By Jean-Jacques Walter:
When one analyses societies that have been shaped by an ideology, it is important to look closely at the ideology, because that is what enforces itself in the end, and eventually changes society. This holds good for Islam. What matters is its ideology and not the way in which it is embodied in different countries. The wars between France and Islam are an example. We always speak of Poitiers : "the Muslims were defeated at Poitiers and they left". We are more or less consciously comparing it to other battles, for instance the battle of Vouillé, in 507 : Clovis defeated the Visigoths and Aquitaine became French. That is not at all what happened with Islam.
Voltaire “Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete":
“written in opposition to the founder of a false and barbarous
sect to whom could I with more propriety inscribe a satire on the
cruelty and errors of a false prophet" (1736, link).
The Muslims entered what was then France in 714. They seized Narbonne, which became their base for the next 40 years, and carried out methodical raids. They ravaged the Languedoc region from 714 to 725, destroyed Nîmes in 725 and devastated the right bank of the Rhone as far north as Sens.
In 721, a Muslim army of 100,000 soldiers laid siege to Toulouse, defended by Eudes, the duke of Aquitaine. Charles Martel sent troops to help Eudes. After six months' siege, the latter made a sally and crushed the Muslim army, which retreated in disarray to Spain and lost 80,000 soldiers in the campaign. Little is said of the battle of Toulouse because Eudes was a Merovingian. The Capetians were in the process of becoming kings of France and didn't fancy recognizing a Merovingian victory.
The Muslims concluded that it was dangerous to attack France from the eastern end of the Pyrenees, and they conducted their fresh attacks from the western end of the chain. 15,000 Muslim horsemen took and destroyed Bordeaux, then the Loire region, laid siege to Poitiers, and were finally stopped by Charles Martel and Eudes twenty kilometres north of Poitiers in 732. The surviving Muslims broke up into small bands and continued to ravage Aquitaine. Fresh soldiers would join them from time to time to take part in the looting. Those bands were eventually eradicated only in 808, by Charlemagne.
The ravages in the east went on until, in 737, Charles Martel went south with a powerful army, successively regained possession of Avignon, Nîmes, Maguelone, Agde, Béziers, and laid siege to Narbonne. A Saxon attack on the north of France compelled Charles Martel to leave the region. Eventually, in 759, Pépin le Bref regained possession of Narbonne and crushed the invaders definitively.
The latter broke up into small bands, as they had done in the west, and continued to devastate the country, notably by deporting the men to turn them into castrated slaves, and the women to introduce them into North African harems, where they were used to give birth to Muslims. The bastion of these bands was at Fraxinetum, the present-day La Garde-Freinet. An area of about 10,000 square kilometres, in the Maures massif, was totally depopulated.
In 972, the Muslim bands captured Mayeul, the Abbot of Cluny, on the road to Mount Geneva. The event created an immense stir. Guillaume II, count of Provence, spent 9 years conducting a sort of electoral campaign in order to motivate the inhabitants of Provence, then, from 983 onwards, methodically hunted down all the Muslim bands, small or large. In 990, the last of them were destroyed. They had devastated France for two centuries.
Montesquieu, unul dintre cei mai importanţi filozofi ai renaşterii a scris în “Esprit des Lois”(“Spiritul legilor”):
“It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.” (Montesquieu, ‘Esprit des Lois’, Book xxiv, chapt. iv and iii, Amsterdam 2006; p. 560, link)
Finally, the Muslims having been driven from Corsica, Sicily, Sardinia, from southern Italy and northern Spain, the attacks on French soil ceased but they continued at sea. It was not until 1830, that France, exasperated by the exactions, made up its mind to go to Algeria in order to definitively destroy the last bastions of the Muslim pirates.
What is striking is that between the years 714, the first incursion, and 1830, the final crushing of the Barbary pirates, there elapsed over a millennium. Now no political organisation lasts for a thousand years. How then was that endless war kept going for so long?
Hegel, comparînd teroarea de după Revoluţia Franceză cu fanatismul şi ascensiunea sîngeroasă a islamului:
‘Religie şi teroare’ este ideea de bază (în mahomedism), la fel cum pentru Robespierre a fost ‘Libertate şi teroare’ ”
(G. W. F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, New York, Dover Publications, 1956, p. 358. link – pagina doi, la note de subsol)
Islam is founded on the same structure as political totalitarian machines. The most well known are the total socialisms of the 20th century, but if we delve deep into history, the Akkad dynasties, ancient China, the Incas etc. were totalitarian machines that have a certain number of elements in common with Islam. To show up these elements, one only has to compare the main features of total socialisms with those of Islam.
Islam, like soviet socialism, is founded on a dual basis : on the one hand the ideological foundation, and on the other the imposition of that ideology through armed force. The combination of the two is characteristic. The earliest person to speak of this was Sima Qian, one of the greatest intellectuals in China, a historian, who was also prime minister. As an intellectual and as prime minister, he was perfectly acquainted with a system based both on ideology and on violence. In his letter to Jen An, which dates back to 91 B.C., he explains that, in such a system, there can be only two solutions :
Dar „masca ți se lipește de chip”, după cum spune Sima Qian.
Masca devine chipul tău și tu devii ce nu ai vrut să fii.
Procesul poate dura câţiva ani, sau câteva generaţii, dar
la fel ca in comunism, fenomenul se petrece întotdeauna.
1. physical death : you oppose the system and in that case you are killed
2. spiritual death : you pretend to believe in the ideology, and in that case you wear a mask.
Thus, according to Sima Qian, in a system founded both on force and on ideology, one can choose only between physical death and spiritual death.
Throughout antiquity, and right up until the second half of the 19th century, there were fluctuations in population due either to famines, or to epidemics, or to wars. After each decline, the population would increase again until it reached its equilibrium, that is, the maximum number of people who could live on the land considering the agricultural techniques available. The Muslims built new towns, Oran, Cordoba, Cairo, etc. while slaughtering or deporting the local populations, and peopling the towns with Arabs either from the Hedjaz region or from Syria. At first, these immigrants were few in number. In North Africa there were 5 million Berbers. About 200,000 Arab-Muslims were brought in and established in areas that had been depopulated to that end. The immigrant population grew to the maximum number tolerated by the agricultural production of the occupied areas, they then cut up the remaining land into strips that were depopulated one by one and given over to the expansion of the Arab-Muslims. Each successive strip was small enough not to stir up a general revolt, but sufficient for the Arab-Muslims never to reach their demographic equilibrium, and to be able to continue their growth.
It is a general phenomenon. Thus the Turkish population, initially 100% Christian, had fallen to 30% Christian by 1900, and is 0.2% Christian today. [We have the similar example of Pakistan today, or Egypt]
The methods referred to above compel the inhabitants of invaded countries either to become Muslims or to disappear. In addition, within the Muslim populations themselves, the ideology imposes a certain type of society.
The second principle is the foundation of morals. A Russian dissident said : "what is morally right is what those in power declare to be right at present" (it may change tomorrow, and morals will change tomorrow). Islam means "submission" and Muslim "a submissive person". Many Muslim intellectuals will tell you that it is only a question of submission to God. But if you read the Koran, you will see that it says twenty or so times "obey God, obey the prophet" and once "obey the prophet" (without adding God). But there is no verse that says only "obey God". Again it says "obey God, obey his prophet, and those in authority", that is to say the caliph and his representatives. The caliph is Allah's deputy, one must obey him, and his representatives, as one obeys God. Submission is the basis of Muslim morals and it is also an element common to all totalitarian systems.
The Muslim ideology is founded on the Koran, and on the hadiths, the words or acts of Mohammed. There are a million and a half of them. It would have taken him 600 years to utter them. Everybody knows, including Muslims, that most of the hadiths are apocryphal. There are, however, six compilations, containing 20,000 hadiths in all, that are held to be assuredly authentic. Among those books there is one, compiled by the scholar Bukhari, that is considered to be particularly sure. The Koran and the compilation by Bukhari are the only two books on which a Muslim can lay his hand to take an oath.
In total socialisms, the destruction of affectivity was achieved through the encouragement of denunciation. Anybody could inform against anybody. You could trust neither your spouse, nor your parents, nor your children, nor your friends. Soviet socialists had made a hero of Pavel Morozof, a boy of 14 who had denounced his father for protecting kulaks who had been condemned to death. The father died in the Gulag. Even today, in Moscow, the building where the Komsomols hold their meetings is called Morozof palace. These mutual denunciations give rise to a system that destroys all mutual trust, which leads to the death of affectivity.
The combat against affectivity was complemented, in the early years of soviet socialism, by an attack on marriage �" which did not last very long, but which was extremely violent. In the flats built during the twenties, there was no kitchen so that people would be forced to have their meals in common. In fact, they preferred to use Primus stoves so that they could have their meals as a family all the same.
A certain number of examples are given by the vice-chancellor of Al Azhar university in Cairo, the largest Muslim university. There are taxes levied on the rich to provide money for the poor, and to conduct wars of conquest. Wealth is determined according to the number of animals. If you own five camels or more, you have to pay tax. But you don't pay any for herds of horses, even if they comprise several thousand animals.
When a woman has her period, she has the right to fast, but not to pray. Yet prayer is more important than fasting.
When a thief commits a petty theft, he has his hand cut off, because it was the instrument of his fault, but they do not punish a rapist or an adulterer by cutting off you-know-what.
There is a whole series of contradictions of this kind. The vice-chancellor of Al Azhar explains that this is deliberate. It is to show that Allah is not bound by logic. Nor is he bound by morals. If he had said that one should lie, then lying would be good.
Islam rejects novelty, which it calls 'bida'. Characteristically, the word means both what is new, and the moral fault consisting in doing or thinking something new. This outlook renders progress impossible, especially in economy, with the result that most Muslim countries experience great poverty. 57 States belong to the Conference of Islamic States. Their standard of living is 22 times lower than in Europe. Of these 57 States, 8 are oil-producing and 3 are only partially Muslim : Turkey, which has been trying to be a secular country for 80 years, Lebanon, where the population is 45% Christian, and Malaysia, where 28% of the population is Chinese and 7% Indian. Those three countries are six times richer than the others. If you exclude the oil-producing States and the partially Muslim States, the rest, that is, nearly one thousand million people, have a standard of living 35 times lower than that of Europeans. At such a degree it really means something. The fundamental reason is the totalitarian nature of Islam, destructive of the ego.
Countries under total socialism have experienced the same poverty, for the same reason : damaged egos can no longer be creative, whether in economics, in the intellectual or artistic sphere, or in any field whatsoever.
I have had discussions with many Muslims and have explained to them that one cannot be a Muslim and a Frenchman at the same time. If you are a Muslim, you say that woman is inferior, if you are French, you say she is equal. I have received the same answer umpteen times : according to one hadith, Paradise is under the feet of mothers, so women have a particular dignity which compensates their inferiority. I would retort that this point of view reduces women to their reproductive function. Furthermore, in that case, maiden girls, sterile women or women married to sterile men, have no dignity.
Bertrand Russell, filozof englez:
Creştinismul şi budismul sînt în primul rînd religii personale, cu doctrine mistice şi dragoste pentru contemplare. Mahomedismul şi bolşevismul sînt practice, sociale şi nespirituale, preocupate cu cucerirea acestei lumi.[...]Ce a făcut mahomedismul arabilor, bolşevismul ar putea face ruşilor.
Arthur William 3rd, Earl, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, London 1920, link
The above argument made no impact. On the other hand, another would leave Muslim women and girls without an answer and very troubled : the French conception of relationships between men and women is equality, the Islamic conception is female inferiority compensated by a special dignity. The woman who chooses equality is French, she who chooses compensated inferiority is not, even if compensated inferiority suits her personally.
"Out of the question!"
"Do you consider it normal that, as the Koran says, if your husband suspects you of thinking of disobeying, he has the right to beat you?"
"Out of the question!"
"Eh, no, I am a Muslim, but I take some and leave some".
"If you say that in Egypt, or elsewhere in Dâr al Islam, at best you'll go to prison, at worst you'll be killed by your neighbour. You can choose to reject part of the Koran because you live in France, where you have French and not Muslim rights. Since you make use of those rights, you have chosen to be French, you are not a Muslim any more".
I do not believe Islam can last very long in the modern world. I am told it has lasted 14 centuries, and that it will continue. In 1980 people also said, "Communism has lasted 70 years, it will go on". Then in 1989, Mitterand, who was an excellent seismograph of public opinion, said, 5 weeks before the fall of the Berlin wall, "The reunification of Germany is neither for this generation nor for this century". He had seen nothing coming, despite his political sensibility, because the violence of the repression in countries under total socialism dissimulated the loss in conviction of their inhabitants.Islam exerts the same repression against dissident opinions, which gives rise to the same dissimulation, but that does not prevent minds from secretly evolving.
Alexis de Tocqueville, autorul ‘Democraţie în America’, a scris în 1843 într-o scrisoare adresată prietenului său Gobineau:
Am studiat cu atenţie Coranul. Am încheiat studiul cu convingerea că există puţine religii în lume atît de provocatoare de moarte ca cea a lui Mahomed (1843, link ).
As I was able to see in Lebanon and in Kabylia, there are three factors on which the modern world is radically opposed to the Muslim world, and those three factors will eventually bring about its downfall :
Freedom. Freedom to defend one's opinion, to change one's mind. Muslims are demanding it more and more. As they are in danger every time they demand it in a Muslim country, they do not do so very often, but the yearning is stronger and stronger.
Rationality. The Koran, according to Muslims, was written by Allah before the founding of the world, in Arabic because Allah spoke Arabic with the angels. Now Arabic has only existed for 2,000 years while the creation of the world goes back 14 billion years. Confronted with that sort of improbability, a Muslim, even moderately cultivated, will answer, "We can't believe that!"
Affectivity. Among the Kabyles, there are many conversions : about 5,000 per year. They are converted by the American Baptists. I asked several converts, "Why did you become Christian?". The answer wasn't what I expected at all. Freedom, that was secondary. Rationality hardly bothered them for they were not great intellectuals. The decisive factor for them was affectivity. The Baptists organise prayer meetings, Muslims come along to have a look, and they are taken by the affectivity that reigns in those meetings, between men, between women, between men and women. From what they say, at Muslim gatherings there is comradeship, solidarity, but not the sort of affective warmth they find amongst Christians.
Dimitrie Cantemir, domn al Moldovei (martie-aprilie 1693 şi 1710-1711), autor, cărturar, enciclopedist, etnograf, geograf, filozof, istoric, lingvist, muzicolog, compozitor, om politic şi scriitor român:
Această carte (Coranul) este o îngrămădire de împletituri mincinoase, o culegere de basme şi o adunătură de poveşti în cel mai înalt grad caraghioase(…) Simokatta, Gheorghe Kedrenos şi alţi autori creştini, (…) au dezvăluit şiretenia muhammedană parţial şi superficial în scrierile lor istorice. Voi trece sub tăcere şi pe împăratul Ioan Cantacuzino care într-o mare carte şi prin îndelungată vorbire ridiculizează şi combate cu bună evlavie şi cu înţelepciune împletiturile de minciuni şi cuvintele deşarte ale Curanului. (…)comentariul făcut de Porfirie, filosoful peripatetic, un elin, la Cartea lui Moise, la Sfînta Evanghelie, la Curan(…) despre legea muhamedană spunea că este o „Lege porcească“(…) în legea muhammedană sînt îngăduite foarte multe — chiar dacă nu toate — oarecum animalice, lipsite de orice pricepere şi sens, dar poruncite drept lucruri foarte necesare, aşa încît dacă animalele cele necuvîntătoare ar fi avut capacitatea de a grăi şi modul de a-şi arăta intenţiile, cu adevărat şi-ar fi bătut joc de un astfel de legislator, iar legea lui ar fi declarat-o mîrşavă şi vrednică de batjocură.
(…)Căci cine dintre cei cu înţelegere ar socoti că e un merit, ca pe fiecare om — afară de muhamedan — să-l lipseşti de agonisita lui, să-i jefuieşti pe toţi de toate fără nici o teamă, să propovăduieşti că cea mai bună faptă şi de mai mare merit este să ucizi? Totuşi, legea muhamedană nu numai că îngăduie ci şi porunceşte, şi nu numai că porunceşte ci, dacă cineva nu face aceasta, îl socoate că a păcătuit de moarte.
Legea Curanului, dimpotrivă, proclamă că nimeni în lume n-are stăpînire asupra vreunui lucru, afară de cei ce urmează Curanului. Cu un cuvînt, toate şi le atribuie lor, nimic nu este îngăduit altora, nimic nu aparţine altora, nimic altceva nu socotesc a fi drept. Aceasta, deci, este partea din legea Curanului care, fiind lipsită de orice raţiune şi sens, ca o piatră ruptă din marginea prăpastiei se prăbuşeşte vertiginos în adîncul ignoranţei.
(…)După ce le-a slăbit discipolilor săi (în lumea aceasta) toate frînele destrăbălării, îmbuibării, plăcerii pîntecelui şi a celor de sub pîntece, el le făgăduieşte şi în viaţa viitoare (unde oricine care s-a nevoit după lege nădăjduieşte să-şi ceară de la preadreptul judecător adevărata fericire şi cunună) plăcerile trupului cele fără de osteneală: lupte amoroase, fapte vitejeşti, victorii, domnia lui Bachus şi orice desfătare şi gîdilare a tuturor simţurilor ca pe un lucru prea dulce, precum porcilor celor buboşi noroiul şi mocirla prea împuţită. (1722, extrase din Sistemul sau întocmirea religiei Muhamedane)
In Lebanon and in Kabylia at least, Islam finds itself in the position in which communism found itself in 1970. I'm going to tell you an anecdote. My wife, the founder, director and chief editor of a music magazine, had been invited to Poland along with 200 French journalists. During a grand cocktail party, one of the ministers present told her, in quite good French, that she was an abominable capitalist and that she ought to be in the Gulag. "Besides, you'll be there before long because the Soviet army can reach Brest in ten days". Two minutes later another minister said to her, "Don't think Poles are stupid. My colleague is the only communist amongst us. All the others are ministers because it's pleasanter to be a minister than something else, but none of them believes in communism. We know perfectly well that communism doesn't work". I was very surprised that communist ministers should speak so freely to journalists and I calculated that the system was ripe for collapse. It was holding out because of the administrative structures whose interest was to make the system last, but no one believed in it any more.
As a whole, countries that are neither Islamic nor of the West, that is over 4 billion inhabitants, have adopted Western ways. Islam has but a very weak power of conversion : it converts about one million people a year, essentially in black Africa, whereas the different variants of Christendom convert 10 million every year, essentially in the southern hemisphere. When it comes to freedom, rationality, and especially affectivity, Islam has no capacity of assimilation into the modern world. Moreover, Islam has been frozen for over a thousand years, whereas, at the instance of the West, the world today is experiencing the most rapid evolution in its history.
Islam has another weakness that is even more deadly : the way in which it was developed is beginning to become known. People commonly believe that the history of the development of Islam and Mohammed's biography are quite well known. That is not the case at all.
In the region where Islam developed, all the original documents, covering over two centuries, have disappeared. The biography of Mohammed was written 220 years after his death, under the orders of a caliph. The hadiths were written down between 250 and 300 years after the death of Mohammed. The Koran was replaced several times, notably by general Hajjâj, in 692, sixty years after the death of Mohammed, with the destruction of previous copies.
A comparison with France at the same period is significant. At that time there was no library, nor university, nor scribes' workshop, nor bookshop in France. Yet those holding political power in France, Clothaire II and Dagobert I, left their traces in many a written document, and it is even more the case with their immediate successors, Pépin de Heristal, Charles Martel, Pépin le Bref, Charlemagne. The prominent religious figures were bishops, Saint Ouen of Rouen, Saint Omer of Thérouane, Saint Césaire of Arles, Sidouane Apollinaire of Clermont, Saint Grégoire of Tours, Saint Léger of Autun, Saint Eloi of Noyon, etc…They are well known.
Islam as we know it today is a fabrication by the caliphs, invented to serve as an ideology for the empire that Mohammed's companions had started building, and that his successors developed. Mohammed's religion was Nazareism, a Judeo-Christian sect born in the Middle-East. Nazareism could not serve as a binding agent for the empire they were setting up, on the one hand because it was not Arabic, while the Arab conquerors wanted a religion that would justify their pre-eminence over all other Muslims, on the other hand because Nazareism anticipated the return of Christ, who would come and take command of the Nazarene armies to conquer the world by force. Since that had not happened, Nazareism had to be replaced by a religion that made no false prophecies. The construction of the new religion out of material drawn from the earlier one and the obliteration of all trace of the earlier religion went on for over two centuries. Hence the destruction of all written evidence of what had happened, and the construction by the caliphs in power of a sacred book in Arabic, an Arab prophet, and an Arab history that could be used as a basis for their ideology.
Adolf Hitler: "You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
(o parte din link-uri au disparut insa pot fi gasite in webarchive)
(o parte din link-uri au disparut insa pot fi gasite in webarchive)