Posts Tagged ‘Charlie Hebdo’

If Magnanimity Does Not Work, Extermination Will

May 15, 2015

Against Christianity, all too long, magnanimity was extended. All too long, Christianism was viewed as a force for good. After the disaster of the First Crusade, Saint Bernard, a still all too revered monster, tried his best to launch the Second Crusade. He was opposed fiercely by the university (“Cathedra”) professor, philosopher (and pop star!) Abelard and his many students, followers and appreciative colleagues… In the Church (many were bishops, cardinals).

The party of Abelard lost, short term. But just as the defeat of France and Britain in May 1940 led to the extermination of the Nazis five years later, Abelard’s defeat led to the demolition of Christianism seven centuries later.

"Charb", Communist Editor In Chief Of Charlie Hebdo With Ms. Bougrab His Partner Of Muslim Culture

“Charb”, Communist Editor In Chief Of Charlie Hebdo With Ms. Bougrab His Partner Of Muslim Culture

[Fascists, especially in the Anglo-American anti-French, anti-intellectual propaganda sphere, have disingenuously claimed that Charlie Hebdo was anti-Muslim racist. Here is another proof to the contrary. Let alone the fact two assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were Muslims. Charlie Hebdo, the martyr French satirical magazine made around 100 covers poking fun at the Catholic Church, but only 5 poking fun at Islam…]

The first Crusade had launched massacres of Jews in Alsace and further east, as the crazed Christian fanatics progressed, the way Christianism at its most excited, progresses. Roasting native children when hungry was part of the First Crusade. So was the siege and massacre of Jerusalem, with equal opportunity to go to heavens extended to Muslims, Jews and Middle Eastern and Coptic Christians.

According to the Gesta Francorum (of the Acts of the Franks), speaking only of the Temple Mount area, “…[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles…” According to Raymond of Aguilers, also writing solely of the Temple Mount area, “…in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins.” 10,000, including women and children, died there.

This sort of Christian behavior was discouraged later, thanks to no less than six centuries of religious wars wrecking Europe back and forth. The grand conclusion was that priests were required by the French Revolution to take an oath to the Republic. Those who did not were punished in various ways.

Fast forward to the Twentieth-First Century:

Murderous Child Killing Islamist Fanatic Condemned to Death:

Tsarnaev, the Boston Bomber, 21 year old, was convicted of all 30 charges against him, 17 of which carry the death penalty. Unsurprisingly, he was unanimously condemned to death, by the seven women, five men jury (death requires unanimity). A crime that could, and did, bring the assassination of a child, falls under specially tough laws. calling for execution

Some philosophers were quick to call this “vengeance”. However, can a law designed to discourage the assassination of children be considered a “vengeance”?

Some Europeans are bound to come, and whine. However they do not understand that the law, in the USA, is a very strong glue. With the accent on “strong”. Differently from, say, the French, all the ancestors of Americans cannot be claimed to be Gauls. (Wait…)

***

Cool It; Not Drawing Muslims Is Not About You, It’s All About Killing Muslims:

There are 100 variants of Islam. Most of them compatible with secularism, and the Republic. However, Salafism, especially Wahhabism, propped by huge plutocratic money and the USA’s somber machinations, has come to dominate.

They are the one with the drawing-is-murder insanity.

When Salafists say we should not draw prophets, human beings, animals and other alleged creations of “God”, what they truly say, in practice, is that they want an excuse for killing 200 million Shias (Shias have very beautiful paintings of prophets for sale in the Bazaar; I was there).

So they want a pretext to kill 200 million Shias, to start with. Meanwhile reigning over Europe and America through unabashed terror will do. Next they will ask us to wear a yellow star as they did to Jews and Christians in the Muslim Middle-Ages.

***

Editor Of Charlie Was Muslim Lover:

Charlie Hebdo, the martyr French satirical magazine made around 100 covers poking fun at the Catholic Church, but only 5 poking fun at Islam. It turns out that the editor in chief, Charb, lived with Ms. Bougrab, a French “Muslim” of renown. So much for Charb’s alleged racism against Muslims.

Ms. Bougrab just published a book “Maudites” (“The Damned and Cursed”) exposing the mistreatment of women under Islam. Including a whole panoply of little girls being married to big, bad, old, nasty dirty old Muslim men. “Is it blasphemy to say we should move away from the archaic practices of seventh century Arabia?,” she asked, referring to the PBUH Prophet Mohammed’s marriage to [SIX YEARS OLD] Aisha, adding that she has no intention to stop fighting for secularism and women’s rights.

OK, sorry for my seemingly virulent anti-Muhammedism, apparently implicitly implying that Muhammed, the revered prophet and friend of Archangel Gabriel, had sex with Aisha at age six. This is simply not true, and I beg forgiveness to any Muslim I may have so offended.

Muhammed, Peace Be Upon Him, He Needs It, patiently waited, what a great man, to have sex with Aisha, until she was nine (9). Educating children, especially little girls, is very important in Islam, as Islam fanatics often point out, indeed. From these sort of little details, we can realize what a great man Muhammed was. PBUH.

On paper, Christianism is nowhere as bad as Islamism. It does not have as many strident, gross, repetitive calls to kill “unbelievers”, and “heretics”. Islam to boot targets explicitly “apostates”, “Jews” and whatnot.

However, Christianism killed millions before getting definitively defanged when the French republic, having freed Rome, stripped the Pope of most of his worldly possessions (1801). For the Franks, in the Seventh Century, Islamists were simply the latest Christian sect. They got ready for domesticating them as they had done with the Pope. As it turned out being ready was not enough, three whole extermination of three successive Muslim invasions in 30 years were necessary.

At this point, Islamists are in the suburbs of Palmyra, one of the world’s most important archeological sites. Palmyra was not just Greco-Roman, it was also its own civilization, and was led by a queen at the apex of its splendor. Destroying humanity’s inheritance is a casus belli, as far as I am concerned.

So what do we want exterminated? Palmyra? Or the Islamists? This is not a choice we chose. This is the choice we are presented with.

Patrice Ayme’

Free Speech Versus Islamist Fellow Travelers

May 6, 2015

Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical weekly, was given the American PEN Freedom of Expression Courage Award. Nice and courageous for PEN to do this. During the attack against Charlie Hebdo in January, 12 victims were killed, including two practicing Muslims (one of these Muslims was the Charlie Hebdo “correcteur“, a supervisory editor; the other was a police officer who had come to the rescue).

The gunmen were killed later, but an accomplice of those two  killed (in the back) a (black) police woman, and then a number of patrons in a Jewish supermarket he held hostage (before being killed by police).

Love Stronger Than Hatred: "Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?"

Love Stronger Than Hatred: “Cultural Arrogance of the French Nation?”

The PEN gala came two days after two Jihadist gunmen opened fire at a Texas competition to draw cartoons inspired by Islam. Hard core Islam does not tolerate drawing the creatures of Allah, be they beasts, or men. A fortiori, prophets.

Accepting the award, Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief Gerard Biard said that the magazine’s shocking and sometimes (gently) offensive content helped combat extremists angry against free speech. “Fear is the most powerful weapon they have,” he said. “Being here tonight we contribute to disarming them.”

Secularism was not the enemy of religion; it simply said that the state had no religion, Biard persevered. “Being shocked is part of the democratic debate. Being shot is not,” he said.

Honoring Charlie Hebdo bitterly divides the literary community of the USA: 200 members of PEN signed a letter claiming: “there is a critical difference between staunchly supporting expression that violates the acceptable, and enthusiastically rewarding such expression.”

This is hogwash. Show me, literary men of little merit,  just ONE cartoon of Charlie Hebdo which is “not acceptable”. Just ONE. Or are you upset about guys kissing guys? And let’s talk about it. Insulting without explicit example to back it up, is just hate speech.

Those literary buffoons of the vicious type, also accused Charlie Hebdo of “cultural intolerance… All this is complicated by PEN’s seeming blindness to the cultural arrogance of the French nation“.

A really hilarious charge for anybody familiar with French and USA societies (the French are much more tolerant: homosexuality was legal in France, in the Sixteenth Century already, and Senegalese were French citizens, under Louis XIV; moreover, slavery became illegal in the Frankish empire, at the time when the Qur’an, which mandates slavery, was written for the first time! There was never any legal racism in France, whereas racism is still official in the USA: just look at the census bureau’s methodology! Among other “racially” aware tweaks… Some racist ways which are perfectly legal in the USA, to this day, are punishable in France with prison!)

Notice also that francophobia (obvious in their denunciation of “cultural arrogance of the French…”) is not racist, according to those fellow travelers of the most violent form of Islamism.

Satire is more than 5 centuries old in France. Satire is viewed as central to civilization. Some French regimes fell, just because of satire, even centuries ago, before the USA was constituted. Charlie Hebdo is just one of several French satirical publications. They have no equivalent in the USA, as they are too “shocking” for the USA, where the respect for authority (including tax-free superstitions) is highly ingrained.

Humor is central to intelligence formation.

To become more intelligent, we have to envision more of all the possibilities imaginable (within the boundaries set to free speech by the law). This is all what cartoons are about.

The irony is that Charlie Hebdo is fanatically anti-racist. It was made, to be fanatically anti-racist. Biard and Congolese author Alain Mabanckou told the PEN audience that Charlie Hebdo was and always had been “anti-racist”, a reply to the criticism that the magazine portrayed French racial and religious minorities in a stereotypical way. “Charlie Hebdo has fought all forms of racism since its inception,” Biard said.

Jean-Baptiste Thoret, who received the prize with his colleague Briard, told Charlie Rose that Charlie Hebdo is “absolutely not the same” as the Texas contest because the magazine does not specifically target Islam. It is true, that, over the years, Catholicism has been more of a target. Overall, Charlie Hebdo is focused on politics, not religion, so politicians are the first victims of Charlie Hebdo’s harassment.

I am personally of the opinion that the empire of Islam upon vast parts of the world, is the MAIN cause of their poverty and on-going mayhem, just as Christianism was in Europe, in the Middle-Ages. Same problem.

And it has the same solution: just as Christianism was domesticated by civilization, and this is called secularism, Islamism too, has to be domesticated.

Those who claim to refuse to understand secularism is better than Islamism are actually closet racists. What else? They want Muslims to keep on being oppressed, subjugated, victimized, mutilated, humiliated and decerebrated by the ideology of Islamism. And especially the women (whom the Qur’an views legally as a fraction of the worth of men, at best).

Salman Rushdie lived under a fatwa from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini for a decade for writing the supposedly blasphemous Satanic Verses. This means that Salman Rushdie, for mentioning a part of the Qur’an, was condemned to death, by Ayatollah Khomeini, who ordered all and any Muslim in good standing to go, and kill Mr. Rusdie, so that they could be rewarded by Allah.

My opinion is that this was an International Crime, as Khomeini was then the dictator, the head of state, of Iran. A warrant ought to have written for Khomeini’s arrest.

Mr. Rushdie described those who opposed the PEN’s award to Charlie Hebdo as fellow travelers” of the Islamic extremists who murdered the Charlie Hebdo staff, and argued on Facebook: “I fear some old friendships will break on this wheel.”

Let me repeat slowly: those who claim that there is everything good to be living under an Islamist dictatorship are racist. (Living under Islam is supposed to be living under an Islamist dictatorship , according to the Qur’an itself). The Qur’an is one of the most violent books anywhere: see “Violence in the Holy Qur’an”. I don’t have anything against violence, if and only if, it is fully justified, and the only solution. But ordering to kill ill-defined “unbelievers,” as the Qur’an has it pages after pages, is not acceptable. To me. And that’s true for Catholicism, Protestantism, or Islamism.

It’s not acceptable to Islamists themselves, as it drives them lethally crazy: millions of them spend most of their time wanting to kill each other, and acting on it. That may have been OK in the Middle -Ages, but nowadays, with Weapons of Mass Destruction easy to make, this attitude is not compatible with the continuation of civilization. Thus we cannot afford indifference to it.

We are at war, whether we want it, or not. Those who do not understand this are traitors to civilization, just as those who did not understand the danger of Nazism, and that tolerating Nazism was intolerable, were traitors to civilization, in a very similar vein. And this is not just an accidental analogy: Hitler was a loud supporter of Islamism (the Nazi dictator loudly admired Islam’s violence and war-mongering, while despising the softness of Christianism).

Those who love Islamism, just as those who loved Hitlerism, are not just cowards, but ill-informed, and not very smart.

Patrice Ayme’

Pope Francis A Jihadist?

January 15, 2015

So the Pope claims that, if one insults his mother (“mia mama”), the natural human thing to do, is to smash the perpetrator’s face. It’s just human nature, he added. And he repeated, that it was normal, just to make sure everybody knew the Pope was just a street thug.

Times they are changing. The Swiss Central Bank said it would not keep the Swiss Franc cheap relative to the Euro. Within minutes, the Swiss Franc jumped up by 40%, relative to the Euro, and the Swiss Stock Exchange by 13%. It’s supposed to stabilize around one Euro.
The rumor has it that the policy I advised for half a dozen years, to drop the Euro well below one Dollar, has now been decided.

It turns out that the weapons used by the Al Qaeda/Isis terrorists in France last week were bought in Belgium. The police enquired, and a new shoot out resulted, killing several Jihadists. Meanwhile, the German Parliament observed a minute of silence about the French victims, followed by a discourse of Merkel.

The French government gave French nationality to the (Muslim) Malian citizen who saved people at the Jewish supermarket. Prompt justice. A good thing. A petition signed by already 300,000 had asked to do so.

A bad thing is that Boko Haram (“Book Forbidden”), a Jihadist organization destroyed 16 villages, Amnesty International says, from studying satellite imagery. Boko Haram uses children as human bombs. A girl less than 10 year old is an example.
In Venezuela, the economy is collapsing with the price of oil (the ROI of oil is very bad in Venezuela, so the national oil company is losing massive money; for Venezuela to make money, the price should be twice what it is now). There are long lines to enter all supermarkets. Youngsters standing in line for the rich can earn more than a university professor.

But let’s go back to the Pope, and his slightly crazed eyes.
Asked about the hate massacre that killed 12 people at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, including two Muslims, the Pope said: “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity … in freedom of expression there are limits.”

Charlie Hebdo has been targeted because it had printed what fanatics believe are depictions of the prophet Muhammad. It’s not so much what Charlie Hebdo did, than what criminals pretend they believe Charlie Hebdo did. This sort of subtlety is assuredly lost on the Pope. By espousing, without questioning it, the reasoning of Jihadists, and fanatical Muslims, the Pope becomes their friend, mitigating any threat against his person (a Muslim had shot Pope John-Paul II, nearly killing him).

The Pope gestured to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes papal travel, and was standing by his side. Francis I added: “If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

Except, of course, one can kill somebody by hitting them with a fist. Is the Pope saying that the normal answer to insult is bodily injury, or killing people? To his credit, the Pope admitted that it was what the Christian Church used to do, and that it was no good.

All this in the context of insulting religion. Now, insulting religion is not insulting one’s mother.

For people to come to the rescue of their god by killing other people means, basically, that they believe their own god is as defenseless as a small child.

But, if god is that impotent, how come he is described as potent? Potent, or impotent, that is the question. If god is so impotent that fanatics need to rescue him, then the sacred texts such as the Bible, Qur’an, Hadith, Torah, have been lying about the most important point, namely that god is god.
Indeed, power is god’s most important feature. If god is not all the power there is, then all the power there is is god, or there is no god.

In other words, by going around killing people in the name of god, that is because god is too impotent to the job himself, or then refuses to do it, Jihadists and Crusaders prove that either they don’t believe in god, or god is in disagreement with them.

The real explanation is, of course ethological: since there are people, and they exist, they are looking for excuses to kill foreigners, in other words, non-believers, those who don’t believe what they believe. Interest of this mass homicidal inclination? It decreases human population to sustainable levels.

So what of the Pope?

The Pope is actually at war. He excommunicated the Mafia, first Pope to dare to do so. A risky move. Same with a general reform of the Church.
The Catholic Church is the oldest continuous institution in the world. The historian Gibbon viewed it, in the Eighteenth Century, as the cause of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I agree that Christianism was the most prominent proximal cause (however, I see Christianism itself a consequence of political fascism, itself consequence of plutocracy; so the Decline took more than 5 centuries).
Catholicism crashed civilization twice. First by killing Romanitas, and bringing forth the mood that gave us Islam. The second attempt started with the Crusades, and petered out with the Enlightenment.

Matthew 10:34. Christ said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

The Rophet ran away with that one.
(And no, it’s not exactly an accident, but a pattern. See: “Was Christ Immoral?”)

Catholicism, Islam and their ilk started with a guy tying up his son, to cut his throat because his boss had told him to. I am not making this up by Christianophobia. Here is the Bible in Genesis 22; 1-2 and 9-10.

1 God did prove Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham’; and he said: ‘Here am I.’
ב וַיֹּאמֶר קַח-נָא אֶת-בִּנְךָ אֶת-יְחִידְךָ אֲשֶׁר-אָהַבְתָּ, אֶת-יִצְחָק, וְלֶךְ-לְךָ, אֶל-אֶרֶץ הַמֹּרִיָּה; וְהַעֲלֵהוּ שָׁם, לְעֹלָה, עַל אַחַד הֶהָרִים, אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ.
2 And He said: ‘Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’ …
“9 And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built the altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood.
י וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיִּקַּח אֶת-הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת, לִשְׁחֹט, אֶת-בְּנוֹ.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.”

All Catholics, Christs, Francis, Muslims, Saints, Imams, are supposed to revere that story, one of the most disgusting in the history of writing.

Instead, I propose to revere human goodness, and crush infamy. Instead of partaking in infamy, and abject obedience, as Abraham did… And made a religion from it.
Patrice Ayme’

Mahomet Hebdo

January 14, 2015

OK, it’s rather Muhammad Daily. Al Qaeda took credit for the attack against Charlie Hebdo, in a 12 minute video. Five million copies of Charlie Hebdo are printed and sold. That’s nearly three times that miserable Islamist terrorist aiding and abetting newspaper, the New York Times (I sent a comment to that effect, and they later took down the article I attacked; it quoted criminals approvingly; I did not make a copy in a timely manner).

Vast weasel and lying propaganda in the USA, indeed, against Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Expression in a sort of crusade against “blasphemy”. Those behind it are often paid propagandists attached to plutocratic universities (as Stanford’s “Director of Diversity” deconstructed yesterday).

Infuriating some More Real Fanatics: They Hate Forgiveness

Infuriating some More Real Fanatics: They Hate Forgiveness

{Banner translation: All Is Forgiven… The Christian approach… ;-)}

Another tac of anti-French hypocritical American “intellectuals”: “one does not make fun of minorities”. There are probably more practicing Muslims in France than practicing Christians (let alone Jews). In the world, there is 1.6 billion Muslims. We are talking about operative majorities, here. People get condemned for “Atheism”, or “Insults Against Islam” in Egypt, every week.

As the end of this essay will make clear, that pseudo-holly, PC American “intellectual” position equates to lethal racism against Muslims (the main victims of Islamist violence). So now a few armed fanatics sent, managed, helped and equipped by the unholy alliance of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State make a minority one should not make fun of? According to American philosophers?

What’s the correct approach? The Mayor of Rotterdam a Muslim born in Morocco, son of an Imam, told the Muslim extremists to “rot toch op” (“fuck-off”)

https://news.vice.com/article/mayor-of-rotterdam-tells-muslim-extremists-in-the-netherlands-to-fuck-off

Ahmed Aboutaleb, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 15, spoke out in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. Mayor Aboutaleb said Muslims who ‘do not like freedom can pack your bags and leave’.

“It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” he said on the Dutch program “Nieuwsuur (Newshour).” “But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake, pack your bags and leave… If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f– off,” Mr. Aboutaleb added. “Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.”

London Mayor Boris Johnson lauded his Dutch colleague as his “hero,” saying his comments were “straight to the point…. That is the voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire,” Mr. Johnson wrote for The Telegraph. He added: “If we are going to win the struggle for the minds of these young people, then that is the kind of voice we need to hear — and it needs above all to be a Muslim voice.”

SATYR INTERVIEWED:

I went to the woods, and met a happy satyr. I talked to him thus: ”What’s up with satire, satyr? Why the happy face? Are you not sad that so many thinkers and cartoonists got killed because they practiced Freedom of Expression?”

The satyr laughed: “You now, I was sad when even Voltaire got censored. But now there are printing 5 million copies of Charlie Hebdo. Maybe they read you too, some day.”

Me: ”You mean, when Voltaire’s play on the Prophet was censored in Europe?

Satyr: “Exactly, that was the Nadir. Voltaire’s play was entitled: “Le FANATISME Ou MAHOMET Le Prophete“. Yes, the capital letters are in the original. Theater that made people laugh 262 years ago, in 1753, became not “Politically Correct” and got censored in the name of Islamophilia. In the Twentieth-First Century.

Me: “You exaggerate. Voltaire called it a ‘tragedy’”.

Satyr: “OK, so Islam is fanaticism, according to Voltaire, but fanaticism to that extent, not being able to draw a guy with a beard, that’s funny. We, satyrs and satirists, have been at the core of civilization for 3,000 years! Dionysus, remember? The festivals, the cut-conifers, offering the gifts for the Winter Solstice, the orgies, the drinking, happiness, jokes, the outrages, the craziness, the generalized irreverence? Ah, readers are going to understand that we can’t even f the rophet, only because he is thoroughly decomposed.”

“F the rophet?” I fled in horror, terrified by what American propagandists would call “puerile”. Most Academic American philosophers would condemn me for talking to a Satyr. It’s much better to read the New York Times, which expressed all the racism there was in making cartoons of bearded men, by quoting genuine terrorists calling to kill all those who draw (drawing people is actually forbidden in Islam).

American (paid) philosophers are not amused by Molière’s satirical caricature of religion in Tartuffe, a satire that is exactly 350 years old (and which even the very Catholic Louis XIV liked).

Let’s analyze the latest cover from Charlie Hebdo. A bearded man is crying, he looks sad, dismayed. He wears a cover on his head. He says: ”Je Suis Charlie.” Above it’s written: ”All Is Forgiven.” From this, fanatics, those who come out of the Fanum, the Temple, deduce that Muhammad, somebody dead for nearly 13 centuries, has been gravely “slandered”. Who told them it was that particular person, and how can one insult somebody dead 13 centuries?

Since when is ”All Is Forgiven” a call to hatred? To confuse forgiveness and hatred is a perversion not just of all values, but of vocabulary itself. Since when should serious media quote individuals so inarticulate that they confuse “forgiven” and “hateful”?

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

Fanatics whose business is extremism of course pounce on the worst interpretations, so that they can advise to augment the nastiness (as it is their business). By taking their delirium seriously, one advertise, and aid and abet the worst aspects, the most demonic side of human beings.

Letting those who call for hatred claim that forgiving is hateful is giving up on reason. There are actually death threats against Jews (among others) in Islam’s most sacred texts. Is this offending material? Is quoting Islam sacred texts unacceptable? Is it what the PC calls “content that is deemed offensive and gratuitous”? Have a look at:

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/041-smt.php

Here is such a well-known Hadith, that it is part of the Charter of Hamas. Book 041, Number 6985:

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim. See also from Sahih Muslim: Hadith: 41:6981, , 41:6982, 41:6983, 41:6984, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:791, and 4:52:177. All this is readily available on Islamist sites. Can one get clearer than that?

Qur’an Sura 2, verse 190: “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits… Sura2, v.191: And slay them wherever ye catch them… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter… slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.”

These are quotes out of hundreds. See:

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

The New York Times actually quoted that verse, S2, v 191. But it quoted exactly what I did not quote: ”Do not transgress limits”. So am I as dishonest as the New York Times? No. “Do not transgress limits” is vague, but innocuous. By quoting that, the New York Times is deliberately distorting the main message of this verse, while claiming they quote what I quote, and it comes out different. It’s always hard to argue with stupidity… By definition of stupidity, which is the inability to understand arguments.

The main message of Sura 2, The Cow, is verse 191. And that is that those who believe in the Qur’an should “…slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

If somebody says: ”Hello, good morning, I have to kill you,” Islamophile intellectuals, and the New York Times, will quote: ”Hello, good morning.” Those who want to survive, and who believe in natural goodness, will worry about the rest of the message: I have to kill you, my religion says so.

So who is a disbeliever? The main problem of those who want to survive Islam is exactly here. That’s why millions of Syrians are refugees in other countries, and hundreds of thousands have been killed: who is a disbeliever? When the religious order is to kill “disbelievers”, “disbelief” is the most important question.

Solution? Forget the fiscal deficit imposed by plutophiles in Brussels. The French Republic is at war, and should spend, if need be 5% of its GDP on defense, completely paid out of thin air. And if that brings the Euro down, so much the better. (Actually a currency is defense by other means, so a country with a strong defense has always a strong currency.)

It’s all about power, ladies, gentlemen, and satyrs. And the power starts with the mind.

Patrice Ayme’

Dying Of Laughter. Not Dying Of Fright

January 11, 2015

MORTS DE RIRE, PAS MORTS DE PEUR

Fanatics kill those who laugh. Their crime? They did not die of fright, first.

Huge demonstrations in France to protest the killing of famous humorists, authors, and even of an important progressive Bank of France economist (Maris). And also Jews, just because they were Jews, and police officers, just because they were police officers.

Four million people marched in  the streets to demonstrate their support for Freedom of Expression, and the LAIC Republic (with more than 80% approval rating). Forty-seven heads of states and governments joined, including Merkel, British PM Cameron (his first demonstration, ever), and all the important politicians in Europe.

The Marseillaise was sung, again and again, for Charlie Hebdo humorists, some of the fiercest anti-nationalists, ever.

"Je Suis Charlie" Demonstration in Nice

“Je Suis Charlie” Demonstration in Nice

The bells of Notre Dame rang for some of the most Atheist and Pagan thinkers, ever. This is perfectly appropriate: after all, the philosopher Pierre Abélard taught at the Cathedral which stood where Notre Dame now is. Abélard exposed the contradictions of theology, publishing the “Sic Et Non”, the “Yes And No” in 1121 CE. Abélard founded general semantics, among others things, and was famous throughout Europe for his songs.

The attack against Charlie Hebdo was the most severe such attack ever since Francia was founded by the Franks, more than 15 centuries ago. A fact that is striking and true: even the Nazis did not stoop that low (instead they affected a respect for French culture, and that’s how Sartre and company got started).

The Franks clamped down on ”Orthodox Catholic” Christianism, which had devastated the Roman State they were then in charge of saving. The Franks re-established the laic state that ruled before the Emperor Cult and the associated Christian State emperors imposed.

The Franks created their own bishops, and their own saints. This is well documented in bishop Gregory of Tours’ “History of the Franks”. Gregorius was leading prelate of Gaul (Gallia). The Christians fanatics, led by the Pope, would brandish death threats for generations. Ultimately they had to come on their knees, and beg the Franks to chase the Lombards (Long Beards) from Italy. That was 300 years after Clovis imposed a tolerant, laic Christianism.

Laic Christianism? Yes. Actually laic versions of Islam, especially Sufi (such as the one centered on Senegal) already exist. They have been submerged by fanatical version promoted by Saudi Arabia plutocrats, in the last few decades.

France became the “Eldest Daughter” of the senile, murderous Christian Church that had ravaged the Roman mind, Romanitas. So doing, Francia rebuilt Christianism.

(Three centuries after Clovis, Charlemagne attributed land to the Papacy, creating the so-called Papal States; it was well understood that the Pope took his orders from the “Renovated” Roman Empire).

Laicity translates the French laïcité, from Late Latin laicus + French -ité –ity. “Laicus” comes from the Greek “laikos”, meaning, of the people. I am not going to dissert on this now, but “Laikos” stands for “Human Ethology” (to describe it in the contemporary scientific semantics). Our common humanity, in other words.

When an ideology tries to devastate human ethology, Laicity, it should be repressed. Repression is civilization.

Indomitable Spirit, Crushing Infamy

Indomitable Spirit, Crushing Infamy

France has lost many battle, but is winning the war. This is exactly why Al Qaeda targeted her at her heart, Freedom of Expression. “Frank” means “Free”. The Franks gave their name to the Roman “Francia” they led.

Even the New York Times, in an excellent article by Douthat recognizes that “France is the Crucible of Europe”: “notwithstanding these declinist fears, France isn’t actually irrelevant or spent. Instead, it’s arguably becoming more important, more central to the fate of Europe and the West.

… politically, culturally, even intellectually, events in France over the next half-century could matter more than at any point since before the two world wars. Indeed, more than Germany or Greece or Britain or any other actor, it’s in France that the fate of 21st-century Europe could ultimately be decided…”

Why and How Did France Become So Central To Civilization?

Present day France, at the crossroads of the three main trade routes of Europe, has been continually at war for millennia, and whoever happen to reside there lost many battles. However this central position has fostered tolerance and understanding. Already 16 centuries ago, Celto-Germans, Romans, Jews, Franks, Goths and Burgunds had built a melting pot: many languages were spoken (three Celtic languages, Latin, Frankish, and various Germanic languages), and many religions were practiced (Francia did not have.

By 600 CE all citizens of what is now most of France, Germany and surrounding lands had become “Franks” (following the Constitutio Antoniniana of 212 CE).

The Franks, attached to freedom, as all Germans, 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 the franks 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.

The Enlightenment brought not only the republic of the United States of America (with a 5 trillion dollars world war to defeat Britain and give birth to the USA), but also the French Constitution of 1789, which proclaimed all men equal and gave them equal rights, independently of property, race, ethnicity, religion.

The Revolution of 1789 gave rise to the United Nations’ Charter, the very 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).

Let’s go back to Douhat (who embraced several themes I embraced for a decade):

“Then amid these political and economic patterns there’s an important intellectual possibility — namely, that if there’s something beyond the West’s current end-of-history torpor, some new ideological conflict or synthesis, it might emerge first in the place where so many revolutions had their birth.

France has always been a country of extremes — absolutist and republican, Catholic and anticlerical, Communist and fascist. Now it’s once again the place where strong forces are colliding, and where the culture’s uncertainties — about Islam, secularism, nationalism, Europe; about modernity itself — suggest that new ones might soon be born.

The decline has been real, but the future is unwritten. If there is real history yet to be made in Europe, for good or ill, it might be made first in la belle France.”

Not just Europe, the world.

Far from being struck by blind awe, evoking France, and its intellectuals. Actually the devastating notion of “multiculturalism” was born there. Some secondary French intellectuals breathed heavily on the United Nations, in a dumb tradition Rousseau inaugurated, to suggest that any culture, as long as it was different was glorious and to be allowed free reign.

This was Rousseau’s grave error, and it’s not at all what the history of Western Europe suggests. Far from it.

It is the Franks who grabbed and brandished the word “Europe”, when the Islamists launched three furious, massive land and sea invasions of Francia, in the period 721 CE-749 CE. They failed, their armies were totally destroyed, the Arab Caliphate fell (750 CE).

The history of Europe is the history of the progression of ever better ideas (and the annihilation of very bad ones). The Romans outlawed any religions founded on human sacrifices, and tried to make work a universal republic (their failure was due to a global fiscal failure, allowing the rise of plutocracy; so the problem is very contemporary). The Franks threw out religious fanaticism, and outlawed slavery.

None of this would have happened without creative brainwork. Those who don’t understand satire, don’t understand creative thinking. Satire is an old Greco-Roman tradition: consider the Satyricon (Book of Satyr-like thinking”; or consider satire from Horace, Juvenal, Apuleius…). Dionysian thinking and practice was all about satyrs, and satire (Nietzsche recognized its use around 1870, but Dante, Rabelais, Erasmus, Voltaire, etc. are all about it).

France is the country of intellectual extremes because it is the country of debate: one cannot debate persons who are in full agreement. Many French, when launched in a conversation, love to start their sentences with :”Non!”. It’s not that they dislike their interlocutor, but they need to stand, and be opposed (they will often defend the opposite point of view in the next debate).

And that is why Al Qaeda targeted the core of what makes debate possible, Freedom of Expression. Satire, and especially blasphemy, is not just a right super intelligence has. It is not just a duty.

Satire and blasphemy is how super intelligence is born. Imitations never qualified.

Patrice Ayme’

Vignettes on the massacre: 1) One the heavily armed thugs took over a Jewish supermarket, on the ground that all Jews should die (that’s more or less implied in the Qur’an, and certainly very explicit in the Haddith: I will roll out the quotes in another essay). The terrorists commandeered one of the cashiers to close the iron curtain. A 21 young Tunisian grabbed the terrorist’s machine gun, armed, aimed, and pulled the trigger. But the gun jammed, and the murderer tore him apart with his AK47 (the terrorist had already killed a “black” policewoman, shooting her in the back, and grievously wounded other people, the day before).

2) An African immigrant introduced many shoppers in the congelation room  of the Jewish supermarket, told them to stay silent, locked the door, and cut the power. They were not detected by the terrorist, and all saved. The African succeeded to flee, and informed the police.

3) Some hostages informed the police through Smart Phones. After a hostage told the police that the terrorist was making his prayers, the RAID force decided to attack immediately. After a furious exchange of gunfire, the madman charged the officers, and was riddled with bullets, so that he could not activate explosives. Casualties: 4 officers were lightly wounded, terrorist killed, no hostage hurt (those killed had been killed by the terrorist earlier).

Censorship: Mental Amputation, Civilizational Threat

January 8, 2015

Idiots draw guns, for the worst reasons, geniuses draw the world, for the best reasons.

All too many in the Anglosphere condemns Freedom of Expression, though. The Financial Times’ Tony Barber judged that the massacre of famous French cartoonists, writers and thinkers was well deserved. He found « stupid» and « irresponsible » some of the covers of Charlie Hebdo.

(There were so many protests from readers, that the FT withdrew the passage later; notice that, from my point of view, the Financial Times has been a great apostle for the destruction of civilization, so it’s coherent that it would editorialize that assassinating thinkers is justified. For more on some of the despicable opinions of Mr. Barber, see below.)

Ahmed Mebaret, Heroic Police Officer, Muslim, Assassinated While Defending Freedom of Expression

Ahmed Mebaret, Heroic Police Officer, Muslim, Assassinated While Defending Freedom of Expression

The wounded police officer who was deliberately assassinated, ran to the rescue of Freedom of Expression. He was Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim of Tunisian descent.

Father of two, he had just qualified to become a detective. He rushed to Charlie Hebdo and pulled his weapon, but was shot before he could use it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901681/Hero-police-officer-executed-street-married-42-year-old-Muslim-assigned-patrol-Paris-neighbourhood-Charlie-Hebdo-offices-located.html

THING AFRESH HURTS ALWAYS:

The Delphi Oracle, followed by Socrates, enjoined to: “Know Thyself!” . An ebullient Socrates insisted that: “The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living.”

However, man is a social animal. Society is how Homo thinks. To know oneself is to know ourselves. Socrates is always presented by Plato in a social context, debating.

Examining oneself, is examining the society one belongs to. Criticizing oneself ferociously, is criticizing one’s society ferociously.

The central point of thinking anew is that it hurts. Islam is aware of that point: Jihadism is first an effort upon oneself, to improve oneself. (Jihadism such as attacking others, and chopping people’s heads off is only fourth on a list of five type of Jihadism!)

Why does it hurt? Because it requires lots of energy to change one’s neurological networks. PPP

As Homo is a social animal, thinking anew will hurt socially. The majority of French people has been hurt, at one point or another, has been hurt by French satirical newspapers. There are several, and the satirical mood extends throughout out French newspaper and French society. There was long a virulent streak of critique in French society. A law of 1881 strictly protects freedom of press and caricature.

Violent French caricature was centuries old, by the time that the Marquis de Sade depicted with relish the leaders of the West as sadistic torturers and killers.

Actually I have tracked ferocious satire and critique down to at least the Sixteenth Century. Not just Rabelais, but, when an attempt was made to kill Henri IV, one of many, a writer immediately published a book lauding the would-be assassin (who had been executed already) and calling for a repeat, ASAP. Nowadays this sort of Freedom of Expression would be viewed as going to far. Anywhere in the West. But the Enlightenment was made of it.

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.

How does the New York Times knows it’s “controversial”, and “offensive”? Is that the opinion of the Islamist State?

Simply put, this is censorship. This is the New York Times crowing about censorship. But not just that. It is much worse than that. It goes down two circles of horror, as Dante would say.

The New York Times pontificates that the victim, Freedom of Expression, is “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”.

If the victim was from rape, the New York Times, thanks to its saurian brain, would know it’s not “cool” (“cool” is the ultimate expression in Silicon Valley) to accuse the victim to be “controversial”, “intentionally offensive”. It would not be “Politically Correct”.

That’s what “Political Correctness” is all about: faking thinking. Actually attacking Freedom of Expression is worse than rape or simple murder, even mass murder, as it enables ALL forms of violence, lethal or not.

Attacking Freedom of Expression is a direct attack against civilization. Indeed, civilization is all about minds meeting and debating: there is both its attraction and its advantage.

Neither meeting, nor debating, can be without Free Expression.

Censorship is why the New York Times has put me officially on a watch list, for years and blocks so many of my comments, that I am reading the paper less and less. [Although a NYT subscriber for decades] I am officially ”not trusted”. If the New York Times officially does not trust me, why should I trust it?

A dictator dictates. This is exactly what the New York Times does. It dictates what it thinks its commenters should say. I said recently something technical about Stoic Philosophy, following an ignorant article in the New York Times. I was censored. Because it’s an outrage to roll out information showing the NYT does not know what it is talking about.

And there is a difference between my comments and the NYT propaganda: when I said, for example in 2003, that the New York Times was lying about Iraq, I had detailed arguments (later proven right, as the NYT invented facts about Iraq, repeating just what Bush wanted it to say). The New York Times has never told me ONCE why any of my comments was blocked. I actually believe that such a behavior violates one the foundations of democracy, equal speech, and ought to be illegal.

After all, the New York Times is officially recognized, as all newspapers are. This makes it, to some extent, as all employees of newspapers and magazines, officially recognized agents of the state.

As such, it, and all newspapers and magazines, as state sanctioned professional organizations, ought to enforce democracy. In particular, not violate it.

All the work of Charlie Hebdo, and other satirical media was, and is, meant to be controversial and offensive.

Socrates was controversial and offensive. He died from it. He died, for it.

Self-satisfied censorship is exactly why the USA is intellectually second rate, and always will be, as long as this attitude persists.

A FEW MORE REFLEXIONS:

The next day a French born policewoman was killed deliberately in a terrorist incident involving a similar, heavily armed terrorist (she was hit three times, in the back).

Bernard Maris, also assassinated at Charlie Hebdo, was long a member of the group “Attaque”, and was stridently anti-liberal. He wrote columns in the press, including CH. A prominent shareholder of Charlie Hebdo, Maris was also a member of the Banque de France board (since 2011). So progressive, anti-plutocratic forces lost a strong advocate.

Recent attacks in the West by Qur’an inspired terrorists were from individuals who had been actively prevented to go to join the war in Syria. One may therefore wonder if that is a good strategy. Instead Denmark helps to recondition those who have been there illegally.

Recently Daesh/Islamic State executed more than 100 of its own foreign fighters. They had committed the crime of wanting to return home. So obviously, they had come to disagree with the whole Islamist terror thing.

One can deduce from this that it may be better to not be so strident, and effective at preventing disgruntled youth to go fight there. Or just to go there.

Instead, why not let them examine the situation for themselves? Those who go help the like of the Islamist State ought to be seriously prosecuted, but only if they commit serious crimes. They should also be supported if they want to be re-instated in the West. (Some of the most experienced Secret Service types share this opinion.)

Here some more of the Financial Times prose on Charlie Hebdo: “Charlie Hebdo has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims. If the magazine stops just short of outright insults, it is nevertheless not the most convincing champion of the principle of freedom of speech. France is the land of Voltaire, but too often editorial foolishness has prevailed at Charlie Hebdo.”

Editorial foolishness!

Financial Times’ Barber pursued: “This is not in the slightest to condone the murderers, who must be caught and punished, or to suggest that freedom of expression should not extend to satirical portrayals of religion. It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.”

At least two of the people assassinated at Charlie Hebdo were “Muslim”: the police officer who rushed to the rescue of Freedom of Expression, and one of the authors and journalists of Charlie Hebdo. Apparently those two did not feel threatened by Charlie Hebdo, but, instead, collaborated with it so bravely that they risked their lives.

Claiming, as the Financial Times does, that provoking dangerous fanatics is provoking all Muslims, means that the Financial Times view all Muslims as dangerous fanatics. That’s sheer racism.

OBAMA IS NOT CHARLIE:

This is from a speech the president delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 2012:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Notice the totally obscene confusion: the Holocaust was the deliberate assassination of more than a dozen million people for so-called “racial” reasons (it’s not just the so-called “Jews” who were killed). Destruction of property, or desecration and slander, especially of people dead for more than a millennium, do not compare.

By pontificating that saying something not kosher, in the eyes of some beholder, about the so-called “Prophet” is in the same category as the killing of millions, Obama has clearly gone to the Dark Side. Or maybe his speechwriters, and he had no idea, or comprehension about what he was reading like a parrot.

Obama is supposed to defend Freedom of Expression. Instead he defended fanaticism of the worst type. So Charlie slandered, in the eyes of some beholders, and in the eyes of Obama, a guy long dead. And the president of the USA insinuates that the slandering of one long dead, is like being an accomplice to the killing of millions. So now the bullets fly.

Who is culprit? These ignorant youth, who were orphans, seized by a giant propaganda machine, or the much respected Nobel Peace Prize, much adulated throughout the West, supposedly defending civilization while talking like a fanatic from the Middle Ages? Who caused what? Who is the most despicable?

Patrice Ayme’

“JE SUIS CHARLIE”

January 7, 2015

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.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/the-economist-hates-the-quran/

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:

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

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’

USA & France Do NOT Respect Religion

September 21, 2012

UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF ISLAMISM WITH DARK HOUSE CLUELESS ON FREEDOM, The Essence Of The West:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reading a prepared statement: “We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this… We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory.”

Muha Bad, or Muha Mad? Neither! White House suggests ‘figure resembles prophet Muhammad’!

This is the cartoon that the (fanatically Islamist?) White House views as “deeply offensive“. What about deeply offending the USA Constitution and the Founding Fathers? [Caption translates as: The movie that inflames the Muslim World; then the “figure resembling the Prophet Muhammad” according to the White House, says: “And my buns, do you like my buns?”.] 

Deeply offensive to many“? Many what? Grand inquisitors? Salafists? Did the White House see the picture of the burned ambassador, not quite completely dead? They have been shown in France. Atrocious pictures. That’s what “deeply offensive” means, burning alive innocent people, good people.

***

“We are aware… we know… obviously…questions… judgment…figure resembling the prophet Muhammad…deeply offensive”. In any discourse, one can gather a lot by the context the key words describe. (Those knowing combinatorial topology will recognize keys words describe a simplicial complex the faces of which define higher concepts…)

The USA administration’s  hostility to the famous French magazine Charlie Hebdo follows the administration’s September 14 effort to persuade Google to take down a short, cheap satirical video on YouTube that also angered a few fanatical Islamists. Thank god, for once Google lived up to its slogan:”Don’t be evil!

What basically the administration is doing is the following. Some Christian fundamentalists have killed doctors, because,  they said, they were offended by abortion. Suppose a cartoon came out, suggesting that the assassins are narcistic, and obsessed by whether they looked good. Would the White House have declared that such a cartoon was “deeply offensive to many and have the potential to be inflammatory“? So why the pandering to fanatic criminals? A few days after an American ambassador and three other employees of the State Department got assassinated?

The State Department has been incredibly incompetent: incapable of defending a “mission” against 70 guys armed with diesel fuel. The USA ambassador and another US citizen died in the fire. The attack was on 9/11. In a second attack, a bit later, some of the attackers were carrying weapons bigger than Obama himself. Two ex Navy seals got killed.

The video describing the major contents of the Qur’an, made by an Egyptian, had been out for 6 months. Accusing it was untenable. Still, that is what the White House did, following the discourse of Islamist fanatics. Who is better at determining what insults Islam than Islamist fanatics? Nobody in the world, proposes the White House! No doubt the majority of Muslims, who are deeply hostile to Islamist fanatics, will thus find a new reason to dislike the White House, and to suspect that it’s there mostly to add fuel (diesel or not) to the fire.

Did the administration read the Qur’an? What’s in that video that is not in the Qur’an? I read one and watched the other, and I fail to see in which sense the video is not deeply respctful of the Innocence of Muslims, as revealed by scripture.

By insisting that the attack was caused by “Innocence of Muslims“, the administration made a joint statement with Al Qaeda: trailer kills ambassador. Same thing about condemning Muhammad’s sketches; so doing, the White House is insisting that the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam is the correct one.

Finally the administration recognized the obvious. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. After all. Al Qaeda.

***

USA DOES NOT RESPECT RELIGION, SAY CONSTITUTION, FOUNDING FATHERS:  

Does the administration know the Constitution? Apparently not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution starts with: Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…

In an astounding contrast, the White House orders us to respect sketches of naked guys worrying about whether their buns look good, because, well, some crazed fanatics, somewhere, have it that’s against their superstition. Not just against their superstion, but their heavens high indignation gives them the right to kill whoever has displeased them. And the present White House approves? Why should we abhor sketches of naked guys? Why should we obsess about naked guys?

Jefferson, Third President of the USA, wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion…thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Calling the clowns in the white House “apes” (as the Qur’an does, speaking of Jews and Christians) would be too mild, because apes ape, and the White House boys can’t even do this.

In the Treaty Of Tripoli, worked on by all the Founding Fathers, and signed on by the first two presidents of the USA, George Washington, and John Adams we find this:

 As the Government of the United States of America is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from RELIGIOUS OPINIONS shall EVER produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Not in any sense, no pretext ever from religious opinion“: get it, Obama? Learn. A corollary, obviously, is that the USA is not, in any sense, founded on the MUSLIM religion. So Muhammad’s buns, if any, are none of the USA’s official business.

Another corollary is that all the god stuff brandished since 1954 CE in the USA about Allah is unconstitutional. The present period will be viewed in history as the times when the presidents of the USA thought they were Caliphs!

On the whole planet, the total number of demonstrators against “Innocence of Muslims” and the French caricatures, so far, including government organized demonstrations in Sudan and Iran, is 150,000… out of 1.5 billion Muslims, that’s .1%. A tenth of one percent. Yet, when the White House, in the name of the American People, denounces free speech, as Carney did, that’s 310 million speaking, and a major democracy falling for the Dark Side of god.

The Administration insisted, initially that the lethal attack against the USA ambassador and other government officials, had everything to do with “Innocence of Muslims“. In other words, people  supposedly “denigrating” Islam caused the attack.

The White House and others kept on describing the trailer as “denigrating“, but they forgot to tell us why, and how, exactly. Wild accusations without explicit foundation are just devolutions of reason.

Here, watch me go explicit. The trailer was accused to represent Muhammad as a pedophile polygamist who got involved in combat with a bloody sword, and whose ideas came from a Christian monk, cousin to his wife. The trailer mostly follows impeccably the Qur’an and Hadith, as I explained in “Progress kills Killer Religions“.

Yes, Muhammad married a 6 year old girl. Yes he had many “wives” some from the battlefield, some Jewish, some from a irate subordinate. Yes, Muhammad was a raider of caravans, and led battles personally, resulting in the death of thousands. Including an entire Jewish tribe, annihilated. This is all in the sacred texts of Islam.

***

FRANCE’S UNCOMPROMISING STANCE ON ISLAM:

In 721 CE, the greatest army Islam ever had, invaded “Francia”. The Franks of the Dux of Aquitania retreated, setting a trap for the charging Islamist horde, which was annihilated. Two further invasions followed, with the same result, bold Muslim penetrations, followed by encirclement, entrapment and annihilation, hammered by Charles Martel, a Carolingian, grandfather of Charlemagne. Militarily decapitated, the Arab caliphate fell by 750 CE, and was never seen again (other Islamized nations became dominant, such as Iranian, Mongols and Turks)  

The White house kept on debasing itself. A somewhat haggard Clinton read a statement on Friday claiming the USA had nothing to do with the “Innocence of Muslims”. Meanwhile, in the center of civilization, Charlie Hebdo made another massive printing of its Muhammad cartoons. Disingenuously, USA media claimed the French government had condemned the cartoons “swiftly”. It was not ‘swift”, and it did not happen.(The New York Times just misrepresented what French foreign minister Fabius (a “Jew”) had said.)

Quite the opposite. Several days before Charlie Hebdo went on the attack, the French president, Hollande, inaugurating the magnificent museum of Islamic Arts in the Louvres, Paris, condemned religious fanaticism: “Les meilleures armes pour lutter contre le fanatisme qui se reclame de l’Islam se trouve dans l’Islam lui meme. Quand le patrimoine est saccage’, ceux sont toutes les civilisations qui sont attaquees…[ce qu’il faut condamner c’est] L’insondable betise qui rend chaque civilisation vulnerable. “

(Best weapons against the Islamist fanaticism are found in Islam itself. When patrimony is devastated, it’s all of civilization which is attacked… What one needs to condemn is the unfathomable stupidity that makes each civilization vulnerable )

The issue of Charlie Hebdo condemned by the White House had only 2 or 3 cartoons that could be religiously interpreted out of 30 or so in the issue. The weekly comments on the events of the week, it comes out on Wednesday. However, it proved so successful that it quickly ran out, and it was reprinted exceptionally for Friday, the day of the great prayer. So much for the French being terrorized by Muhammad’s buns.

The director of publishing at Charlie Hebdo pointed out that the great religions live out of the fear they inspire. Instead, most people publishing Charlie Hebdo  don’t want to live in fear, they want to live in fun and good humor, lightly. 

One thing the White House should pay more attention to is that to live lightly has to do with light and the enlightenment. Why should those who want to live in the light, by the light, and lightly, care about what master terrorists expert in the mania of crowds claim to worry idiotically about?

***

Patrice Ayme