Roger Cohen suggests that Obama, in an apparent imitation of Bush praising the Qur’an days after 9/11, should "come to Islam without prejudice". Cohen insists that Islam confers humanity and wisdom: "From Beirut to Baghdad to Cairo to Istanbul, [Roger Cohen has] often felt the wonders of hospitality and generosity and wisdom that seem to well from Islam" [NYT/IHT, June 26]. It is a strange notion.

When Roger goes to Paris, does he feel the "hospitality and generosity and wisdom that seem to well from" Christianity? Or was that Islam again? (After all there are millions of people of "Islam" ancestry in France). Oopss, sorry, we forgot the French are profoundly secular and gaily pagan. Does that make the French neither hospitable, nor generous, nor wise? What about China? No religion there. No welling of goodness either?

Why not let people be "hospitable and generous and wise" from their own humanity? Since when is a religion supposed to own a piece of the planet, and the people are supposed to be so defined by said religion, all the way down to their most basic humanity, that they presumably would be deprived of it otherwise? Wait, hum… Is that an Abrahamic reasoning? Our God gave us everything? How is that working in Jerusalem? What about the West Bank? Generous, hospitable and wise all over?

Cohen brushes off the mayhem and terror Islam encourages, according to the typical murderous-religion-apologist mental pattern. Says he: "When, in 2005, I talked to the Somalian-born Dutch author Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a meeting in The Hague that had to be organized like an undercover operation because of threats to her life from Islamic radicals, I was struck by her words: "Islam is not a religion of peace, or only of peace with other Muslims. We should acknowledge that it’s a VERY VIOLENT RELIGION, INSTEAD OF PRETENDING, like Bush, that this violence is not true Islam." Another one who was sort of pretending was Benazir Bhutto. She used mental contortions in her book to say that Islamic violence in the Qur’an was hopefully not what it looked like, otherwise there was no hope (she admitted). Before the book was published, she had been exploded by fans of the Qur’an with an entire fanatical Qur’an lovers organization behind them. Long live Allah!

Cohen is not finished with his apology of violence. Says he hopefully: "Certainly, there are Koranic verses that Al Qaeda and other extremists have been able to use in attempts to sanctify their murderous acts. Certainly Islam, politically expressed, has often proved irreconcilable with modern notions of pluralism, democracy and women’s rights. But a "very violent religion?" No." How does Cohen knows this? Because of the welling quoted above (which is totally irrelevant).

In truth the Qur’an is one of the most violent book ever written. It’s somewhere up there with the worst the Marquis de Sade ever wrote (a difference though is that Sade was writting a parody, but the adulators of the Qur’an are so dead serious, they do not view the Qur’an as a parody, even when Jews are made into monkeys and pigs and God orders girls to be raped as soon as captured, instead of procrastinating). Now, of course, all the mayhem makes the Qur’an into one of the most fun book to read. The mix of righteousness and atrociousness is hard to resist, as one expects God’s discourse to be. Oh, by the way, the most violent Qur’an fundamentalists have counted nearly 200 hyper violent verses in the 400 pages of the Qur’an. (Question: how many hyper violent sentences in Hitler’s "Mein Kampf"? Answer: none, proving Hitler was not God). Whereas Jesus called to kill non believers in very few places, calls to murder are all over the Qur’an (and it finishes with a total apocalypse, in the original Christian style: God destroys all cities).

Since when should US presidential candidates "come to Islam"? Because Obama was friendly to Christianity? But, as it turns out, Obama has been highly critical of the Bible already two years ago (June 06). No doubt that if Obama extended his critique of Leviticus and other parts of the Bible to the corresponding passages parroted in the Qur’an more than a millennium later, he would be branded a dangerous racist, full of "prejudice" against poor Islam and its subjected Muslims. Is there also a thing such as postjudice?

Obama is candidate to the presidency of the USA, a SECULAR republic. That point may have escaped the neofascists recently, as they tried to hypnotize the USA with their own Christian Qur’an that they ended up believing in their turbo charged ignorance.

As the United States asserted in the Treaty of Tripoli more than two centuries ago: "As the Government of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (1796).

Well, history decided otherwise. Sorry about the existence of facts. It may have been noted that some elements of the "Mehomitan nation" have "entered in an act of hostility" as a result of some religious interpretations made by bin Laden and company of some sacred texts of Islam (bin Laden has written about his religious motivations forever, and certainly hundreds of suicide bombers over the years had no other motivation but a literal interpretation of the Qur’an).

