PARIS — Masked, military trained gunmen in heavy bullet proof military garb, expertly using fully automatic Kalashnikovs, and a bazooka (RPG), burst into the Paris offices of a French satirical newspaper on Wednesday and methodically killed 12 people, including top journalists and two police officers, before fleeing in cars. The gunmen are still at large 12 hours later, as police operations extended all over a traumatized France.

The French president declared that several mass terrorist attacks were blocked in the last few weeks.

Islamists Assassinating Wounded Cop in Paris 1/7/2015.

Islamists Assassinating Wounded Cop in Paris 1/7/2015.

[Dialogue:”Je vais le tuer!”… ”C’est bon chef!”. “I’m going to kill him!” says one terrorist, as the other covered the street with its AK-47. The wounded police officer, hit by the AK47 in the groin, showed he was unarmed, raised his hands, and added:”It’s good, chief!”… Then the terrorist killed him.]

Five very famous cartoonists and authors were killed. Among their countless satirical activities, they had lampooned Islamic terrorists and the Prophet Muhammad. The gunmen screamed various Islamist slogans:

Allah Akbar! On a venge’ le prophet Mahomet! On a tue’ Charlie Hebdo! (“We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo!”).

Apparently one journalist, facing the muzzle of an AK-47, was spared by an assassin, when she recited verses from the Qur’an. Another woman, a psychoanalyst, was assassinated.

An hour earlier, Charlie Hebdo had published a (quite innocent) cartoon on the Islamist State, where the founder was represented, wishing a happy new year, and good health.

A few weeks ago, the magazine “The Economist“, to which I have been a subscriber for many years, wrote an article on radical Islam. “The Economist” pontificated that “Islam” had nothing in common with “radical Islam”.

Salman Rushdie produced a statement, originally posted on English Pen:

Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”

Rushdie had been condemned to death by Ayatollah Khomeini, and was protected for years by Western Secret Services. His crime? He had called attention to the “Satanic Verses”. This was a part of the Qur’an which was deemed “Satanic”, generations after it was published. (The passage mentioned too favorably the old Moon-centered polytheist religion of Mecca. So a later “Caliph”, or religious dictator, had it removed.)

Original Danish Cartoons Offending The Prophet (Who Died 13 Centuries Ago).

Original Danish Cartoons Offending The Prophet (Who Died 13 Centuries Ago).

I begged to differ with the good Islam/Bad Radicals of The Economist. I wrote a comment which consisted in four verses from the (official Saudi Arabian translation) of the Qur’an. “The Economist” removed it, and sent an email threatening to ban me forever.


The question then is this: if mainstream media censors “the Qur’an“, while bemoaning “Islamophobia”, is not that a contradiction? And why this contradiction?

Radical Christianism was dealt with during the Enlightenment: it was stridently pointed out that it was highly immoral, and illegal to implement all what was in the Bible. Yet, nobody accused the “Enlightenment” of “Christianophobia”.

Christianism and Islamism are closely related religions: they both derived from Judaism, and the former contains lethal statements, later duplicated, and multiplied, in the sacred texts of Islam. Around 400 CE, the so-called “Founding Fathers” of the Church admitted that the Bible was not to be taken literally.

By contrast, around 850CE, the Caliph decided, under the threat of death, that the Qur’an ought to be interpreted literally.

This is all the more striking that a war about the Qur’an, started immediately after the Qur’an was written by another Caliph, 20 years after Muhammad’s death. This war is still going on, all over the Middle East (between Shiah, Suni, Druze, Kurds, Sufis, and all of the 100 sects of Islam).

Muhammad, the Prophet, or “Messenger” himself had broad, open, progressive, anti-sexist views (we know this from his life). Muhammad was made to understand that his wife Aisha was sleeping around. He shrugged. As if it were her business: a very modern attitude.

The progressive attitude of Muhammad was grotesquely trampled when Uthman’s Qur’an was written, said Aisha, Muhammad child bride. She pointed out that Muhammad’s family members, such as herself, and Ali, knew the Prophet better than those who had decided what the Qur’an was. She led a war against what she viewed as a travesty of Muhammad’s message. Unfortunately she lost the “Battle of the Camel”.

Solution? No more tolerance for intolerance.

(And no, I don’t hate “Muslims” on a personal basis: I spent most of my babyhood, childhood and youth surrounded by very nice Sufi Muslims… And to this day, the people watching over my 5 year old daughter the most, are, you guessed it… “Muslim” friends… And they were not spared my observations about Abraham.)

The ideology in the Qur’an, as it is, fosters lethal terror and intolerance. For a full version:


This has to be addressed, as it was addressed with the (related) Nazi ideology. The Qur’an, a short book, has more than 109 context-free passages calling for deadly violence, as deadly violence was an intrinsic good. Here is the first such verses of lethal violence in the second Sura of the Qur’an.

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”

The failure to address this since Voltaire, has caused much mayhem.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to ““JE SUIS CHARLIE””

  1. Chris Snuggs Says:

    Wherever Islam is dominant there is intolerance, injustice, poverty (unless Allah gave them oil), hatred of enlightenment, Jews, dogs, pigs, alcohol, humanely-slaughtered meat, democracy, equality and freedom of expression. “The problem is not Islamic fundamentalism, but the fundamentals of Islam.”


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed. It’s arguably, even worse than the Bible! ;-)! Certainly way worse than the non-literally-interpreted Bible…

      As I have argued, there was a connivance between supposedly, self alleged leftists (French intellectuals around the 1950s), and those who wanted the Middle East to self devour, thanks to Islam…. So they could extract the oil in peace.

      The main financiers of Islamists, for decades, have been the feudal plutocrats of Arabia. As they gave ever more money, Islam terror went up…

      Happy New Year!


  2. ianmillerblog Says:

    I am not against Muslims, or any other religion, or absence of religion, but I cannot help but notice that the fundamentals of Islam are, as was Judaism and Christianity, bloody and uncivilised, and a question must be asked, should the western civilisations permit such blood-seeking people to live in their countries. They offer refuge, and all that happens is this.

    In my opinion, the Muslims who have been given refuge now have to publicly give up this bloodthirstiness and ensure that they all do what they can to stomp out this barbaric subset of people. Apparently these thugs had Kalashnikovs and an RPG launcher. Someone must have been aware of these weapons, and they must inform the authorities of what they know, otherwise they are asa guilty as the murderers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The war weapons come from Eastern Europe, through organized networks (they hide them in innocent vehicles/buses). It’s quite impossible to stop: an AK-47 can be acquired, given enough money. As I said in Chris comment, they are financed by the feudal types in Arabia.

      It’s important for the leading intellectuality to condemn the literally interpreted Qur’an somewhat below Hitler’s WRITTEN work (which is illegal in Franco-Germania, although that’s going to be lifted).


  3. gmax Says:

    It is baffling that Western intellectuals are not waking up, and smelling the mephitic roses of the Koran. Does it have to do with the Algerian war?

    And how does it fit in your general anti plutocratic set up? Was there an old American hand there? The US used to be anti French, and pro Muslim in the 1950s and 1960s, no?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      GMax: I already have touched on this subject several times. It’s very delicate, and extremely complicated. The Algerian war was indeed the linchpin of the problem with Islam (it was tied in with a somewhat similar evolution in Egypt, where the Algerian FNL found help). Then the USA was busy pushing out the European powers. It worked all too well, even for the USA’s comfort…

      In 1950, nobody took Islam seriously, it was a spent force, a picturesque background. But it was a force for division, and thus oil. The nationalists, Nasser-style, were thrown out, and so was European secularism, etc.


  4. Aaron Greenbird Says:

    why is this post not in every newspaper–front page–for all to read?! Bravo Patrice i applaud you, for your insights and courage….


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    The New York Times and Wall Street Journal presented the terror attack in Paris as front page, with several articles. With main picture of the assassination of the police officer (a second or so before the picture I put).

    However the San Francisco Chronicle (Silicon Valley) mentioned it only in a very small corner of its “Top of the News”. The main stories were about a judge allowing Foie Gras back (after a ten year ban), and the Golden Gate closed for the repairs during weekend.

    The New York Times reproduced a few very mild Charlie Hebdo cartoons, adding that others, more famous, could not be reproduced as:

    “The New York Times has chosen not to reprint examples of the magazine’s most controversial work because of its intentionally offensive content.”

    This is exactly why the USA is intellectually second rate, and always will be, as long as this attitude persists.


  6. Aaron Greenbird Says:

    good morning to you all..i saw this pic on FB of people raising a pen and saying the ..’the pen is mightier…”” blah blah…my comment was, ” but let’s not forget the hammer, and continue to remember Charles Martel, for without his famed hammer, there would be no pens..” i dont know, my brothers in arms, the media is broken , no courage, no truth really, just another ‘show’…..tv, there is a reason it’s called ‘programs’…..i wish you all a safe day……


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Aaron: I was shocked, reading inside the New York Times, an ode to self-censorship. Either they have understood nothing. Or. Those clowns are on the side of the Dark Side, the Islamists, the plutocrats…
      I am going to scramble an essay on this.


  7. EugenR Says:

    It seems that when militant group of people, indoctrinated by totalitarian religion or ideology appear, liberal political and judicial system has no tools to oppose it, unless it adopts less liberal policy. And here we have conflict of two wishes, the first-to sustain liberal society and the second-personal security.
    At eve of second world war, France and partly England had the same problem with the Nazi Germany. At 1935 they could easily solve the German problem by deposing Hitler who broke the Versailles agreement. They did not do it, even if they had clear indication about psychotic- aggressive intentions of Hitler.
    Other problem is that these totalitarian religions or ideologies have wide support among people who live in a community in crisis. This crisis may be economical, social, or cultural, what i call a subjective feeling of injustice. The Muslim population, living in the Muslim countries (except of few exceptions) definitely live in situation of crisis; political, economical and social but also cultural crisis of identity and self confidence, which occurs also when they live in a non Muslim country.

    a. Political failure of Muslim state politicians is colossal that there is no need to comment on it.
    b. Social crisis is also phenomenal, if we take in account phenomenas as slavery, practically non existing middle class no tolerance towards the other, be it other gender, other religion, or other sect in the Muslim religion.
    c.Economically non of the Muslim countries could cope the economic success of the Asian Tigers, and oil exporting countries with huge income also failed to create functional economy based on skill labor. Most of their working population are foreign workers without any basic rights, just a step in a better state than slaves.
    d.The last but not the least is the cultural failure. The Muslims, who stick to their religious cultural values, try to fight the modern, liberal values that are based on rationality, scientific and critical thinking by force, since they have no tools and no arguments for an intellectual argumentation. viz; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNnl_5eaUBA
    Islam, as all the monotheistic religions is based on dogmas. This by itself wouldn’t be devastating, if not the need of every faithful Muslim (and this applies also for Christians) to be a missionary and try to spread their faith among everyone. The Muslim missionary failed of course, since more Muslims, mainly the educated ones leave the faith than join it, (if they are not forced under threat of death to stick to their religion).

    To finish, i wonder what will be the political response to the last events. I believe if even now they will not act and as always they will sweep the problem under the carpet, the more radical politicians will take the power, and we have learned already of what they are capable.


  8. Hazxan Says:

    Some say the problem is the UK and US supported Wahhabism, rather than Islam as a whole.

    Curious that your writings really made me aware that we live in a plutocracy, not democracy, Patrice. Have you forgotten how our plutocracies are bound in all this?




    • gmax Says:

      @ Hazxan: I think one of the main points of Patrice is that the USA has used SALAFISM-WAHHABISM as a weapon.

      TO GET OIL.

      USA did the same in Iran with the Shiah, against Dr. Prime Minister Mossadegh.

      That is why Obama EQUATES badmouthing religious figures, and the Holocaust.

      So Obama himself is the SALAFIST IN CHIEF


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hazxan: Entirely true. During my childhood and youth, I lived among Sufi Muslims, who were 100% compatible with civilization, and sometimes more advanced. However, a flood of well paid Wahhabist preachers from Saudi Arabia in the last few decades has changed everything, including in Western Europe.

      I have an essay attacking full bore the plutocrats, starting with Bill Gates, I guess tomorrow. I had written most of it BEFORE the attacks in France… And these ideas don’t come from yesteryear, in my case, as GMax said…


  9. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to NYT, Jan 10, 2015.]

    I agree with most of the editorial: I said much of the same things on my site for years.
    France has lost many battle, but is winning the war. This is exactly why Al Qaeda targeted her heart, Freedom of Expression. “Frank” means “Free”.

    France, at the crossroads of the main trade routes of Europe, at war for millennia, lost many battles. However this central position has fostered tolerance and understanding: Already 16 centuries ago, Celts, Germans, Romans, Jews, Franks, Goths and Burgonds had built a melting pot.
    The Franks outlawed slavery over all of Europe… Except in the part of Iberia the Islamists controlled. After the Franks invaded Britain in 1066 CE, not only did they outlaw slavery, but they established the basis of a more democratic state.
    This made France a natural place for Protestantism: Cathars and Protestants appeared there, centuries before Luther. And for the Enlightenment.

    France made a 5 trillion dollars war to give birth to the USA.

    The French Constitution of 1789, gave all men equal rights. Thus the United Nations’ Charter, the core of today’s civilization. 1789 also gave rise to the present European Union. France originated, and is the natural soul of both enterprises (and not just of the USA).

    France loves extremes because it is the country of debate: one can’t debate by agreeing. That’s why Al Qaeda targeted the core of debate, Freedom of Expression.


  10. Mahomet Hebdo | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie/ […]


  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to NYT]

    Secularism is about living in one’s age. This is what the word “secularism” means. It is actually a neutral concept.

    Those who impose a particular god are obviously not living in our age. Indeed, in this age, thanks to the Internet, all those who know how to read know of many gods. Hinduism proposes already a million gods. Which one to choose? Why to choose one? Most of these gods are more than twice older than Muslim god, or his “messenger”.

    So choosing a particular god of the past is to chose a particular view point from the past. Imposing this shrunk, obsolete version of the world, makes for very small cultures and the small minds they spawned.

    This creates countries that do not compete very well economically and culturally. Such countries are poor and engaged in a vicious spiral down the drain of history.

    Thus imposing theocracy while so many other countries are (mostly) secularist is a great disservice to Egypt. Laicity, the opposite of the choosing of particular god(s) is not just superior philosophically, and culturally, it’s the easiest way to higher economic performance.

    So, if theocracy is such a terrible thing, why does it arise? Because it’s oppressive, and, thus, justifies oppression.

    Theocracy is the best friend of those who take themselves for gods… And that is why theocracy is generally imposed by generals (Constantine and Theodosius were the Roman emperors who imposed Christianism; Muhammad and the early Caliphs were all war chiefs).


  12. Leveraged Morality Needed | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Insulting Islam is the gift that keeps on giving… Secularism is about living in one’s age. This is what the word “secularism” means. It is actually a neutral concept. […]


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: