Cracking Down On Literal Islam

Europe is finally waking up to the danger of Literal Islam. “Literal Islam” means reading the fundamental texts of Islam as what they are supposed to be, according to Literal Islam itself: as the word of God. For me, Literal Islam, Salafism and Wahhabism are roughly synonymous.

Says The Economist:”In the very loosest of senses, all Muslims are Salafi. The word literally describes those who emulate and revere both the prophet Muhammad and the earliest generations of Muslims, the first three generations in particular. There is no Muslim who does not do that.”

So what did these three generations of Muslims do? They conquered, by the Sword, the greatest empire which the world had ever been. In a century. If You Think The Sword Is True, Islam Is True. If you think there are higher values than The Sword, Islam of the first three generations, is just an invasion by the most bellicose fanatics The world had ever seen. Have a look at this map, showing the brutality, the violence of the most significant Islamist attacks and invasions between 622 CE and 750 CE:

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

The Franks Fought Back Four Invasions in 715 CE, 721 CE, 732 CE & 737 CE To Pure Arab Islamist Caliphate Collapse in 750 CE.

Tremendous civilizations were wiped out by the Islamist invasions, such as those of Mesopotamia and Iran, and the Mother of all Indo-European religions, Zoroastrianism. Not content with wiping out millennia of common civilizations, Islam tried to wipe out millions of years of human evolution itself, by making women half, or less, of men. (Whereas the human species has low sexual dimorphism.)

Thus, celebrating the Fundamentals of Islam is celebrating the fundamentals of a dramatic, extremely brutal invasion. The Economist however, pretends moronically that: “…there are Salafi mosques whose preachers are theologically conservative but are far from terrorists…”

You mean they are not making bombs? Sorry, The Economist: that makes no sense. The lethal violence in Literal Islam is overwhelmingly present in the texts, maximally nasty, boringly repetitive, and extremely scary. Yes, scary, like in phobia. As in Islamophobia. Can one not be a terrorist, when one teaches that terror is what God wants, and orders?

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

There is nothing subtle about Islamic violence as found in the Fundamental texts of Islam: vast categories of (most) people are supposed to be killed (either by God, or the Believers, or both). Apostates, Non-Believers, Gays etc. Those who kill in the name of God will go directly to paradise: they will not be submitted to the last Judgment: hence the great success of the Islamic invasions. The Islamist warriors were persuaded that death would bring them eternal happiness, life, and being on the right of God.

The Last Judgment will happen only after the last Jew has been killed.  (Hadith 41;685: …”Allah’s Messenger… : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will FIGHT against the Jews and the Muslims would KILL them…”. That Hadith is repeated a lot, and is part of the Hamas Charter.)

Some will say: no problem we will keep an eye on those who read Fundamental Islamic texts literally, make a terror watch. Propped by Saudi and other Medieval types, oil money, those people are already millions. Is surveillance to become the most important industry? Or is it easier to strictly outlaw all Literal Islam?

A few days ago, more than half a dozen Salafists were arrested in France. They were all unknown of security services (which track more than 10,000 Islamists already!). The Islamists had planned murderous attacks throughout France. One of them taught in a public school. Nobody suspected him (they hide among ourselves, like the crocs below the murky waters, ready to strike, causing ambient paranoia, as intended).

When is someone who does not follow Islam literally not a Muslim anymore? That is a simple question pregnant with a dreadful answer: those who do not believe in Islam anymore, apostates, are to be put to death.

At this point, Politically Correct demoncrats generally lash out, from their tiny knowledge base learned by rote, that Christianism is just as bad as Islamism, so we are racist to implicitly claim a difference, etc., etc.  (Never mind that most of those who lash out at Islam don’t believe in Christianism either.) Well not quite. There is not a symmetry between Islamism and Christianism. Christianism was worse, in the sense it came first, and got the ball rolling, by terrorizing first. But then Islam copied it, but it was worse, because Islam is the state, whereas the relationship between state and Christianism was much looser (except in the periods from 386 CE to ~450 CE and again, for two long periods in the late Middle Ages/Renaissance; in both cases, state terror got enacted under the guise of the Faith.

Yes, Roman officials launched condemnations to death for heresy. In 380 CE, the Edict of Thessalonica of Roman emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. By this edict the state’s authority and the Church officially overlapped. Thus the state enforced religious terror, whenever convenient. Thus church leaders executed (some) heretics. Within six years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Roman Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be executed, Priscillian, was condemned in 386 CE by Roman secular officials for sorcery. He was put to death with four or five followers. The edict of emperor Theodosius II (435 CE) provided severe punishments for spreading Nestorianism (a Christianism found all the way to Mongolia). Possessing writings of Arius brought the death penalty (Arius influenced the Coptic church, hence Islam).

So the Christians, more exactly the Roman Catholics, were anti-civilizational savages. Guess what? The empire of savage fanatics soon collapsed. It was replaced by the fresh Confederation of the Franks, which reinvented Christianism from scratch, complete with plenty of newly created saints. The Franks viewed Christianism, or, more exactly, Catholicism, as a help, a secular help, to rule over dozens of millions of Roman subjects throughout much of what is presently the Eurozone (Netherlands, Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, Gaul). But all religions were allowed, including Paganism, Judaism, islam, etc.

Things changed just at the time the Frankish emperor in Paris decided he was king of France, and it was high time to submit the giant County of Toulouse. “Philippe Auguste” allied himself to the Pope, killed a million Cathars, grabbed their lands. Thereupon, Christian terror was back, as it was so profitable. The Enlightenment would put an end to that Christian terror.

Islamist terror had been profitable all along. Still is.

A further problem is that Literal Islam is not just an incitement to ultimate violence. It is also an incitement to unreason, and violating the most basic standards of what makes humanity, humanity.

Amusingly, The Economist, propelled by the anxiety of sounding indiscriminate, contradicts itself: “It’s important to understand that of the various forms of Salafism described, there is one, the unreconstructed kind, which can (though does not always) morph into terrorism.” Well, real Salafism is “unreconstructed”. By definition.

We need clarity. Go read all the basic texts of Islam, then report. Stop parsing red herrings, please go to the meat of the matter. Religious terror was extirpated from Europe during the Enlightenment, it is high time to bring some light to all this darkness. So, instead of leaving Islam as a darkness which cannot, and should not, be explored, please visit it.

It’s instructive. The basic texts reveal that Muhammad actually ordered women’s faces NOT to be covered. So why the contemporary insistence, now, that they should be? Because it’s a way for Islamist dictators (like the various kings, emirs, ayatollahs and what not) to terrorize the Republics.

Or, at least, to put them on the defensive:’Oh, you see you don’t respect freedom of religion!’

The French Republic installed a law outlawing face covering. Islamists howled to the Moon, naturally, that’s all old tradition of Mecca, older than Islam, but the French Constitutional Court upheld the law as it was explicitly made for security reasons.

I would advise Donald Trump to have such a law passed ASAP in the USA. Every time a woman goes fully veiled in the streets she attacks civilization, human ethology, the Republic, public order, and helps convert the Enlightened West into the incomparable messes that all countries ruled by, and with Islam have become (yes, from Morocco, where Islamists are in power, to Indonesia, where the governor of Djakarta is prosecuted for “blasphemy”, because the Islamist god is that weak little simple-minded creature that needs very much to be protected, by killing lots of insulting people, lest that fragile entity wilts away…)

Just do like France, Donald: after all, it is a question of security (veiled women were used massively in the Franco-Algerian civil war, to carry explosives, allowing a tiny minority to seize power and keep it to this day, while leading Algeria through another civil war which killed at least 200,000). Outlawing Islamist veils will help to change the mood: no more blatant tolerance for the nefarious ways of the enemies of reason.

It will be interesting to hear the devilish ones preaching that Islam is perfect for the countries they, themselves exploit. And it also means the rather drastic observation: Whenever, pretty soon, burning hydrocarbons is made unlawful, Islam will disappear. Because the main reason for its modern existence will be gone. As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

28 Responses to “Cracking Down On Literal Islam”

  1. SDM Says:

    The general and daily use of the veil should not be tolerated. It is a practice that when accepted leads to other harms. The hoods of the KKK come to mind.
    Any religion that demands, promotes or encourages murder of any nonbelievers should be outlawed. That such faiths and practices must be eliminated should be a given- just publish the passages and let the general public get a taste of it.
    Trump should be able to gather enough support for this but to enact such laws may be more likely within the province of the states.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are very correct: it reminds on of the KKK. Hillariously, the same demoncrats who scream all day long about the white hoods of the KKK, are no doubt going to scream in favor of the black hoods of Wahhabism. Yes, Trump is big on states.

  2. NNNNN Says:

    https://www.aho.hk/swordoftruth/vpopia1.html
    This could interesting read about Islam.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks NNNNN, and welcome. The link you provided with is very interesting. It does not surprise me: the Indo-European ensemble was one, and Arabaia is right in the middle. Islam looks often special because it killed all memories of all what was there before.

      Another point of some interest I mention in the past: shortly before Mahomet/Muhammad, Pedrsia conquered ALL of Arabia, all the way and including Yemen! Notice that the Zoroastrians did not eliminate the Mecca religion with its Kaba and 360 deities…

      But the backdrop you provide with is much greater, of course…

      Christianism itself was a salad made of all the popular religions, including the 10,000 (or so) year old Great Mother Cult (resurrected with Virgin Mary, of course…)

  3. oatmealactivist Says:

    Salafi theological conservatism is cultural terrorism. The Economist, clinging to a globalist, multicultural fantasy, does not accept this. To them and their ilk, every culture is of equal value; there is no distinction between the court of the Sun King and the court of bin Laden, cowering in a Pakistani villa.

    We in the West no longer celebrate our history, the wisdom of our traditions, the glory of our achievements and the superiority of reason. The Enlightenment has reached a dead end where everything is tarred as ‘socially constructed.’ Thus endeth the argument.

    No less dangerous than those who carry the virus of Literal Islam in their minds, are those in the West who apologize for them and grant them quarter.

    A culture not merely losing touch with its foundational values, but actively attacking them from within as so many on the illiberal left are, cannot defend itself. A culture with no values except the virtue of self-expression and the sin of hypocrisy can have no enemies or see no evil.

    I’ve often been dismayed and confused when I hear conservatives grumbling about the state of public schools and universities in America. I went to a small, elite and extremely liberal college in Massachusetts, and only occasionally felt professors overstepping their bounds into unhinged indoctrination. But my partner, a few years younger than I am, is in an masters program at a UC – and the absolute relativism and outright hostility to civilization I see from his professors, readings and assignments is shocking.

    We are hollowing ourselves out from within, leaving a husk for Literal Islam to immolate.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Illiberal PSEUDO-left of greedy posers is more like it. I have “friends” in New York who are editors of the pseudo-left magazines with their industry of fallacies, irrelevancies, and identity tribalism. They have a vested interest in the demonocracy… Need to join post-thanksgiving dinner here, more later…

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You say: “masters program at a UC – and the absolute relativism and outright hostility to civilization I see from his professors, readings and assignments is shocking.

      We are hollowing ourselves out from within, leaving a husk for Literal Islam to immolate.”
      This is undeniable, and seen all over. I was talking with a Muslim friend about this just moemnts ago. He agrees with you and me. Why this hsotility to civilization? It’s part of plutocratic propaganada: plutocracy hates civilization (which tends to undo plutocracy periodically). That way Literal Islam is just another tool to do so. What is the motivations of htese critters to hate so much? First they are paid to do so. Second they themselves suffer from the plutocracy, and so they look for an object to hate and attack. They can’t hate and attack the plutocracy which feeds them, so they attack civilization, in the hope not just ot assuage their anger, but to seduce their masters…

  4. Gmax Says:

    When I see these women (are they women, can’tell) covered in black hoods, a black version of the KKK, I feel a revulsion inside me. Why don’t they wear thick chains? That would be less revolting

  5. François Luong Says:

    This is ahistorical nonsense. Local religions continued under the Abbasid Caliphate. It wasn’t the *Mongol* Ilkhanate that Zoroastrianism went into decline and Persian Buddhism went extinct. And Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh was written well after the Arab conquest of Persia

  6. François Luong Says:

    There’s nothing inherent to Islam to make it more prone to totalitarianism than Christianity or even atheism. Any ideology can be pushed to justify the subjugation of another. To single out Islam … Well, the totalitarian impulse is the totalitarian impulse is already manifest in the sentence itself.

    I have read your essay actually, and find it troubling that it doesn’t even gloss over the literalism of Calvin and Luther and that it says nothing of the use of Christianity as justification of the horrors of colonialism, for example.

    No, instead, the Christians, both Catholics and Protestants, created a system of racial oppression to justify the enslavement of blacks in North American, and the subjugation of natives everywhere else
    But no, for you, Islam is apparently the religion that is a problem

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Tsssss…. The Qur’an enjoins that:
      “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s fascist principle, S.4; v. 59).

      troubling that it doesn’t even gloss over the literalism of Calvin and Luther“. That’s a good point. Actually I told one of my Tunisians yesterday that Calvinists, Lutherans were Wahhabists, & why they..conquered North America so well, as Literal Bible is a holocaust justification manual. The Franks viewed Sarasins as dangerously fanatical Christian sect.
      Difference of behavior between French & English in America & Australia was enormous proving it had nothing 2 do with Christianism

      Last I saw, no Calvinists and Lutherans were burning people alive, as Calvin used to do, close & personal, & Islamists do now.

      • Gena Dix Says:

        “O YE WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.” (Qur’an’s Sura.4; v. 59).
        Gena Dix: I think I threw up a little in my mouth…

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Amusingly, Francois has fallen silent now that he got to face a real quote from the real Qur’an, instead of the generalities he loves.

          • fluong Says:

            Actually, I did not. It has only occurred to me that you create a sock-puppet account to counterfeit a rhetorical victory on your part where there is none.

            Now, since you are quoting one translation of the Qur’an, it might have been appropriate to quote the rest of the sura, here in the Sahih International translation: “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.”

            While I am no theologian, the meaning is clear here. Obey the person in authority. Should this person prove to be unjust, then only obey the word of Allah and the Messenger. This in itself is no different than the Chinese notion of the Mandate from Heaven.

            And the command only applies to the believer, not the non-believer. But instead, you choose to cherry-pick your quotes. A most uncouth and unscholarly behavior

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Dear Francois: Sorry I did not approve this before, I did not see it, and was off the Internet with a cold; now all comments under that adress should go through direct.

              The rest of verse 59 you quote is the begining of a long meander of generalities which gets more robust two dozen verses down.

              S4, v84: So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself. And encourage the believers [to join you] that perhaps Allah will restrain the [military] might of those who disbelieve. And Allah is greater in might and stronger in [exemplary] punishment.

              It gets more interesting shortly before Surah 4: verse 89

              From
              SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
              They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

              Please notice that here Allah orders to “seize them and kill them wherever you find them…” JUST because “they wish you would believe as they believe so you would be alike”.

              If you were more familiar with Islam, you would know that, in Literal Islam, there are NO theologians.

              Cherry picking orders to kill is a valuable activity. It can save lives. Insults don’t help to save lives. The attack by A Somali Muslim in Ohio State to “kill non-believers” indiscriminately, may well be followed by an attack against any French school, for the same reason.Including killing small children. Other parts of the Qur’an do order to kill non-believers, and if you go, you will sit on the right of God until all Jews are killed

              (These are all paraphrased from quotes of the Qur’an and the Hadith, which can be found on my site by googling “Patrice Ayme”, with the offending words attached.
              For example “patrice ayme kill all Jews judgment” gives 1,330 results including 8 direct essays from mine quoted on page one directly, and one of mine found on another site; in position ten is found “Islam and antisemitism” by Wikipedia. One essay of mine has 8,000 words. Others are shorter, but well-documented nevertheless.)

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              It gets a bit complicated. However:
              Surah 4, verse 91 (from Sahih International):
              “You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those – We have made for you against them a clear authorization.”

              How many orders to kill do you need, to stop comparing quoting the Qur’an and going cherry picking?

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              Surah 4 is actually great fun. It has considerations on Moises, Jesus (not crucified), Mary, and the Jews (who are accused of plenty of malevolence).

              S4, v 160: For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people],

              4:161: “And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people’s wealth unjustly. And we have prepared for the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.”

  7. François Luong Says:

    You’ve obviously haven’t heard of the Sufi then, or ta’wil. Or re-read Max Weber’s Protestant Ethic to see what he has to say.

    Go read on the Valladolid debate and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, and see the antecedents of Jules Ferry’s racism.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      There is more than 100 Sufisms, I know 4 of them very well. Weber is a cockroach, I read history, pas les lubies des insectes.

      I read him long ago, and always agreed with Las Casas. Aztec civilization was not Islam, and its quasi-instantaneous snuffing by the Conquistadores was eminently regretable. Especially as it was prelude and jurisprudence for extermination of all the advanced American civilizations.
      Opposing guy was a Aristotle specialist, making Aristotelian arguments.

  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    How do Wahhabophiles & lovers of Salafism justify their hatred of Islamophobia? By ignoring the Qur’an… or facts Last attacks by crazed Islamist did not wait long after Francois’ apologist discourse:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/terrorism-suspected-in-car-and-knife-attack-at-ohio-state/ar-AAkRkmu?li=BBnb7Kz

    • fluong Says:

      “Leaders of Muslim organizations and mosques in the Columbus area condemned the attacks while cautioning people against jumping to conclusions or blaming a religion or an ethnicity.” It helps to read the things you link to

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Because you think that local Muslim organizations would said they have approved the attack, even if they did?
        I see that you are not familiar with the commandment in Islam to LIE to NON-Islamist…

  9. François Luong Says:

    [Re-posted to mitigate nestling!]

    Actually, I did not. It has only occurred to me that you create a sock-puppet account to counterfeit a rhetorical victory on your part where there is none.

    Now, since you are quoting one translation of the Qur’an, it might have been appropriate to quote the rest of the sura, here in the Sahih International translation: “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.”

    While I am no theologian, the meaning is clear here. Obey the person in authority. Should this person prove to be unjust, then only obey the word of Allah and the Messenger. This in itself is no different than the Chinese notion of the Mandate from Heaven.

    And the command only applies to the believer, not the non-believer. But instead, you choose to cherry-pick your quotes. A most uncouth and unscholarly behavior

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The rest of verse 59 you quote is the begining of a long meander of generalities which gets more robust two dozen verses down.

      S4, v84: “So fight, [O Muhammad], in the cause of Allah; you are not held responsible except for yourself. And encourage the believers [to join you] that perhaps Allah will restrain the [military] might of those who disbelieve. And Allah is greater in might and stronger in [exemplary] punishment.”

      It gets more interesting shortly before Surah 4: verse 89.
      From
      SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
      “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”

      Please notice that here Allah orders to “seize them and kill them wherever you find them…” JUST because “they wish you would believe as they believe so you would be alike”.

      If you were more familiar with Islam, you would know that, in Literal Islam, there are NO theologians.

      Cherry picking orders to kill is a valuable activity. It can save lives. Insults don’t help to save lives. The attack by A Somali Muslim in Ohio State to “kill non-believers” indiscriminately, may well be followed by an attack against any French school, for the same reason.Including killing small children. Other parts of the Qur’an do order to kill non-believers, and if you go, you will sit on the right of God until all Jews are killed

      (These are all paraphrased from quotes of the Qur’an and the Hadith, which can be found on my site by googling “Patrice Ayme”, with the offending words attached.
      For example “patrice ayme kill all Jews judgment” gives 1,330 results including 8 direct essays from mine quoted on page one directly, and one of mine found on another site; in position ten is found “Islam and antisemitism” by Wikipedia. One essay of mine has 8,000 words. Others are shorter, but well-documented nevertheless.)

      It gets a bit complicated. However:
      Surah 4, verse 91 (from Sahih International):
      “You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those – We have made for you against them a clear authorization.”

      How many orders to kill do you need, to stop comparing quoting the Qur’an and going cherry picking?

      Surah 4 is actually great fun. It has considerations on Moises, Jesus (not crucified), Mary, and the Jews (who are accused of plenty of malevolence).

      S4, v 160: “For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people],
      4:161: “And [for] their taking of usury while they had been forbidden from it, and their consuming of the people’s wealth unjustly. And we have prepared for the disbelievers among them a painful punishment.”

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: