Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Understanding Islam - Guillaume Faye

  1. #11
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,589
    Thanked in
    1,392 Posts
    Incidentally, most Christians in the world today are non-White.

    No wonder the Pope kisses their feet – he's running a huge business and he knows where the future pay cheques are coming from


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  3. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    The historic nature of islam: The invention of totalitarianism

    P 17

    Formalism, hypocrisy and violence coexist in perfect harmony and balance within the constraints of the Islamic straitjacket, leaving no room for reflection. This mechanical rigidity applies to any and every act, whether eating, bathing, defecating, praying or anything else. Everything is classified into fixed categories: it is either obligatory, recommended and permitted (halal), or inadvisable and forbidden (haram, impure). Intentions are of little significance: only the form matters. One is thus under the impression that the requirements of Islam are intended for simple minds, those unable to assess expediency and incapable of analysis and self-discipline, people who are only prone to obeying a monolithic code. Obviously, this simplistic formalism does not encourage any kind of creativity or adaptation within the muslim umma . . .


    But apart from this, what Islam promotes and legalises is hypocrisy especially in the shape of double-talk, lies and sophistry. When in a position of inferiority or weakness, Muslims are to resort to cunning and concealment strategies, similarly to the Prophet Muhammad himself, in order to safeguard the interests of Islam and pave the way for a future offensive. Sophistry (reversing the meaning of words through false demonstrations) and bad faith are equally recommended. For example, since Islam literally means ‘submission’ and advocates the jihad, the holy war, will it not bring an end to all conflicts once it has achieved its final victory and imposed global submission, thus leading to peace? Therefore . . . Islam means peace! It is to this very sophistry for useful idiots that Jack Lang and Laurent Fabius have succumbed whem claiming Islam is ‘a religion of peace’.


    Islam Versus Christianity and Judaism

    . . .
    There is of course a kind of continuity between Judaism and Christianity, a kinship, thanks to the connection that exists between the Old and New Testaments and the account of the Messiah. The actual rupture between Christianity and Judaism is due to the fact that the Jews do not believe in the reality of Christ as the Messiah whose coming had been announced by the prophets, regarding him instead as an imposter or, more precisely, a schismatic. But this has never led the Jews to hate Christians or to persecute the Jewish apostates who have converted to Christianity.

    Christians, especially Catholics, ‘respect’ the Muslim religion nowadays, although this attitude is not mutual (since Christians face persecution in almost all Islamic countries). Islam has always considered Christianity and Judaism to be fraught with lies and errors, which is its right.That the Church should ever praise and respect Islam is a sign of submission, resignation and surrender. This frightful tolerance displayed by Christians towards Islam began with the Second Vatican Council, when the Nostra Aetate declaration expressed a preference for Islam in comparison with non-Christian religions, agnosticism and paganism, where as Islam has always condemned and rejected Christianity and abhorred Judaism, as confirmed by several Koranic Suras.

    P 22

    An Aggressive and Obscurantist Form of Collectivism
    Muslim prayer is a ritual act devoid of freedom. It is restricted to a repetition of various Koranic verses while remaining in a prescribed posture and kneeling in submission, the head pressed against the ground and facing Mecca. It is not a matter of personal dialogue with a protective God, but a mere recitation of certain phrases one learns by heart, an act that is to be performed at certain times. This rigid rite eradicates subjectivity and replaces it. In its mental conformism, not only does Islam represent an obstacle to freedom of thought and therefore to creativity already at a very young age, but it even prohibits personal spiritual quests. It is a superstitious and aggressive type of collectivism.


    Muslims have no personal and unrestricted relationship with their God, as Allah is an uncompromising and unforgiving master that is deaf to his worshippers’ pleas. It is obvious that such a religion / ideology, one that is based on the central concept of submission 9the submission of all disbelievers to the umma as well as the latter’s submission to Allah) can only lead to the abolition of both individual freedom and collective inventiveness. Islam is a source of mental impoverishment and a decivilising factor, because it grants the notion of order a dimension of absoluteness (a concept that is otherwise positive when applied wisely) at the expense of freedom (even if liberty does lead towards anarchic permissiveness when implemented with excess) while ignoring the Aristotelian conception of Mesotes, i.e that of balance and equilibrium.


    Apart from its marginal components such as Sufism, Islam is equally adverse to mysticism, metaphysics and philosophy. It revolves round two axioms: ideology and ritual, two interpenetrating concepts. Islam is not focused on a personal relationship between man and his God, but on a collective relationship between the umma (the Muslim community) and a single overhanging, intolerant, impalpable, threatening and authoritarian deity: Allah. One should note that Allah borrows some of his features from the Mosaic Yahweh, including his severity and a leniency conditioned to absolute obedience, retaining a decidedly warlike aspect. Since its very inception, not only has Islam drawn theological inspiration from Judaism but it has also adopted some of its ritualism (circumcision, dietary prohibitions, etc). This kinship has resulted in a constant animosity against Jews, greatly surpassing Islam’s hostility towards Christianity, with which it has few common aspects.


    However, the Jewish Yahweh only concerns the Hebrews and, despite his severity, advocates neither acts of aggression against non-jews nor forced conversions. The Jews thus keep to themselves. In Islam, on the other hand, all of mankind is targeted either by conversion or by submission through violence, which makes the Muslim religion similar to Marxist Communism. And this is always done in the name of some greater ‘Good’. Due to their fantasy of unifying humanity under a single law and system, Islam and Marxism follow the same collectivist logic.

  4. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    The Islamic Conquest of Europe Guillaume Faye


    The Islamic Conquest of Europe Guillaume Faye



    Minaretsaround Cradle


    There are officially four million Muslims in France today. The real figure is almost certainly higher, probably between six and seven million believers. Islam is already France’s second largest religion, with 1,430 official mosques. Its followers are young, whereas practicing Catholics are old. If demographic trends are taken into account (a steady, uncontrolled flow of immigrants and a higher birth rate) Islam will become the dominant religion in France as early as 2015, if nothing is done to prevent it. France currently has more Muslims than Albania and Bosnia combined. In the European Union, the number of Muslims is estimated at fifteen million. It is growing in all European countries.


    To claim today that France could never become an Islamic republic or even a Muslim country is as risky as someone denying in the 1980s the possibility of German reunification or the demise of Communism in the USSR.


    None of my remarks will be hateful toward Islam, though it does not always reciprocate. On the other hand, I do indeed consider Islam a grave threat and an enemy, since this conquering religion is engaged in a massive and deliberate settlement of Europe. You do not despise an enemy; you combat him. And in attempting to understand your enemy, you should not descend to the naivety of contemporary intellectuals, who reflexively declare Islam tolerant, without ever having studied it.


    It is perfectly possible to share values in common with your enemy. His character as enemy arises, in this case, only because he has first imposed himself on you as an occupier. We can, in agreement with Islam, resist or deplore the West’s materialism and its exaggerated, deranged individualism, but nevertheless regard the establishment of Islam in Europe as an act of war, according to the Koran’s own rigorous teachings. Carl Schmitt’s warning aptly applies to all Europeans who remain naive and tolerant toward Islam: “You don’t decide who your enemy is; he decides. You can easily declare him your friend, but if he decides that he is your enemy, there is nothing you can do about it.”


    Contrary to the opinion of Islamophiles, Islam is not simply a “universal faith” like Christianity; it is also a community of civilization (umma) which aims at expansion. The implicit project of Islam is quite simply the conquest of Europe, both religiously and ethnically, as the Koran stipulates. We are already at war. Westerners, unlike the Russians, have not yet grasped this fact.



    muslim


    For even if Islam conveys transcendent values and proposes an individual and a collective doctrine of life — imposing high, intangible standards on its believers, thus endowing their lives with meaning — it nevertheless corresponds to nothing in the European soul and temperament. Its massive introduction into Europe would disfigure a European culture already damaged by Americanization. An assertive dogmatism, an absence of the Faustian spirit, a fundamental denial of humanism (understood as the autonomy of the human will) in favor of an absolute submission to God, an extreme rigidity of social obligations and prohibitions, a theocratic confusion of civil society, religion and the political State, an absolute monotheism, a profound ambivalence toward artistic freedom and scientific inquiry — all these traits are incompatible with traditional European patterns of thought, which are fundamentally polytheistic.


    Those who believe that Islam can be Europeanized, can adapt to European culture, can accept the concept of secularism, make a dreadful error. Islam, essentially, does not understand compromise. Its essence is authoritarian and bellicose. It is the religion par excellence of a desert people. Put differently, with the colonizing introduction of Islam into Europe, two dangers arise: disfiguration or war.


    Excerpted from chapter IV of Faye’s La colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’islam (Paris: Aencre, 2000), 69-70. Trans. Irmin. Faye and his publisher were found guilty and fined, at the behest of the “anti-racist” organizations MRAP and LICRA, for “spreading racial hatred” — that is, for the thought crime of writing critically about Islam and Third World immigration.


    Guillaume Faye

    http://library.flawlesslogic.com/faye_02.htm


    The Islamic Conquest of Europe,” 31 Mar 2019.

  5. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    An Aggressive and Obscurantist Form of Collectivism

    P 22

    Islam’s discriminatory inegalitarianism is completely counter-productive for the muslims themselves, since it is non-selective: it undervalues humans and deprives itself of elites, not because of some humans’ lower capacity, but due to stupid, dogmatic exclusions that relate to religious or sexual imperatives. This obscurantism impedes the very expansion of Islam, since it antagonizes people and constantly triggers revolts against the type of callous, brutal society that the muslims attempt to impose.


    Among Islam’s other requirements, the following are noteworthy: the legitimization of violence (whenever necessary) in order to enforce Islam, as well as the lawful robbing of infidels (Kuffar, from the singular kafir) in accordance with what Muhammad himself practiced in his raids. This fact explains why, in European societies, young muslim immigrants often justify their crimes in the following manner once they have undergone basic Koranic education: the taking of ‘spoils’ from an infidel is not a vile act of thievery, but a levy authorized by God and therefore legitimate. In addition one must not forget to mention the mandatory death penalty for all apostates and homosexuals, which is still in vigour and widely taught, even in Europe. Numerous acts of delinquency and crime are committed in the name of the conquering and vengeful religion called Islam. Anti-Christian persecutions are justified in the same way.

  6. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    Chapter III Islamisation, Its collaborators and Resisters

    Multiphased Conquest and Muslim Sophistry

    P 61 – 63

    Throughout the media, there are many Muslim intellectuals who attempt to reassure the French regarding the rise of radical Islam, claiming that it is only marginal and poses no threat. They are well aware of the fact that radical Islam is Islam pure and simple and support it in secret. They criticise jihadist terrorism for show, in a demonstration of mellow disapproval.

    Since 1994, Tariq Ramadan has been one of the most radical preachers of Islam in France. He is the prototypical example of doublespeak. Using a refined and pseudo-moderate language, this pleasant and smooth-talking theorist is accustomed to television studios. A Swiss national of Egyptian origin, he strives to disseminate his radical Islamic ideology among European Muslims. ‘Tariq Ramadan is the future of Islam’, the President of Sudan, Hassan Al Turabi, once declared. The police investigations concluded since 2001 have confirmed that several terrorists have attended his lectures, paying great attention and expressing profound admiration for his person. Ramadan’s ties to Al-Qaeda have been authenticated as well.

    Not only is Ramadan the Trojan horse of the jihad, but also the advocate of every possible increase in the privileges and exemptions granted to Islam, as the latter establishes its presence in Europe. The Islamisation of Europe is his objective. Ramadan is none other than the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, a movement that embodies the very seed of Islamism. He is the very prototype of the fifth Islamic intellectual column that aims to lull the suspicions of European elites while, at the same time, fuelling the fanaticism of his fellow immigrants. Duplicity is his main weapon. However, being less cunning, more reckless and more pretentious than Parisian rector Boubaker, he was quickly unmasked as a double agent.

    Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s and one of the main proponents of the awakening of Islamist conquest after centuries of slumber, spoke the following truthful words that summarised his own strategy of social Islamisation: ‘What we aspire for first is the Muslim individual, then the Muslim family, a Muslim people, a Muslim government and ultimately a Muslim nation’. This is the very same clever strategy implemented today as part of the Islamisation process of France and Europe and assisted by demographic fertility and uncontrolled immigration, a strategy that our imbecilic politico-mediatic oligarchy pretends not to be aware of, its head buried in the sand.

    A small but crucial clarification: Hassan al-Banna is Tariq Ramadan’s maternal grandfather, and the grandson picked up exactly where his grandfather left off. In his lectures he speaks of a ‘multiphased intelligence’. What he is getting at is that, in order to conquer Europe and especially France, considered the primary target and intended to be the first to’fall’, Islam must proceed gradually and gently. The stratagem is one of progressive poisoning, which the victim, half asleep, must gradually get used to. There is no need to begin by acting violently and betraying one’s intentions, as such behaviour could awaken the beast so to speak. Rather than that, Islam’s purpose is to continually conquer new strategic zones (thanks to the steady increase in the number of Muslims as a result of the immigration spillway and the demographic differential), obtain further concessions and impose itself upon the landscape at an ideal speed, being neither too hasty nor too slow.

    Unfortunately for us, this strategy has been perfectly successful, particularly in a key area: the moral subjugation and intimidation of political elites, even those who belong to the ‘Right’ and who, year after year, simply retreat, concede, sell out and renounce their own principles when faced with our country’s Islamisation. From March 31st to April1st 1990, a summit meeting was held by the RPR-UDF opposition at Villepinte, on the topic of immigration. It revealed an uncompromising programme, one that is roughly the same as the National Front (FN) today. The following (perfectly correct) sentence was included in the final report: ‘Islam does not appear to be consistent with our social foundations and seems incompatible with the French legal system. There is a great deal of incompatibility between Islam and our laws. It is Islam itself and none other that is required to adapt to the state of affairs in order to be compatible with our legislations’. What is noteworthy is that the word ‘Islam’ is used, not ‘Islamism’. Mr Sarkozy was among this document’s signatories, alongside Mr Chirac and a certain Francois Bayrou. I would add, of course (but this is solely my own opinion), that Islam is not required to ‘adapt’ (which is an impossible mission), but to withdraw.

    But once in power, the Right, similar to the Left that preceded it and following it into power, went back on its word completely and did the exact opposite of what its own political programme had stated, as France witnessed the building of mosques carried out by foreign associations, the founding of the Union of Islamic Organisation in France (Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, or UOIF) AND THE French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman or CFCM), the generalisation of halal food, the political Right’s inability to slow migration flows down, an increase in social benefits and medical care assistance encouraging further abuse, excessive naturalisations, the legal criminalisation of ‘Islamophobia’, the spreading of de facto positive discrimination, etc.

    Understanding Islam - Guillaume Faye


  7. #16
    Grand Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    1 Week Ago @ 04:26 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,040
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,584
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,589
    Thanked in
    1,392 Posts
    From March 31st to April 1st 1990, a summit meeting was held by the RPR-UDF opposition at Villepinte, on the topic of immigration. It revealed an uncompromising programme, one that is roughly the same as the National Front (FN) today. [1] The following (perfectly correct) sentence was included in the final report: ‘Islam does not appear to be consistent with our social foundations and seems incompatible with the French legal system. There is a great deal of incompatibility between Islam and our laws. It is Islam itself and none other that is required to adapt to the state of affairs in order to be compatible with our legislations’. What is noteworthy is that the word ‘Islam’ is used, not ‘Islamism’. Mr Sarkozy was among this document’s signatories, alongside Mr Chirac and a certain Francois Bayrou. I would add, of course (but this is solely my own opinion), that Islam is not required to ‘adapt’ (which is an impossible mission), but to withdraw.

    But once in power, the Right, similar to the Left that preceded it and following it into power, went back on its word completely and did the exact opposite of what its own political programme had stated, [2] as France witnessed the building of mosques carried out by foreign associations, the founding of the Union of Islamic Organisation in France (Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, or UOIF) AND THE French Council of the Muslim Faith (Conseil Francais du Culte Musulman or CFCM), the generalisation of halal food, the political Right’s inability to slow migration flows down, an increase in social benefits and medical care assistance encouraging further abuse, excessive naturalisations, the legal criminalisation of ‘Islamophobia’, the spreading of de facto positive discrimination, etc.
    [1] This shows how far the goalposts have been moved when "extreme-right" organisations such as the FN today are merely saying what a bunch of centrists and mainstream right-wingers were saying 30 years ago!

    [2] I think this is why I've come to hate the faux conservatives even more than the lefties. Their treason has a far more cynical edge to it

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to SaxonPagan For This Useful Post:


  9. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    Review of Guillaume Faye's Understanding Islam

    Review of UNDERSTANDING ISLAM



    Guillaume Faye’s Understanding Islam (Arktos 2016) will exercise a compelling power over many readers who, committing themselves to encompassing it, will plough through its nearly three hundred pages in a single sitting. Immensely insightful and quotable, Faye’s book will inform public debate about the place of Islam, if any, in the West, and it will influence the character of Western policy towards the Muslim world; other writers will cite it, and it bids fair to become a standard guide and reference for its topic. Understanding Islam ought to be made mandatory reading for State Department functionaries under the incoming Donald Trump administration — so effective is Faye’s prose in bulldozing through the utopian fantasies and politically correct clichés that encrust Western perception and comprehension of the Mohammedan cult. Best of all would be that Mr. Trump familiarized himself with Faye’s exposition, so as to clarify his good instincts and resolve him to swift action in defense of the North American chapter of Western civilization, as he assumes the presidential office. But that would undoubtedly be asking for too much.



    In addition to explaining the desert cult in plain language to his readers, Faye relentlessly exposes Western liberal and multicultural collaboration with Islam, in both the ideological and practical-political domains. Finally, Understanding Islam realistically assesses the strengths and weaknesses of both the West and Dar al Islam in the present state of their fateful clash.



    Faye takes as an important recurrent theme in his suite of chapters (six of them — plus a “conclusion”) what one might call the phenomenology of Islam; or, as best it can be reconstructed, Islam as understood from the inside out. From among the ways in which Islam so strongly differs from most if not all other religions, Faye singles out its relentless suppression of subjectivity, hence also of individuality and therefore any possibility of comprehending anything outside itself. Faye brings to bear on Islam the description of a “locked religion” rooted in the believer’s ceaseless incantatory repetition of scriptural formulas whose guiding rule prohibits their interpretation. Repeat, repeat — only repeat. Because Islam emerged in the cultural matrix of a largely oral society, that of the desert-wandering Bedouin of the Arabian Peninsula, its scriptural status requires a descriptive qualification. The Muslim has historically and typically encountered the Koran — the supposed revelation of Allah to Mohammed via the medium of the Archangel Gabriel — in the form of recitation, which he then laboriously memorizes. In certain cases, outside the domain of the Arabic language, the Muslim never even understands the verses that he commits to heart, phoneme by phoneme, but learns of their content through instruction in a local vulgate. Although the literacy of the Muslim world has increased through the centuries, the habit and mentality of oral transmission by rote and repetition still inform the mental cast of that world. This fact has important phenomenological consequences.



    Faye writes in Chapter I of Understanding Islam that, in the first place, Islam’s sacred book the Koran corresponds in its disorganization and randomness to no logical or even chronological order. The Koran thus stands in stark contrast to the exposition of Platonic theology in Plato’s Timaeus, the story of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, or the story of Christ in the New Testament. The Koran’s illogicality and arbitrariness reveal, however, the book’s essential character and purpose: To impose on the captive mind a set of dogmatic and totalizing demands that obliterate any nascent sense of individuality or selfhood. While Muslims declare the Koran a perfect text, they nevertheless require a large number of supplementary rules for explaining away its irresolvable contradictoriness. Faye offers as a primary example “the notion of ‘abrogating’ and ‘abrogated’ Suras.” Chronologically later verses of the Koran abrogate or nullify chronologically earlier verses, but difficulties beset the judgment of which verse abrogates another and which stands abrogated, because the Suras obey no consistent temporal precedence. Moreover, the applicability of any Sura is situational. “Depending on the circumstances,” Faye writes, “some Suras apply whereas others do not,” a fact that in his observation “is completely incompatible with the supposed divine and absolute nature” of Islam’s holy book.








    In Faye’s view, no active or independent mind could come to terms rationally with the Koran. Rather, acceptance of the Koran by a rational person would require his relinquishment of rationality; the Koran indeed functions as a bludgeon for the suppression of rationality in its nascent state before it can consolidate itself as one of the foundations of genuine subjectivity.


    The Koran in Faye’s characterization “targets uneducated and semi-educated populations,” over whom, because it “provides solutions to everything,” it exercises “great appeal.” In a remarkable phrase, Faye describes Koranic instruction as “the ingurgitation of dogmas, rules, rigid prohibitions and mental associations that extirpate every principle of free inquiry… and permeate the mind with the idea that Islam is a revealed and indisputable truth that must be embraced by all of mankind and whose destiny is to dominate the whole planet.” In suppressing rationality and subjectivity, Koranic instruction simultaneously assimilates the pupil to the view of himself as the bearer of a doctrine whose success Allah himself has foreordained. As he submits to Islam, the Muslim nourishes himself on a heady sense of rising in moral stature above the benighted portion of humanity, the Dar al Harb.



    Faye’s Aristotelian concept of subjectivity (his English text renders it as subjectivism) takes its place in an opposition of two antithetical possibilities, that of “free subjects” and “docile subordinates.” Again in Chapter I, Faye notes that all forms of collectivism, the category to which he assigns Islam, despise the phenomenon of free subjectivity, the thoughtful person, the skeptic, the dissident, the objector. Collectivists — not only Muslims, but also Communists and National Socialists, as Faye asserts — “claim that individualism is an egotistical attitude that rules out every prospect of solidarity.” This claim amounts, however, to “an absolute fallacy,” the opposite of which is the actual case. As Faye rightly reminds his readers, “The subjectivism of individuals, city-states and free nations is the cultural and philosophical foundation of our civilization.” Subjectivity should not be regarded as a condition in which the individual behaves whimsically, as though he were not beholden to an external reality. Subjectivity, whatever its germ might be in a general human nature, results from the individual’s education in the structure of reality and from his acculturation in a tradition that places a high value on skepticism, self-examination, and unfettered inquiry. Eric Voegelin once wrote that the Greek polis was akin to a subject, in that it organized itself. He might have added that, when necessary, the polis¬-subject could also re-organize itself; it was adaptable and could respond to reality. Islam forbids in advance any re-organization of itself.



    For Faye, not only the primary text, but also the invariant daily practice of Islam, prohibits skepticism, self-examination, and unfettered inquiry. Consider the matter of prayer. According to Faye, “Muslim prayer is a ritual act devoid of freedom.” In contrast to Jewish or Christian prayer, which is at once volitional and deeply personal, Muslim prayer, which is mandatory and entirely impersonal, “is restricted to a repetition of various Koranic verses while remaining in a proscribed posture and kneeling in submission, the head pressed to the ground and facing Mecca.” In the five-times-a-day obligatory prostration the Muslim exgurgitates what, from his childhood, he has ingurgitated, but there is no spiritual metabolism, no change or growth.



    In Judaism and Christianity, as in other religions, formulaic prayers exist, and individuals may avail themselves of them, but Western religion fosters spontaneous, improvisational, and interlocutory prayer in dialogue with the deity, qualities that presuppose a free and articulate person who can exercise his religiosity non-demonstratively. Faye effectively sums up his phenomenology of the Mohammedan mind in Chapter VI of Understanding Islam when he writes that “Islam’s persuasiveness and ability to fascinate relate to ignorance, meaning to the fact of replacing… the individual mind and subjectivism with dogmatic collectivism.”



    Just as Muslims regard the Koran as the perfect book, the eternal and uncreated book, which obviates all other pretenders to the status of scriptural authority, so they regard the founder of their religion and its prophet Mohammed as the perfect man, seeking to imitate him in every aspect and detail of their daily lives. Faye ignores recent arguments about the historicity of Mohammed and about the possible non-Muslim origins of Islam in a melding of Arab Monophysite Christianity with aspects of Arabian Paganism. The gesture finds its justification in the fact of Mohammed’s effective reality, whether he existed or not, and his central place as the conceptual icon of the hyper-iconoclastic creed. Concerning Mohammed’s role as prophet, Faye writes that, “in truth, it would be more becoming to speak of the oracle Mohammed, since he never actually ‘prophesied’ anything, restricting his role to the transmission of God’s words and laws (or so he claimed).” [Emphasis added] Faye’s summary of Mohammed’s curriculum vitae provides a good overview of the founder’s character: He is an “illiterate camel driver who married his mistress”; his scripture is an amalgam of Jewish and Christian themes, to which he adds various self-serving and opportunistic codicils; he is a slaver; he “murders his opponents” whenever convenient and indeed massacres whole tribes and towns that oppose or offend him.



    Faye, like his countrymen of the French New Right Alain de Benoist and the late Dominique Venner, identifies as a Pagan and has in the past written in a dismissive, Nietzschean vein about Christianity. In Understanding Islam, however, Faye makes a number of concessions to Christianity and the New Testament. For one thing, he roundly dismisses the liberal equivalency argument that charges Christendom with having been as violent as Islam. It is first of all factually not the case, but more than that, as Faye notes in Chapter VI, while incitement to theological aggression abounds in the Koran and its associated texts, “it would be impossible for us to find any actual texts in the New Testament that incite people to commit acts of open intolerance.” Faye even goes so far as to speculate that the aim of Islam “may not even be to wage war in order to achieve victory and peace”; but that “there may be, instead, a gratuitous thirst for confrontation, destruction and violence, a kind of hubris, which motivates the Islamic mentality.” Nor has the cultural condition fostered by Christianity impeded the development of natural science and technology by independent researchers and innovators or that of art and literature by artists and writers. On the contrary, the scientific, technical, and artistic efflorescence of the West is rooted in Christianity. Faye goes so far, for a self-identifying Pagan, as to defend the tradition of placing a noticeable crèche in the public square at Christmas.



    Faye understandably experiences acute concern about the advance of Islam into Europe. He sees this advance as an active, conscious collaboration between the ruling elite of socialist bureaucrats and educrats and Islam itself. The nomenklatura pushes the misnamed program of multiculturalism into every nook and corner of every society, imposing “immigrants” not only on the neighbourhoods of the large metropolises but also on small cities and towns. The status quo is, as Faye writes in Chapter II, “a situation unheard of in the entire history of the European continent and its peoples,” especially in France. Muslim colonization of Europe (Faye insists on the word colonization) has extended so far and so swiftly that “in some areas, Islam already represents the foremost, if not the sole culture,” such that “no region can escape its clutches.” The Islamic influx, with its intrinsic jihad or war on the so-called infidels, is qualitatively unlike any previous foreign incursion, such as the descent of the Celts into Italy during the period of the Roman Republic or the growth of Gothic hegemony in what remained of the Western Roman Empire beginning in the early Fourth Century. The Celts and the Goths turned out to be receptive to civilization, and soon enough assimilated to it. The Gothic kings of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries were in many respects more Roman than the effete emperors and officials whom they displaced.




    Faye emphasizes that nothing in the history of Islam suggests its receptivity to Western civilization — or even, as he speculates, to civilization of any kind: “It is not merely a new and unknown religion that is establishing itself in Europe, but a culture and a lifestyle that are incompatible with European traditions.”




    Faye distinguishes three phases of “The Strategic Technique of Islamising and Conquering Europe.” In the first phase, Muslims as a small minority exercise the tactic of taqiyya or justified misrepresentation of their creed and way of life to create an impression of themselves as “sympathetic, amiable, harmless and neutral.” In the second phase, currently relevant, Muslims, having nucleated in sufficient numbers, complain “of being victims of ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘stigmatisation,’” at which point they begin to demand privileges which amount to a cultural tax on the colonized people. In the third phase, in attaining a numerical relation to the autochthons that induces belligerent self-confidence, the Muslim community drops the mask of taqiyya and the aggressive imposition of sharia commences. By a “leopard skin” strategy, Islam spreads from its colonial nuclei into the host society, destroying that society and forcing its people to submit, either to dhimmitude or preemptive conversion.



    Faye represents the core of “deep-seated Islamic culture,” in distinction from its ideology, as having three essential attributes: An absolute misogyny; a linked insistence on polygamy and chattel-status for women; and a type of ultra-puritanical separation of men and women that betokens “a pathological attitude towards sexuality.” The increasing influence of Islam in any modern society is therefore tantamount to a real, rather than a fake, war on women, as the epidemic of rape in the European countries afflicted by Muslim immigration abundantly testifies.







    Given the extent of ideological feminism in Western societies, one would think that the Islamic relegation of women to the role of sexual chattels would horrify the advocates of “women’s rights,” but it manifestly does not. In fact, it is the people who identify with socialist leftwing politics, including feminists, who most vehemently defend Islamic colonization. Is this not a flabbergasting contradiction? Not for Faye, who knows the Left as well as he knows Islam. The Left, like Islam, thinks collectively and acts according to a totalitarian agenda. The Left, like Islam, has contempt and hatred for dissenters from its creed. The Left requires a proletariat whom it can accuse the middle class of hating, victimizing, and exploiting. Islam fills the Left’s requirement for that proletariat and provides proxy soldiers for the Left’s own program of de-civilization. But the Left will not control events.



    Europe is today, as Faye sees it, a battlefield, but it is a battlefield on which the defending forces petulantly refuse to admit that a state of war exists and remain in a passive and vulnerable state. In Chapter V, Faye argues that Muslims in Europe have begun to shift from the second to the third phase of their “leopard skin” strategy, a claim bolstered in its plausibility by events since Understanding Islam’s completion. “Dazed and distorted, the politicians who run the European Union and its member countries refuse to acknowledge this threat… They would rather focus on inconsistent phantasms, namely the demonization of Putin and Russophobia.” Faye holds the opinion that Europe will come to its senses only with the intensification of Muslim violence, which he expects. Faye offers a typology of likely developments in the very near future: An increase in more or less spontaneous or improvised single-perpetrator acts; an increase in “professional… highly premeditated attacks” against synagogues, churches, and police barracks; a new “colossal terrorist attack” designed to rival the North American 9/11 Al Qaeda operation; and “an eruption of simultaneous and violent riots and insurgencies.” The most likely place where these developments might occur is France.



    Were the French therefore suddenly to grasp their situation and begin to react in their own defense, it would be a “paradigm shift.” The decision to effectuate the reconquest of its own territory would entail for the French nation the proper designation of the enemy and the swift arrangement of his containment. “This would obviously imply bringing immigration flows to an immediate halt,” Faye writes, as well as “triggering a movement of ‘demigration’” with the intent of “resolving the problem of Islamic presence in France once and for all.” The same shift would mean the abolition of the regime of political correctness and the restoration of the right of free speech. In another recent book, The Colonisation of Europe (2016), Faye has noted somberly that “tragedies are rarely peaceful, and colonisation never occurs without clashes”; he adds there that “we are living in a France that stands at the doorstep of an ethnic civil war.” Understanding Islam includes a set of appendices in which Faye reverts to the technique that he employed in Archeofuturism (2010), where he speculated in plausible fictions about the probable near future. Faye divulges what he considers to be the likelihood of each scenario, from the “paradigm shift” to the gradual descent of a dwindling European people into dhimmitude. Any of these possibilities, including the best one, is sobering and will be an ordeal for those whom it befalls to live through it.



