IT'S RACIST NOT TO EXPOSE FAITHFULLY THE QURAN'S FASCIST
AND HOMICIDAL SPLENDOR!
September 11, 2006.
IT'S RACIST NOT TO EXPOSE FAITHFULLY THE QURAN'S FASCIST
AND HOMICIDAL SPLENDOR!
To M. C. Kuruvila, San Francisco Chronicle:
PARROTING AND THUS SUPPORTING ISLAMIC TERROR:
In a massive front page article of the San Francisco
Chronicle (Sunday, Sept. 3, 2006), you insinuate that
criticizing Islam is racist. I will demolish in this
letter your feeling that criticism is racism. Not only
does this goes against the progress of civilization,
but it would make it impossible to reform Islam into
something compatible with the civilization most of the
planet has, namely secular civilization. Your attitude,
of claiming that criticism is racism, is demeaning to
the vast majority of Muslims and opens them to various
forms of exploitation. So it is my position that, to
the contrary, NOT to criticize Islam is racist, and
ill advised, not to say malevolent. I will demonstrate
this below, with Allah's help.
Secular, coming from "seculum", the century in Latin,
means timely, basically; since religions are "mere fables
of old men" (as Allah Himself suggests in the Quran!),
"secular" has come to mean "non religious", whereas,
in truth, secularism is still another re-ligion, the
re-ligion of living in one's own century, namely being
tied up again (re-ligare) by what makes sense today.
The attitude of making the critique of Islam into
a deadly sin is not new. It's in the Quran, all over
the Quran. The penalty is death and eternal torture.
Bellows Allah: "They who disbelieve and deny Our revelations,
such are rightful owners of Hell. --(Quran, S 5; v.11;
then Allah repeats that same message again and again
and again, throughout His Quran, varying a word here
or there; for example: "But those who disbelieve and
deny Our revelations, they are owners of hell- fire."
Accordingly, the Quranic "revelation" kept reason
in bondage ever since the brigands came out of the desert
to gather "bounty" and capture the "slave girls". All
the Muslim philosophers who suggested to put reason
first were terrorized back into the fasces of Islamic
terror. The Islamic dictators kept a wide berth from
any overly critical Greek philosophy. Even Plato and
Socrates were too much for them. Aristotle was better,
since he used to lick Alexander's toes, showing a predisposition
to serve those who are in power (see Quran's fascist
The most famous Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rochd (Latinized
as "Averroes"; full name: Abul al-wahid Mohammed Ibn
Ahmed Ibn Mohammed Ibn Rochd) was stoned to death in
1198 CE, by an enraged mob of Muslims just because Muslim
scripture says to kill people who may think differently
on esoteric subjects.
Ibn Rochd, a doctor, had been "cadi" (Muslim) judge,
and even justice minister. He put Islam above anything
else, as all Muslim philosophers did, but he did not
do so enough according to the fundamentalists. Ibn Rochd's
reputation was demolished by the Muslim "guardians of
the tradition" whereas he was feted in the West, the
place where he had the most influence. That's typical.
OK, other philosophers were crucified upside down by
enraged Muslims, to have plenty of time to recognize
the extent of their mistakes.
One can contrast this with the more relaxed attitude
in the West: a few generations earlier, the great philosopher
Abelard, exhausted by his young enemy "Saint" Bernard
(the famous Christian fascist and crusader), contemplated
going to live among Muslims. Excommunication meant death
in Islam, whereas it was just a shrug of no legal consequence
in (civilized) Christendom.
I suggest that the San Francisco Chronicle, by insinuating
that the critique of Islam is a form of racism, makes
itself an accomplice of those who killed Ibn Rochd,
and kept the Middle East in Islamic bondage and obscurity
for 13 centuries.
The Quran is full of slurs, insults, threats and claims
of grave injuries past and future against the Jews.
Dozens of pages of the Quran have to do with the Jews,
with Allah taking part in the action, drowning a nation,
here or there, and being, in the end, sorely disappointed
by the "children of Israel", those "ingrates". The Quran,
most of the time, page after page, wants to destroy
the Jews. Next to throwing all disbelievers into the
fire, and considering life is worth nothing, and Allah
is the greatest and most merciful, Jews are the Quran's
An anthropology professor you roll out, Silverstein,
claims that "the Muslims are the new Jews". That's about
as intelligent as saying that "the Nazis are the new
Jews". After all, the Nazis have been discriminated
against too, because for them a good Jew was a Jew in
the fire, and so France attacked the Nazis.
Since the creation of Islam, and until 1948, there
was no Jewish State, and no institution protected the
Jews against the rabid anti Jewish litanies of the Quran.
Muslim states mostly oppressed the Jews (Al Andalus
and the Ottomans being occasional counterexamples to
this). Muhammad massacred Jews first occasion he got.
The Jewish State had been suspended by fascist imperial
Pagan Rome, and the Jewish nation was later dispersed
by fascist imperial Christian Rome (following advice
from the fanatic Augustinus, a Christian "philosopher",
and "Father of the Church"). So the Jews had no defense,
and the best which can be said about Islam's attitude
to the Jews is that sometimes some Muslim regimes treated
the Jews much better than the worst of the worse Christian
regimes. But only sometimes, and rarely.
Whereas, as early as imperial Rome, the Jews often
had, in the West, a status equal or even clearly superior
to the status of the Christians, they were never treated
that well in Islam (with the possible exception of some
episodes of sub regimes of Al Andalus). The Quran, at
best, hates the Jews, calling them "apes" and "swine",
and "donkeys laden with books" (S.62; v.5). Most Jews,
a tribe originally from Arabia, live now in the West,
having being chased from their homeland. That Islam
hated the Christians too is no consolation. Allah also
promises the Christians will burn, and "there will be
no helper" (Quran, S.5; v 72).
ISLAM FLAUNTS THE WORTHLESSNESS OF LIFE:
An example of what Allah says about life is this.
Quran, S.3; v. 185: "Every soul will taste of death.....
THE LIFE OF THIS WORLD IS BUT COMFORT OF ILLUSION."
There are 439 occurrences of the theme of life after
death in the Quran. Thus even more than to Allah (570)
if one includes all eschatological notions (Hell, Paradise,
Last Judgment, etc..). Allah says, over and over again,
that life is nothing, and He is everything, and that
good Muslims will prefer to lose life in combat for
their faith. Thus, suicide attacks have a long history
IT'S NOT PRESIDENT BUSH WHO IS INCONSISTENT, BUT THE
HOLY QURAN, AND IT'S A STRATAGEM:
You say that "President Bush has been inconsistent
in his characterization of Islam", because after 9/11
he spoke nicely of Islam, although he more recently
observed that "we are at war with Islamic fascists"
(10/08/06). Perhaps President Bush believed the Islamists
on 9/13, 2001, but, meanwhile, he may have found time
for his own reading.
In truth it's not Bush who is inconsistent, but the
Quran. And it's a conscious stratagem.
I am sorry to have to reveal to you that yes, Islam
is fascist, and yes, Islam is very inconsistent. Islam
uses fascism for domination (by the bin Laden like Muslim
warrior), and uses inconsistency like the leopard its
pelt made of light and dark, so it can't be seen in
the conceptual landscape. So one does not know where
and when it will strike.
It's true the Quran sometimes speaks of peace. For
example the Quran points out repeatedly that believers
should not kill each other (so, whereas Islam tells
to kill non believers, they should strive not to get
carried away!). But it's even more true that the basic
refrain of the Quran is to throw people "in the fire",
and visit on them a litany of horrors which gets numbing
as one reads along (numbness for killing being an effect
the Quran is obviously after). This lip service to peace
allows the apologists of Islam to both sing of Islam
as a religion of peace, while simultaneously threatening
its MENTAL enemies with PHYSICAL death. Actually Allah
recommends "ANY stratagem" to confuse, ambush, fight
and kill the disbelievers (Quran, S.9; v.5)
AN EXAMPLE OF MULTILAYERED MENTAL MANIPULATION IN
ISLAM: THE CASE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
Let's extract an example of this cunning dance of
death and confusion Islam specializes in. We expose
the verses 256 and 257 of the Al Baraqa Surah ("the
Cow"), the first, and longest chapter of the Quran,
in their integrality, as they come. Capital letter emphasis
is mine, of course. Watch the train of thought:
"Quran S2; v. 256. THERE IS NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION.
The right direction is henceforth distinct from error.
And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in
Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never
break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. Quran S2; v. 257. Allah
is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He
bringeth them out of darkness into light. AS FOR THOSE
WHO DISBELIEVE, their patrons are false deities. They
bring them out of light into darkness. SUCH ARE THE
RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE FIRE. THEY WILL ABIDE THEREIN."
The Islamists never fail to quote the first sentence
above: "there is no compulsion in religion". They craftily
forget to quote the next NINE sentences, which, in practice,
completely contradict the first, as they establish a
context which is the exact opposite of the claim that
"there is no compulsion in religion". Indeed, believe
as you want (v. 256), but then, if you disbelieve, you
will burn forever in Hell (v. 257). Nor is the later
an accident, or a passing threat. The message that disbelievers
will be burned, know an "awful", "dolorous" or "painful
doom", "make to drink boiling water", etc... is repeated
all along the Quran, as a mental background, a constant
There is no compulsion in religion, and then, if you
disbelieve, atrocious things will happen to you forever.
Logical, indeed, for something without a heart.
True, there is no logical contradiction between 256
and 257. But certainly there is an EMOTIONAL CONTRADICTION.
To see it, of course, one needs a heart. The heart does
not seem Allah's forte, He prefers to play with fire.
The message that there is no compulsion in religion
shows up about three times, in toto, in the entire Quran
(I read it all several times!) with the preceding qualifiers,
so it's clearly a joke played by Allah on the minds
of the disbelievers. Allah has a wicked sense of humor.
Here is another apparition of Allah's version of religious
freedom: Quran, S. 18; v.29: " Say: the truth from your
Lord. Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever
will, let him disbelieve. Lo! WE HAVE PREPARED FOR DISBELIEVERS
FIRE. ITS TENT ENCLOSETH THEM. IF THEY ASK FOR SHOWERS,
THEY WILL BE SHOWERED WITH MOLTEN LEAD WHICH BURNETH
THEIR FACES. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!"
Islamic scholars are voluntarily dishonest when they
claim that the Quran is tolerant of other religions.
Allah makes it very clear, as soon as the first chapter
of the Quran what the program is: "Fight them until
persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. "
(Quran, S.2; v.193).
Islamic scholars cling to the two sentences above,
and totally remove them from the context the verses
they are in provide them with. Since Allah himself several
times condemns the Jews for precisely lying by removing
sentences from the contexts which framed them, this
is not an accident which befalls clueless Islamic scholars.
Islamic scholars choose to deliberately do what Allah
told the Jews not to do, so it's sheer dishonesty on
their part. They do this, because Allah has ordered
them to confuse the disbelievers.
Verily, the Quran is a book which is overwhelmed by
hatred for "disbelievers". In a sincere cry of the heart,
Allah even confesses His hatred for them several times,
as in: "... they denied My messengers. How intense then
was My hatred of them! " (Quran, S. 34; v.45).
ISLAM IS A TERROR, WAR LIKE RELIGION, FULL OF CLOSE
ANALOGIES TO NAZISM:
The core belief of fascism is what the Nazis called
the FUERER PRINZIP. It's the organization of society
in groups each led by a "guide" (Fuerer). Each group
thinks as they are told by their guide, no more, no
less, and obey him absolutely. According to Hitler,
it allowed for a great flexibility in leadership democracies
were deprived of. After waging a raging electoral campaign
against the very existence of Poland in 1933, Hitler
proved his point about flexibility by signing a treaty
of eternal love and cooperation with Poland, 12 months
later, in 1934. He congratulated himself about the fact
he did not have to worry about what people thought of
this drastic inversion of all values. Hitler kept on
going that way, inverting all Nazi values whenever he
felt like it, most famously by ingratiating himself
to Great Britain (1935) and Mussolini (1938) and even
The Fuerer Prinzip is central to the Quran, and we
have a verse of the Quran which proves it (see below).
Actually there is so much in common between Islam and
Nazism, that it is not surprising that Hitler admired
It is not just that Allah hates the Jews: "We said
unto the Jews: Be ye apes despised and loathed!" (Quran,
It is not just that Allah poses as Fuerer doing whatever
he pleases, changing his mind all the time, but being
always suspicious of knowledge: "And We verily did allot
unto the Children of Israel a fixed abode, and did provide
them with good things; and they differed not until the
knowledge came unto them." (Quran S.10; v. 93)
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, promotes hatred
and suspicion between the generations: " O ye who believe!
Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies
for you, therefore beware of them..."(Quran, S.64; v.
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, does not think
highly of women: ..."the women, and the children, are
feeble minded and unable to devise a plan." (Quran,
S. 4; v. 98). "Men are in charge of women, because Allah
made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex
with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge
them. (Quran, S. 4; v. 34)
It's not just that, Hitler like, Allah says all the
time: "Allah knows, and you don't."
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, cultivates
his roughness, even reprimanding His own Messenger,
Muhammad, for being too prone to capturing people rather
than exterminating them: "It is not for any prophet
to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the
land.--(Quran, S. 8; v. 67).
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, has a robust
attitude relative to freedom of expression: "We shall
record their sayings .... and We shall say: Taste ye
the punishment of burning! (Quran S. 3; v. 181)
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, has strong
opinions about what constitute proper thinking: "As
for poets, the erring follow them." (Quran, S. 26; v.
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, is a doomsayer:
"For the disbelievers, a painful doom... they shall
be thrown into the fire, drink boiling water ...(all
over the Quran). Allah wants to torture people forever:
"...for those who disbelieve, for them is fire of hell;
it taketh not complete effect upon them so that they
can die, nor is its torment lightened for them. Thus
We punish every ingrate. " (Quran, S. 35; v. 36).
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, relish in
inflicting punishment: " Lo! Those who disbelieve Our
revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often
as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for
FRESH SKINS so that they may taste the torment again.
Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." -- (Quran, S.4; v.
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, practiced
ethnic cleansing and terror: "How many a township have
We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept
at noon, Our TERROR came unto them. --(Quran, S. 7;
v. 4; the theme of destroying towns is omnipresent in
the Quran; we may expect faithful readers of the Quran
to want to destroy plenty of cities and be drawn to
It's not just that Allah, like Hitler, uses terror
as preferred interface: "No plea had they, when Our
TERROR came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were
wrong-doers." (S.7; v. 5)
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, is genocidal:
"Many a generation We destroyed ... and created after
them another generation." --(Quran, S.6; v. 6; the theme
of "destroying generations" is omnipresent in the Quran)
"How many generations have We destroyed since Noah!
And Allah sufficeth as Knower and Beholder of the sins
of His slaves. -- (Quran, S. 17; v. 17)
It is not just that Allah, just like Hitler, practices
guilt by association: "Then see the nature of the consequence
of their plotting, for lo! We destroyed them and their
people, every one of them." (Quran, S.27; v. 51). Allah
likes to kill the innocent wives with the guilty husbands
too: "Assemble those who did wrong, together with their
wives and what they used to worship instead of Allah,
and lead them to the path to Hell." (Quran, S. 37: v.
It is not just that Allah, like Hitler, wants to destroy
the entire world: "There is not a township but We shall
destroy it ere the Day of Resurrection, or punish it
with dire punishment. That is set forth in the Book
of Our decrees. (Quran; S.17; v. 58).
No, the proof that the Quran is fascist is not in
any of that, it is in another verse.
AND HERE IS THE PROOF THAT ISLAM IS ALSO FASCIST,
IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, IN THE WORDS OF ALLAH HIMSELF:
The preceding verses are all about terror, genocide,
extermination, inflicting pain. Quite a few aggressive
quotes for a would be peace book of 450 pages. Democracy
is sometimes obligated to be rough too, to some extent.
But there is something democracy never engages in, even
when actually fighting a vicious war. The Fuerer Principle.
What makes Islam fascist for all to see is simply
that the Fuerer principle itself is promulgated by Allah
for all of society, all the time. Greek philosophy gave
us, well, philosophy, but Allah gave us the Fuerer Prinzip,
which would have, and did, enrage the Greeks when they
were great. Greece threw down wells the envoys of Persia
when they asked Greece to acknowledge Persia's power.
Allah wants us to obey whoever detains power: "O YE
WHO BELIEVE! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and
OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER." (Quran's fascist
principle, S.4; v. 59).
One can hardly be more explicit! Do not elect those
who are in power, do not criticize them, just OBEY THEM.
So if Saddam is in power, obey Saddam. If Nasrallah
is in power, obey Nasrallah. If Khomeiny is in power,
obey Khomeiny. If bin Laden is in power, obey bin Laden.
If the Iranian president tells you to build nuclear
bombs, he is in power, so Allah tells you to obey. In
any case, have no dignity, no intelligence, and no free
will. Just obey your Lord. We are far from the principles
of equality and freedom of the Franks (aka Europeans).
How come the Muslims do not obey Bush, then? Well,
because there is a destructive interference of Allah's
fascist diktat and Allah's constantly expressed refrain
of killing non Muslims: "fight and kill the disbelievers
wherever you find them..." (S.9; v.5).
Maybe Bush should convert to Islam, and then bark
orders, and all Islamists would obey? No, not so simple:
the history of Islam is all about who is a believer
(good), and who is not (kill!). Muslims continually
worry about who is a believer and who is not, that is
why they kill a lot of Muslims themselves, since they
are not too sure which other Muslims are really believers.
Minds which are too focused on killing and terror
cannot be globally intelligent, so the Quran has held
back the growth of culture in the regions it controls.
TO WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE IN QURANIC SUBJUGATION IS RACIST:
In light of the sort of things the Quran preaches,
as related above, it's amazing you present uncritically
a young gentleman with a goofy smile, who explains that
"dressing the part of a Muslim prompts good actions."
And then you add: "Omair Ali was stunned by the perception
that the religion of Islam would have anything to do
with the terrorist attacks. Mirroring the story of many
others in the Bay Area, the San Jose resident became
more religious after the attacks. He started to wear
a skull cap and grew a beard, only the later of which
is required by stricter observers of the faith."
Whatever the faith is. Ultimately it boils down to
a succession of silly little rituals without any mind
attached, precisely because Allah "watches the sayings",
and sends the perpetrators in the fire. The superstition
about beards and the like is an interpretation of an
obscure part of a single sentence in the Quran where
Allah orders in passing to leave his creations alone.
It's clearly not one of the main messages, because those
Allah keeps repeating those.
We notice that the simplest, strictest interpretation
of Allah's words as a dressing code implies that Muslims
should not wear shoes, and should go about naked. So
why don't they? And if animals are people, and ants
talk, as the Quran says, why to not leave those alone
too, and walk through the desert, instead of mounting
This obsession "Muslims" have about ritualistic details
was pointed out by the most critical Muslim philosophers.
That's how Ibn Rochd got in trouble. What the philosophers
did not say was that the Muslim obsession with little
rituals is an effort to cover up the main message of
the Quran, which is total and absolute TERROR in a thoroughly
fascist society where "sayings are watched". Muslim
scholars have tended to make a world of little tidbits
like dressing codes, to cover up the big stuff in the
Quran: fight, kill, fire, rape, pillage, slaves, slave
girls, boiling water, melted lead, ominous, awful, dolorous
and painful doom, destroying towns, countries, people,
and nations, and the eternally persistent betrayal of
the ungrateful "children of Israel" (worse than the
worse of pagans, those Jews, such as in the way they
cling to life, Allah informs us in the Holy Book).
Many Muslims prefer to make fantastically convoluted
interpretations of what Allah may have wanted to say
about trivialities such as what to wear today, because
that occupies their minds, and forces people to admit
the principle of obedience, the principle of being dictatorialized
upon, the fascist principle. Moreover, such trivialities
allow to never address the big stuff, they act as fig
leaves behind which to hide Allah's violent, tyranical,
sadistic, and perfidic mind, and the biggest question
of them all, namely why do we need a religion like that
if we want to live in peace?
To say that to criticize the Quran is racist is as
if saying that criticizing human sacrifices, the central
piece of the old Mexican religion, was racist to the
Mexicans. In truth, nearly no modern Mexicans would
think so, and nearly none views the abrogation of the
old Mexican religion as a Western plot. Why? Because
to organize society so that it did not need "flower
wars" for meat procurement was progress, since it increased
the happiness of the average citizen. The old Mexican
religion kept most of Mexico in a state of subjugation
and terror. Exploiting the general ressentment, Cortez
was able to raise a huge army of natives with which
he defeated the Aztecs.
When people come around and say that there is nothing
wrong with the Quran, and everything to be revered,
they are doing a disservice to the average present and
future citizen of the countries subjugated by Islam.
Indeed, the Quran may not promote human sacrifices so
as to eat, but it promotes them nevertheless, so as
to serve Allah.
THE FRENCH CONFRONTATION: PREFERRING THE CENTURY TO
"MERE FABLES OF OLD MEN":
France has the oldest confrontation with the Quran:
13 centuries, and counting. As soon as Islam appeared
the Franks sent spies to find out what was going on
(7C). The Franks were no friends of fanatical God inspired
religions, and their crack down extended to all sorts
of religions-of-Abraham variants. They accurately called
the Muslims "Ishmaelites". They called themselves "Europeans".
They made the Catholic religion into a tool they used
for progress, they were not going to submit to the "Ishmaelites".
Instead they pushed them back all the way to Jerusalem.
You roll out that professor Silverstein again, now
with his French hat, who brazenly tells us that:"...there
is a potentially dangerous endgame to the racialization
of Muslims, just as in France, where French-born Muslim
youths reject French identity and conflicted with the
authorities last year."
Well... First, no one knows what "French identity"
is, except that it is an identity which has to do with
conflicting with authority, and not just Anglo-Saxon
authority of the pseudo intellectual kind. So Mr. Silverstein
has it upside down. What he views as a conflict is,
at a higher level, an agreement of higher values. French
youths argue with French authorities, that's the French
way. Nothing the French value more than a good argument.
That is how civilization progresses. Actually French
authorities later on determined that the youths had
been right, and that police had abused of their powers
in the incident which started the riots.
Identity is a morphing concept in truly secular countries.
Secularism is an intrinsically dynamic concept. France
has been a secular country forever. However hard France
was claimed to be "Christian" by some, the secular has
dominated the superstitious in France since the Franks
created France and broke all Christian forms of power
except the one they organized as an instrument of their
own secular power; the Franks drove the Popes crazy
for centuries before the Holy Fathers learned to submit
to their Frankish Masters, and become good, obedient,
civilized pets; in France the government was always
in power, never the Church; although the government
forced the Church to teach secularism (8C), which made
the Church into a para governmental secular teaching
Secular means the identity of civilization moves with
its seculum, its century. Savages stay stuck in the
past, clinging to a well defined, but obsolete religious
identity. Until more civilized men come to show the
better way at the point of the sword.
That is why FRANCE ABROGATED SLAVERY WHILE, AT THE
SAME TIME, THE QURAN WAS INSTITUTIONALIZING IT FOR CENTURIES
Francia, abrogating slavery in the 7C, was in her
century, as she saw it. Muhammad, the illiterate with
voices in His head, was in His desert, watching the
sands and the rocks, in another century, an older already
completely obsolete century where slavery was a pillar
of the economy, as in older times. Meanwhile the West
was moving into a high tech, non slavery based economy.
The Quran made slavery, especially sexual slavery,
a religious principle, something Allah takes for granted
(Allah and His Messenger were apparently very hot about
women and girls, and full sexual intercourse with slave
girls was made by Muhammad into a religious duty, a
duty that went against the tradition of slave raiders,
since it lowered the value of the girls, but that was
fine with Muhammad, because he wanted a population explosion
to replenish His armies of raiders). Thus slavery, and
a slave economy, left Islamic lands in shackles until
the White Western man forcefully brought more advanced
civilization to the clueless Islamic masses, with his
big guns, by forcefully removing slavery, thus stepping
a bit on Allah's Quran in the process (so sorry!).
The history of France is vastly more complicated than
Anglo-Saxons can fathom, not in small part because it's
so embarrassing to those who mispronounce French.
Richard, the Lion Hearted, was de facto a man born
and raised and living in France, for example, and the
British Parliament evolved from that of Toulouse, etc....
Awful and dolorous doom! Several quintessential social
structures of the Anglo-Saxon realms were actually evolved
and grafted into Great Britain when France and (Great)
Britain were not really distinguishable, but, since
France had a much larger population, she made most of
the inventions, besides the fact Frenchmen were in command
in England, and besides the fact civilization had been
mostly invented in the south (the French in London argued
with those in Paris in an increasingly assertive way,
but that is another story which took more than three
centuries to bring a temporary secession).
Your so called "French-born Muslim youths" do not
primarily, if at all, see themselves as Muslims. They
mostly want their slice of the pie, in this life, and
that is a very secular aim. Obedience is far from their
minds. So is Allah. Most of these youths are typically
French in the sense that they do not believe in God
at all, but they do believe, in a very French way, that
the Republic is God and should deliver more on her mantra
"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". The "racialization"
you accuse France of, is coming from your mental framework,
not from reality. The revolt of what you call "Muslim
youths" does not come from them being so Muslim, since
they are not so, but from them being so French. It's
actually an excellent sign of cultural integration.
The most popular man in France, for many years running,
has been Zinedine Zidane ("Zizou"), whose two parents
were born in Kabylie (mountains east of Algiers). Interestingly,
Zizou is the rare Frenchman claiming to believe in God
(which means he is probably going to run for office
someday). So the most popular Frenchman is a "Muslim"!
- or at least a "Muslim" of sort, because many French
"Muslims" are not happy about the Quran, and rumblings
about a serious reform of Islam emanate from France
(as they long have from Senegal).
A part of French identity, though, is the ANTI FASCIST
PRINCIPLE, which consists, contrarily to what the Quran
orders, to DISOBEY AUTHORITY AT THE FIRST PLAUSIBLE
PRETEXT. It's the exact opposite of the Fuerer Principle
and of the Quran's fascist "obey those of you who are
in power". Thus the rambunctious French youths exhibited
that very French characteristic, as they went about,
burning cars, and insulting authority.
Similarly, Zinedine Zidane, our French "Muslim" hero,
did not hesitate to go into the most public headbutt,
the most anti fascist head butt, when he, the French
captain, was insulted in the final of the Football World
Cup. All of France approved his gesture of rebellion
against what Voltaire called "infamy", and was proud.
Weeks later, the FIFA increased considerably, on Zizou's
advice, the penalties for racial insults in football.
Good job, Zizou!
There is no country where racism is more hated than
in France. It's very severely repressed by French law.
The Franks themselves were deeply anti racist, and they
subjugated nearly all other Germanic nations, precisely
because they could not stand their racism (one could
say that was their electoral platform). As early as
the 8C, Muslim colons of African origins, who had initially
invaded Francia behind the point of the sword, were
allowed to stay in France after the Franks crushed the
Muslim armies. There was no discrimination (blood and
genetic studies prove this, and so does history). These
Muslims colons became genuine French.
CONCLUSION: WHAT WENT WRONG WITH ISLAM WENT WRONG WITH THE QURAN:
As Allah Himself says in the Quran: "Surely We created
man of the best stature Then we reduced him to the lowest
of the low..." (S.95; v. 94-95),
It could not have been otherwise: just read the Quran,
and be very ashamed for those who view it as a civilization.
The entity behind the Quran, Allah, makes hatred and
aggression into morality. It also makes into morality:
war and nearly all old and obsolete ways, including,
but not limited to: slavery, pillaging, terror, destruction,
religious hatred, viewing women as a fraction of men,
and women as not having more of a feeble mind than children,
discriminating with the most extreme violence because
of the flimsiest mindstuff one can imagine (just go
around saying you don't "believe" in "Allah", or His
Messenger Boy, and you are supposed to be killed! Saying
"Allah" has "partners" will also get you killed, although
Allah Himself gets into murky and unconvincing descriptions
of his various relationships and deals with various
"jinn", especially "Iblis").
Moreover, the Quran, a superstitious document full
of fire in which to throw people, and of creatures made
of fire, also claims to be a way of life, a civilization
all by itself -as if one could build a civilization
in 450-pages! In particular, the Quran is the society,
and a society which is explicitly fascist, which means
it is an absolute enemy of democracy in particular,
and of intelligence in general.
Bombs are exploding around the world, and some low
dimensional Muslim minds appear here and there to scream
their hatred of the "West". They brandish their terror,
like Allah taught them to do. Besides some very legitimate
gripes (I'm sorry to say), what they all have in common
is not bin Laden, but the Quran. The West and the UN
Security Council should fix said legitimate gripes ASAP.
It's also time to turn the big mental guns towards
that juicy target, the Quran. The Franks molded Christianity
into something compatible with civilization before Muhammad
was born. Nobody has done this to Islam yet. In no small
reason because the West has several times crushed secular
movements in Islamic lands. For the exploiters of the
West, the more clueless the Middle East, the easier
to exploit and subjugate. That the so called "left"
does not see that is no coincidence. The best friend
of Islam will be the one doing for Islam what the Franks
did to Christianity. Molding it into something better.
Of course, none of the preceding exposition of the
awfulness of the old Quran will have any effect on the
Muslim fanatics. Allah is how they define the universe,
He is the definition of good. Culture has a lot of inertia.
Even after the destruction of the Third Reich and the
exposition of its crimes and its madness, millions stayed
faithful to it. Even 30 years later, a (German) woman
was writing in a French magazine that the most horrible
day of her life had been when she had learned that day
in July 1944, that other Germans had tried a coup against
her beloved Fuerer Adolf Hitler. Thirty years later,
she still felt the pain.
If nothing else, the Austrian Hitler got more than
one German out of ten killed. But all that woman could
feel, that much later, was the pain for what she viewed
as the horrible betrayal of her Fuerer by her fellow
Germans (an action which, had it been successful, would
have saved millions of German lives, and much more).
Some Nazis (such as Speer) stayed in total denial of
what they had seen, and what they had said, and what
they had done, even when German friends confronted them
with uncontrovertible proof. Similarly the Islamists
will claim that only people expert in classical Arabic
can understand what the Quran truly say, and moreover,
they have to be believers. Their own translations contradict
them, but they do not see that, nor do they see what
this denial does to them, and the people they claim
Recent experiences show that chimpanzees reproduce
faithfully the culture they are taught, generation after
generation. If one teaches them to slide a door, generation
after generation, they will slide the door. If, instead,
one teaches them to lift the same door, generation after
generation, they will lift the same door. The Quran
is a culture, or rather an anti culture, and it keeps
on being reproduced faithfully. They don't call it a
"faith" for nothing.
True, the Quran is a "Holy" book, but that does not
make it right for modern civilized people living in
this century (seculum) to espouse one of its main terror
theses, as the San Francisco Chronicle did. The Aztecs
had their Holy Book too. We don't call it "Holy" anymore.
Why? Because it rested on the idea that TO GO TO THE
GREAT BEYOND, HUMAN LIFE HAS TO BE SACRIFICED. That
moral error is the exact same theme central to the Quran.
September 11, 2006.