Zineb el-Rhazoui: “Islamic Law is the Territory of War and of Jihad”

Last fall we featured an interview with Zineb el-Rhazoui, a young French writer who was born in Morocco. She left Islam at an early age, and is now a secular atheist. In January 2015 Ms. El-Rhazoui was working for the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo at the time of the jihad massacre. However, she was not present at the editorial meeting targeted by the attackers, and so escaped the slaughter.

In the following video, Ms. el-Rhazoui talks about her new book, the terrorist attacks in Paris, and the Islamization of France.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:00   I think that, in fact,
00:04   I wouldn’t be able do write a book about January 7th [Charlie Hebdo massacre]
00:08   right away. There are things,
00:12   after a cataclysm like the attacks, there are
00:16   things that you want to freeze, that you want to inscribe
00:20   somewhere, so they would remain,
00:27   so the individual memory,
00:31   it can wish to become resilient in order to heal,
00:35   but the collective memory, it has to record
00:39   similar tragedies,
00:43   because it’s important, if you want avoid for them to happen again.
00:47   I chose to start the preface of my book, by the way,
00:51   with verse 29 of the sura of At-Tawba [the Repentance]. This is one of the
00:55   most controversial verses of the Quranic text, because
00:59   of the verses that are calling to jihad
01:03   are plenty — contrary to
01:07   what Islamic chanters pretend: Islam is religion of peace,
01:11   of love, eternally and for all the ages it is the victim of
01:15   problems of interpretation to which
01:19   one cannot find a solution — in reality, Quranic verses are extremely
01:23   clear concerning jihad towards
01:27   kuffar, the infidels,
01:31   the non-believers, pagans, I don’t know what to call them.
01:35   In reality everything that isn’t Muslim
01:39   can be a potential target of jihad.
01:43   And besides, in Islam the world
01:48   is composed of two territorial entities: Dar al-Harb,
01:52   the House of War, and Dar al-Islam, the House of Islam.
01:56   All that hasn’t submitted to Islam — Islam by the way which
02:00   etymologically means submission — all that hasn’t submitted to
02:04   the Islamic Law is the territory of war and of jihad.
02:08   And it’s not I who pretends that, it’s in the Quran, it’s in the Quranic text.
02:12   And it’s important to bring it up,
02:16   because one can talk about the tragedy of terrorism, the tragedy of
02:20   November 13th [Bataclan, Paris], one can talk about the profile of terrorists,
02:24   one can talk about the geopolitical complexity
02:28   of the world, one can talk about the Syrian war, one can talk about French foreign policy,
02:32   talk about the Iraq war, about the USA, whatever!
02:36   But in reality there is something with a constant dimension that transcends
02:40   all that, and which besides predates the geopolitical
02:44   context of today: it’s the dimension of jihad.
02:48   And it’s important to bring it up, as reminder also
02:52   to those who say: careful, Islam is a religion of peace and love.
02:56   One of the testimonies that
03:00   Touched me most in that book, even though
03:04   it wasn’t the most
03:08   violent, on the factual level,
03:12   but which touched me enormously on the affective level,
03:16   is the [testimony] of Patrick Pelloux.
03:20   Why? Because he’s a victim of January 7th.
03:24   He was, as the emergency doctor,
03:28   the first to arrive at the premises
03:32   to establish the death, in fact, of his friends
03:37   when he arrived at the premises of the attack on Charlie Hebdo
03:41   in the editorial room. Usually he came to joke with his pals,
03:45   to have the publication meeting; that day he arrived in a room
03:49   of carnage, and it still smelled of gunpowder
03:53   from the bullets of Kouachi brothers, who had left
03:57   a couple of minute earlier. In fact his testimony touched me
04:01   because, because he knew
04:05   how to put in words something I was feeling, meaning
04:09   still, well,
04:13   again, one cannot escape it, voilà, one
04:17   reaches the bottom and sinks even deeper, in fact. After all we lived through
04:21   on January 7th, well, we had again much more violent attacks,
04:25   much more bloody ones, it’s almost a routine.
04:29   Voilà. It is, [a routine] rightly so, in my opinion,
04:33   already in the idea of
04:37   lasting quality, in fact, of all that we are living
04:41   in the durability, in fact, of this phenomenon
04:45   that touches us, which is the phenomenon of
04:49   terrorism that is blind and completely arbitrary.
04:53   And I know that it
04:57   won’t stop. I know it won’t stop. And it won’t even stop with the
05:01   vanishing of the Islamic State. Because the worm is in the fruit.
05:05   This ideology is more widespread than people think;
05:09   it has caused more brain damage than people think,
05:13   and if there are such violent actions, like the ones we saw
05:17   at Charlie Hebdo or November 13th [Paris, Bataclan], it’s because
05:21   there is an ideological assembly line for this terrorism.
05:25   Finally, taking action is only a symptom,
05:29   certainly a violent one, of something
05:33   that is more widespread, more pernicious,
05:38   which also has levels, levels.
05:42   And the characteristic of the Islamic ideology
05:46   has always been to have one armed hand
05:50   invisible, secretive, violent, but also
05:54   a show window, a facade towards the street,
05:58   that is expressing itself in the society, that is, of course, condemning the terrorism
06:02   (how could you NOT condemn it?!). We have, however —
06:06   we need you, however, to condemn verse 29 of
06:10   the sura of At-Tawba, which I put at the beginning of my preface,
06:14   rather than condemn your texts that are calling for committing those massacres,
06:18   rather than you continue to perpetually absolve your texts:
06:22   careful, interpretation, Islam — religion of peace and love!
06:26   Bottom line: Islam is a religion of peace and love, so we found a solution
06:30   for world peace. We should all convert, and
06:34   it’s a religion that has been the victim of a problem of interpretation!
06:38   And today in France, even the leftist do-gooders
06:42   adopt this version of events and they think we are stupid, in fact.
06:46   If I had a message for the victims of terrorism,
06:50   the blood of victims, the blood of the dead of the wounded
06:54   shouldn’t be spilled in vain.
06:58   The terrorists shouldn’t win. They shouldn’t impose their rules
07:02   through their weapons. This is what I want to tell the victims.
07:06   I was very saddened
07:10   when I found out that when we wanted to
07:14   gather testimonies for this book, many people refused to talk,
07:18   not because they weren’t ready to talk for psychological reasons,
07:22   not because they were traumatized, but because they were afraid
07:27   of reprisals. I think that we who talk should be
07:31   more and more numerous, more and more
07:35   numerous to say what we think,
07:39   more and more numerous to denounce terrorism, to show that in reality
07:43   we won’t let it win. What is the characteristic of terrorism?
07:47   It’s to create a concrete number of victims, but to terrorise,
07:51   shut down and scare a much larger number of people.

3 thoughts on “Zineb el-Rhazoui: “Islamic Law is the Territory of War and of Jihad”

  1. Our “authorities” are useless: their main ‘job’ consists of taking post-atrocity (NOT ‘TRAGEDY’–NEVER “TRAGEDY”) photographs and drawing chalk outlines on the sidewalks.
    “Cleanup squads”, if you will.
    The ONLY way I can conceive of solving the muslim atrocity problem is by use of what I carry on my hip. Namely a 3″ S&W revolver in .357 caliber. Yeah–arming (or rather letting them ARM THEMSELVES) the potential victims is the only way. Can you recall an atrocity where the perpetrator was NOT at least on the “radar” of the “authorities” of some sort?
    They were “known”.
    What good is that?
    Oh well, I have six (enemy) lives in the gun, plus another dozen or so in my pockets if it comes to that. If I am not the very first targeted by an attack………………………

    Too bad nobody in EUrope or our big cities trusts people to act in their own defense.
    WHY in the name of all that is Holy was NOBODY at that meeting armed and able to shoot back?

    • In fact, the primary reason for not allowing Europeans to arm themselves is so they will have no way to individually protect themselves from organized street violence. It’s not a matter of misdirected policy. It’s a known feature of the policy.

      The real work is in convincing the people themselves they have a right to protect themselves. Any politician who gets ahead of the people will himself get cut off by the political establishment. Trying to establish the right of the people to bear arms before they are convinced they have the right to protect themselves, is like trying to convince hospitals to maintain a sterile environment before they are persuaded of the existence of bacteria.

Comments are closed.