Abstract; Islamists love to claim that Islam is a religion of peace and harmony.  We investigate, concentrating on just one of the chapter, a Sura, of the Qur’an. Just one. Sorry about the cruelty. We find what seem to be calls to murder for subjective reasons, anti-Judaism, anti-Christianism (both with thievery or murder in mind), and a few other problems besides. No wonder that interpreting the Qur’an “literally” was considered to be a grievous crime in thirteenth century Muslim Egypt.


Ten Muslim fundamentalist terrorists from Pakistan hijacked a boat, assassinated half a dozen crew, and landed in Mumbai, killing about 200, including 40 Muslims, and quite a few Jews (having raided specially a Jewish center). It was reported that some of those terrorists were children.

Why did this happen? Why does this keep happening? Because Pakistan is a religious fundamentalist state. Whereas in a democracy like India being elected to office is independent of religion, not so in Pakistan. The Pakistani Constitution gives many privileges to Islam, and only to Islam (top officials have to be Muslims, “insulting” Islam is subject to the worst penalties, including death, etc.).

Whereas India is a democracy, a meritocracy that rewards excellence, Pakistan is a theocracy that rewards Quranism. In India, intelligence, being rewarded, grows. In Pakistan Quranism grows. So India lands on the moon (an old superstition from Mecca), and Muslim terrorists land in Mumbai.

What is Quranism? Well, in one sentence, Quranism is what went wrong with Islam. The Qur’an was NOT the work of Muhammad (a little known fact!).

The Qur’an was written under the order of the dictator Uthman, self proclaimed successor (Caliph) of the Prophet. Other versions of Muhammad’s ideas were ordered destroyed by the dictator. The Qur’an was so controversial at the time that it provoked a massive rebellion, and caused directly Uthman’s demise. After an argument from a roof top, stones flying, Uthman was given the lethal blows, while he made a show of reading his Qur’an. This was followed by several entangled wars, in which members of Muhammad’s family led armies fighting the followers of Uthman’s Qur’an.

The accusations against Uthman’s Qur’an resonate to this day. For example Aisha, Muhammad’s child bride, accused the Qur’an of extreme sexism, and insisted Muhammad was in no way sexist [and indeed, there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad was extremely modern in his behavior regarding gender, to the point of equalitarianism].

Muslim fundamentalists denounce cartoons because they have a problem distinguishing fiction and reality. When one reveres a book that orders ultimate violence against other people for not believing we don’t know what it is, that goes with the territory. The Qur’an is one of the most violent books ever written. Here are a few extracts of the first eleven consecutive lines of Sura 9, forming its first eight verses:

“[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from God and His messenger to the idol worshipers … know that you cannot escape from God, and that God humiliates the disbelievers.

[9:3] … God and His apostle are under no obligation to the idolaters…Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers…

[9:5] When the sacred months are over SLAY the infidels WHEREVER you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in AMBUSH EVERYWHERE in every way for them … the idolaters are ignorant men.

[9:7] God and His apostle repose no trust in infidels…

[9:8] How can you trust them? If they prevail against you they will respect neither agreements nor ties of kindred. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts reject you. Most of them are evil doers.”

Not bad, in a grand total of eleven lines. God has spoken. Very mercifully: we are warned. Have Mercy on us…

The entire Qur’an is like that [see P/S for more deconstruction of Sura number nine]. Other fundamental sacred Muslim texts agree and support this violence, and the threat it represents. As a murder ideology, the Qur’an is second to none. Now remember that just one bad sentence is enough to condemn an entire moral system. One word is enough. And one word is the worst: “SLAY”. (And moreover, slay for subjective reasons, although the Qur’an gives some groupthink, ethnic and religious criterions of a priori disbelief; see P/S.) When kids infused with that ideology of hatred, waded ashore with heavy weapons in Mumbai, they slayed wherever they found, as Verse Five above orders. Serving God is hard, but someone has to do it: and it will go on, as long as “God” is allowed to pontificate with murder.

Pontificating with murder is what the Qur’an does. It will go on until potential victims have had enough to live with the threat.

Patrice Ayme

P/S 1: Aisha was married to Muhammad around age 6, and the marriage was “consumed” when she was about 9. But she loved him sincerely. Muhammad brushed off very specific accusations of infidelity against her. Long after Muhammad’s death, Aisha fought followers of Uthman’s Qur’an, greatly because she felt the Qur’an was horrendous for women. She led an army in the “Battle of the Camel”, when she occupied a prominent height, mounted on such a beast, in full view of all the participants. Unfortunately, she lost. Although her eloquence against the Qur’an survives to this day (“Who are you to tell us what Muhammad thought, you who never lived with him?” etc.). Aisha’s war goes on, and we are going to win it for her.



More on unbelievers, still [only!] from Sura Nine:
“[9:14] You shall fight them, for God will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.”

Ransom unbelievers violently:
“[9:27] Ultimately, God redeems whomever He wills. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted… God is Omniscient, Most Wise. [9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth – among those who received the scripture – until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.”

The following makes it clear that Jews and Christians are unbelievers:
“[9:30] The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” while the Christians said, “Jesus is the son of God!” These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. Allah’s curse be on them. They have surely deviated.”

“[9:63] Did they not know that anyone who opposes God and His messenger has incurred the fire of Hell forever? This is the worst humiliation.”

MOCK GOD, DESERVE THE FIRE OF HELL; If nothing else, those who mock are like the Hypocrites:
“[9:64] The hypocrites worry that a Sura may be revealed exposing what is inside their hearts. Say, “Go ahead and mock. God will expose exactly what you are afraid of.” [9:65] If you ask them, they would say, “We were only mocking and kidding.” Say, “Do you realize that you are mocking God, and His revelations, and His messenger?” [9:66] Do not apologize. You have disbelieved after having believed. If we pardon some of you, we will punish others among you, as a consequence of their wickedness. [9:67] The hypocrite men and the hypocrite women belong with each other – they advocate evil and prohibit righteousness, and they are stingy. They forgot God, so He forgot them. The hypocrites are truly wicked. [9:68] God promises the hypocrite men and the hypocrite women, as well as the disbelievers, the fire of Hell, wherein they abide forever. It suffices them. God has condemned them; they have incurred an everlasting retribution.”

[It is on this sort of text that the hysteria against the cartoonists rest; they deserve the “fire of hell”, indeed, and one can understand that true believers have to show that get them all heated up! Uthman, as a fascist dictator, wanted to be feared, and there is nothing fear fears more than fearless mockery. Thus the insistence that mockery deserves burning alive, a style of execution Caliph Ali was partial to.]


P/S 3: We did not address the long arm of US secret services and US policies in all this. But they should always be kept in mind. US policy makers resurrected the literal interpretation of the Qur’an from oblivion, in a crafty maneuver to create strife among Muslims, starting in 1945. Quranism, a throw back into a form of primitivism so primitive it ignored many of the advances of Greco-Roman Antiquity, was a perfect weapon against modernity. Modernity is associated to socialism, hence redistribution of riches in the Middle East, hence so much less for American plutocrats, who pulled the strings in Washington. This is a somewhat different subject, but it is fully relevant (because Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, long propped up by the USA, is behind lots of Muslim Fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not only the plutocrats have their own interests, but those who are actively pulling the strings, the intelligence services, develop their own access to power doing so, and keep on going, even when it is suggested to them to stop; a new cold war with India would be the best pretext to prevent a further offensive against the ISI’s allies in Western tribal territories; thus it gives a motive for elements of the ISI to facilitate terrorism of the Mumbai type; it would be a mistake for the West (that would include India!), to fall into that trap…)


P/S 4: “SLAY the infidels”, God’s order, has different variants in different translations of the Qur’an [originally in old Arabic, with an uncertain, incomplete, inchoating alphabet]. All translators agree on “SLAY”, but “infidels” can be rendered as “idolaters”. “Pagans”, “disbelievers”, “unbelievers”, etc… We want to know, because we want to know whom among us, deserve to die.


P/S 5: What does the observation that the Qur’an is a problem, mean regarding the West’s offensive against Islamist terrorism? It means that the Qur’an should be exposed for what it is, namely, as above. Certainly Muslims that want to throw out the literal Qur’an should be encouraged and financed. It also means that maybe the old crime of “literalism”, as in 1300 CE in Egypt, should be reintroduced. Certainly a call to murder against a religious, or ethnic group [such as Jews] under the guise of the Qur’an, should be treated as any other hate crime. Certainly the Shariah should not be given an inch [give them an inch, and then one should end burning heretics again, except in this case, heretics would be the “infidels”]. 


Tags: , , ,


  1. Zoe99 Says:

    Can you provide any citations for your allegation that the US secret service conspired to spread Quranism, as you call it, and under what circumstances? I have never heard that accusation before, and while I am not a historian I am generally at least aware of the various theories.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It’s spread around my works, with explicit references, here and there. Googling “CIA, Iran, Shiite, 1953” should be a first approach. In general using the Internet for checking what I am saying is implicit throughout. OK, it requires some Internet search ability and discrimination, which is learned, and not obvious.


  2. Zoe99 Says:

    I’m *well* aware that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader in 1953. But your allegation that the US secret service “conspired to spread Quranism” is specific, and not backed up by facts in my opinion.

    I did try googling — with your exact word suggestions, by the way — and found nothing about the CIA actually trying to spread Quranism. “All” they wanted to do was to overthrow the guy who was trying to nationalize the Iranian oil fields; I haven’t found any allegations at all that they actually wanted to spread Islam of any kind, let alone a literal Quranism.

    I’m not saying it’s not out there, I’m just asking you to please provide your source(s).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Culture is what is left after one has forgotten the rest (Sagan), in particular, specific sources. When the USA president tries to bend lower than the ground in front of the leader of Wahhabism, as fundamentlaist obscurantist as Islam can be, you can get a hint with your own eyes. My job is to provide my best wisdom, not my best references. Besides references are of two types: primary (facts), and secondary. For example, if you are not aware that Al Qaeda was basically created by the CIA, well, nothing to say. I have read thousands of pages on that subject alone. Providing appropriate reference would stuck me to writing one essay a quarter at most.

      I lived most of my childhood in Muslim countries, and was direct eyewitness of USA methods, by the way.

      It’s true the Internet is not perfect, and there is lots of deliberate lies out there (consult pro Nazi, holocaust denying sites for this). It will change in the future.


  3. Zoe99 Says:

    True, I am not aware of any evidence (concrete or otherwise) that Al Qaeda was created by the CIA, but I know the US/CIA certainly did what they could to help Afghanistan defeat the Soviets, using the age-old thinking that the enemy of my enemy is my friend — how untrue that has turned out to be. (We made “friends” with Saddam Hussein for much the same reason — he was an enemy of Iran and we thought he could help us defeat them.) I can imagine the US creating (or supporting) Al Qaeda if it thought it could gain control in the middle east by doing so, however.

    I will do more reading on Al Qaeda — to be honest, although I know that the US being in Saudi Arabia has fueled many of these Wahhabi groups, I do not know much about their origins.

    Can’t defend Obama’s bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia except to say that I don’t think he meant it the way everyone thinks he did. I think he was just trying to demonstrate that he is the “anti-Bush” and obviously overdid it. But time will tell. I for one would like to see a little pressure put on the Saudi government, given that most of the terrorists seem to come from SA.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The present Saudi King, Abdullah, is not far from as good as a Saudi king could be imagined to be. But he always was a very special case, deeply estranged from the corruption of many from his family. Maybe Barack’s attempted genuflection was a personal recognition of Abdullah’s special status as an heroic Saudi.

      Roosevelt made a pact of the devil with Ibn Saud, the Saudi founder, in 1945, on his way back from Yalta. after giving half of Europe to stalin. A lot of thse policies were deliberate alliances with various disgusting characters, to undermine Europe. That launched the 30 year long American century, the ambers of which should soon gloomily glow, lest Obama succeeds to turn it all around (with giant research budgets, as he has proposed, why not?).


  4. Progress Kills Killer Religions « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] in the West, who howl their simplicity in unison, the Qur’an is a book that, read literally, ORDERS to kill people on the basis of beliefs that are purely […]


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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: