Top 15 Waleed Al-Husseini Quotes

I am against the veil not only because it is a religious sign, but because it is a symbol of the enslavement of women and sexism! Do not let yourself be convinced that the wearing of the veil is an act of freedom because it is the imprisonment of women in communitarianism and it is also their residence and cultural identity. In Europe today the veil is the symbol of conquering political Islam and a sign of visible and communicative Islamization.

The veil is nothing but a sign of political Islam, as the armbands were for the Nazis!

When we begin to close our eyes on veiled girls in the name of "modesty" ... we finally close our eyes to girls raped under the guise of "marriage".

A question for those who mix racism and freedom with the veil debate: who is the racist? he who defends the values of equality, of modernity, as well as the values of the French revolution or the one that advocates a return to medieval values and a dark period in which no equality existed?

I want to make things clear about the hijab. Anyone who is for equality between the sexes is against this garment which designates the woman as a temptress who must cover herself to keep her modesty! The hijab has an inherent sexual dimension. Before Islam, this practice of disguising women of the public dimension already existed, to show their inferiority. Now, the hijab is instrumentalized by Islamists who have understood its political dimension, in opposition to the values of emancipation and the Republic.

Accepting the hijab in advertisements, in children's toys or even considering the fact that children wear the veil at school or on television as something "normal" is not evidence of cultural diversity and openness of European societies but this is a proof of the gentle Islamization of these societies.

Hatred against Islam becomes the second terminology used after Islamophobia to escape the debate. It is particularly aimed at lay people of Muslim or Arab origin. Practitioners are abusing it against ex-Muslims who dare to denounce virulent preaching and calls for violence in mosques and relayed to their neighborhoods. But where is the hatred to denounce hatred? (p. 135)

If Western countries really fear Islam, why do they welcome so many Muslims, granting them asylum and many helpers? Why do they tolerate the construction of so many mosques on their soil while Muslim countries forbid the building of churches on their own? If there is a real hostility towards Islam, why are hundreds of thousands of Muslims trying to clandestinely reach the lands of the infidels and apostates, often risking their lives? [...] the West is innocent of accusations of Islamophobia against it, [...] political Islam has invented this term to accelerate the ghettoisation of Muslims, oppose them to the host countries and radicalize them. (pp. 126-127)

Jihad and terrorism carry the same meaning despite the efforts of Muslims to dissociate and differentiate them. Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in Islam, since it has been the main tool for the expansion of Islamic State since Muhammad. Islamic conquests were indeed a form of terrorism, although consistent with the practices of the time. [...] terrorism, the hereditary fruit of Koranic education, has its roots in the East. He is the son of the cohesion policy created by the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, bringing together all pre-Islamic groups under the same ideology: Islam. (pp. 209-210)

Like all exclusive ideologies, such as Marxism or eugenics, Islam wants to be the sole holder of the truth and the embodiment of its salvation. His hegemony, dogmatism and tyranny make Islam an eradicating movement. Those among non-Muslims who strive to seek a moderate Islam demonstrate their ignorance of the very nature of this religion. Muslims who defend an allegedly temperate Islam also ignore the foundations of their faith or are duplicitous and hypocritical. They hide their bloodthirsty history to present it in a better light. As a result, we can not speak of moderate Muslims. (pp. 154-155)

There is no difference between the radicals who kill in the name of Allah and the pretended moderates who applaud and find them extenuating circumstances. The mistake in France is that the media use the term "extremist" to refer to jihadists who massacre and terrorize civilians and call "moderate" all others. Yet those who believe in sharia and dream of applying it, who reject gender equality, who impose Islam and its symbols in everyday life, who demand the separation of men and women in the public space who introduce religion to school through halal meat, who demand the veil, who want to adapt society to their ideology, who applaud the execution of renegades and want to Islamize through preaching are all extremists, even they have not - or not yet - carried the weapons. In fact, all Muslims who meet these criteria must be considered radicals. (p. 151)

This desire to impose coexistence and cohabitation in the name of "living together", while these guests of the nation do not intend to respect this concept, is to let termites destroy a house by saying that it is necessary that these poor beasts feed. (p. 41)

Too many Muslims still refuse to integrate in the West today. They claim all the rights granted to Western citizens in the name of human rights and equality, but they refuse the duties incumbent upon these citizens. They want to impose their religion to states that no longer have a religion and to the societies that practice it discreetly. In France, many of them do not respect the state and do not give it any importance ... / ... France and the West must protect their precious secularism, especially since it seems impossible in the Arab countries.

To dominate the faithful, the religious found an effective treatment: the administration of five daily bites, at fixed times announced by the Muezzin. As soon as his calls sound, people rush to the mosque and prostrate themselves by banging their heads on the ground, thus kissing their submission. Before the effects of the sting disappear, they undergo an injection of words that paralyze their brain fog of religion ... / ... Anesthetized, the faithful lives in the illusion and leaves the responsibility of its existence to the masters who say to speak in the name of God and to represent it on Earth ... / ... The religious have made generations of helpless to sacralized ignorance, deprived of future, progress, humanism, dignity and freedom.

Then one day, I took my courage in both hands. I first expanded my reading and immersed myself in philosophical and scientific works that called for reflection on the existence of God, such as To End God with the British Richard Dawkins. This book brought me the answers that religion was unable to provide me. Through the work of Darwin, Hawking, and other scientists who have marked humanity, I have discovered that most scholars are atheists. I had come to understand why the work of these scholars was not taught in our schools and universities: simply because those of Dawkins or for example, the theory of evolution of Darwin, go against the primacy of religion on science. ... / ... The Internet has allowed me to discover that the famous miracles of Islam, claimed by the religious and willingly relayed by the press and Islamic satellite television, were just lies. ... / ... Darwin's theory of evolution seemed to me much more convincing than the legend of Adam and Eve.