Islam Rape Kit

Islam contains an ideological rape kit. Sacred texts of Islam clearly state that “those that your right hand possess” (that is, slaves) can be sexually exploited. Slaves are obtained in battle. Devout Muslims are enjoined to practice as the Qur’an enjoins to do. The New York Times, in an harrowing description of systematic raping of children by Muslim warriors, is finally waking up to these facts. See:

Just As The Moon, A Pre-Islamist Religion, Rules Over Islam, So Does Abominable Sexism

Just As The Moon, A Pre-Islamist Religion, Rules Over Islam, So Does Abominable Sexism

Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”
This is one of several verses “from Allah” which say that the limit of four wives to have sex with does NOT apply to slaves:

Qur’an (23:5-6) – “… abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…”
The Qur’an is a small book (only 83,000 words, including much repetitive salutations to god), thus, if Allah wasted valuable space to make the same point four times, sex slavery has got to be a great value to him.
Qur’an (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) except those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Sex with married slaves is authorized.

It is often said that Islam promotes equality: nothing is further from the truth. Christians and Jews, where and when tolerated had to pay a tax, wear distinct marks on their clothing, and to be killed if having sex with Muslim women. “Non-believers” and “apostates” have to be killed too.

However, even among Muslims, there is no equality:
Qur’an (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.”
S0 all human beings are not equal, even among Muslims: freemen, slaves and females are three categories.

Plenty of Hadith relate that Muhammad enjoined his men to practice rape after battles (see for example Hadiths from Bukhari, say Bukhari (62:137), Bukhari (34:432), etc.).

The apologists of Islam scoff that this is all irrelevant: there are bigger predators out there, please stop worrying about Islam. Certainly so. And, as I have argued, modern vicious, fundamentalist Islam was promoted by American plutocrats and their servants.

But there is a much larger problem: Islamist ideology has obviously vicious, prominent aspects which explain what went wrong in the territories it conquered. That’s granted. The larger problem is that it ought to have been obvious all along. And the question is:

If Western intellectuals could not see what an abysmal superstitious, vicious ideology Islam represented, which other superstitious, obviously vicious ideologies do they not see? And even more pertinent, which ones do they have interest not to see?

The political and financial systems are obviously vicious and pernicious ideologies it’s best not to look at. Or then to look at in such a way that the critiques are too mild, and, or, too off base (thus ineffective).

Here are some extracts from the Times’ article… and not even the worst ones:


QADIYA, Iraq — In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.

He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution. Interviews with 21 women and girls who recently escaped the Islamic State, as well as an examination of the group’s official communications, illuminate how the practice has been enshrined in the group’s core tenets.

The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.

A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year… To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts. And the practice has become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden.

A growing body of internal policy memos and theological discussions has established guidelines for slavery, including a lengthy how-to manual issued by the Islamic State Research and Fatwa Department just last month. Repeatedly, the ISIS leadership has
emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.

“Every time that he came to rape me, he would pray,” said F, a 15-year-old girl who was captured on the shoulder of Mount Sinjar one year ago and was sold to an Iraqi fighter in his 20s. Like some others interviewed by The New York Times, she wanted to be identified only by her first initial because of the shame associated with rape.

“He kept telling me this is ibadah,” she said, using a term from Islamic scripture meaning worship. “He said that raping me is his prayer to God. I said to him, ‘What you’re doing to me is wrong, and it will not bring you closer to God.’ And he said, ‘No, it’s allowed. It’s halal,’ ” said the teenager, who escaped in April with the help of smugglers after being enslaved for nearly nine months.
…“They laughed and jeered at us, saying ‘You are our sabaya.’ I didn’t know what that word meant,” she said. Later on, the local Islamic State leader explained it meant slave.

“He told us that Taus Malik” — one of seven angels to whom the Yazidis pray — “is not God. He said that Taus Malik is the devil and that because you worship the devil, you belong to us. We can sell you and use you as we see fit.”

Here is a last Hadith, for the road. It’s often asserted that Islam promotes, and protects women. Apparently rather unsuccessfully:

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 126:Narrated Imran:

The Prophet said, “I looked at Paradise and saw that the majority of its residents were the poor; and I looked at the (Hell) Fire and saw that the majority of its residents were women.”

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , ,

41 Responses to “Islam Rape Kit”

  1. Patrice Ayme Says:

    For answers to the usual rejoinders on how well Islam do women:
    [In French.]

    • Kevin Berger Says:

      Derniers commentaires en vrac, pour la route (je pensais qu’il y aurait plus de discussion, s’agissant après tout d’un sujet au combien “croustillant””) :

      – Je me méfie quand même de cette agitation autour des Yazidis, et des Kurdes en général; pour les premiers, non pas que je sois sourd à leur malheur, je constate simplement que l’épuration lente mais inexorable (avec une considérable accélération dernièrement) des Chrétiens d’Orient n’a jamais véritablement provoqué une telle émotion. Bon, je sais bien que les Chrétiens et vous… mais le “deux poids, deux mesures” est bien là, pour des raisons je crois assez évidentes.
      Et pour les seconds, j’ai un a priori négatif envers ces braves Kurdes, irrationnel, je le reconnais, et venant surtout de leur statut de “gentils sauvages” que leur attribuent de nombreux Américains (collaborateurs zélés, clients d’Israël, moins dysfonctionnels et plus “Européens” que les Arabes, effort de RP, laicité, féminisme, communalisme de la Rojava,… tout ça pour une image lisse et héroïque de gentils “proxies”, de “peuple guerrier” correspondant aux critères Anglo-Saxons qui me hérisse un peu le poil).
      Enfin, bref, les méfaits, sexuels ou autres, de Daesh sont réels, je ne le nie pas, mais je m’interroge vraiment sur leur instrumentalisation – sans même parler de l’organisation en elle-même, et du courant djihadiste plus largement – par les grands media “occidentaux”, lire : Anglos, surtout en contraste d’autres évènements passé ou présents.
      Avec, bien entendu et en premier, un certain mois de Mars (? je crois) 2003, et l’absence totale de remise en cause (ne parlons pas de remords, et moins encore de punition) des décideurs et propagandistes responsables. S’il faut déplorer le bordel monstre dans la région, sans jeux de mots, peut-être faut-il commencer par mettre un peu les points sur les i, concernant les fautes de chacun. Mais le non-anniversaire de 2013 a été instructif là dessus.