    Afterword


    Faye’s phenomenology of the Islamic psyche has at least one notable precursor in the non-fiction work of the Nobel Prize winning novelist and travel writer V. S. Naipaul. Two of Naipaul’s travel books — Among Believers (1981) and Beyond Belief (1998) — concern themselves with the Islamic world. Naipaul’s extensive discussions in the two books show many parallels with and anticipations of statements by Faye. In the chapter of Among Believers entitled “The Disorder of the Law,” for example, Naipaul describes the Muslim attitude towards the holy book. “The Koran,” Naipaul writes, “is not the statute book of a settled golden age; it is the mystical or oracular record of an extended upheaval widening out from the prophet to his tribe to Arabia.” [Emphasis added] As does Faye, Naipaul sees Islam as spiritually stultifying and as a retreat from the best of human possibilities into the impoverished tribalism of the desert. “In Islam, and especially in the Islam of the fundamentalists, precedent is all,” Naipaul concludes; “the principles of the Prophet — as divined from the Koran and the approved traditions — are for all time.” It follows that Islam is also suspended in time, the time of the prophet, and cannot budge from that suspension without annulling itself. Indeed, Naipaul believes Islam to be haunted by a sense of Mohammed’s ever-diminishing aura: “The Prophet was reported to have said that the best Muslims were going to be his contemporaries, the second best the generation after, and so on, the decline continuing to the end of time.”



    In 1981, Naipaul still distinguished a generic Islam from its fundamentalist variety, a distinction that Faye would deny. Nevertheless, the reader may easily shift Naipaul’s conclusion about fundamentalism to Islam generically. Recoiling from the passage of time and the historical development of other cultures whose achievements make those of the Islamic world, apart from savage conquest, look paltry, the Muslim’s dearest wish is to recreate the hermetic asylum of the original desert tribe, the true and original collective, than whose wholeness there is none other. Naipaul writes, “The Islamic fundamentalist wish is to work back to such a whole, for them a God-given whole, but with the tool of faith alone — belief, religious practices and rituals.” The Muslim’s utopian past resembles the Leftist’s utopian future: “It is to seek to re-create something like a [tribe] or city-state that — except in theological fantasy — never was.” The perpetual crisis of Islam and the origin perhaps of the creed’s violence is that, as Naipaul so perceptively puts it, “in the fundamentalist scheme the world constantly decays and has constantly to be re-created. Moreover” — and here again Naipaul anticipates Faye — “the only function of intellect is to assist that re-creation,” such that “fundamentalism provides an internal intellectual thermostat, set low.” Islam appears in this light as the religious codification of a neurotic repetition-compulsion. Muslim behaviour is as predictable as it is intolerant and violent.



    In rejecting any outside principle and in immersing itself in the original limitations of the archaic desert worldview, Islam, according to Naipaul, condemns itself to eternal “parasitism,” as he calls it. “The West, or the universal civilization it leads, is emotionally rejected,” but at the same time, “it is needed, for its machines, goods, medicines, warplanes, the remittances from the emigrants, the hospitals that might have a cure for calcium deficiency, the universities that will provide master’s degrees in mass media.” In Naipaul’s words, “parasitism is one of the unacknowledged fruits of fundamentalism.” Put another way, in order to survive, and because it remains uncreative and unproductive, Islam must taint itself through contact with that which it despises. In tainting itself, it also humiliates itself, a process that, aligning itself with the repetition-compulsion, produces schizophrenic results.



    In the chapter of Beyond Belief entitled “A Sacred Place,” Naipaul, reporting on his visit to Indonesia, makes a theme of the way in which Islam, in obliterating minds, obliterates the past of the places where it takes hold. Naipaul points out that Islam came to Indonesia shortly before Europe came there; being at the geographical limit of the Islamic world, Indonesia also represents one of the most recent places to be Islamized. Before Islam, the civilization of the archipelago was Buddhist, with an important Hindu overlay, both of which melded with native traditions. Naipaul is surprised to learn how little even educated Indonesians know about the pre-Islamic past of their own nation. A lady academic knows that the rice-fields are two thousand years old, but can pass along no details of what filled those two millennia. One factor in the absence of such knowledge is that the pre-Hindu culture was an oral culture, without writing, but the history after the introduction of writing is also lost — swept away by Islam, which takes no interest in it. “The cruelty of Islamic fundamentalism,” Naipaul asserts, “is that it only allows one people — the Arabs, the original people of the Prophet — a past, and sacred places, [and] pilgrimages, and earth reverences.” Under Islam, “converted peoples have to strip themselves of their past; of converted peoples nothing is required but the purest faith (if such a thing can be arrived at), Islam, submission.” And with what does the new creed replace that which it destroys? It replaces it with nothing — only with paralysis of the mind and creative sterility. It blows up the stone Buddhas and feels a blood-rush in contemplation of the rubble.



    In the chapter of Beyond Belief entitled “Cancer,” Naipaul, reporting on Iran under its Islamic Republic, remarks the strangulation of freedom once sharia permeates the totality of the lifeworld: “There were rules; everything was controlled. It wasn’t only the chador and headdress for women; or boys and girls not walking together; or women not singing on the radio and television; or certain kinds of music not being played. There was a complete censorship, of magazines, newspapers, books, television.” If it reminds one of travel-descriptions of non-Islamic places like North Korea and Cuba, this would only affirm what Naipaul senses and what Faye makes explicit: Islam is a totalitarian system. An informant tells Naipaul, “They want to control your way of sitting here, and your way of talking.” Such total control is already explicit in the notion of the perfect man whose model compels imitation down to the details of bodily functions. Faye writes in Understanding Islam that “what Islam seeks is a return to the Mohammedan effort of the 7th and 8th centuries, whose goal involves the establishment of a universal community of believers revolving around ageless morals.” Islam is, in Faye’s single word, “immutable,” such that “any conception of evolution remains foreign to it.” Once again, Naipaul’s commentary noteworthily parallels Faye’s.



    I would recommend to the serious student of Islam Naipaul’s two stylistically rich books. They make good companions to more theoretical studies by Faye, Emmett Scott, Robert Spencer, and others. While nowadays slightly dated, they represent the conclusions of a keen-eyed spectator of the human condition, who has qualified himself as a novelist to be ranked with the likes of Joseph Conrad. Naipaul, while highly critical of Islam, as the foregoing quotations will have indicated, remains intensely sympathetic to Muslims, who are the first victims of Islam. Islam is a topic in Naipaul’s India: A Wounded Civilization (1977), where the agent of the wound is Islam. Naipaul argues that Hindu civilization never recovered from the imposition of Islam. That thesis should lend even greater urgency to Faye’s discussion. On the one hand, all the nations afflicted by Gothic tribal movements and the later Viking raids soon recovered from these experiences; with the possible exception of Spain, on the other hand, history provides no record of a nation recovering from the imposition on it of Islam. A swath of non-Islamic kingdoms and societies once existed in Central Asia, which 1,500 years ago actually enjoyed what Leftists, using the term to mean the opposite of what they say, call cultural diversity. Today no one remembers the names of those kingdoms and societies, for they have been swept into oblivion.



    Guillaume Faye’s Understanding Islam, A Review by Thomas F. Bertonneau

    A Review of Guillaume Faye’s “Understanding Islam” | Gates of Vienna ...

    07 Aug 2019.


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


  11. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Last Online
    3 Days Ago @ 04:48 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Alsatian/Suevi
    Ancestry
    germanic/alsatian/Elsaesser
    Subrace
    Child of Creator God
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Oregon Oregon
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    retired - Aerospace Quality Engi
    Politics
    independent
    Religion
    Born again Christian,
    Posts
    839
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    768
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,003
    Thanked in
    491 Posts
    SHOW OF FAITH ?????????
    Ashura festival sees children left covered in blood as devout Muslims use knives to slice their heads open

    FASCINATING images show devout Muslims using knives to cut open their heads during a traditional show of faith.
    Every year, thousands of Shia worshippers take part in the ceremonies, performed to mourn the death of Husayn ibn Ali, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9898973/ashura-festival-blood-devout-muslims-knives-heads/



    Some day you will see this all over Europe if Islam is not stopped right in its move....

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to schwab For This Useful Post:


  13. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Last Online
    8 Hours Ago @ 10:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Ancestry
    Irish, Scottish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    North Ireland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    Ethnic Catholic
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,476
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,577
    Thanked in
    851 Posts

    From Rock ‘n’ Roll and Trotskyism to Jihad

    Understanding Islam - Guillaume Faye


    Chapter IV : Islamic Ideology: Divisions, Contradictions and Ruses


    From Rock ‘n’ Roll and Trotskyism to Jihad


    The primary ideology that is proper to islam and its founding texts is not one of strength, nor is it rooted in the will to power. Instead, it is based on brutality and violence and thus has the capacity to fascinate and attract a number of anencephalic and uneducated Western minds. Once driven by a fascination for pseudo-revolutionary Trotskyist leftism and/or the American cultural ‘model’ (in its rock n’ roll or anarcho-libertarian versions), young Europeans are now infatuated with Islamism and jihad, which is far worse. What accounts for this appeal is their need to mobilise for a cause, as a result of the value deficiency that has afflicted the West, as well as the latter’s general emasculation. Now that Soviet Marxism has fallen, islam appears as a new ideal, a replacement model. As previously mentioned it also appeals to young people’s spirit of submission and collaboration, since they have lost all sense of direction and have been left without strong Identitarian values. These youths are throwing themselves into the arms of a simplistic ideology that offers them, in addition to a desire for revenge and the gratification of resentment, a superstition akin to astrological drivel: the paradise of Allah. Progressive and egalitarian dogmas are forgotten, but the ‘muslims’, necessarily oppressed and of immigrant descent, have replaced the proletarians in the imaginations of pseudo-rebels.



    It is jihad that embodies the mental rock ‘n’ roll for Western converts, a passion equally superficial but far deadlier. Both islamophiles and those who collaborate with islamisation constantly rehash the fact that jihad is not a war of religions, that the Islamic state in Iraq and Syria does not practice true Islamic jihad through its massacres and persecutions, and other kinds of nonsense. At the same time they admire it, surreptitiously . . . On the other hand, in a hypocritical attempt at misinformation, many muslim authorities, especially those in Europe, repeat the same anti-truth, one which they themselves do not believe, unlike islamophiles and collaborators. Those who would criticise Salafism are regarded as ‘islamophobic’, meaning sinful. They are therefore considered to belong to the ranks of the unbelievers.



    Actually, jihad is indeed synonymous with ‘struggle’ and nothing else, and has been so since the 7th century. It represents, above all, the struggle against oneself and one’s own softness in order to prepare morally for winning the war – regardless of its shape and form – when the time comes. Secondly jihad takes on the appearance of a defensive war whenever islam is attacked or threatened. Last but not least, it is an offensive war that aims to convert, eliminate, evict or subjugate infidels, using force whenever necessary. Such brutal oversimplification is exhilarating for the weak minds of middle-class youths, who are plagued by boredom and have lost both their bearings and their values in a society where consumerism and assistantship have replaced patriotism and family lineage. Islam offers an ideal alternative, for nature does not tolerate the presence of a vacuum.



    Note that according to the genuine muslim doctrine, the purpose behind the practice of jihad is religious and political world domination (to conquer and convert) without the necessity to follow a schedule, because islam is patient and bides its time, and sees itself as the actual reflection of allah’s purpose. It is endowed with a long memory and infinite patience. On the other hand, even when muslims begin to conquer a given space, gradually becoming stronger and more numerous, they liken the elimination of those who resist them to a ‘defensive jihad . This is because it is ungodly and illegitimate to oppose islam.The one that are attacked and defend themselves are seen as aggressors. Wherever islam begins to take root in large numbers, it considers itself to be on its own legitimate soil and within its rights. Anyone who does not belong to its ranks nor abides by it is impure and subject to eradication, including its own heretics. Unfortunately, it is the onset of such a situation that we are beginning to witness in several areas of France and Europe where muslims have become the majority. ‘They have found their home in ours’ , the inconsistent Mitterrand once stated with regard to immigration. Little did he know that he was actually right, for in the minds of many aware muslims, whose aimis the conquest of Europe through an already ongoing jihad, islam has already claimed France as its home and we no longer have one. And in the meantime, the unaware mistake jihad for rock ‘n’ roll music.



    The Smokescreen of a Cool islam


    In an interview, leftist intellectual Philippe Val once mentioned that the grave ‘danger’ of a ‘radicalisation movement within islam’ and that of a ‘politicised islam’ as if what we are confronted with was the embodiment of false islam. But all things considered, the return of islam to its own roots, authenticity and fundamentally mohammedan nature through ‘islamism’ bears no resemblance whatsoever to a sectarian drift. What politicised islam are we referring to here? The muslim religion is politicised by essence, and has been so since the very beginning! The Koran dedicates a large number of its Suras to socio-political order, and unlike Christ or Buddha, Muhammad was a political, military and religious leader above all else, a caliph, so to speak. A depoliticised and tolerant islam is an impossibility, an oxymoron, a terminological contradiction, akin to the idea of a polytheistic islam.



    The ‘danger’ that Val spoke of is none other than islam itself. A peaceful and secular islam, one that would, more or less, parallel the Christianity with which we are familiar today, and one that many muslims and non-muslims hope for all around the world, is very unlikely to prevail. Islam has rediscovered its own foundations. As for islam in its insipid, non-conquering and low-intensity form, it has fallen behind overall, on a worldwide scale, despite the fact that, in the extreme complexity of international geopolitics, it is apparently advocated by the political systems of many muslim countries.



    With a false-mindedness that is inherent in their very nature, ‘islamic scholars’ tell us that islam is a religion of peace because the word ‘islam’ in Arabic does not merely mean ‘submission’ but also ‘peace’. True enough but this peace is only granted following subjugation, and achieved through domination. In other words, it is an oppressive kind of peace. In European culture, by contrast, peace is understood as a result of a free agreement between equals and does not stem from a power struggle between masters and slaves. Islam perceives peace as an act of submission and an absence of conflict as a result of subjection. Its understanding of the notion is that it must be definitive, in the aftermath of its own violent victory: it is the peace of the vanquished.



    Abdennour Bidar, a muslim intellectual of French nationality, retorts to blatant sophism when stating the following regarding radicalism and the famous ‘islamphobia’, ‘What we are facing are two radicalisms that feed off one and another’ (Le Figaro, 6-7 06/ 2015). He puts Islamism and islamophobia on the same level. Yet it is Islamism that murders people every day, not islamophobia, which is no more than a defensive reaction. Are Islamic killings and those conducted in the name of islam not the same thing?



    The author, who is part of the Sufi minority and those utopian muslims who want to ‘civilise’ islam and adapt it to Europe, has written the very naïve Plea for Brotherhood (Albin Michel, 2015) and made the following analysis: ‘In the face of the breathless sacredness of French republican ideals and those of Western modernity, one encounters a fossilised sacrosanctity among certain (extremely numerous) muslims, for whom religion is an untouchable totem. This a historical and inadaptable representation of islam clashes with the historical sense of modernity. Islam does not currently have the necessary cultural engine that would allow it to give birth to civilisation. Furthermore, I consider the claims that muslims have “already won” to be mistaken. In order to win, one requires a system of values that remains in good condition, if not ready for use.’ An excellent but nonetheless flawed analysis, since it is not shared by the majority of Mr. Bidar’s coreligionists.



    He believes that islam can evolve ‘by begetting similarly to Christianity, a civilisation rooted in secularism and a freedom of conscience that is consistent with spiritual life’. And he gives the example of those muslim countries that have tried to transform themselves during the ‘Arab Spring’. Unfortunately, the decline of Islamic fundamentalism can only be linked to military dictatorships (which are always a better option), as was the case in General Sissi’s Egypt, or to such highly fragile situations as the one in Tunisia. Everywhere you look, but among the masses in particular, fundamentalism is taking root and gaining ground. The dikes could yield at any time. On the other hand, the comparison between islam and Christianity and the hope that the former would ever align itself with the evolution of the latter betrays an ignorance of the fundamental difference between the two religions: the Christian message is spiritual, peaceful, and subjectivistic, whereas the mohammedan one is superstitious, controversial and collectivistic.



    Just like all modern (and utopian) muslims, Bidar believes that all religions and identities can coexist in harmony and that islam can ‘evolve’. Is this not mere wishful thinking combined with a pro-Western view of islam. Its unsolvable contradiction comes to light in the following words: ‘Admittedly, the Koran does contain extremely violent and problematic verses that continue to poison us nowadays, a fact which I deplore. But there are muslims who are capable of distancing themselves from these verses and of refusing to allow the latter to serve as a pretext for violence or a so-called “holy war”. Generally speaking, these people would indeed demand to be granted the right to interpret the koranic texts.’ What he fails to mention is that the muslim intellectuals are but a tiny westernised minority; and that ‘interpreting ‘ the Holy Book, meaning the Word of allah, i.e. not obeying it strictly and ignoring the ‘problematic’ verses, is nothing short of heresy in the eyes of true islam, the very same islam that has resurfaced and is progressing throughout the world.



    Abdennour Bidar demonstrated blatant gullibility when substituting the concept of ‘secularism’ (which is always difficult to accept for any muslim) with the notion of tolerance towards ‘otherness’ and that of ‘brotherhood’. Alas, this brings us back to the unlikely clichés of the peaceful coexistence between radically different populations (especially in the case of islam) on a single territory. In a display of disarming naivete, he then utters the following words: ‘I believe that fraternity has not yet lost its virginal aspect, whose purity could indeed lead to the collective reawaking which France is in need of’. Although awake, Bidar is actually daydreaming. Why not go and preach such nonsense in the Islamised suburbs that are ravaged by Salafism . . .



    The author refers to the utopian notion of universal brotherhood, one that is constantly belied by both history and human ethology. He is wrong to claim that this humanist heritage is equally present in Christianity, Judaism and islam, when it is completely absent from the latter, which is not meant as criticism but as a mere observation. He speaks of ‘a common reinvention of a shareable kind of humanism, involving all of our sacred and secular heritage’. And in order to achieve this, he now cooperates with the Ministry of Education. Let us wish himthe best of luck in this impossible endeavour, whose neo-Rousseauian optimism and neo-romanticism are confounding. ‘Moderate’ ‘non-practicing’ and ‘unbelieving’ muslims are becoming less and less representative of their own identity and, whatever their location, find themselves on the defensive. They are treated as infidels and are more frowned upon than Christians, Jews, ‘associators’ (pagans), or atheists.



    We must return to Aristotelian common sense. Civil harmony can only be achievd within homogenous ethno-cultural and historic ensembles. Separations, borders and the fact of remaining among one’s own are the only guarantees of peace and the absence of civil war. A coexistence with islam is even more difficult than with other ethno-cultural identities, because of the very nature of the muhammadan religion, which is characterised by intolerance and conquest. Moreover, historically speaking, there is not even a single example of a peaceful coexistence with islam in a given country since its emergence during the 6th century. By what miracle would the situation be different now? Especially when considering the fact that, at this time of globalisation, the motivations and opportunities for conflict are on the increase.





    Understanding Islam - Guillaume Faye

    P 153 -160

    04 XI 2019.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to jagdmesser For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Moslem Sex and Deviance, by Guillaume Faye
    By jagdmesser in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, September 21st, 2018, 01:34 AM
  2. Guillaume Faye: 'The Colonization of Europe'
    By Ahnenerbe in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, September 15th, 2018, 05:35 AM
  3. What Was, Must Be: Guillaume Faye's Archeofuturism
    By Olavssønn in forum Strategic Intelligence
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Sunday, August 19th, 2012, 06:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •