Top Menu

Karim Miské: Muslims of France

Muslims_France

A phenomenal three part film series on the history of Muslims in France over the past 100 years by filmmaker Karim Miské:

Part 1: Colonials

Part 2: Immigrants

Part 3: Citizens

, , , , , , ,

  • Curly

    Thank you for sharing this three series of video about Muslim of France. Lucky, these video have subtitle for Deaf. I really enjoy watch them. Thank you so much.

  • the post above me bravo

  • Believing Atheist writes: Shaykh, you use rhetoric not facts to argue. You wrote: Stripping an unwilling woman is a rape. That’s not the legal definition of rape in France. The legal definition of rape in France is: Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise, is rape.

    Perhaps you would be wise to check French and American crime statistics for reported rapes of muslim women, and compare those numbers with statistics for muslim men acquitted of murdering their wives’ or daughters’ rapists. Some men do not “delegate” responsibility for protecting their families to ineffectual police agencies serving ineffectual criminal justice systems.

    I haven’t been talking about statutory law ~ I’ve been writing here about the effect on muslims of banning the burqa, or even the hijab from public schools. A professedly “secular” state that criminalizes non-criminal individual religious expression or practice has no claim to be a “secular” state and no legitimacy whatsoever. To expect anyone to “respect” French law is beyond stupid ~ it’s terminally insane.

    Watch the videos above. Muslim laborers, muslim immigrants, and muslim Frenchmen have not done, and are not doing, to France, what the French did to the muslims in North Africa. Muslims did not invade France with artillery and attempt to impose their culture on anybody. The French occupied Algeria, and when they could no longer do so, went back to France and imported cheap labor, and the formerly colonized people followed them home and stayed. That’s merely poetry. What France is doing today is merely a continuation of the original pathological crime against humanity of invading, occupying, and colonizing another people.

    And it’s not even “payback” ~ muslims have enriched France, not exploited the French as the French exploited the muslims.

    Lawlessness cannot be changed by a “legal definition.” It remains lawlessness, and that is what many in France are trying to institute. We have a name for institutionalized lawlessness ~ it’s called “oppression.” Women and children suffer it ~ men don’t.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Shaykh SAD Ahmed,

    Shaykh, you use rhetoric not facts to argue. You wrote: Stripping an unwilling woman is a rape. That’s not the legal definition of rape in France. The legal definition of rape in France is: Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise, is rape.
    http://195.83.177.9/code/liste.phtml?lang=uk&c=33&r=3695

  • ‘AbdurRahman writes: i love the metaphors you used.

    Stripping an unwilling woman is a rape.

    I don’t see that as metaphorical at all. When one person forces himself on another for his own interest or purposes, against that other person’s will and coercively, that’s a crime against the victim’s humanity and a crime of violence. When a man forces himself on a woman, violating her humanity, it’s rape ~ whether or not there is any “sexual” act involved in that crime of violence.

    When did “we” decide that we can do anything we want with a woman, whether she’s willing or not, except ~ just recently ~ risk making her pregnant? We are given a degree of assertiveness in order that we may provide for and protect a growing family, to perpetuate human existence ~ women are given a degree of acceptance in order that they may protect themselves and their children from an excess of assertiveness by the fathers, to perpetuate human existence. How long have men raped women, one way or another, by asserting their desires over women who accept such abuse?

    And then “we” blame women for their oppression, and demand that they become more like men to put a stop to it.

    What a disgusting bunch of savage animals we are. God made us better than that.

  • @believingatheist

    Would you find it equally problematic if France or Britain wanted to change the values of a Muslim country? “Liberty” is a French value for sake of an example

  • Abdurahman

    @sheikh Ahmad
    i love the methaphors u used.
    Stripping an unwilling woman is a rape. The burka is not a “deterrence” ~ it’s a means of maintaining the privacy and seclusion that is every woman’s right. Depriving her of that right is rape; doing so by legislation is sheer hypocrisy; enacting such a law is terrorism; enforcing such a law is oppression.

  • Believing Atheist reads more than words: I agree with these two positions. However, if French exhibitionism is a gateway to rape, it would be wrong to claim that the Burka is a deterrence from rape as you are implying.

    Stripping an unwilling woman is a rape. The burka is not a “deterrence” ~ it’s a means of maintaining the privacy and seclusion that is every woman’s right. Depriving her of that right is rape; doing so by legislation is sheer hypocrisy; enacting such a law is terrorism; enforcing such a law is oppression.

    For muslims, it’s axiomatic that “Oppression is worse than slaughter.” Banning the burqa, banning the niqab (face veil), banning the farda (head covering) ~ these acts provoke militant defense against oppression universally among the muslims.

  • with regards to freedom of religion the united states is a better role model than the french.

  • Believing Atheist

    @Shaykh SAD Ahmed,

    Shaykh, normally I agree with what you say but this time I find your logic very troubling. You say that “The Israeli racism is a gateway to martyrdom ~ the French mandate for exhibitionism is rape.” I agree with you on the Israeli racism portion of your argument and also your revelation about the hypocrisy of the French government wanting to ban the Burka, while the majority of its Muslim citizens want is also superb.

    I agree with these two positions. However, if French exhibitionism is a gateway to rape, it would be wrong to claim that the Burka is a deterrence from rape as you are implying. This is what a study concluded as reiterated by Gulf News:

    “More than 60 per cent of the respondents — including females — suggested that scantily clad women were most at risk. But the study concluded that the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing the hijab. Contrary to expectations, the male perpetrators made little distinction between women wearing a veil and those who were not. “We found that a veil does not protect women as we thought,” says Abu Al Komsan. “More than 75 per cent of women in Egypt are veiled but are still harassed. And 9 per cent wear the niqab — the complete face cover — so they are fully covered.””
    http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/open-assault-on-dignity-1.628475

    So you see Shaykh this study contradicts your notions.

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    Thanks for posting this I enjoyed the three documentries. The last one I found most ingteresting as someone who lives in france today.
    I did not feel the showing of the picture of a Burka distracted from the documentry unlike some of the other commentators. Do I care what the loopy ones will think ? er ….. no . Reasonable people will regard the documentry in its entirety not just one slight image .
    Believing Athiest the name you were looking for is Le Pen . Unfortunetly the previous head of the Front National has stepped down to be relaced by his daughter . Ever wondered where the term nepotism comes from? 😉

  • Ahmed

    There is nothing wrong with the image. Being anti-loon is to be able to have images like that, and not worry that some loon will say “oh, look, they’re trying to take us over”.

  • sebkha

    Call me crazy, but I think an even bigger part of being an anti-loon is refusing to cave in to nonsensical loon whims. Loons will see what they want, regardless of the intent of the artist, and the message the artist intended. The nature of the loon being what it is, obfuscating and outright lies are a huge part of their playbook. You can dot your i’s and cross your t’s, and mind your p’s and q’s and all that, and they’ll still find a way or excuse to hate on Islam and Muslims. It’s a heavily rigged game, on the loons’ part.

  • Franczeska

    The image above is funny, but definitely problematic from the standpoint of outreach toward a public that is already fearful that Muslims seek to “Muslamificate” everything.

  • The burka is “perceived as the antithesis of liberty in the Western world” because they are so completely deceived that they can’t see the muslim women of France (and elsewhere) fighting for the right to wear it in public.

    The burka “as the antithesis of liberty” is part and parcel of so-called “Islamophobia.” The French insistence, that muslim women can only appear in public “naked” according to the heartfelt values of those women, has done more to “radicalize” muslims around the world than the Israeli genocide against non-Jews in Israel. The Israeli racism is a gateway to martyrdom ~ the French mandate for exhibitionism is rape.

  • Just Stopping By

    @Emporer: You say that the image here “can have various interpretations it seems to me…” That’s definitely right. But, as two commentators pointed out before your reply, at least one of those interpretations is that Muslims want to change French society or Western values. You can point out, correctly, that that is not what Al Jazeera intended. However, if people here see that as a possible interpretation, I don’t see how anyone can deny that others might as well.

    Isn’t part of being anti-loon not just not intending to offend, but recognizing that what you think is inoffensive might still be offensive to others? And, by others, I don’t just mean “fascists or Western supremacists,” but the everyday people that this site is supposed to be reaching out to. Without proper context, what you may see as “slightly provacative” may be seen by French or other readers as highly provacative and an affront to their iconic imagery. What do you gain from this if a less provacative image can be used instead?

  • There is nothing wrong with the image, it was created by AlJazeera. If fascists or Western supremacists have a problem with it, it reveals more about their mindset. The topic is France’s relationship with it’s Muslim minority over a period of a century. While perhaps slightly provocative the image in no way forwards the idea that “Muslims want to change French society or Western values.” It can have various interpretations it seems to me; one being that perhaps today in France Lady Liberty would wear a Niqab in solidarity with those women who are forced not to due to government intrusion.

  • Hassan

    ^ Agree. Not a helpful image.

  • Believing Atheist

    Who ever did this, I don’t like what you did to Delacroix’s La Liberté guidant le peuple. You put the féminine personnification of Liberty within the confines of a burka (I assume that’s a burka am I wrong)?, something which is perceived as the antithesis of liberty in the Western world.

    The reason I don’t like this is not because of aesthetic preferences of because I believe the Burka is a vile piece of attire but because you are doing more harm than good for the Muslim community.

    Anti-Muslims will see this picture and say: “Look, the Muslims want to change our society, our western values and our freedoms for women, Geert Wilders and Sarkoxy, and that French fascist whose name I forget were right, the Muslims do want to change our society! Out with the Muslims now!”

    It is best if you remove this picture so as not to give fascists any ideas or any evidence of their bigotry.

Powered by Loon Watchers