One should not confuse people and the systems of thought they use. People use ready made systems of thought, but, occasionally, they are bigger than that. When Hitler thought it was smart to put the "Butcher of Sevastopol" in charge of Paris, with the order to destroy it all and fight house to house as in Stalingrad (or, later, Koenigsberg or Berlin), he got a nasty surprise. His super Nazi rabid general in whom he had complete confidence, changed systems of thought. The "Butcher" negotiated with the Parisian resistance, and procrastinated until a French armored division rushed into Paris (preventing SS Panzer divisions to make it).

Saying smallpox is bad does not mean people with smallpox are bad. If someone views Islam as a smallpox of a system of thought it does not mean people ravaged by it are themselves smallpox. Let’s not confuse the disease, and the patient. Nazism was an obvious smallpox of a system of thought, still most Nazis were forgiven, and, sure enough, taught the better notions, they amended their ways.

It’s condescending, a form of "Orientalism", to look down on Middle Eastern denizens and to say that Islam is good for those children, and we should respect their father Christmas stories with jihad wrapped around the waist. Presumably, such a point of view takes for granted that the children would not be "hospitable and generous and wise" if they did not have big daddy Islam to tell them how to be human in a human way.

Of course, in the West, the Franks got rid of Christianity in 496 CE. But never mind, we Westerners are not children. We are masters of our destiny, and if there is a God, it’s ourselves.

Christianity was basically invented, and certainly imposed, by the worst Roman emperors, late, degenerate types prone to murder all what moved. As those went down the garbage chute of history, Christianity was left all alone, facing the Franks, who had been quietly hostile to Christianity for many generations (although they helped Constantine conquer the entire empire). The last Roman secular army defeated by the Christian army was headed by the top Roman general, a Frank (in the very costly battle of Mursa, 351 CE). Shortly after this the Caesar Julian made Paris his headquarters, and, pushed by his Frankish legions, rebelled against the fanatic Christian emperor the Augustus Constantius II. Having become absolute emperor, Julian started to dismantle Christianity, but was quickly killed. The Franks had to wait another 135 years to clamp down definitively on the mad theocracy (but only in the West; to this day the East is ravaged by mentally challlenged theocracy).

Let me explain: in 496 CE the Salic Franks established their empire, which, propped by the superior values the Greco-Romans had been deprived of, quickly took control of Western Europe. The Franks were ruled by SALIAN LAW, something secular written in Latin centuries before. Salian law was NOT Christian law. NO SHARIAH FOR EUROPE! Actually Salian law allowed for all sorts of religions (it had been written generations before the Christian madness had been imposed on Rome). In particular the Jews got equal rights under the Franks (those rights were fleetingly robbed again seven centuries later, under the resurgent influence of the Christian madness, but that’s a side track). The Franks were no friends of rabid theocracies. After crushing Christianity and generously teaching it the few tricks it needed to know, as if it were a dog, the Franks were confronted to the Muslim invaders. The Franks viewed the Muslims as new, particularly dangerous Christians, coming down from a woman called "Sara". The Franks called themselves "EUROPEANS", in a clear reference to the Greeks and Thermopile. As the fateful war against Islam started, the Franks did not call themselves Christians.

The Muslim armies, propelled by their rabid interpretation of the Quran, had just wasted North Africa, killing the cities down to the last. They moved amazingly fast after the long war in North Africa. They lurched to Spain where they crushed the ruling Visigoths in a few years. For relaxation and future reference, the Berber and Arab armies then killed 20% of the bystanders, the innocent Catholic population (which was itself no friend of the Aryan Visigoths).

Ignorant of all and any, except that Francia was the land of riches, the Muslim armies then penetrated the Regnum Francorum ("Francia"). They were crushed at Toulouse, in a classic maneuver by Eodo Dux Aquitaniorum. The Syrian army was then rebuilt, and invaded again, 11 years later. After wasting a good third of Francia, it was demolished at Poitiers by Charles Martel. The ignorant "martyrs" did not realize that they were facing a drafted army supported by massive taxation and expropriation (of the Christian church), they had no concept of any of these notions. Charles’ army was the best trained professional army since the heyday of the Roman empire, forming the largest phalanx which ever was. The Franks knew the Muslim well, they had sent sophisticated spies ever since the Arabs tried to write Arabic. The Franks were not amused to be deprived of paper, and spices, and all trade with the East and the South by the Arab embargo.