      – Je vais encore jouer au facho, mais si je dois pleurer sur l’esclavage sexuel en Irak, quid de ça (autre exemple bien graveleux, comme je les aime)?
      Quid des graves affaires de “grooming” de prolos blanches en bande organisé dans la communauté Pakistaniase en GB?
      Et si l’aspect religieux n’est pas forcement là (on laissera l’aspect racial/raciste de côté, suivant les cas), l’aspect culturel l’est certainement (souvenir diffus d’une affaire d’abus prolongés sur une jeune fille par de petits camarades d’école, qui la forçaient à suivre le ramadan, par exemple, avec des échos dans une affaire similaire en Allemagne, les violeurs étant cette fois des étudiants Turques Kurdes et des Iraniens je crois).
      S’il faut commencer à réfléchir sur l’un, il faudra réfléchir sur l’autre, et les conclusions risquent de ne pas être plaisantes.

      – Et finalement, puisque une voix officielle vient seulement d’émettre des “excuses éternelles” de la part du Japon pour les “femmes de confort”, quelle est la date de prescription morale pour les crimes de Daesh? A partir de quand, ou de quel degré d’utilité, les pardonnera-t-on?

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yes, surprising there is no more feedback about all of this. I guess, most of those who think it is wise and sedate of being really cool and “tolerant” about Islam are deeply embarrassed when confronted to the most basic writ of Islam.
        Indeed, the fact they expressed opinions about Islam, without having read the basics is pretty abominable. Imagine being mild and tolerant about Nazism without having read the basics… Although the basics of Nazism were real gentle in comparison with Islam. To get the nasties of Nazism, one had to dig and dig and dig.
        With Stalinism, the same. But, in the case of Islam, the viciousness is in plain sight, and it takes ten minutes.

        About Middle East Christians: I think they should all be accepted as refugees, with the aim of making them citizens, of, say, France. They have endured a lot, and are used to civilizational clash, thus much more broad minded.

        Same the with the Kurds: they should have a land.

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Que Bush et compagnie n’aient pas ete poursuivis pour crime de guerre en dit long. En effet. This being said, Saddam was himself a criminal, so a crime against criminals. However, they could have been pursued for lack of due diligence in protecting the civilian population. The problem is that USA policy towards Iraq has been contaminated with criminal negligence, at the very least, since 1990, so the DEEP USA STATE is deeply involved…

  2. EugenR Says:

    No comment.

    • gmax Says:

      That is right: “those whom YOUR right hand POSSESS”. SO PEOPLE CAN BE POSSESSIONS!!!!

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      As GMax said, and I had not noticed it before, that simple extract is incredibly damaging to Islam. Especially as the expression is all over the Qur’an, in dozens of places, if not more. It means: people can be owned, possessed, by the masters, the Islamists. Thanks for pointing that out. (I had NOT noticed!)

  3. Juicy Planets | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Morality Without Intelligence Makes As Much Sense As Will Without Mind. Intelligence Is At The Core Of Humanism. « Islam Rape Kit […]

  4. Kevin Berger Says:

    Gmax is quite on point, with the “right hand” bit, just as you are with the inequality thing (despite your typo, I think)… and those two built-in exploitation features certainly permeated enough the various muslim cultures, so that cohabiting with the “Other” ( either as even relative/localized majorities or minorities) is going to prove problematic.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Which typo? Typos are often hard to spot, as one fills in the correct thing automatically… So I welcome notices about them. If Islam is dissected, piece of verse by piece of verse, the ominous fate of Christianism will be shared…

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        It’s a trivial typo : “It is often said that Islam promotes inequality: nothing is further from the truth.”
        From the context, I take that you meant “equality”, only to confront that notion with the following examples.

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        No prob, like I wrote, it was a trivial typo, the context was clear enough. And, as far as I’m concerned, the most damning intrinsic feature of islam is not its treatment of women (even this rape theology thing is fluff, ultimately), but what you noted (the built-in core inequality, believers/non believers) and what Gmax noted (slavery, as a part of that inequality).

  5. Kevin Berger Says:

    This rape thing is lurid and titillating enough for me to put my inner facho cap on, and go on a few rambling tangents. In no particular order :

    – Recalling that the Taliban used to set up a wholesale women-stealing system to lure fighters from pakistanese madrasas, shipping back Hazara women IIRC as (forced) wives for the young men otherwise without viable marriage perspectives, or, more prosaically, as “workers” for the pakistanese sex industry. IIRC, even as the regime fell, such war booty crossed down the frontier along with fleeing “fighters”.
    So, it’s not like this is a new development, only the open theology is shocking, though in full line with the doctrinal core of today’s jihadism (in that IIUC, islam is an involutive religion, with its parousie set in its idealized past, which was a tribal way of war masquerading as a religion). Whatever is happening with Daesh, regardless of all the bullshit political and foreign involvements, it’s almost an insult to those doing it to pretend it’s “not muslim”. Their theologians and doctrine men fully know what they are doing, and this is in no way different from, say, the quietist salafists trying to trim their beards as mahomet’s, trying to eat breakfast as mahomet did, or sleep in the same position as mahomet did, etc, etc…
    FFS, back in the early 2000’s, one could read about the usual suspects, I think UK “activists” like Choudary and others possible/probable agents provocateurs, rambling online about slave ownership and assorted matters, in the usual absurdist details “law-religions” like islam tend to obsess over.

    – It is my impression that “Kill the men, the older women & children, and steal the women (and sometimes the younger children)” seems to have been the most basic human way of warfare for much of Humanity’s time on this earth. What’s interesting here is how organized this is, enforced sexual frustration + theorized and sanctioned sexual deviance.
    Or, primitivism meeting civilization.
    You write about philosophy, but this is philosophy in action; there’s been absolutely vile instances of organized mass-rapes, from the soviet Western push into Germany to the 1990’s Congo-Brazzaville & Congo-Zaïre civil wars, or everyday instances of such (I recall reading about a “recreational rape preserve” set up by filipinos fishermen back in an high school library, a rocky island with marooned boat-people women); but AFAICT, even with the political backround (war, propaganda, demonization) there was nothing in the way of ideas like this one.

  6. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Defense Issues.

  7. tom Says:

    Just one of the ‘islamic values’. Another one being the ‘devshirme’ practice used by the ottoman empire, e.g. abducting the fittest infidel boys, and brainwashing them with islam to become the empire’s best soldiers and sent against their parents and brothers. Personally I cannot understand what is ‘acceptable’ in western society about a religion where, among many others, one has to believe in holy war, even against its own country (or the country one or one’s parents emigrated to in search of a life or a much better life); it looks to me like condoning a 5thcolumn and this is exactly what has happened, e.g. the recent incidents in France and elsewhere, the London and Madrid bombings and so on. The limit with religion is where it clashes with laws of the state and/or societal norms. Even a much more benign religion forbidding the payment of taxes would rightly not be tolerated.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Indeed, Tom.
      The “democratic” West won the war with Islam in 1918, by destroying the Turkish empire/caliphate. However, the Western plutocrats feared socialist/nationalist rebellions in the ex-Turkish colonies. All the worst, because of the oil. So said plutocrats and their agents (CIA, etc.) pushed for a “Muslim” renewal.
      The Great Bitter Lake Conspiracy is the foremost example.
      Thus Islam is part of a vast “1984” Orwellian conspiracy (conscious or not).

  8. captain chaos Says:

    These lines my exist in in the Koran, but if you search long enough, you will also find similar words in the Bible and most likely the Tora aswell.
    It´s important that one distinguishes Islam and Islamism (an unfortunately very similarly sounding word). Religious fundamental groups around the world indeed share many commonalities: the enforced wearing headscarfs, for example, are a certain sign of the submission of the woman in fundamental christian, jewish and islamic communities.
    The legitimation to kill members of other religions can -of course- be found at Al Quaida or IS, but also at the Ku Klux Klan, or in the writings of A. B. Breivik… Dedicated antisemitism, on the other hand, is not only a big topic in radical islamistic organisations, but also certain christian radical religious groups (historical example: both catholic and protestant churches in Germany).

    Apart from that: Read the original article, which is only steering at the horrific actions of the IS, not meshing them up with inconsistent claims about the Islam as such… By the way, slander and incitement of people is punished by law in several rights based states such as my home country, Germany (§130 StGB), and others like Austria and nordic countries, because it is legally in line with the prevention of hate crimes and refering to international criminal law (–> 1948 U.N. Convention against Genocides, Art. IIIc) ) ( . Article 14 and 17 of the European Human Rights Convention, which has been transferred into primary european law through the Lisbon Treaty, further supports this.
    The discrimination of a religious, ethnic or whatsoever-group is incompatible with the judicial basis of every democratical state.

    If you disapprove the rule of law in a state, you´re on a good path. But by then, you should also once in a while predict what would happen to you, if you were not part of the privileged e.g. religious group.

    The author of this article here is not much better than those he condemns, since he (or she) makes use of similar populist statements, just in the opposite direction.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have explained, in writing, for more than a decade, that the Qur’an just parroted what is found in the Bible, New Testament, already.
      There you can see Christ ordering to kill “unbelievers” in front of him. A theme dear to the horrendous Saint Louis of France.

      So the Bible is hyper violent. That’s fine, if it’s considered to be a work of fiction. It’s not fine when lunatic gangsters come and claim it’s the law of the land. Christians tried that trick after 363 CE, and were the main factor in the destruction of the Roman Empire in the next 350 years. Periodically, fanatics in Europe tried to impose Biblical Law over secular law, up to the Nineteenth Century (one can even argue the Spanish Civil War was part of Christian mayhem).

      So there have been horrible dictatorships in the name of god(s) somewhere, does that justify some more? You keep on quoting horrendous lethal racists, as if their numbers somehow made them respectable.

      The violence of Christ (as found in the Bible) made Christianism destroy all other religious groups, except the Jews (whom they came close to exterminating several times). Luther’s program was enacted by Hitler:

      Distinguishing “Islam” and “Islamism” is pseudo-intellectualism. In France there is just ONE notion for qualifying the ideology of the Bible followers: CHRISTIANISM. One and only notion. It’s not even pejorative. I just apply French semantics to “Islam”.

      One of Muhammad’s relative on his first wife side was a professional Christian monk who explained to him what he had seen in the desert (Archangel Gabriel).
      Your allusion that I do not respect German laws is unwarranted. I am perfectly aware of European, German and French laws, and I am not violating them. There is no slander and “incitement” in my texts. What is in the Qur’an is itself savage and furious incitement to racial hatred, and even mass murder. Just read and learn:

      Yes, I did not write the Qur’an, it’s not me saying this, it’s the Qur’an saying this.

      By the way, Adolf Hitler admired intensely the Qur’an, explained it had to do with it putting war foremost, quoted it, and made a military alliance with several Muslim organizations (such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who sent thousands of volunteers to the SS in Germany). The Muslim Brotherhood was created, literally, by the Nazis. (It’s not legal in Egypt anymore.)

      I am much better than those who confuse quoting old texts by savages, for savages, with those who, like me, brandish the light of civilization. I condemn savagery, you tell me I am a savage. Why? Because I am savage with savagery? In truth, I am not even savage. You want savage?

      As a German, you have no excuse to be so primitive. You should have learned from history. There is nothing “populist” in the ability to read and think that you seem singularly deprived of. Confusing those who criticize Hitler with Hitler, is an old trick. Accusing thinkers to be illegal and inciting hatred is exactly what brought us Nazism. Time for Germans to learn more history.

      • abcdefg Says:

        I am very well aware of my country´s history: The Weimar Republic was basically a good thing, but had to heavy flwas:
        1. It was what Ralph Giordano called “a democracy without democrats”: Too many people unwilling to commit to demorcratic values like the equality of man, diversity, non-discrimination etc.
        2. It was institutionally unstable: the Reichspräsident was too center staged, antidemocratic parties could be elected and so on.

        Today I live in the best state that up until now existed on german territory (that´s actually another citation of a historian, but I forgot his name). I am very aware of this fact and I also learned why this is the best of all preceding german states: Because individuality is perceived as a common legal asset. Just enable people to do what ever they want is nice, but unstable and it bears the danger of populism. If you look at the german constitutional system of today, you will inevitably notice that compared to other constitutionaly systems, the protection of minorities enjoys a special degree of protection. Make an educated guess why?

        I did indeed learn the historical lessons. And i know them by heart. I am proud and happy about many aspects of my country and the EU aswell, though there still are many things to work on (equality of homosexuals, fight against (rassist) criminality etc.). I fell good when I see refugees being welcomed by my peers, and I am ashamed when I see rightwinged radicals marching against the “islamisation of Europe” in the streets of Dresden or left-extremists on May 1st wrecking cars and shops in Hamburg.
        The center is the key: to stay politically moderate and open towards the opportunities an open mind creates, but at the same time to keep an opposed attitude in the face of all ideologies and attitudes that question the general security of an individual or a whole group. And precisely this is one of the never ending struggles of democracy: how to balance individual freedom and collective security (–> mass saving of data due to terrorism vs. the right of the generic citizen to only be observed by the state once it has sound reason to do so etc.). In light of the just described dilemma, an even more basic problem of democracies appers: The democratic state hast always to be morally superior to those subjects it prosecutes (Justicia´s eyes are covered…). Of course, this is practically difficult, but the logic remains unquestioned. Thus, the state has to guarantee the free practicing of any religion, as long as it does not oppose the state or certain other persons. This all has to take place “under the roof” of a state, but not on behalf of it. This is how modern secularism works, by the way a principle the founders of the current constitution of 1949 inherited from the French.

        As you can see, I am everithing but in need to learn about my history. What about you?

        PS: In Germany, we have a term for this democratical phillosophy: wehrhafte Demokratie (self-protecting democracy).

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          A first remark about the “Weimar Republik”: there was never such a thing. In truth, the “SECOND REICH” went on, formally speaking. It was replaced by the DRITTE REICH when Hitler persuaded the Wehrmacht that he should be Kanzler UND Reichpresident (Hidenburg having just croaked).
          Present Germany is indeed a republic increasingly sister-like to France, and that’s an excellent thing. I have great knowledge of history, and I am mostly looking for truth, not PC fables. Out of my more than 1,000 essays, probably most touch (some) history, and many put some of official history upside down.

          BTW, as I say all the time, the so-called “representative democracy” we have now is anything but democracy. It’s better than the Second Reich, no doubt, but only DIRECT democracy qualifies as democracy. I even wrote an essay once on the Swiss system, one which I know pretty well.

          • abcdefg Says:

            Honestly? What kind of education or apprenticeship did you enjoy? Writing “essays” is nothing difficult today. Everybody can do that; even I could declare to be an expert of -let´s say- medicine or anything else upon wich I find somethong in the internet.
            So you say the Weimar Republic did not exist?



            Nothing more to say…

            And refering to your statement about Switzerland being “the only true democracy”: The swiss constitutional system is shaped by some special aspects like an extensive range of referenda and alike, but in the end these are in most cases just exactly that: a demand by the people. E.g. in the case of the dispute about the building of minarets, a large majority voted against the permission to build mosques with minarets, but in the end the highest national court decided to follow the EHRC and the initiative against minarets found an end. The swiss system is quite close to the citizens, but it is very prone to populism and hatred aswell. This is also the reason, why most european states are representative democracies. Aside from that, direct democracies frequently suffer from inconisten policies over time. It may appear as an argument taht supports authoritarianism, but concerning the lessons learned from the past (W.Republic again), it is apparent that political inconsistence quite possibly triggers instability (–> look at the second link for this point).
            Switzerland of course belongs to the most democratic states in the world, but to call it the only true democracy is laughable at best and Switzerland does suffer from democracy-related problems just like any other democratical country, too.



            So get your facts straight.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              You are a naïve creature. Indeed, most of what is on the Internet is junk. MSM too. Getting my facts straights is what I do.
              Here is Wikipedia:
              Weimar Republic
              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
              German Reich, Deutsches Reich
              Capital Berlin
              De facto authoritarian state by emergency decree (1930–33)
              President: – 1919–1925 Friedrich Ebert, 1925–1933 Paul von Hindenburg
              Chancellor: – 1919 (first) Philipp Scheidemann, 1933 (last) Adolf Hitler
              Legislature Reichstag
              – Government by decree begins 29 March 1930, Hitler appointed Chancellor 30 January 1933, Reichstag fire 27 February 1933, Enabling Act 23 March 1933
              Area 1925[2] 468,787 km² (181,000 sq mi), Population: 1925[2] est. 62,411,000.

              The Weimar Republic (German: Weimarer Republik was the federal republic and semi-presidential representative democracy established in 1919 in Germany to replace the German Empire. It is named after Weimar, the city where the constitutional assembly took place, although the official name of the state was German Reich (Deutsches Reich), continuing the name from the pre-1918 Imperial period..

              Certainly repeating like a parrot what other idiots say is only parody of thinking. “Stupides et foux… perroquets” comme disait Proust. “Stupid and crazy… parrots”…
              Only direct democracy is democracy. Rule by “representatives”, is, by definition, oligarchy (oligo = few plus arkhein = rule). Get your mind straight. 😉

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You write: “The discrimination of a religious, ethnic or whatsoever-group is incompatible with the judicial basis of every democratic state.”

      That’s pseudo-intellectual hogwash: we are unable to practice the Aztecs or Celts’ old religions because the Romans outlawed any religion tolerant of human sacrifices. Right now, hundreds of religions are prevented by law to impose their sexual mutilations in many countries. Several important countries’ laws explicitly prohibits polygamy (thus outlawing Islamism).

      • abcdefg Says:

        First, it is anything but “hogwash”. Are you an EU citizen? I dare you to read Article 14 and 17 of the European Human rights Convention. The freedom of speech finds it borders where one starts to make infame accusations at the costs of others.
        I do not doubt that those statements you cited actually exist in the Koran and I do indeed highly appreciate that you at least don´t try to unproportionally compare the Koran with the Bible. But nevertheless, by not distinguishing the broad and liberal mass of muslims from those who misuse this religion in a violent fashion, you blur the limits between the legitimate, liberal practicing of a religion with an incompatible one. In short: Your article can create the impression that ALL muslims were prone to violence, sexism etc.
        A german publicist once said (as I remind): “The Islam is by definition a violent religion and it will always be a violent religion. A muslim who lives in a non-violent fashion misuses his religion.” This man (Udo Ulfkotte) has been frequently monitored by the police, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (interior secret service), and that for good reason. By the way, he was convicted to a fee of a few thousand € because of statements like that (§130 StGB). Your article points into the same direction, and by stating the Nazi-ideology was “mild in comparison” to the Islam, you disregard manyfold historical and theological evidence pointing against you. Furthermore, you play down the national socialism to an extent which is intellectally embarrasing for any informed person on the european continent. The Nazis murdered 6.2 million+ Jews, millions of political opponents, hundreds of thousands of handycapped, homosexual or otherwise undesired persons, all within mere seven years. In addition to that, they started a war that cost the live of 20 million just in the Soviet Union. And you compare that to the global community of Muslims? Where for heavens sake do you mentally live?

        It is at this point especially important to mention that globally, the vast majority of victims of radical islamistic terror are Muslims themselves, hated by these terrorist, because they are seen as “traitors”. Appart from that, depending on the study you look at, over (or at least) 90% of the global islamic population do not fit into the category of radical islamists. This became apparently visible, when all around the world islamic elites condemned the attacks of Paris on January 7th, 2015.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          abcdefg: I prefer “Captain Chaos” to “abcdefg”. Because Chaos you create:

          You say: “by not distinguishing the broad and liberal mass of muslims from those who misuse this religion in a violent fashion, you blur the limits between the legitimate, liberal practicing of a religion with an incompatible one. In short: Your article can create the impression that ALL muslims were prone to violence, sexism etc.”

          I said NOTHING about the broad liberal Muslims. I was brought up in “Muslim” countries, and I never had one problem with one “Muslim” there for any reason once. Although one Muslim helped bring me up, he was called Bel Aid.
          I am only talking about the system of thought known as “Islam”. Islam, as found in the Qur’an, enjoins to kill all categories of people. Those who embrace it 100%, I call Islamists.

          Where I was living (over a large part of North and West Africa, people viewed themselves as “Sufi”. They did not embrace the Qur’an in full… Nor even Muhammad. That’s very fine with me. That I would give “impression” to people that I am a horrendous racist, or the like, is only proof of their poor reading skills, or ardor to hate somebody (as the Qur’an enjoins to do). I did not probably say Nazi ideology (whatever that was) was “mild relative to Islam”. What I do say is that there are explicit calls to murder against some category of people in various basic Islamist texts. They have been thoroughly quoted here, you can consult them.

          I am from a family of “Just among the nations”. My family saved more than 100 Jews in WWII, some family members such as an uncle fought as a French army officer for SIX years against the Nazis. My father actually fought in Italy and landed in Provence. He was bombed by Nazi jets several times. The Gestapo tried to arrest my entire family for aforesaid resistance activities and wanted to send my then (teenage) mother to Auschwitz. And this is part of it. Nearly half my family was killed by racist German fascists.

          So be “embarrassed” all you want, and call me a pro-Nazi if that amuses you. All you show me, is that you are willing to insult and attack people before you know anything about them. I absolutely abhor Nazism, with an intensity rarely found, even among the fiercest Jew. You live mentally exactly where those who are anxious to hate before you even bother to know people.

          Just for the record: I never compared the “global community of Muslims” to the nutty German robots who launched a world war which killed 70 million people, 25 years after another world war they also deliberately launched (it was often the same actors) which also killed tens of millions of people, many of them in my family. Never. I study systems of thought. I am not in the business of unwarranted hatred.

          • abcdefg Says:

            I take may hat off to your family´s honor regarding their bravery and their sacrifices!

            If you do not want to generalize these attributes to the broad mass of muslims, I have no reason to criticise you.

            But statements like these draw a quite different picture of you:

            “It is often said that Islam promotes equality: nothing is further from the truth.”

            “If Western intellectuals could not see what an abysmal superstitious, vicious ideology Islam represented, which other superstitious, obviously vicious ideologies do they not see?”

            These few lines alone motivate the reader to assume that there is a general threat arising from all who feel attached to this religion. And -again- while it is true that these words exist in the Koran, to call the Islam a violent and dangerous religion per se is very superficial and -according to my personal experience- most oftenly connected to a xenophobic agenda. To openly demand to violently persuade muslim people is a topic occupied mostly by agressive extremists like Breivik, H. Apfel and so on. But if one looks at the rhetoric of Geert Wilders, Frauke Petry, Alexander Gauland, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farrage, Jimmie Akesson etc., several commonalities will become apparent…

            By the way: Concerning the second quote of you about the attention western governments pay to radical islamists: The “Verfassungsschutzbericht 2014” of the BfV dedicates 28 pages (that´s a bit less than a quater) of its whole annual report just to this chapter; let alone the US-american, british and french secret services.


            You have no clue what you are talking about, as is evindenced through the links (–> and I want to point out that I don´t link my arguments with articles I wrote myself).

            Refering to your statement “Just read and learn:” :
            I am learning each day, but I learn from scientific sources (historian, sociological, theologic and political-scientific) of various origins that are acknowledged to be serious by the prevailing scientific communty (although, of course, there are points of view that are discussable within the set of acknowledged perceptions).

            In the current topic, that are for example:
            – Armin Pfahl-Traugber
            – Wolfgang Benz
            – Kerstin Rosenow-Williams
            – Mathias Rohe
            – Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
            – Stefan Muckel
            – Wolfgang Bock
            – Corinna Sicko
            – Havva Engin
            and many more.

            Trust me, my horizon is far enough.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You say: “The legitimation to kill members of other religions can -of course- be found at Al Quaida or IS”

      That’s not the problem. the problem is that it is found in the Qur’an, say in the famous “Verse of the Sword”: Sura 5, verse 9 (but actually most all Suras recommend to kill some categories of people).

      The essay below, mostly made of Qur’an quotes, is around 11,000 words long. The Qur’an itself is 80,000 words:

      On the face of it, the Qur’an is immensely more violent than “Mein Kampf”.
      Now finally acutely conscious of the preceding, France just decided all its Muslim preachers will be formed in Morocco.

  9. abcdefg Says:

    “A first remark about the “Weimar Republik”: there was never such a thing. In truth, the “SECOND REICH” went on, formally speaking.”

    Ok, I see you are a hard case… First, just because it is NAMED Deutsches Reich doesn´t imply that it was the constitutionally and legally same construction as the second german empire, ok? Just because it is called UK doesn´t mean it is a kingdom in the traditional way (absolutist monarchy). Today, among german historians and political scientists, it is common to call it “Weimarer Republik”, most certainly in order to avoid confusions with the second empire under a german emperor.
    That is the first.

    Secondly, “Certainly repeating like a parrot what other idiots say is only parody of thinking.”
    😄 😄 😄
    You tell me that while quoting an unsourced line of Wikipedia, but when I give you omnidirectional evidence via primary sources, globally acknowledged mediators (BBC, Nobel Price Committee) or a website of the legislative branch of a state (where all parties are represented and therefore supervise its contents), I am just “parroting” other “idiots”?
    These “idiots” most certainly understand much more of their respective domains than you, since they rely on a larger amount of information and are subjects -both actively and passively- to broad dicussions.
    Of my list from above, you just have for example to search for Pfahl-Traugber and Benz, and you will quite quickly realise their expertise…

    “Only direct democracy is democracy. Rule by “representatives”, is, by definition, oligarchy (oligo = few plus arkhein = rule).”

    Your statement is true if you dismantle the word into its modules, but the word as a whole has a different meaning today (page 164 in: Schmidt, Manfredt (2010): Wörterbuch zur Demokratie. Alfred Kröner Verlag: Stuttgart).
    Depending on the context, democracy can be described in accordance with a historical era (e.g. ancient Greece) or as a common term that overarches a set of more detailed and different versions (parliamentary (representative), direct, majoritarian (Westminster System) etc.). Your fault is to say direct democracy was the ONLY democracy.
    Besides, you are misinterpreting oligarchy, because oligarchy describes a rule of non-elected actors who interact in a political realm that is decoupled from any controls or democratic legitimation.
    Following your statements, the parliamentarians of ALL countries in Europe and the rest of the world are not elected? They are not subjects to rules implied by rights based states? Democracy does not have the same quality everywhere, sure. But just because a country is not perfect doesn´t mean it was no democracy at all.

    Btw, if you don´t trust my sources, read it in your favored Wikipedia, there is a whole list of different more detailed definitions:

    Furthermore, if you stick with the ancient defintion of the democracy in the polis (city-state) in Greece, you also have to take into account that back then:
    – the priority or weight of one´s vote was derived from the state of property (rich people let´s say 10 votes p.p., poor only 1 vote pp.)
    – women and slaves were completely unrepresented (bad time for you, since I guess you are female)
    – there was no basic set of commonly accepted rights like human rights enshrined in -par example- the Code Civil
    – not a single basic principle belonging to ANY modern democratic state like the division of powers (checks and balances), independence of the justice or individual rights existed.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have long studied the Weimar Regime. The fact that it could not even change its name from the preceding Regime is telling. I quoted Wiki out of convenience. This is a boring subject. The Weimar Regime had absolutely not broken with its namesake, as demonstrated by its lack of punishing the war criminals of 1914, and nominating Dr. Schacht as great chief of central bank and economy whereas his own commanding officer in Belgium had condemned Schacht for criminal behavior! Dr. Schacht implemented hyper-inflation to refuse to compensate Belgium and France for its wanton destructions, especially in Fall 1918 (some of them still visible today, such Coucy Castle, the highest in Europe ever).

      Monarchies are always more or less constitutional. The UK is the second largest plutocracy, precisely because of its not-so symbolic monarchy. As I detailed in Lord Riley’s rule.

      You chose to view People Rule to be also Few-Rule. Well, three is not five, although they have things in common.
      “Elected” means varied things. Kings of the Franks and Roman emperors (even after France split from the empire) were “elected”. Hitler was elected (with a maximum of 37.4% of votes in legislatives, although he reached much higher in plebiscites)

      Representatives are elected, but rule by representation is not democracy. In Athens decisions needed a minimum 6,000 votes (out of 80,000 citizens). Right now, the world is decided, de facto, by a handful of individuals. This is why the 1% pays (basically) no tax.

      As I detailed in many essays, the Athenian democracy got outright transformed into plutocracy under Macedonian diktat. That’s what you allude to.

      That Athenian Direct Democracy was imperfect is obvious (and was much of Socrates’ work). That the work to correct these defects started in the European Middle Ages is also true. Even Hitler could not destroy the German Guilds (he tried).

      • abcdefg Says:

        “The Weimar Regime had absolutely not broken with its namesake, as demonstrated by its lack of punishing the war criminals of 1914, and nominating Dr. Schacht as great chief of central bank and economy whereas his own commanding officer in Belgium had condemned Schacht for criminal behavior!”
        Ralph Giordano: A democracy without democrats (or with too few, to be more precise). Karl Liebknecht, Philipp Scheidemann, Freidrich Ebert, Johannes Kahrs and others were indeed democrats, although they were in a weak position.
        And as you just said, Hitler himself was elected: That Germany is today a representative democracy with the division of power both horizontally and vertically, is just the most prominent lesson learned from those days. The problem is: a democracy (or to be more precise: its people) can abolish itself.
        This is the reason, why today democracies have to be more than just communnities in which the people decide. It has to have all the aforementioned characteristics: division of power, the rule of law etc.
        If you stress that a democracy has to grant the direct participation of its people, look at Art. 41 about the Reichspräsident: he was directly elected and he was the actor who was equipped with the so-called “reserve power” (in cases of emergency, like a threatening political stalemate), he could fuse both executive and legislative power (no division of powers anymore). But this finally led to Hitler (because he convinced too many) and his Notstandsgesetze (emergency-laws), once he was in power.
        The Weimar Republic thus was a democracy, in the case that it was democratically legitimized, but it was too prone to failure, just as I said yesterday.

        Nevertheless, the Weimar Republic was not the same state as the monarch second empire, since it:
        1. had another constitution and
        2. this constitution explicitly replaced the former constitution
        (Art. 178)

        Populism is a constant threat to democratic states and the judicial systems they incorporate to grant a desirable balance of individual rights on the one hand and general security (collective legal goods) on the other hand.
        Current examples are the Front National, the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), the British Defence League, Lega Nord and so on.

        ““Elected” means varied things. Kings of the Franks and Roman emperors (…) were “elected”. ”
        Exactly, and because of this, not all parties can peristantly be allowed. The simplified rule is: Those parties or persons that (or who) endanger the democratic state or parts therof, have to be excluded.

        If you want to point at an ideal situation, in which everyone in a political community directly participates, you will quite quickly realise that there is no single state in the world that fits your condition. And the necessary question than arises: How could a state with millions of citzens work in such a fashion? The plain answer: It can´t. Desires have to be accumulated in parties or alike and the outcome of a decision will never be pareto optimal. If just every party was taken into consideration equally, even then, the result would be chaos.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          The Weimar Regime was an excellent illustration of the fact so-called democracy is not democracy. When Athens lost its Direct Democracy, this happened directly because of the surrender of the Athenian fleet to the Macedonian fleet. Whereas Weimar decomposed from inside due to its contradiction. Such as putting the criminal Dr. Schacht, a pawn of JP Morgan and Wall Street, in charge of the German economy and strategy. Schacht brought Hitler to power, BTW, and Hitler ordered his execution hours before his suicide; I related the story.

          In your anxiety to transform me into a parrot, you point that “there is no single state in the world that fits your condition”. Progress is not about goose stepping behind a state. Switzerland is much more democratic than, say 20, or even 5 years ago. The present reigning plutocracy hates plebiscites: see its attitude relative to Scotland and Catalonia…

          • abcdefg Says:

            The problems and desires for a both stabile and direct democracy is nothing new, it is centuries old. But still, communities are all subject to the same dilemmas I frequently pointed out and you frequently ignore.
            And you have to consider something else: You are not the only person thinking about freedom and how it can be preserved. If you compare the global map of today with that of 20-30 year ago, you will clearly find more democratic states, especially in eastern Europe, South America, parts of Africa (South Africa being a prominent example). Democracy is generally on the advance, but it does not have exactly the same face everywhere due to locally different circumstances. And: Democracy is not a total term; it is not there or not (like the money in your wallet or the toilet paper beside your “special place”), it is subject to constant change and development, sometimes good, sometimes bad. But from a certain point onwards, political scientists speak of a state as being democratic, although this level is again subject to discussion itself.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              If that’s what you are alluding to, there is much more FAKE democracy (goes well with calling the Second Reich a Republic, jawohl mein Führer!). Just watch Switzerland outlaw the VW products today.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      For non-parroted knowledge, and analysis thereof:

      • abcdefg Says:

        Oh, now we come closer to the topic. And again you just cite yourself… You start to bore me.
        “For non-parroted knowledge…” 😄
        Everything you write is the sole and unquestionable truth and anything else (no matter from where it comes or how well it is veryfied) is just wrong or parroted from wrong argueing persons, although these persons are without a doubt among the best informed about the domain…

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          There are quotes, within my texts, of direct text, not secondary, tertiary, or quaternary sources (as “academics” love to do, quoting each other). You think like an authoritarian, something very German in the wrong sense of the term. I am thinking as a free spirit. The fact you fire back something right away without having studied my ideas shows this is all about the Will to Power, not the Will to Knowledge, or, a fortiori, wisdom.

          Some are ad hominem, some are ad cogitum. The former tend to hate, the latter to personally blossom, instead of just existing as a mob.

          Truth is always revealed by one, contradicting the lies power rests on. Thus That One is in conflict with the reigning authorities. As knowledge is power, the power of the few is the knowledge of the few. As knowledge is power, the power of the few rests upon the special knowledge the few impose on everybody else.

          • abcdefg Says:

            1. I simply do not have enough time to deal with all your references, since I have other things to do aswell.

            2. You percept the term “free” just as accepting everything you came across autonomiously by your own without paying attention to the findings of others. My “very german” way to be free is to read everything that fits into a broad logical realm. This realm is in particular quite large, since for example the people I quoted before come from various cultures, countries and political directions, except the radical or extremist ones. My political horizon streches from social democrats “on the left” to liberal conservatives “on the right” of the political spectrum, from jews over muslims to christians and so on. In this way, I am not limited to my immediate own findings, but I get the opportunity to think about problems others found due to a perspective I didn´t have due to my own limits. But if the points they make are comprehensible and supported by others who themselves come from “differnt directions”, I start to take them into account (a very interesting revelation for me was, for example Hannah Arendt text “On violence”).

            3. You don´t consider my various and diverse references worthy to be read, don´t you? At least you still refused to adress their constents (I don´t count childish statements like “you are just parroting”

            4. “You think like an authoritarian, something very German in the wrong sense of the term.”
            First, I didn´t insult you on behalf of your nationality, so don´t commit the mistake to start it.
            And secondly: If you think that thinking in a particular way is something attributed to nationality, you clearly suffer from a limited mental capacity yourself.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              YOU used the German qualifier yourself. I did not reveal my nationality (hint: I have several). Nietzsche mad fierce attacks against the German character. As it unfortunately turned out, they were prescient. Right now the French are probably worse than the Germans, in a German way, and thus, are doing worse (as they should!) Only justice as it’s Clovis who started the fascization of Germany in the most official manner possible. OK, let me go back to driving my Deutsch Diesel (French guy, BTW, discriminated against at age 12) in a nervous way.

  10. abcdefg Says:

    “You think like an authoritarian, something very German in the wrong sense of the term. ”
    “(…) in a German way, (…)”
    So tell me what is “the german way”. Authoritarianism?
    I said that I am german, because this explaines -out of the national history- why I was educated in school and later on to spefically understand the need for the protection of individual righs and anti-discrimination (-> Islam is violent… well, that´s perfectly that) as well as a minimum of political stability.
    You said that I was thinking authoritarian (which is wrong, btw) and that this was “very german”.
    So you are the one thinking in stereotypes, not me.

    BTW: Did you ever consider to quote the peaceful and respectful parts of the Koran? Those that are the basis of orientation for the liberal muslims? Sure 5:32, 29:46, 3:195, 33:35 and so on.
    But no, “It is often said that Islam promotes equality: nothing is further from the truth.”…
    The true truth is: There are hints of both a violent and a peaceful and respectful side of the Islam (otherwise, the liberal muslims weren´t muslims at all).

    But what your article says and what you said about me shows that you are not interested in differentiation.
    Your world is easy, there is black and white:
    – the Islam is violent
    – democracy exists only, when people collectively decide directly without any institutions or other necessary drawbacks to direct representation (a situation that never existed and will never exist)
    – germans are prone to authoritarianism

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Frankly, I don’t give a damn that Hitler was walking around, holding little children hands. As he was. Aplenty. Or that he claimed to be all for saving minorities, all over the world, etc. It’s not because the one who set the fire can shed a tear, that she is not a criminal.
      You can consult my latest essay. I know Islamism probably better than you.
      Germans are less prone to authoritarianism than they used to be, clearly. If Germans can progress, maybe Islamists can.

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 )

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: