Patrice Ayme'
September 11, 2006.


To M. C. Kuruvila, San Francisco Chronicle:


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." (S.5; v.86)).

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 principle, below).

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 greatest obsession.

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).


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 in Islam.


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)


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 droning.

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).


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 Stalin (1939).

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 Islam loudly.

It is not just that Allah hates the Jews: "We said unto the Jews: Be ye apes despised and loathed!" (Quran, S.7; v.166)

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. 14).

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. 224)

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. 56).

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 nuclear weapons).

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. 22-23)

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.


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.


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 camels?

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.


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 organization.

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.


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.


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 to represent.

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.

Patrice Ayme'
September 11, 2006.