The Damas based, Syrian Caliphate tried again. Invading Francia was crucial to their plan to stab Constantinople in the back. In their ignorance, they did not realize that Constantinople itself had never dared to attack the Franks. The next Syrian invasion was land and sea, even more massive. They gave it their all. The Franks had boosted their expensive heavy cavalry, inventing feudalism on the way. Severe battles ensued, the worst being Narbonne. This time the destruction of the Syrian army was so extensive, that the Caliphate back in Damas had no more army, and it fell. The Arabs lost control of their own Caliphate (and would never, ever regain it). Be respectful, please; Ossama bin Laden is still crying about it in his cave. The Iranians swooped in and moved the capital of the Caliphate to Baghdad.

Ever since the elected Frankish king Clovis, Roman imperator and Consul, established his Roman style government in Francia, Europe was ruled by secular law. The frankly racist Salian law was progressively replaced by more equalitarian and sophisticated Roman law. Christianity had nothing to do with it. Eating pigs, or whatever, was OK. Having Jews (or, for that matter, Syrians) around, without forcing them to wear distinctive clothing, was also OK. Actually Jews were citizens with full rights. There were no special taxes for the non Catholics (whereas Islam, unsatisfied with just marking non Muslims, taxed them hard, and deprived them of many rights. "Insulting" Islam resulted in horrible, torturous death, proving that, at heart, Islam had nothing to do with God (presumably capable of defending itself), but everything to do with terror. As the Franks outlawed slavery, Islam rendered it universal. the tale of two civilization: one going forward, the other full speed backwards.

It turned out that a further crack down on Christianity was needed later in the later Middle Ages and Renaissance, when secular power realized that playing with the fascist theocratic system of thought was not just too dangerous, but perfectly useless. As Christianity proved itself to be vicious (cf. the Crusades, and the mental terror the Christian fanatics exerted on Europe, starting with that young fascist madman, "Saint" Bernard), secular power, and not just the governments, exerted overwhelming pressure on it. Christianity survived by proclaiming itself to be the "religion of love" (one can see this in the evolution of religious art: hell and flames dear to the Christian founders disappear after 1300, and are replaced by ethereal vision of cherubs and tender mothers). (One can see nowadays Islam trying to duplicate that Christian love trick in a few places.)

If nothing else, fascist Christianity made people stupid, and when Europeans understood this, they completely quit their addiction to Jesus and his ilk.

An illustration: Spanish monarchs thought smart to use the Inquisition for their secular ends, and watched lots of people being tickled by flames during large shows (providing with entertainment). But then the fascist theocratic Christian monster went too far, throwing the Jews and Muslims out, and even terrorizing the Christians. Christian fascism of the inquisitive type kept on mutating, and oppressing the land, burning innocent girls all the way until the late 18th century. religious fascism extended all the way to the fascist Franco and Opus Dei, in a monster civil war against the secular republic. It turned out to be a disaster for Spain. Modern Spain then shook the addiction, and followed the model of the French revolution, getting rid of Christianity entirely. Homosexual marriage is now the law of that land, in a slap to "Saint" Paul.

"Islam" was a house divided, from the start. Muhammad’s family went to war against the inventor of the Qur’an. Approving blindly the Qur’an is actually taking sides in an Islamist religious war. Perhaps one should view that ancient struggle as Islam against Qur’an (as strange as it may sound). It was a major political, and civilizational fight. Meanwhile Christianity stood there, basically irrelevant to the flow of civilization. The Franks used it a tool and weapon, when they so pleased.

Islam is Christianity light. By "Christianity" we mean the original strong stuff, not the nice doggie the Franks turned it into in 496 CE. Still the initial, imperial Christianity was such a horribly fascist thing that its Islam ersatz has also proven horribly conducive to fascism, like original Christianity. Islam actually means Submission. That Quranic Islam brought us Saddam Hussein, bin Laden, the Shah of Iran, and countless despots over the centuries. The Fuehrerprinzip of Adolf Hitler, the very core of the Nazi doctrine, is explicitly an order of the Qur’an ("Obey those of yours who are in power!" S.4; v. 59).

Islam made the Middle East, long ago the fulcrum of civilization and representative democracy, into something where the height of inspiration is to recite the same 400 pages that the dictator Uthman ordered written 14 centuries ago. As is now well established in neurology, constant repetition of the same word assemblies creates a circuitry, hence a reality of its own (Hebbian effect).

