robert Redeker uses abusive and improper language about Islam and its prophet, who is held in great esteem by 1.6 billion human beings, he is made into a hero but when David Irving and professor Faurisson question some aspects of the Holocaust they are punished in the street by extremists and also through courts. What is your take on the above?















  • '