French Imam: Muslims Must Not Donate Money for Rebuilding Notre Dame

It is the duty of a pious Muslim to refrain from giving money to rebuild a Christian church. Muslims only help other Muslims.

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

Video transcript:

00:04   From the imams from the scholars
00:08   Create a mosque, all that is the community duty. But what is that?
00:12   Recompense. If it’s done, the entire community is recompensed.
00:16   And if it’s not done, the entire community is punished. Therefore
00:20   it’s the duty of a group to answer the needs of
00:24   the whole. A group that answers the needs of the community.
00:28   We call that the community duty. So to me, Muslims,
00:32   our community duty is mosques.
00:36   The Christian, his community duty, as a Christian of the Christian religion,
00:40   is to build churches. And if the church burns,
00:44   to rebuild the church
00:48   It’s the duty of ALL Christians to do it. Why? Because it’s the symbol
00:52   of their religion, and not the symbol of Muslims.
00:56   The same thing for a Jew. A synagogue. Whose duty is it to build,
01:00   to construct a synagogue? It’s the Jews’.
01:04   Like the Buddhist for his temple. That’s the rule.
01:08   The rule is this simple. And it’s not a question of
01:12   that we lack tolerance… because I know where the narrative will go.
01:17   I know what the words of the imam will be qualified as.
01:21   I know. I’m used to it now. They deform. [what Muslims are saying]
01:25   And at no point will I tell Muslims: don’t show solidarity with what happened at Notre-Dame de Paris.
01:29   Never in my life. On the contrary: I will ask Muslims
01:33   to show their solidarity: you can write to the diocese;
01:37   you can write to the President of the Republic,
01:41   you can write to Madame Mayor of Paris, saying that you deplore
01:45   what happened, this accident. It’s your right. You live in the same country.
01:49   But where is the problem? It’s when I hear a Muslim instance
01:53   to ask Muslims to contribute [financially] in the reconstruction
01:57   of the cathedral! There!
02:01   That’s the straw! There we stop! Wait a minute!
02:05   In 48 hours a billion euros
02:09   were collected. The solidarity. Very well. But you —
02:13   the so called Muslim example, who is representing Muslims —
02:18   you have no shame? You have no humiliation? You have no common sense? You have no wisdom?
02:22   It’s ridicule… that… luckily ridicule doesn’t kill!
02:26   There are mosques in crisis!
02:30   Who don’t manage to finish [building] their mosques — I’m not talking about the Aisha Mosque [his mosque]!
02:34   We [unintelligible] we don’t have land! There are mosques that are being built,
02:38   and you can just go on their Facebook pages, and you’ll see. They are asking people…
02:42   The work has halted. They have no more money!

6 thoughts on “French Imam: Muslims Must Not Donate Money for Rebuilding Notre Dame

  1. You mean parasitic troglodytes can’t pay for their own sheds to bow and scrape in?

  2. Actually, I agree with the imam. Christians should be the ones rebuilding the cathedral. If you bring in a bunch of global and multi-cultural interests in funding the rebuilding, it will be modified to reflect those influences.

    It was the Christian faith that built the cathedral. Is the cathedral a national French landmark, or is it a product of an active church and faith?

    So why am I, an atheist, shilling for faith in the rebuilding? Because I value true diversity, which is maintaining separate identity and self-interest. Would you be interested in visiting a Christian church funded and planned by non-Christians? Would you find anything there of interest to you?

    Government funding of religions and religious institutions is devastating to their identity. That’s why China persecutes its home Christians who do not belong to government-approved churches.

    There is the additional question of, since the government or whoever was responsible for maintaining Notre Dame was not interested enough to actually ensure security, why would one expect a new building to fare any better?

    • Good points.

      As long as such expensive and popular Christian icons such as Notre Dame exist, the moslems will target them, in perpetuity.

      Regardless of who or how the fire started, it is clear the French government, and it is assumed the EU government as a whole, would prefer to have such powerful symbols as Notre Dame re-made into an image of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’. I am sure that from their perspective it is more practical and frankly cheaper to re-build or re-brand such targeted places as moslem friendly. Presumably this would help prevent attaks upon such places. Security becomes cheaper and less of a political liability for the government. It will become increasingly expensive for Christian organisations to insure, protect and re-build their physical structures as attacks will assuredly increase across the West. Governments will become less interested in financial partnerships to maintain such targeted buildings unless the government is given control of them to make them islam friendly and thus less of a target.

      We are now entering the time when Christianity once again must divest itself of some of its physial worldly burdens and return to its simpler roots. The Bible was, after all, written mainly by persecuted Christians for persecuted Christians.

      • Certainly, the New Testament is a collection of codified stories written to/for particular communities, but that is not the whole of the Christian Bible, which includes the “Old” Testament,too.

        The earliest writings were Paul’s epistles, mostly addressed to Hellenic Jews. It took a long time until the usual method for becoming a Christ-follower was given up for direct membership via catechumenical instruction. Prior to that, one entered via Judaism, though Paul wanted that abandoned…and it was, after the fall of Jerusalem.

        Of the three synoptic Gospels, Mark – possibly the earliest, was written for Roman Christians. Matthew’s was carefully compiled for the Jews – thus the long genealogy to prove Christ’s descent from the line of David…which Luke does, too, only he goes all the way back to Adam. Luke was addressing the Greeks, the Hellenic Jews.

        John is very different. I was taught that his gospel was written last, on the island of Patmos, where the disciple John had founded a community. I’ve read recently that some scholars think he may, in fact, have been first. At any rate, his is the most mystically inclined gospel of all, from the very first sentence. “In the beginning was the Word…” is not genealogy, but you could say that it begins even priro to Adam. Has a kind of Genesis start to it.

        Many devout Christians and Jews believe that a true metanoia begins with the pressure of persecution. So I agree with you: hard times are coming for the “Easter people”…and for the “Passover people” as well.

        • Of course Christians wrote only the NT. I often use the general term ‘Bible’ with non-Christian audiences.

  3. What would a donation mean? It is the cash that the Dhimmis have given through welfare programs.

Comments are closed.