The second great Judeo-Christo-Islamic war was the Judean war, when Jewish religious extremists attacked Rome, and each other, and other Jews (66-73 CE; also known as the first (of three) Jewish-Roman war). At some point the legions bombarded Jerusalem with pig heads. One million humans died. Not a good omen for what followed.   

US presidential candidates should stay clear from mad religions that were considered as primitive and civilizationally destructive by the truly wise already 14 centuries ago.

Christianity was a fascist slave religion, severely anti-intellectual. Islam was much more war like (as Hitler noticed) and a bit less anti-intellectual. Both came to power because they gave the fascists who invented them the philosophical and metaphysical background they needed to reach new heights of despotism (an immense part of so called Christianity is the work of emperors Constantine and Theodosius, and commissions led by them; inspired by this example, the Qur’an was written by a commission named by the Arab emperor Uthman).

Both Christianity and Islam, though, self destroyed because they soon acted as WEAPONS OF MIND DESTRUCTION.

After the disaster of the Dark Ages, the Franks used Christianity as a sword, a tool, even a remedy for getting civilization restarted.  Christianity was useful to Charlemagne, when he conquered the savage northern Germans and other heathens (he invented all the tricks used in North America by the English settlers to get rid of the Natives). Christianity was useful, early on, to give the Conquistadores and the English settlers good conscience as they massacred the American natives.

Islam nearly conquered the world as its religiously crazed warriors, persuaded they would go to heavens with the virgins if they only died in combat, tried to conquer the world in three generations (after a first invasion of India, they were checked by Constantinople, crushed by the Franks, more lucky against the Chinese (750), but the first invasion of Indonesia failed). But its very spectacular success, and the fact it freed half of "Christianity" from Christianity itself lured the populations in believing there was nothing wrong with it. Ultimately, the Muslims submitted to their own Islamic sword (and, figuratively speaking, it cut their heads off). Islam became just a battle field of Qur’an inspired maniacs (the lands of the Franks were much more peaceful, until the Crusades; religious wars, which were terrible when Christianity was imposed only resurfaced a millennium later, at the end of the Middle Ages during the resurgence of Christian fascism).

Obama wants change, not an eternal return of the old fascist past with its hundreds of millions killed by religion.

Don’t scoff. Auschwitz is, first of all, a religious phenomenon. Auschwitz is a Judeo-Christo-Islamic story: the Nazis invented neither the fanatical hatred of the Jew, nor most of the methods. It gets more ironical, and a warning. Anti-Judaism basking in hatred, which is plastered all over the "sacred" Qur’an (just read it, it’s fun!), was a Christian invention.

Islam, Christianity’s slavish imitator, adopted anti-Judaism with enthusiasm (Muhammad developed some personal grievances with his ex-friends and hosts, the Jews). Those who want to thank Christianity for its contribution to civilization may as well thank Hitler (who got supported by his fan the Pope Pi XII).

After all, the Christians tried to massacre the Jews in a holocaust when they had power (5th century). And those distinctive yellow adornments the Nazis required the Jews to wear? You guessed it: another great invention of Islam (8th c.).

Enough. Let the primitives move back to the past in their time machine. Those who live in their age (seculum) have won all the battles that really mattered. Oh, but wait… Our planet is now so small they have nowhere to go but our own backyard? Well, then, I guess one will have to instruct everybody about what is bad, and what is good, and what is up, and what’s down. And also about what’s totally uncivilized (and that goes for the invasion of Iraq by ignorant Bushmen). Just as the Bible defines a lot of what is totally uncivilized, so does the Qur’an (it’s basically the same book, no wonder; except in regard to what to do with girls). The Bible, though, became irrelevant in 496 CE. Whereas the Qur’an became the law of Islamic lands after 656 CE. Time to move on, and join our age, our seculum.

Ah, to answer the question in the title: if one wants to keep control of some subjects, it’s better to keep them divided and stupid. Hence the interest some who should know better, in Europe and America, to provide regions of Islamic background with the perverse advice that they should go about Christianity’s child, Islam, with a much more tolerant attitude than the one Europe herself benefited from the start (that is right after it was observed that Christianity’s main gift was the Dark Ages)… 

Patrice Ayme,

3 Responses to “ISLAM VERSUS EUROPE.”

  1. patriceayme Says:

    One Response to “About”
    Ameer Raschid Says:

    June 24, 2008 at 8:54 pm.

    You commented on Roger Cohen’s article on Turkey:

    “Allah wants us to obey whoever detains power: “O YOU WHO BELIEVE! … OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Quran’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59). It is probable that this sura inspired Hitler directly, for his crucial “Fuehrerprinzip” (the Fuehrer had more than a passing acquaintanceship with Islam as he admired it loudly while spewing contempt on Christianism).”

    I love those who quote the Qur’an and proceed to give it their own interpretation without givng alternatives. The verse is to prevent anarchy among the community that had only tribal customary law and led by the elite.

    The Arabic says to obey those who are in authority, “From Among you”.
    The father of Tariq Ramadhan, Said Ramadhan has said that this means those who have been given the authority either by being freely chosen or accepted by affirmation or by not denying their authority(even if it was taken by force). It has been misused to justify toleration of kings and dictators who abused this authority by acting contrary to Islam or not implementing Islam completely. The divine right of kings was used in this manner. While rule by a majority is not always necessary, consultation is required.

    To associate Hitler with Islam is part of the effort by Zionists and their Christian supporters to demonize Islam in order to support Israeli policies of oppression of the Palestinians done of course by the only democratic country in the Middle East!! Hitler exploited the Arabs and a sympathy for Islam for his own military objectives.


  2. pshakkottai Says:

    Hi Patrice: “There should not be any nuclear tipped rockets (except for asteroids). Worrying about nuclearly armed Quranists is good: we may as well start the intolerance for those somewhere. INTOLERANCE IS WHAT MORALITY IS ALL ABOUT. And our civilization’s morality has been built in opposition to that of the Quran. The hostilities started when Muhammad Himself, coming out of the desert at the head of a gigantic army, attacked and invaded the luscious lands of the Roman empire.

    Patrice Ayme’
    3 November 07. ”

    My question is why France made the mistake of inviting Islam into the “New Roman Empire” knowing it is unsafe.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks Partha, good quote, I like it!
      The SECOND error of France was made at the time when Jews were given French citizenship in North Africa. At that point the same courtesy ought to have been extended to ALL educated Muslims. The THIRD error was when the Catholics, Protestants and Jews were FORCED (Catholics screamed a lot and had to be bodily manipulated) to enter an accord with the Republic (Secular Religion). At this point, Islam was excluded, and left to its own instruments.

      The FIRST mistake was to allow Ab El Kader, chief of the Algerian resistance to the French Army to enter a capitulation with condition that identified Algerian Nationalism and Islam. That was the original mistake.

      Way back, in the Eight Century, when the Islamists were defeated, and again in the Tenth Century (defeated again), the Muslim civilians were left alone (free to Muslumanize, so to speak). There were no religious accords. The Muslims progressively converted to whatever (Catholicism turned to terror only at the end of the Eleventh Century… Start of First Crusade)

      Why religious accord of the don’t-touch type were made in the 19C and 20C, with Islam alone in North Africa? (Not in Senegal where there was a war, followed by successful collaboration). Because Islam was underestimated in its war fighting capability. And then French intellectuals cordially despised it (while paying lip service to Algerian “Independence”, whatever that meant.

      Also let’s not forget that France’s main fight, a fight for survival and civilization, was with German Fascism. So France viewed Islam at best as a minor annoyance. Then French intellectuals discovered they could ingratiate themselves with the Americans that way, while being stridently anti-American: they could have their American cake and eat it too.

      Meanwhile the French bourgeoisie was anxious to please the USA too, while (secretly) racist relative to North Africa… Racist not just against Muslims, Jews, but even against whom they started to call “Pieds Noirs” (Black Feet), people like Camus, often pretty poor whites who had lived in Algeria for generations, as the family of yours truly… Some were of Spanish origin, from way back…

      “France” meaning Paris, invited nothing: they needed slave workers, during the quick expansion of the late 40s, 50s, 1960s… They were surprised the Algerian workers made a home in metropolitan France, and that many Tunisians and Moroccans felt more at home in the French Republic they had more or less grown under… Actually if they had conducted referenda in many of the old colonies, they would have opted to stay in France… Including Algeria, which voted for the new French Constitution…

      It’s not because many of the savages (including my own family( were betrayed by the Republic, that they stopped believing in the Republic.

      Separating the north and south shore of the Mediterranean is not just racist and stupid, it is strategically impossible.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: