Not To Corral Islam Is Racist & Exploitative

Abstract: Both the present Middle East and the way one interacts with Islam it are failures that grew from a racist bias. Islam has not been treated as well as Christianity. Christianity was domesticated, educated, and given strict guidelines to become compatible with civilization. As a result, at least in Europe, after a joint attempt with the Nazis at killing most Jews, Christianity has been made irrelevant, except for the pretty monuments it left behind, a propensity to charity, and a consolation for some of us who believe we are more than star dust.

It is racist not to extend the same courtesy to Islam.

Universities Grew From Cathedral, Under Government Forcing

Universities Grew From Cathedral, Under Government Forcing

***

Two Frenchman were immediately identified from a Daesh (“Islamist State”; ISIS/ ISIL) video showing the beheading of 18 prisoners, November 17, 2014.

One of them is Maxime Hauchard from a French family of French descend. He got a Catholic education. After a few lousy little jobs, Maxime converted to Islam, starting to wear a robe and shaggy beard.

The other terrorist is pretty similar: same age, 22 years old, also converted out of the blue from a Catholic background.

A prominent, even dominant movement of Catholics, in the Middle-Ages and Renaissance, over a period of seven centuries, caused great mayhem in Europe, and the Middle East, killing millions, spawning dozens of wars.

Fortunately, nowadays, the Christian superstition has been nearly exterminated as a force in Europe. So it is only natural that those who want mayhem should turn towards its untamed daughter superstition, Sunni Islam, especially in its Wahabbist variant.

So back to our frustrated Catholic know-nothing, do-nothing Maxime. Let me recognize, at the outset, that the state, and the philosophy which guided it is at fault, and at fault in two ways: with neither providing jobs, nor the education to go with it. A better look at contemporary China, or the European past, is in order here.

So a French low life is told about the Qur’an where it is said that one should kill the enemies of the Faith (sometimes rather painfully). Not to be able to kill one’s enemies with Catholicism is obviously frustrating. Christ made some statements where he apparently said he wanted to kill the enemies of the Faith, but modern Catholics insist he did not mean it.

In the Qur’an, some verses suggest one should not force Islam upon non-believers. But there are three sorts of “non-believers”.

One can be a “non-believer”, but still from the “people of the Book” (whatever the book is!). Or one could be a total heathen, a polytheist (but sometimes Christians, because of the Trinity, three gods, are put in that category). And the worst type of “non-believer” are the “Apostates”.

“Apostates” used to be Muslim, but then they were found not to be Muslim, after all. Those have to be killed absolutely, the greatest severity has to be deployed against them.

That’s why, when a Muslim writer has a sudden need to expose shortcomings of Islam, they end up dead, or on the run.

Who decides who is an “Apostate”? Well, that’s the beauty of Islam: just join, and then you can.

Take the case of these French punks. Remember: they are plain French punks to start with, and cannot do a thing. They have no power. Everything is forbidden. Then they convert to Islam, something that takes two minutes. Then the punks are free to decide who is a Muslim, and who is an ex-Muslim, that is an Apostate. So they take a ticket to Turkey, Turkey let them get in contact with very well financed terrorists, and let them enter Syria. Once inside Syria, our ex-Catholics and Two Minutes Muslims are free to kill whoever they are told is Apostate. Hey, they can nominate their own apostate, like all these Syrians and Americans to behead.

If one is a born beheader, it’s wonderful.

Girls? Girls are hard to get for Catholic punks. Yet, as a Muslim, you will be able to acquire a “battlefield bride”, any female human “whom you right hand posses”. Yes, that’s in the Qur’an, the perfect excuse for those who want to violate Human Rights and the Geneva Convention.

The Quran, chapter 4 (An-Nisa), verse 24:

“ 1.And (also forbidden are) all married women except those whom your right hands possess (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you,

2.and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication… surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.

— translated by M. H. Shakir

The term “those whom your right hands possess” is considered to refer to prisoners of war, or more broadly to slaves in general, according to the classic tafsirs. Bernard Lewis proposes the translation “those whom you own.” Slaves are mentioned in at least twenty-nine verses of the Qur’an.

The general term ma malakat aymanukum (literally “what your right hands possess“) appears fourteen times in the Qur’an.

In all civilized countries, education is mandatory and this means not just that children ought to go to school, but that they ought to learn enough secular material to be civilizationally compatible.

This element of civilized behavior was first implemented by the Franks in the Sixth Century. Frankish bishops were often Frankish nobles made into bishops with a three weeks course. The Vatican hated them. A confrontation finally happened when the Pope Gregory the Great threatened to burn alive the bishop of Dignes, France. The latter was culprit of secularly educating children in his diocese.

Of course, the Pope had no army. The Frankish State told the bishop not to worry. Two centuries later, the Imperium Francorum actually forced all and any religious establishment to teach secularly, or be eradicated. By then the Pope had figured out not to argue with the Franks. The Church submitted.

Out of that mandatory secular education grew the European university system (the “Cathedral schools” became universities, as happened in Paris even before the present Cathedral.

In general, nasty religions have to be subdued, or stamped out. Such is the way of civilization. Leaving People in a state of subjection to nasty systems of superstition is human right abuse.

Tolerating vicious systems to thought and moods is not just about letting other been victimized. It’s also about civilization not been under threat.

Take the example of North Korea. A committee of the United Nations found that North Korea was a Nazi-like state, and recommended sanctions. (That, of course delighted Putin.) North Korea, being a nuclear armed state, represents an immense danger: it could bring the death of 50 million people, much faster than Hitler.

Civilization needs to be defended, lest it be destroyed.

What to do?

Nowadays, the Christian Church cannot do what it wants. If the Church hierarchy decided to burn alive some Church authority, as it did with Hus in the Fifteenth Century, the Carabinieri would take over the Vatican, disarm the Swiss Guard, and sent the Pope and his accomplices to a mental asylum, for treatment. (I would enjoy the sight, but that’s besides the point.)

The Vatican, as a State, was created by Charlemagne. What was the fundamentally Pagan Charlemagne up to, is an interesting question. He may have created the Vatican as a state to allow Venice, say, to pursue its semi-autonomous existence as a Republic (and thus allowing the potential for more Republics (Genova, Firenze), and attempts to establish some (as happened in Rome herself in the 11C). Within two centuries, a Muslim army actually seized the Vatican, and was then dislodge by a Frankish army.

If Christianity is tightly corralled, why should not Islam be tightly corralled too?

That question was not answered by the Franks, and their successors the French. In the case of the Franks, the reason is simple: the Franks were essentially secular (although their leaders evoked their made-up Christian Saints and Jesus, when not King David or the Trojans, all day long). Frankish armies annihilated the main Muslim Arab and Berber armies in 721-750 CE.

As the Franks extended religious tolerance to Jews, Pagans, and Catholics, they may as well have extended it to Muslims, too. And that’s what they did. Thus, no Muslim was discriminated against (massacres against the Jews started, much later, in Germany with the First Crusade, in 1099 CE).

That worked well. So it became a habit. When the Franks and Normands took over parts of Italy and Sicily which had been invaded by Muslims, that policy of religious tolerance was pursued: Crusaders were astounded to see thousands of Muslims praying in their peculiar way on what was nominally Roman ground (although the Arabs called the Franks “Franji”, namely Franks, the Franks considered themselves “Romans” officially since 800 CE).

Emperor Frederik Barbarossa’s personal guard was Muslim.

Meanwhile, the French State had, de facto, split from the rest of the Roman empire, although it was considered that the “French king was emperor in his own kingdom”. Western Francia was the strongest piece of said empire, and kept seeing the Church as something submitted to it. Clashes between the French State and the Vatican were numerous.

Some of these clashes were funny: a French king was excommunicated for 12 years (he had divorced his Danish wife, and remarried, without the Pope’s approval). Others were less amusing: Philippe IV Le Bel, cracked down on the Vatican, arrested the Pope, who ended dead. Soon, Philippe arrested, and annihilated the army of the Church, the Templar Monks.

For centuries to come, the French State went back and forth, most of the times cracking down on the Church. However three spectacular counter-reactions occurred, at the times of the seven religious wars of the late 16C, under the Medici queen, or, of course, under the usual suspects, Louis XIV and the Slave Master Napoleon.

In the end, the French State made a tight deal with the Catholics, Protestants and Jews… But not the Muslims! (Although it had plenty of Muslims, more or less under its jurisdiction in Algeria; I say more or less, because a deal had been made about the freedom of religion with Abd El Kader, to end the war in Algeria).

In all these matters, the rest of Europe more or less followed France, however belatedly (for example the Prussian anti-Jewish laws re-instituted all over in 1815, were finally destroyed in 1945).

France herself has been following her philosophers… Who were clueless about Islam.

The last philosopher to dare criticize Islam was Voltaire, and his theater on the subject was censored recently… Although it was not censored under the Ancient Regime! And although, in the guise of criticizing Muhammad, Voltaire was criticizing Christianity, as everybody knew.

So one can say that now Islam has become more of a sacred cow in Europe, than Christianity was in 1770 CE!

Why is Islam treated more leniently in 2014 than Christianity in 1770? Well, it’s a case of reverse racism. But reverse racism is still racism, just like antimatter is still matter of sorts.

Patrice Ayme’

 

 

 

a transexual look fashionable in Europe, sometimes with high heels and feminine manners, see Wurst; amusingly we have a rant from Charlemagne himself on the subject: the emperor declared that only short skirts, or long pants made sense for real men, as anything else got in the way).

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Not To Corral Islam Is Racist & Exploitative”

  1. pshakkottai Says:

    “If Christianity is tightly corralled, why should not Islam be tightly corralled too?”
    Perhaps France can take a lead in initiating the removal of all offending passages in all religions which are contrary to the rights of man. The ayatollahs will object and will have to be dragged in. Islam will not self-correct.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, Partha, right on all! ;-)!

      What was done with Christianity, and it was done early on, around 400 CE, was to have the so-called fathers of the church recognize that the Bible was allegorical, and not literal. I have no direct proof of the involvement of the Franks then, but the proof of their implicit involvement was OVERWHELMING.

      So the fact the Franks refused Catholicism for two centuries showed they did not agree with all this Bible mythology, breathed down the necks of the so-called “fathers of the church”, and then they re-interpreted it heavily.

      In Islam, a Caliph, by 850 CE, gave the order to stop re-interpretation of the Qur’an under penalty of death.

      France has more Muslims than Israel has Jews, and much more than that when one includes people of more distant Muslim descent (some more than 12 centuries old). Then there are the millions of (part) African descent (such as yours truly). When the French occupied Algeria in 1831 CE, they explained that they came back, as their ancestors the Romans used to be there.

      That’s more valid a reasoning than Algerians calling themselves Arabs (they are genetically Europeans more than anything else!).

      Some Muslim scholars and mullahs, generally very young, are starting to agree with me. Personally, I have spent my youth with Islam 100% compatible with me (women had naked faces and chests!… horrifying some Europeans…) So it can be done.

      However, it will not be done if philosophers don’t take the lead!

      Most of the “French theory” philosophers were total idiots on that subject (and I hold back my qualificatives! I view them more like criminals…)
      PA

      The Franks were then, in 400 CE the overwhelming force of the Roman army. Actually that’s the year when the Franks were put in charge of defending Germania Inferior, and Germania Superior (plus all or part of Gallia). The Legions were evacuated (6 years later, they left Britannia: austerity!)

      Now the government had imposed “Orthodox Catholicism” as official religion since 381 CE (formally). Yet, the shock troops, the Franks, were PAGAN!

      Other Germans, and first of all Goths and Burgonds, were CHRISTIAN Aryans (they did not believe in the Trinity). That the Franks were the shock was amply proven when the Huns broke through around 450 CE: the giant Hunnish host was harassed by a Frankish army for several weeks, retreating through Gallia, before the Gothic army and the Legions caught up.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      One should not target removal: that would be a big mistake. Instead, what’s needed is re-interpretation. Like insisting that when Muhammad said there are obvious a lot of pigs and monkeys, because Jews turned into them, he was obviously joking, because they were his friends, and he made lousy jokes about them to irritate them. Or something. Etc.

      On the other hand, Nazi-like calls to murder, which are presently allowed on the Internet, ought to be viewed for what they are, calls to murder, and be the object of international prosecution of the severest type.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: