Zineb el-Rhazoui: “Islam Has to Submit to French Republican Laws”

Zineb el-Rhazoui is a French writer, a former staff member of Charlie Hebdo, who was born in Morocco and apostatized from Islam in her youth. She escaped being killed during the jihad massacre of 2015 because she was visiting Morocco at the time of the attack.

In the following two clips from French television Ms. El-Rhazoui discusses two related issues: the way Islam is sugar-coated and falsely described even in “deradicalization” programs, and the fact that Islam is not permitted to be criticized and mocked the way other religious faiths are.

Many thanks to FreeZoxee for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video #1:

Video #2:

Video transcript #1:

00:00   Do you know what kind of content is served today by deradicalization centers?
00:04   Radicalized people are still being told that Islam is a religion of peace and love,
00:08   that there are no issues whatsoever and any criticism of the prophet is inappropriate!
00:11   How do you expect deradicalization to be effective that way? Those people have to be
00:14   confronted ideologically. They have to be told that the beliefs they hold are nonsensical.
00:18   That is not good; Islam has to submit to any form of criticism,
00:22   to humor, to the laws of the Republic and French legislation.
00:28   Countering that ideology will not be possible as long as people are told that it is
00:33   a religion of peace and love and terrorism is the only problem. Deradicalization centers
00:36   are surely a good thing, but the kind of content that is taught there is the central question…

Video transcript #2:

00:00   Absolutely, Pascale, I have lived under police protection for about four years.
00:04   It is not the first time that I have been the target of a defamation campaign
00:08   and even of a fatwa [religious decree] issued by Islamic scholars who want me dead.
00:11   All this because of things I have said which should normally be considered as innocuous,
00:15   things I said I in good faith on your show last Friday,
00:19   and that have now brought me nothing but death- and rape-threats, and talking about it,
00:23   I maintain and repeat what I have said vehemently:
00:26   Islam has to submit to French Republican laws,
00:30   to humor, to reason and to any form of criticism,
00:33   just like any other ideology, sect or religion.
00:38   There is no valid reason for Islam to be an exception, and by the way:
00:42   this hate campaign of which I am the victim proves me right,
00:49   and that drastic actions have to be taken immediately on this very matter.

11 thoughts on “Zineb el-Rhazoui: “Islam Has to Submit to French Republican Laws”

  1. Islam by and large comes from a tribal society where the law is what the tribal elder says it is, and loyalty is by blood. Bringing these people into a society where people are supposed to work through ethics and internal restraints is turning a child loose in an unsupervised candy store.

    There is no way the situation will get better through jawboning while they continue to admit tribal sociopaths who respond only to the threat of lethal punishment by tribal leaders. The “deradicalization” centers are useless: they change no minds and provide no enforcement muscle.

    • True.

      An excellent book to help expand on this is from Canadian muslim Irshad Manji.

      “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Wake-up Call for Honesty and Change”

      She gives a woman’s inside view of Islam and how it is practiced in Western countries ‘behind closed doors’.
      She shows how they keep each other submitted to the lies and how the tribal mindset and culture is based on incitement to anger and revenge.

      Highly recommended. She lives in hiding with a bullet proof car because of her bravery.


      • Irshad Manji is a self-promoter who has decided the better part of valor is to lay off any focus on Islam.

        Here is her current website. If you can find anything about Islam on her website, let me know.

        Manji’s main claim to fame is her concept of ijtihad, or renewal, in Islam. She claims Islam is subject to a reawakening which can result into its transformation into a benign faith. This concept is thoroughly debunked by Fjordman in a Gates of Vienna article.

        To my knowledge, Manji has never actually grappled with the fact that Islam not only is retrogressive, but has built-in mechanisms to kill those who with to revise Islam. In fact, Manji does not seem to claim to be a Muslim reformer any longer. She is a tireless crusader against Islamophobia, however.

        • This is disappointing.

          I had no idea that she has made such an odd turn around.

          I can only assume that her life was under such great threat that she bent under the pressure.

          Of course I’m sure she also knows where the money is and it’s not found behind bullit proof glass.

          Still, her book I mentioned is worth the read as it provides a view of islam that is unique and eye opening.

        • To be fair to Irshad though, she writes in her first book of the anger and violence that is quickly brought down upon any muslim questioning the tenets of the faith. She speaks of how this is a finely tuned system. So, she has grappled with this aspect. Her subsequent acquiescence is certanly a tragedy and though her idea of reform may not have been very productive it certainly was a shining and unusual example of courage among muslim women.

  2. France therefore tries any new belief submitted to its societal court using sarcasm, humor, insults etc. If the belief survives these challenges and is not found wanting then it is open for acceptance by Le Societe Francais. Not a bad way to check what the snake oil salesman is peddling. We in America should have been a bit more discerning and kicked more than just the tires.

  3. Another video which is not addressing what are the real problems, which are far hidden behind islam. Islam existed far long before the formation of all the western countries, and will probably last for another long time of thousands of years. Discussing again and again of islam in 2018 does not seem reasonable to me (not that it was in year 1999): all about islam was well known and documented much before, you can go back in almost any century up to the 8th, and you will find always historians, philosphers and intellectuals, who described the barbaric cult of death which islam, more or less, has always really been. It is not the only one cult of death, because of course there are many others, you can take the Maya in Mexico, or go back up to the times when human sacrifices was normally acceptable for inspecting the divinity’s opinion on the weather conditions. Even if Islam would disappear tomorrow, the problem is not solved at all, because there are even other religions, like voodoo tribalism, which compared to it, are far more worse, despite today their numbers of followers is not so well represented in europe. Mass migration from africa brought a taste of it.

    The higher threat is written inside the UN chart of the Humanitarian Religion, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, (which is a re-edition of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution 1789). The devil is in the right to multireligion (or sometime simply called the religious “freedom”): that constitutes the advent of the Neo Paganism. Paganism is multi-religious and polytheistic and does not endorse one truth against an other one.

    A sovereign state should instead remove such “right”, and say what is the only admissible Truth, without lies, and forbid all the cults of death without excuses. Only the Truth can bring freedom, not the lies of many different sects and cults of death. When a state does so, when a state embrace Christ, it will enjoy prosperity and peace, and will last long. While letting the lies of multireligious “freedom” to be spread, will bring may different death cults to become just what they preach, which is war and death.

    • I think the key concept you bring out is “sovereign state”. The documents you mention, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the more recent UN pact on migration rights, have the common characteristic that they are meant to be global, transcend national borders, and to dissolve the actual sense of sovereignty and nationhood.

      It doesn’t matter so much if a country is Christian or whatever. As long as you have distinct nations, an erroneous or disastrous policy becomes readily apparent without committing all countries. The contract in burgeoning crime in migrant-friendly Sweden, versus the peaceful streets in sovereign Hungary, is dramatic. The difference between hard-socialist Venezuela and its semi-socialist neighbors is also dramatic and writ large for anyone to see.

    • Your “truth” is not everyone’s, robyt, and I suspect your Jesus (unlke Mohammed) was more inclusive than you seem to be. To quote AJ Cronin’s wonderful novel, “The Keys of the Kingdom”, most people’s religion is an accident of birth.

      Anyway, this agnostic wishes you, and all here, a Happy Christmas and a peaceful New Year.

      • “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. Jn 18, 37.

        “most people’s religion is an accident of birth.” if one’s birth is an accident, that could be. Otherwise I think it is a cultural heritage from own parents. In any case it is up to onebody to research deep through it and maybe even practice if a believer. But I was not dealing with personal behaviour on religion. The Neo Paganism (or multireligoous “freedom”) has been imposed by law and is today enforced in many countries of the world (not all of course). One of the easiest reply the leftards use dealing about islam is: “it is their right to practice any religion they want”. So tell me what you are going to reply to them in this case? Do you really want to start a conversation with people who start saying that death cult is a religion peace and love ? You will never win by these arguments with such ignorant or dishonest pseudo intellectual philosophers. Even because the problem is not islam, that will exist always as an infinity of other pagan death cults. The problem is these people which are enforcing, by means of international organizations, to live within the same borders of wolves. And they are also asking you to respect them because it is their religion otherwise you are a wacist. Do not you see the hypocrisy of the regulations and laws that want to equalize all religions to the same level and considering them all equally an acceptable standard ? Then what happen in (an absurd) case islam one day disappear? Nothing, because there are so many other death cults that can replace it. So the sovereign state should stop immediately to enforce such multi religious rights which have caused all what is standard today. Let’s discharge all of these UN charts of rights in the waste and go back to Christ. I do not see any better option to the situation which is getting worse day by day. Otherwise countries like france and uk are doomed.

    • Well said.

      It is sad indeed that as nations we choose to forget what has already been written of islam. For Americans, no greater voice was that of Thomas Jefferson. For the UK, they could back 1000 years to the writings of the crusaders but also simply to Churchill.

      The MS13 gang organisation is now perhaps a new form of a barbaric quasi-religious group. Certainly a threat to civilisation.

Comments are closed.