WHY AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, IRAN AND OTHER ISLAMIC REGIMES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY HOSTILE TO THE WEST.
Pakistan has a new “President”, Benazir Bhutto’s widower. Afghanistan has a “President” too. But what does that mean? During the Roman empire, for centuries, citizens could embrace whatever religion they pleased (before the rather short lived Christian dictatorship). In today’s Afghanistan the “law” has it that if a “Muslim” becomes a “Christian”, he shall be executed. What happened to civilization? Is it supposed to be going backwards? Are Western powers helping those vicious superstitions, and thus undermining themselves?
Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (since 1956, reviewed in 1973). This causes an insurmountable problem because Islam is not compatible with democracy. Although Benazir and her husband seem noble and extremely courageous, the task they gave themselves is hopeless. Islam was designed as a war machine against the West. That is why it succeeded, and only ultimate force stopped it (in Francia in the West).
Benazir Bhutto, in her posthumous book, “Reconciliation” observes that “a discussion of Jihad is critical to the world”. She presents what she calls a “thesis”, that “democracy and Islam are compatible”. But she admits that this is true only if Jihad is not “about religious war against other religions and Muslim sects”. But she is not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Hope is her only logic.
Whatever. What part of the word “Jihad” did Benazir not understand? During that last bomb explosion, that killed her, did she see the light? Well, we sure saw it on TV.
Muslim fundamentalists have (correctly) counted nearly 200 passages containing calls to extreme murderous violence in the Qur’an. The Fundamentalists know best: they use those precise passages to justify their own murderous violence, including killing little girls that go to school, and women who go to work. Threatening to kill those who insulted “the prophet” is a particularly appreciated delicacy.
But the violence of the Qur’an against Western civilization is not restricted to calls for maximum and lethal physical violence. First, there is the fact that “Jihad” replaces all and any of the activities connected to democracy. Islam is about one man, one jihad, not one man, one vote. Moreover the Qur’an is full of statements such as: “And those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand. On them fire closes over.” (S 90; v. 19-20). the left hand is used for the rest room, in the desert, you know. (Wash with dirt, recommends ‘the prophet”, always very practical!)
There is also a fundamental violence of the Qur’an against the very principle of democracy. The Qur’an enjoins that: “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59). In other words, obey authority as a matter of religion.
Hitler, who admired Islam as a war religion, used to call this the Fuehrerprinzip, and it was the central functioning principle of his Nazi Reich. All Germans had to obey any authority as a matter of religion. The fascist principle makes Islam incompatible with democracy. (Of course, the entire point of Islam is that dictatorship is religion, so it’s no accident!)
Some will say: “Wait a minute! What about Christianity? Europe is Christian, and still became democratic! Indeed, Islam is the bastard child of some type of Judaism and Christianism, marinated in a pungent desert sauce. And indeed the West became democratic. But the West had been democratic before (republican Rome, many Greek City states). Even at the worst of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy (fourth and fifth centuries), the law was mostly secular, and its own power, independent of religion. Even at the top of the Roman Christian Imperial theocracy, a woman, an Augusta, reigned (fifth century). She invented the theory of the STATE OF LAW: “The law shall apply to us just as much as it applies to our subjects.”
When the Franks took control in the West, they did not establish a Christian dictatorship. Quite to the contrary, they progressively transformed Christianity in an instrument for the advancement of civilization. The Franks, as good Germans, were more democratic and less sexist than the Greco-Roman. As good Germans admiring Greco-Roman civilization, they were dismayed by what Christianity had done to it. All in all, the Franks imposed on Christianity much higher ethics. They forced the Christian establishments to teach secular knowledge.
Saint Augustine and his accomplices, the Founding fathers of the Church, had justified slavery as a punishment from God (as the Quranic parrots would later do). The Franks just outlawed slavery. By 800, the Pope was the Franks’ pet, and the Carolingians (who had crushed Islamic invasions earlier) took a great dislike of the Eastern Christian Roman empire. In 1204 the Franks conquered Constantinople, smashing for good the remaining Roman imperial Christian power. the anti Christian humor of the franks could be tasteless: during some crusade, a bit short of food, they made fun of Christ’s recommendation to eat (his) flesh, by actually eating some of the (Muslim) natives.
Even as dedicated a Christian as the formidable Roman emperor Justinian, when he ordered a refurbishment of the entire Roman legal system, nominated a pagan law professor to head the commission, and the emperor instructed him to separate the huge body of secular law from the laws of a Christian nature. That secular body of law the entire world use nowadays, except for the Islamic states.
The secret of the West is not Christ, it’s the Pagan Franks masquerading as Christians (proof: when they smashed the three Muslim invasions of the eight century, the Franks, after having nationalized the Christian Church to draft the entire economy, called themselves “Europeans”; they viewed Muslims as a new Christian sect).
During the later Middle Ages, the Frankish empire was breaking down in national powers. A Christian fanatic such as (Saint) Louis IX, hated the Jews. Still he could not do much against them: centuries earlier Frankish law, following Roman secular law, had recognized Jews as full citizens. In the end the holocaust of the Jews had to wait for the replacement of secular Roman law by Nazi garbage.
In Pakistan, according to the Islamic Constitution, only a Muslim can become President or Prime Minister. No law repugnant to Islam shall be enacted and the present laws shall also be Islamized. Injunctions of Islam as found in Qur’an and the Sunnah have to be obeyed. The 1973 (and current) Constitution of Pakistan gave a definition of a Muslim which states: ‘Muslim’ means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophethood of Mohammed [PBUH: Peace Be Upon Him], the last of the prophets, and who does not believe in, nor recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed or claims to be a prophet, in any sense of the word or of any description whatsoever, after Mohammed.”
In other words, sheer superstition. Well, Poo Be Upon It [PBUI].
Islam has got a long way to go, before it can join Christianity, and be put to sleep…
The West may want to reconsider its attitude relative to all Islamic regimes, including “republics” such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. (Obama suggested this: next time bin Laden is in the crosshairs of the West, if Pakistan refuses to act, the West will; France, more directly, suggested that a French 9/11 may be rewarded with nukes for the host country.)
For a long time, Islamic dictatorships (a pleonasm, sorry) were the best friends of the oil thirsty USA. Oil was good, so dictatorships were good, so the dictatorship friendly Qur’an was good. Well, that was before Islamic Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now all these discourses about fire from the sky and holocausts, in the Qur’an, after 9/11, do not seem such a good idea anymore, even to the USA. It maybe time to encourage forced de-Islamization programs, somewhat similar to those implemented by the Franks against Christianity.
It’s better to put the Qur’an to sleep that way, rather than the alternative…
P/S: Under the Hanafi jurisprudence of Afghanistan’s Sunni majority, favored by the Afghan Constitution, apostasy -abandoning Islam for another religion- is a crime punishable by death. it’s all about whether it’s the sovereignty of the people (democracy) or the sovereignty of God (a figment of the imagination and tradition of cavemen). It should not be tolerated anymore that Western soldiers die for this.
P/S 2: ”In reality, the monotheist texts preach neither peace, love nor tolerance. They are texts of hate.” (Michel Houellebecq.)