Citations diverses sur l'Islam

Nonie Darwish.

"We are still told that the West simply misunderstands Islam. Even after constant and persistent acts of Muslim terror against the West, we are told with deep sincerity, not to be afraid of Islam even if Muslims are holding the Qur’an in one hand and decapitating non-Muslims with another. The message of Islam to kill kafirs and apostates is so unreal and unimaginable to the Western mind that some Westerners actually are convinced it can’t be true and that no religion can openly advocate such violence and stay respected by the international community.

It must be us, in the West, who do not understand Islam because the alternative is unimaginable. But the unimaginable has survived and thrived for 1400 years and it is still going strong with full force with the support of petro-dollars and facilitated by Western do-gooders."

Amil Imani :

"It is not “fanatical”, “radical”, or “extreme” Islam that we are fighting, but normal, orthodox, canonical, typical, accepted, traditional Islam, straight from the mouth of the Muhammad. Islam is violent in direct proportion to its mission and scripture. The so-called fanatics are only upholding the truth of their principles. There are those who do not openly engage in terrorism or warfare, but are in support of it, or are working in other ways to spread Islam by force or fraud."

Osama Abdallah :

Monday, October 26, 2009

Osama Abdallah Proclaims: "Christians Are the Biggest Trash and Losers in the Christian World!"

In response to a video showing Muslim violence in France, Osama Abdallah has apologized for violence in the name of Allah, and has dedicated his life to fighting against terrorism and extremism. No wait, he didn't do that at all. Instead, he did what Muslims typically do when Muslim atrocities are pointed out. He attacked Christians, saying, "THE CHRISTIANS ARE THE BIGGEST TRASH AND LOSERS in the christian world."Now where would a Muslim get the idea that Christians are horrible people, when so many Muslims claim that Islam respects Christians?

Qur'an 8:55--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.Qur'an 98:6--Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Hmmm. Given the fact that Christians are such horrible creatures (according to both the Qur'an and Osama), it seems that Muslims should treat us like garbage whenever they're strong enough to do so. Wait! That's exactly what Muslims were doing in the video!*****UPDATE***** Osama isn't letting up. He just added:
TRULY, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE INDEED, BY THE ABSOLUTE FARTHEST, THE FILTHIEST SCUMS OF ALL HUMANS ON PLANET EARTH, with the exception of few who were promised Paradise by Allah Almighty!
So Osama agrees with the Qur'an on this one.

He also added in the comments section here an open condemnation of America, calling it "the great babel and prostitute of the bible."There's certainly nothing to worry about when Muslims right here in America have absolutely no loyalty to America and want to see it fall.

Message de Pat Condell

A message for America

Pat Condell has a message to America.

Transcript of Pat Condell’s Video:

"Wake up, America (hat tip KGS)You remember the cartel of Islamic dictatorships that hijacked the United Nations Human Rights Council don’t you? And then promptly passed a resolution banning the criticism of religion? Yes of course you do!

Well, apparently they’ve decided now that the Universal Declaration of Human rights gives people just a bit too much freedom and dignity for their liking. And so they’ve devised their own Islamic human rights charter which is a bit like Satan getting his own set of pearly gates and about as convincing. Unfortunately the Islamic charter is based on Sharia which is, of course, invalid because it’s God’s law and God doesn’t exist; to claim that he does is extremely offensive to those of us who passionately believe otherwise. It’s a grave insult to our most deeply cherished beliefs , an assault on the very core of our being, no less, and a violation, therefore, of our human rights – isn’t it?. Well, isn’t it?
Now all this would be something of a tiresome joke if not for the fact that this nonsense is beginning to have a real effect on our basic freedoms, certainly here in Europe, and Americans would do well to wake up and pay attention to what’s going on. Ever since the Islamic countries demanded that Western governments make it a crime to criticise Islam, all over Europe blasphemy laws and religious insult laws are being use to criminalise freedom of speech. The latest is Ireland, a country that has being literally raped by religion yet has passed a law protecting it from criticism. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome!

Free speech, they tell us, carries certain responsibilities; well too true, it does, the most primary one being that what you say should be the truth. And the truth should never be embarrassing and it should never be illegal, and any government that’s so embarrassed by the truth that it makes it illegal is governing under false pretences. The Dutch Government for example which is in the process of embarrassing itself by prosecuting the leader of one of the country’s largest political parties for the ‘crime’ of telling the truth. You see, these days in Europe we have become so used to weasel words and double standards that the truth has become distinctly unfashionable. Speaking your mind is now seen as virtually anti social because some opportunistic cry-baby is sure to take offense and throw a tantrum, and that might threaten community cohesion.

Now what has all this got to do with America? Well, President Obama is very keen on showing respect to the Muslim world and nobody can fault him on his record so far, bowing as he did to the King of Saudi Arabia like some kind of vassal, and then making a rather flattering and, some might even say, dishonest speech in Cairo, although to be fair to him he did stop short of prostrating himself towards Mecca... at least for the time being! But because he wants to play ball with Islam, especially now that they have given him a peace prize through their shills in the Norwegian establishment, that he’s going to have to justify for the next three years. The Iranians must be rubbing their hands with glee at that one.

The American Government has now done something that if they did it in their own country it would violate the Constitution. They have co-sponsored a UN resolution that puts a limit on freedom of speech because the Islamic countries don’t like free speech, they don’t like free anything, except free foreign aid - obviously they can’t get enough of that!

Even the Saudis want aid now, have you heard their latest? I could hardly believe it! The Saudis have said that when the world starts using less oil they expect to be compensated for loss of income! You really couldn’t make it up could you?
Now the problem with the new touchy-feely American administration is not that they want to be friendly and respectful towards everyone; that’s very laudable. It’s just that when you have a moral agenda like that it can be tempting to cut corners, especially when it comes to inconvenient things like... Constitutional amendments. And if they are doing this now outside the United States, where they can get away with it, it’s only a matter of time before this is allowed to become international law, and then you know they’re going to start trying to do it inside the United States as well; in the name of ‘community cohesion’- get used to that phrase America, it’s coming you way! And this matters, it matters a lot, not only to Americans but to all of us who see the American Constitution as the anchor for Western Civilisation, which is what it is! We know that no matter how spineless our politicians are here in Europe and elsewhere , and here in Europe. They barely got a vertebrae between them. between them. As long as America’s First Amendment remains inviolate there will always be an oasis of freedom on this planet that Islam cannot touch. But as soon as anyone is allowed to interfere with it, to water it down, to reinterpret, to chip and chisel away at the First Amendment for reasons of religious or cultural sensitivity then we wave our civilisation goodbye.

Americans voted for change at the last election, they didn’t vote for surrender. Watch what’s happening in Europe America, cherish that Constitution and don’t let Islam anywhere near it for all our sakes. Remember the words of Mr Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations, who said that Islam is not in America to be equal to other faiths but to become dominant and that the Koran should be the highest authority in America. That would be higher than the Constitution then by my reckoning.You know, if President Obama is serious about showing respect to the Muslim world, then he should pay them the compliment of telling them the truth – that their religion is entitled to as much respect as it gives – zero! And that with their record no Islamic country has any business even holding an opinion on human rights, let alone serving on a legislative body. Then asking the people of the free world to compromise their fundamental values is far, far more insulting than any set of cartoons or any book could ever be. And that if the Islamic countries had an ounce of genuine honour between them, they would issue a full and unconditional apology. That’s what he should say, because that’s the truth. Everyone in the free world knows it’s the truth. So let’s hope the truth becomes fashionable again... before too long.
Peace – oh yes."

Citation de David Horowitz

"My correspondent’s second question was an unexpected one, more perplexing than the first: “Do you ever feel that you are wasting your breath? Do you think that truth will ever matter? No matter what you prove or disprove, in the end the truth will remain in the shadows of what people want to hear and want to believe.”

I agree more than I care to with this thought. It is the human wish to be told lies that keeps us where we are. A stoic realism lies at the heart of the conservative viewpoint. It is about accepting limits that are absolute, which the human condition places on human hope.One could define the left as just the opposite: the inability to come to terms with who we are; the obstinate, compulsive, destructive belief in the fantasy of transformation, in the desperate hope of an earthly redemption.

I have watched my friends whose ideas created an empire of inhumanity survive the catastrophe of their schemes and go on to unexpected triumph in the ashes of their defeat. Forced to witness the collapse of everything they once had dreamed and worked to achieve, they have emerged unchastened by their illusions to renew their destructive utopian crusades. The society they declared war on has even rewarded them for their misdeeds. Today they are cultural navigators in the nation most responsible for their worldwide defeat. I cannot explain this dystopian paradox other than to agree that politics is indeed irrational and socialism a wish as deep as any religious faith. I do not know that the truth must necessarily remain in the shadows. But I am persuaded that a lie grounded in human desire is too powerful for reason to kill." David Horowitz, Frontpagemag, 24 oct. 2009

________________________________________________

"Critical theory” – the coy self-description of the ideological Left – self-consciously describes itself by the totality of its rejection of the existing social order, in identical fashion to old-style Marxists (Marx himself was a “critical theorist”). The explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation. The task of undermining communal assumptions and stabilizing faiths is not incidental to the radical critique, but is its corrosive essence. It is what the theory intends. Yet, like the Marxist-Leninists of the past, critical theorists never confront the moral issue posed by their destructive agendas: What can be the rationale for weakening and ultimately destroying a system as liberal as the existing one, if no better has been devised?

Without its adherents noticing, the theoretical argument of the Left has been emptied of content by the failures of socialism. For what is the practical meaning of a socialist critique in the absence of a workable socialist model? In fact, there is none. By adopting an impossible standard, it is easy to find fault with any institution or social system under scrutiny. The ideal of socialist equality, for example, may or may not be admirable. But if social equality cannot be realized in practice, or if the attempt to realize it necessarily creates a totalitarian state, then the idea of such equality can have no significance except as an incitement to destructive agendas.

To raise the socialist ideal to a critical standard imposes a burden of responsibility on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly “just,” but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits thy provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism – a war of destruction with no objective other than war. "

– The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future

Climate Modeling Nonsense

Oct 19, 2009
Climate Modelling Nonsense
By John Reid, physicist

SOURCE : http://icecap.us/index.php

The less a thing is known, the more fervently it is believed. - Montaigne
In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytising the new faith.
There are major differences, however. Whereas it is not possible to call oneself a Christian without entertaining the central belief in the Resurrection, it is certainly possible to be deeply concerned with the order and condition of humanity and so call oneself a humanist without entertaining a corresponding belief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Belief in a Resurrection which supposedly occurred some 2000 years ago is a matter of personal faith, whereas AGW is a scientific hypothesis which can and should be tested by observation. Imagine the consequences both to science and to secular humanism should this hypothesis turn out to be untrue and the dire predictions of the climate models fail to materialise.
The quasi-religious nature of AGW is evidenced by the rancour which is generated when people like me express scepticism about the theory. Scepticism is an essential part of science which has, until recently, been a “small-l liberal” pursuit in which the opinions of doubters were respected. Now we sceptics are called “deniers” and, by implication, lumped in with neo-Nazis who question the Holocaust. The accusation that we are somehow in the sway of the oil companies and similar big business interests is commonplace and indeed is the chief argument of non-scientist supporters of the AGW theory. This echoes the “work of the Devil” argument of fundamentalist Christians; it is a mental trick by which the faithful avoid facing the real issues.
Why then do a majority of scientists support the theory? I believe it is largely a matter of loyalty. Very few of us physicists know enough genetics to justify our belief in Darwin�s theory of evolution by natural selection but most of us support it because we believe it to be the outcome of rigorous scientific processes similar to those carried out in our own discipline. Most scientists would support the AGW theory for much the same reason.
By accident of history I find myself in the opposing camp. I was trained as a physicist and was granted a PhD for my postgraduate work in upper atmosphere physics. In the early 1980s I joined the CSIRO’s Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) for a time. Much of the theoretical side of oceanography entails fluid dynamics which, because of its heavy mathematical load, is regarded as a sub-discipline of applied mathematics rather than of physics. Because of this, in my view, many practitioners of oceanography and climatology have a cavalier disregard for experimental testing and an unjustified faith in the validity of large-scale computer models.
Later in my career I was involved in running and refining numerical fluid dynamical models, so I gained some insight into how this modelling is done and how rigorously such models need to be tested. Naval architects and aerodynamical engineers do such testing in wave tanks and wind tunnels.
Meteorologists regularly test model “skill”. Climatologists don’t seem to have a concept of testing, and prefer to use the term “verification” instead - that is, they do not seek to invalidate their models; they only seek supporting evidence. My scepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.
Back in the early 1990s when I was still working for the CSIRO and the early versions of the AGW theory started to gain currency, I was rather bemused by the passions which were aroused in my colleagues and the gullibility with which predictions of future climate disaster were accepted. Surely the jury is still out, I thought. I remained agnostic about the theory. More recently, after reading the literature and looking in detail at the output of one well-known climate model (HadCM3) I have changed my stand. I now believe it is nonsense for the following reasons.
First there is the argument, commonly used by Al Gore and others, that carbon dioxide forms a layer like a blanket or greenhouse window pane high in the atmosphere which traps long-wave infra-red radiation, thus making the surface of the earth warmer. This is misleading. Certainly carbon dioxide is an infra-red absorber but, like most infra-red absorbing gases, its absorption rate depends on concentration and pressure and is at a maximum at the ground. The atmosphere is a gas, not a solid, and bits of it move up and down, carrying heat as they move. As a meteorological balloon climbs higher in the atmosphere, the measured temperature falls off with increasing height. This phenomenon, referred to as the lapse rate, has been known and described for more than a century. The lapse rate is determined by the thermodynamic properties of the gases that make up the atmosphere and has little to do with radiation. The convection term completely dominates the radiation term in the relevant equation.
Second there are the climate models themselves. In discussions with colleagues, arguments always seem to come down to “But the models show...” Those who use this argument seldom have modelling experience themselves and share the lay public�s naive faith in the value of large computer models.
I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically. One reason for their inherent instability is that the mesh size of the model grid (typically hundreds of metres to hundreds of kilometres) is always much larger than the scale at which friction and molecular diffusion operate (millimetres or less). These are the forces which act to damp down oscillations by converting free energy to heat. In order to get around this difficulty, in order to keep a model stable, it is common practice to set certain parameters such as eddy viscosity unrealistically high to compensate for the absence of molecular friction. This is reasonable if we are using the model to gain insight into underlying processes, but it means that fluid dynamic models are not much good at predicting the future. There is no exact correspondence between model and reality, and the two soon part company. Fluid mechanics and celestial mechanics are very different disciplines.
This country and the world at large have many real political, demographic and environmental issues to contend with. We do not need to create problems where none exist. The present hysteria diverts money and attention away from problems which do need to be solved. In my view, terrorism, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and pandemic disease are far bigger threats to my family�s comfort and security than are global warming and putative “tipping points”.
There is a danger that conservation failures will be blamed on “climate change”. This happened recently when the removal of feral cats caused a rabbit population explosion on Macquarie Island. Incompetent environmental management resulted in such massive erosion problems that eleven species of birds are now threatened. Climate change has provided a convenient alternative view of the cause of this disaster. Likewise the flooding of oceanic islands by “rising sea levels” has more to do with the removal of coral reefs for construction projects than with global warming.
Over the last few years, with remarkable rapidity, AGW theory has gone from a scientific curiosity to a politically-correct catechism. Nowadays it is not merely politically correct, it is politically essential. Somehow this nineteenth-century oddity has outlasted Das Kapital to become the banner of millions of environmentally concerned Westerners. It seems to fulfil a human need for sacrifice, a need to “put something back”. It is the ancient myth about guilt and sin and redemption in a new guise.
People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact.
In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth. Read full essay here.



“Warmists scream “weather is not climate!”. We need to shout back “Venus is not Earth!” since the Venusian atmosphere is entirely different in compositions and forcings, and we understand it far less than Earth’s. Icecap note: as commenters said also 26 million miles closer to the sun and days 150 of our days long and has an atmosphere that is denser and deeper with surface pressures 90 times earth producing compressional warming. In the Venusian atmosphere at the same pressure as earth’s, temperatures are comprable to earth. Of course Nye did not mention Mars, where even though its atmosphere is mainly C02, the air is colder because the atmosphere is thin and pressures lower and of course Mars is farther away. See comments for much more." Anthony Watts, Watts up With That

-->

JUSTICE SOCIALE.......?????!!!!!

Elites and Tyrants: The Fruits of "Social Justice"
by Walter Williams (October 7, 2009)

SOURCE : http://www.capmag.com/

Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba's health care system, "You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... But also -- and this was the highest proof of his greatness -- he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action," and that Yenan itself constituted "a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere." Michel Oksenberg, President Carter's China expert, complained that "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values," and urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China.
Even Harvard's late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all." Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China's Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the '60s and '70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao's little red book, "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung." Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today's universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." Statistics are provided at his website. The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there's little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation's elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement "social justice." Those tools are massive centralized government power. It just turns out last century's notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn't over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.

Born in Philadelphia in 1936, Walter E. Williams holds a bachelor's degree in economics from California State University (1965) and a master's degree (1967) and doctorate (1972) in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.

Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read the WALTER WILLIAMS column in your hometown paper.

Mahomet, serviteur du diable..

Ce texte est une réponse d'Ali Sina de Faithfreedom International à un Français, un peu perturbé psychologiquement, qui s'est converti à l'Islam mais qui est quand même effrayé par les injonctions du Coran.

SOURCE : http://www.faithfreedom.org:80/2009/10/18/to-be-a-good-muslim-i-must-kill-my-mother/

Hello David,

We can talk about the existence God until cows come home. For the sake of this discussion and to make things less polemic I accept the premise that God exists.

There are thousands of religions and faiths that claim to show you the path to God. Every day a new faith is born. Of course not all of them are true. All but one are invented by charlatans and liars to amass wealth, but more importantly, power and narcissistic supply. Power is the loadstar of the narcissist. Narcissists would even sacrifice their own lives, let alone the lives of others, for power. Jim Jones and David Koresh are good examples.

Now, assuming God exists, what would his nature be? Would he be a logical and a loving god or an illogical and hateful god? Any sane person would agree that God cannot be illogical and hateful. It is Satan that is illogical and hateful. (I am using religious terminologies freely and accept the premise that God and Satan are both real to make my point.)

Would the real God lie or deceive people. No! That is not logical because lies and deception are the instruments of the weak. If you are all powerful you don’t need to lie or to deceive. But according to the Quran Allah is khairul makirin (the best deceiver). You have to lie in order to deceive. So if Allah is deciever he must be also a liar. Deception and lies are not divine qualities. This assertion alone is enough to disqualify Muhammad’s Allah as God.

There are other satanic qualities that Muhammad attributes to Allah. Among the 99 names that he gave to Allah we find al-mutakabbir (the bloated), al-jabbar (the despot), al-qahhar (the subduer), al-khafid (the abaser) al-mudhell (the humiliator), al-mumit (the death giver) al-muntaqim (the avenger), ad-darr (the creator of the harmful /evil doer). Aren’t these satanic attributes?

We humans are advised to acquire divine qualities. Are these divine qualities? Is a deceitful haughty vengeful despot who humiliates people, subdues them and gives them death and destruction a good person?

Although proofs abound that Allah is not God, but a demon who seduced Muhammad, the above is more than enough to convince any sane person.

Religions tell us that Satan is a deceiver. He has no real power except the ability to deceive people who in turn will act as his instrument and do his bidding.

Let us say that God is so desperate that he is offended when humans don’t worship him. Now this is obviously a very stupid concept and a blasphemy. We humans love our pets and take care of them without any expectation from them. We won’t torture and kill a cat if he eats the food we provide for him and walks away without thanking us. Our love for our pets is unconditional. How can God who is infinitely superior to us humans be so petty to not have the same kind of love that we humans have for our pets? Although the whole notion that God would punish humans in such an excruciating way, like burning them and pouring boiling water on them for eternity is sheer idiocy and it takes a complete idiot to buy that nonsense, let us accept this foolish notion also for the sake of argument.

The question that arises is why would God need humans to act as his henchmen and do his dirty work? Why he does not kill the unbelievers himself? Muhammad’s god is like a Mafia godfather.

He has no real power over anything except the control over his gangsters and it is these criminals who kill people on his behalf. The powerful God does not need anyone to murder his detractors. If really God wanted to kill someone, he could do it without anyone’s help. He could stop their hearts from beating , or to make it more spectacular, he could lift them up to the sky and smash them to the ground so everyone could witness his brutal power.

You asked, “Didn’t Jesus say that his people would hate their family because of him?”
I am not a Christian but I am afraid you misunderstand what Jesus said. Muslims deliberately misinterpret his words to justify the evil teachings of Muhammad. Jesus never told his followers to hate their family because of him. He said that because of their faith they will be hated, persecuted and crucified even by their nearest and dearest. Muslims are Satan worshippers. Satan deceives people. He is Khairul Makerin. But we are endowed with a brain not to fall prey to the lies of impostors. No! Jesus never told his followers to hate anyone. He even said, love thy enemy. You grew up with Christian teachings. How can you fall for such a blatant lie?

You say the Quran is a miracle. The only miracle is the stupidity of so many people that believe in that satanic book of filth and terror. There is no miracle – not a single miracle in the Quran. It is a pack of lies made up by a mentally sick man for very stupid people. A mule must have more commonsense than a person who reads the Quran and thinks it is from God.

You wrote, “I said the shahada and prayed like a Muslim. I felt the presence of God inside of me during one or two nights in my bed. It was very nice. But of course, how could I be in peace if my mission was to kill my mother?”You also wrote, “For me, terrorists of 9/11 were the true Muslims. Once, in my bed, I felt a spirit entering my body, and giving me the desire of being a suicide bomber. It was very brief (two seconds perhaps), but scary enough to make me jump out of my bed and say No! to God. I was saying: no God, I don’t want a God who kills people, etc…”
Yes you are right. Terrorists are the true Muslims. But could that spirit that possessed you be possibly the spirit of God? The same loving god that created all mankind including your mother and sister and now is telling you to murder the peson who raised you and did not sleep night after night to make sure you sleep? Of course not! The moment you were deceived and said your shahadah you opened your heart to Satan. It was he who came to give you peace so you become confirmed in your deception. It was he who possessed you and told you to become a suicide bomber. Good spirits do not invade people’s bodies. They respect you and don’t violate your being. If at anytime you feel some spirit has entered you know that it is not from God no matter how you feel. It is a demonic spirit and you must seek psychological help or an exorcist.
Satan does not give a damn about your life and the lives of the people whom he wants you to destroy. Satan uses people who open their heart to him to do his evil deeds and by saying the shahada you gave him the chance to invade your body. Satan is a death giver, an abaser, a destroyer, and he is haughty. He is khairul makerin. Once you said your shahadah you invited him to possess you. All Muslims who have uttered these satanic words are possessed by demon. That is why you see they are committings so many evil things all over the world are so miserable and dejected. Their countries are war torn and they are busy killing on another everywhere.

God gave you conscience. That conscience shouted at you telling you that God does not want you to become a murderer, but you chose to silence your conscience, the voice of God inside you, and instead let yourself to be deceived by Satan.

You already know what you said is no proof for Islam and acknowledged that “it is all about faith.” But people can have faith in a lie too. There is no truth in Islam. I am offering $50,000 dollars since eight years to anyone who can give one sold proof in favor of Islam that I cannot refute logically, and despite the fact that this challenge is read by millions of Muslims and I have debated with hundreds, if not thousands of them, no one has been able to prove Islam is true. Meanwhile, my colleagues and I have provided thousands upon thousands of logical proofs that Islam is a lie and Muhammad was an evil monster, a demonic soul no different than Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara and Jim Jones.

Islam is from devil. That is why you feel awful. Take the Quran to a field, tear it apart and piss on it. Make a video of what you do (without showing your face) and put it on Youtube. I promise you that you will feel instant serenity and peace and no fear will ever come to you. This simple ceremony will make Satan fear you instead and leave you alone. He will know that he can no longer deceive you. There are millions of other fools whom he can prey on, but you will be safe.
This advice is not just for David. Anyone who lives with the fear of Allah should do it. You’ll feel sudden relief. I have not done this myself because I was a rational person always and never believed because of fear. Once I learned the truth I went through a series of emotions that I described in my testimony, but fear was not one of them. But I know of someone who overcame his fear of demon Allah by doing just that. You need to break this shackle once and for all and pissing on the Quran is a powerful symbolism that tells you, you are free. You can order a free copy of this satanic book from CAIR for this sacred ceremony. Do it fast before CAIR staff end up in jail, now that they are exposed for trying to overthrow the government of America. If you don’t want to destroy your Quran you may photocoy several pages of it for your pissing ceremony.

Please don’t laugh. I am very serious. The Quran is a fetish for Muslims. They fear even touching it with their left hand because that is the hand they use washing their derriere. Pissing on the Quran is like breaking an idol. The act itself may sound silly but its effect on your psyche is liberating. You will be telling your subconscious mind that you are breaking away with all the lies and setting yourself free from fear.

Humans have used ceremonies for important events, like initiation into a new religion, initiation into adulthood, wedding, graduation, etc. All these ceremonies are reminders that something important is taking place and a new life has begun. You can piss on the Quran as the reminder that you no longer believe in lies and are not afraid of the bogyman of a psychopath.

The Old Testament is a fairy tale, even then the reason you find similarities between the Quran and the Judaic scripture is because Muhammad plagiarized that book. He, like all pre Islamic folks in Hijaz grew up listening to Biblical stories. He remembered bits and pieces of those stories and plagiarized them, often making gross mistakes like confusing Mary the mothe rof Jesus (Maryam in Arabis) with Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aron (also Maryam in Arabis). This does not mean both books come from the same source.

You wrote, “If you believe in hell and paradise, then religious violence on earth is nothing compared to eternal anger of God.”

This is a good example of how satanic deceptions work. The deceiver bases a seemingly valid conclusion on a false premise. The belief that God has a rotisserie where he burns humans for eternity is a lie that only stupid people can believe. As I explained above, such sadistic behavior is inconsistent with the nature of God. Attributing such insanity to the creator of the universe is the gravest blasphemy.

Assuming there is a hell, who do you think is most deserving of it? The person who does not believe in God or the one who attributes insanity to God? Would you be angrier at a person who says I don’t know David or at a person who says I know David – he is a sadist psychopath, a haughty despot, a deceiver, a mischief doer and a murderer? With the lie that God is a sadist torturer Muslims want to justify their own evilness. But God is not a sadist and what Muslims do is satanic. To say because God is a torturer (qahhar) I am justified to be violent because I no matter how much I harm you I can never do you as much harm as God is going to do to you is a sheer deception.

Assuming God exists, an atheists can say, I am sorry dear God for not believing in you. The reason is that those who spoke of you did not have logical arguments and wanted me to have blind faith in something that made no sense. Since you gave me a brain I decided to use it and hence refused to believe in what people say without proof. Furthermore, those who believed in you did not agree even with each other so how could I know which religion is right when all of them demanded blind faith?

Since God understands reason he will be convinced that it is not the fault of rational people for not believing in him. In fact, those who believe without proof become terrorists and murderers. They do evil in the name of God. Instead of loving the creation of God they think about killing others. So atheists who did not do evil to others and did not attribute insanity to God will go to paradise, but Muslims who attributed diabolic qualities to God and accused him of being a sadist, a mass murderer, a psychopath destroyer, a humiliator, an abaser, a despot, an avenger and a harms maker /evil doer will most likely be thrown into hell for libeling God and for attributing demonic qualities to him.

Now, since if God exists, He most certainly is a merciful and companionate God he may even forgive stupid Muslims who blaspheme him. I would never take revenge of people who call me names and libble me, assuming they do not hurt me, and we know that no one can hurt God. I just ignore them. God must for sure have a lot more commonsense than me and he will most certainly not punish ignorant Muslims who believe in the lies of Muhammad and consequently blaspheme their maker. But will God forgive those fools who kill other humans? If God is just, He should punish the terrorists, otherwise he would not be a just God.

You can be as much stupid as you wish. You can even blaspheme God and call him all those shamelful names that Muhammad called him. You can point your keister to Him in heaven five times per day and insult him in this silly way too. I am sure God will still forgive you. If I can forgive people who insult me how can a creator who is infinitely greater than me not forgive people who are infinately smaller than him? But will He forgive you if you kill someone? Once you kill someone or harm them in any way your stupidity is no longer an excuse. You cannot say I was fooled by Muhammad please don’t sent me to hell to spend the rest of eternity with that monster.

Don’t kill your mother. Don’t kill your sister. Muhammad was a bastard liar. Don’t believe a word of that demon. Don’t do evil on earth and don’t harm people for a lie or even for what you may think is true. Just don’t harm others for any reason.

Islam is stupid. It is the most stupid cult made by a very stupid man for very stupid people. Don’t hide behind numbers. A lie is still a lie even if 1.5 billion fools believe in it. Anyone who follows Muhammad, believes in that psychopath and trusts that fool is a fool. It is okay to be a fool. God will not punish people for their foolishness, but woe to you if you do evil, commit murder, or harm another soul.

I am sending my book to you. Read it before murdering your mother and sister. It may bring you to your senses and prevent you from committing the biggest insanity of your life.

Dear reader, David has spent months in a psychiatric hospital. He may suffer from some sort of psychological disorder. maybe schizoferenia. However, as you can see from his letter, Islam has acerbated his psychological problem to the extent that he is now a real threat to himself and to others.

As I have shown in my book Understanding Muhammad, the prophet of Islam was insane. Islam is insanity. Under the influence of Islam normal people become insane, but when psychologically challenged people are influenced by Islam they become dangerous. It is like fire meeting a tank of gasoline. Fire burns everything, but a tank of gasoline explodes.

I hope David you read my book and snap out of this insanity called Islam and don’t commit a hideous crime for a sheer lie. We all make mistakes but if you commit this mistake it is irreversible. Once you realize the the gravity of your crime you can never forgive yourself and your situation will become far worse.

Read my book. It could save the lives of many innocent people and yours too. You won’t go to paradise by killing people. How much stupidity is enough? Even if you have psychological problems, which is not your fault, you know the diffrence between right and wrong. Don’t let the demonic man of the 7th century decieve you. He is in hell. Don’t hasten to meet him. Spit on his name, piss on his satanic book and leave his diabolic cult. Treat others the way you wish to be treated. This is the essense of goodness. This is what will save you and not the belief in a charltan who deceived people for his own gain and told them to murder in order to go to pardise.

Un intellectuel saoudien franc et lucide

vendredi 12 juin 2009

Un intellectuel saoudien : la civilisation occidentale a libéré l’être humain.

Par Yann le 11 mai 2009

Le président Obama aurait dû lire ceci avant son discours au Caire.

Dans un entretien paru le 23 avril 2009 dans le quotidien saoudien Okaz, le penseur réformiste Ibrahim Al-Buleihi fait part de son admiration pour la civilisation occidentale. L’interview a été mise en ligne le jour même sur le site progressiste arabe Elaph [1]. Al-Buleihi appelle les Arabes à reconnaître la grandeur de la civilisation occidentale et à admettre les insuffisances de leurs propres cultures. Il estime que l’autocritique est la condition de toute évolution positive.

Ibrahim Al-Buleihi est membre du Conseil saoudien de la Shura. [2]

Extraits de l’entretien: Sans tout ce que l’Occident a accompli, nos vies seraient stériles.Okaz: Je vais commencer par la question cruciale de ce qui distingue votre façon de penser - que vos adversaires évoquent systématiquement contre vous: vous éblouissement face à l’Occident, alors que vous dévaluez complètement la pensée arabe. C’est vraiment le caractère le plus distinctif de vos écrits. L’auto-flagellation y est présente à un point extrême. Comment l’expliquez-vous ?

Buleihi: Mon attitude face à la société occidentale se base sur des faits indéniables et ses grandes réussites. Nous sommes en présence d’une réalité aux nombreuses composantes merveilleuses et étonnantes. Cela ne signifie pas que je sois aveuglé. Mais j’ai très exactement l’attitude contraire de ceux qui nient et ignorent les lumières vives de la civilisation occidentale. Regardez donc autour de vous… Vous vous apercevrez que tout ce qui est beau dans nos vies nous vient de la civilisation occidentale. Même le stylo que vous tenez dans votre main, l’enregistreur en face de vous, la lampe de cette pièce et le journal pour lequel vous travaillez, et d’innombrables agréments supplémentaires, qui sont comme des miracles pour les civilisations anciennes… Sans tout ce que l’Occident a accompli, nos vies seraient stériles. Je ne fais que poser un regard objectif [sur la réalité], estimant à sa juste valeur ce que je vois et l’exprimant honnêtement.

Ceux qui n’ont pas d’admiration pour le beau sont démunis de sensibilité, de goût et de sens de l’observation.La civilisation occidentale a atteint le summum de la science et de la technologie. Elle a apporté la connaissance, le savoir-faire, de nouvelles découvertes, comme aucune autre civilisation avant elle. Les réalisations de la civilisation occidentale couvrent tous les domaines: la gestion, la politique, l’éthique, l’économie et les droits humains. C’est un devoir de reconnaître son étonnante excellence. C’est en effet une civilisation digne d’admiration. (…) Le retard horrible dans lequel vivent certaines nations est le résultat inévitable de leur refus de [l’apport occidental] et de leur attitude consistant à se réfugier dans le déni et l’arrogance.

Okaz: Monsieur, vous pouvez admirer cette civilisation tant que vous le voulez, mais pas aux dépens des autres, notamment de notre civilisation.

Buleihi: Mon admiration pour l’Occident ne s’exprime pas aux dépens des autres. Elle invite ces autres à admettre qu’ils se sont leurrés, à surmonter leur infériorité et à se libérer de leur retard. Ils devraient admettre leurs défauts et faire l’effort de les surmonter. Ils devraient cesser de nier les faits et de tourner le dos à la multitude des merveilleux succès [occidentaux]. Ils devraient se montrer justes à l’égard de ces nations qui ont su se rendre prospères, sans pour autant monopoliser la prospérité, faisant profiter le monde entier des résultats de leurs progrès, de sorte qu’aujourd’hui d’autres nations dans le monde en bénéficient. La civilisation occidentale a apporté au monde la connaissance et le savoir-faire qui ont permis aux nations non occidentales, de rivaliser avec sa production et de partager des marchés avec elle. Critiquer ses propres insuffisances est nécessaire pour évoluer positivement. En revanche, glorifier la léthargie revient à encourager et asseoir le retard, à resserrer les chaînes de l’apathie et à empêcher [l’expression de] la capacité à exceller. Le retard est une réalité honteuse qui devrait nous déplaire et dont nous devons nous libérer.

“La civilisation occidentale est la seule qui ait su libérer l’homme de ses illusions et de ses chaînes.”

Okaz: C’est peut-être le cas, et je vous suis dans cette exigence, mais, Monsieur, pourriez-vous résumer pour nous les raisons de votre admiration de la culture occidentale, afin que nous ayons une base de discussion ?Buleihi: Il n’y a pas une, mais mille raisons qui me poussent à admirer l’Occident et à souligner son excellence absolue dans tous les domaines. La civilisation occidentale est la seule qui ait su libérer l’homme de ses illusions et de ses chaînes. Elle a reconnu son individualité et lui a fourni des capacités, la possibilité de se cultiver et de réaliser ses aspirations. Elle a humanisé l’autorité politique et établi des mécanismes garantissant une égalité et une justice relatives, prévenant l’injustice et modérant l’agression. Cela ne veut pas dire que c’est une civilisation sans défaut ; elle en a même beaucoup.
C’est toutefois la plus grande civilisation humaine de l’histoire. Avant elle, l’humanité était en prise avec la tyrannie, l’impuissance, la pauvreté, l’injustice, la maladie et la misère.C’est une civilisation extraordinaire, sans être l’extension d’aucune civilisation ancienne, à l’exception de la civilisation grecque, source de la civilisation contemporaine. J’ai donné le dernier coup de plume à un ouvrage sur ce grand et extraordinaire saut de civilisation, intitulé “Changements qualitatifs dans la civilisation humaine”. La civilisation occidentale est son propre produit et ne doit rien à aucune autre civilisation, hormis la civilisation grecque (…) Elle a redonné vie aux réalisations des Grecs dans les domaines de la philosophie, la science, la littérature, la politique, la société, la dignité humaine, le culte de la raison, tout en reconnaissant ses défauts et ses leurres et en soulignant le besoin constant de critique, de réévaluation et de corrections.

Okaz: En parlant ainsi, vous effacez complètement tous les efforts créatifs des civilisations qui ont précédé, telle la civilisation islamique, car vous affirmez que l’Occident ne lui doit rien.Buleihi: Et pour cause: elle ne lui doit rien, pas plus qu’à aucune autre civilisation avant elle. La civilisation occidentale trouve ses fondements dans la Grèce des VIème et Vème siècles avant J.C. Elle a connu un temps d’arrêt au Moyen-Âge, avant de reprendre son évolution aux Temps modernes, en profitant à toutes les nations. Elle est vraiment extraordinaire dans tous les sens du mot: en termes d’excellence, d’unicité, de nouveauté (…) Elle a des composantes et des qualités qui la distinguent de toutes les civilisations qui l’ont précédée ou suivie. Elle est le produit d’un enseignement philosophique inventé par les Grecs. Les Européens ont pris pour base ce mode de pensée, notamment le mode de la critique, qui leur a permis de développer la connaissance objective, toujours ouverte à la réévaluation, à la correction et au progrès

(…).Okaz: Certains penseurs occidentaux ont écrit que la civilisation occidentale est une extension des civilisations précédentes. Comment vous, Arabe musulman, pouvez-vous le nier ?Buleihi: En passant en revue les noms des philosophes et savants musulmans dont la contribution à l’Occident est reconnue par les écrivains occidentaux, tels Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haytham, Ibn Sina, Al-Farbi, Al-Razi, Al-Khwarizmi et leurs semblables, nous découvrons que c’étaient tous des disciples de la culture grecque et qu’ils se tenaient en marge du courant [islamique] dominant. Ils étaient et continuent d’être ignorés par notre culture. Nous avons même brûlé leurs livres, les avons harcelés, avons mis la population en garde contre eux, et nous continuons de les considérer avec suspicion et aversion. Comment pouvons-nous nous enorgueillir de personnes que nous avons écartées et dont nous avons rejeté la pensée ? (…)

Quant à la question du développement culturel, il existe deux approches: selon l’une d’entre elles, la civilisation est le produit d’un processus cumulatif. Cette approche est toutefois contredite par les faits historiques. Selon l’autre approche, un changement quantitatif ne peut jamais conduire à un changement qualitatif, sauf quand un bond extraordinaire est réalisé. C’est sans conteste la bonne approche, que j’ai adoptée. La quantité ne peut se transformer spontanément en qualité (…)

“La civilisation occidentale (…) est la seule qui continue de se développer, qui se réévalue constamment, se corrige et effectue en permanence de nouvelles découvertes”La seule civilisation qui possède les ingrédients du progrès perpétuel est la civilisation occidentale, avec ses fondements grecs et son étonnante configuration contemporaine (…) La civilisation occidentale estime que nul ne détient la vérité absolue et que la perfection est impossible à atteindre, donc l’homme doit s’efforcer de l’atteindre tout en sachant qu’il n’y arrivera pas. C’est ainsi la seule civilisation qui continue de se développer, qui se réévalue constamment, se corrige et effectue en permanence de nouvelles découvertes (…)

Okaz: Permettez-moi de vous interroger sur votre fascination totale pour la culture occidentale.Buleihi: La lumière de cette civilisation est très forte et il faut être aveugle pour ignorer sa luminosité. Toute personne douée de vue et de discernement ne peut qu’être fasciné (…) Il faut reconnaître le mérite de ceux qui en ont. Une autre civilisation a-t-elle rêvé avant elle à ces révélations époustouflantes, ces sciences exactes et ces technologies complexes ? Les générations précédentes ont-elles imaginé la possibilité d’ouvrir le torse ou la tête pour effectuer des opérations compliquées du coeur et du cerveau ? Pouvaient-elles imaginer une [aussi] profonde compréhension de la cellule vivante et de sa genèse… Ont-elles imaginé les avions, les voitures et les innombrables inventions de cette civilisation ? Voudriez-vous que nous nous remettions à écrire sur des parchemins et des papyrus, à user des bâtons de bois à la place de stylos et à monter à dos d’âne ?Okaz: Désolé, mais personne ne vous demande de revenir à l’époque des ânes. Il est toutefois nécessaire de prononcer ses jugements historiques de façon juste et équilibrée.

Vous dites qu’il faut “reconnaître le mérite de ceux qui en ont”, mais, dans les faits, vous n’accordez aucun crédit à tout ce qui a existé avant la civilisation occidentale, et alors que tout le monde reconnaît le caractère cumulatif des accomplissements humains, vous niez cet axiome quand il s’agit des réalisations occidentales.

Buleihi: L’humanité a passé des milliers d’années à ruminer les mêmes idées et à vivre dans les mêmes conditions, en se servant des mêmes outils et instruments. Elle aurait pu s’éterniser ainsi sans l’émergence de la pensée philosophique en Grèce, aux VIème et Vème siècles avant J.C. Le niveau actuel des progrès de la civilisation ne peut être le résultat d’une [simple] accumulation: c’est plutôt le résultat de grandes réalisations dans les domaines de la pensée, de la science, de la politique, de la société et du travail. (…)Ce qui sort l’homme de sa routine, c’est la lutte des idées, la liberté de choix et l’égalité des chances. La meilleure preuve en est qu’un grand nombre de gens aujourd’hui vivent dans une société profondément rétrograde, malgré la disponibilité de la science, de la technologie et des idées. Ils sont témoins de la prospérité et malgré cela, ces peuples rétrogrades sont incapables d’abandonner leurs tranchées et de se libérer de leurs chaînes. En d’autres termes, ils sont incapables d’imiter les peuples prospères, se trouvent dans l’incapacité totale d’inventer et d’initier.

Okaz: Il y a une question cruciale à ce débat: par “civilisation”, entendez-vous uniquement son aspect matériel ?“La plus grande réussite de la société occidentale est d’avoir humanisé son autorité politique, d’avoir séparé les pouvoirs, établi et maintenu un équilibre des pouvoirs.

La civilisation occidentale a accordé la priorité à l’individu”

Buleihi: La plus grande réussite de la société occidentale est d’avoir humanisé son autorité politique, d’avoir séparé les pouvoirs, établi et maintenu un équilibre des pouvoirs. La civilisation occidentale a accordé la priorité à l’individu et subordonné ses institutions, lois et procédures à ce principe, tandis que dans la civilisation ancienne, l’individu [n’] était [qu’] une dent dans l’engrenage.

Okaz: Une dent dans l’engrenage ? Vous pensez que cela est vrai aussi de la civilisation islamique ?

Buleihi: Nous faisons clairement la distinction entre l’islam et ce que les gens font en son nom. Les grands principes de l’islam et ses doctrines sublimes qui insistent sur la valeur et la dignité humaines n’ont pas eu l’occasion de prendre forme. Depuis l’époque des califes bien guidés, l’histoire arabe a éradiqué l’individualité de l’homme et sa valeur s’est retrouvée liée à ses affiliations politiques, religieuses ou tribales (…) La seule civilisation qui reconnaît et respecte l’homme en tant qu’individu est la société occidentale (…) Le comportement [humain], dans tous les domaines, ne découle pas d’enseignements, mais de la pratique et de l’expérience sur le terrain (…)

Okaz: L’histoire arabe de bout en bout, selon vous ?Buleihi: Oui, toute l’histoire arabe se distingue par cet aspect lugubre, mises à part la période des califes bien guidés et d’autres périodes discrètes comme celle du règne d’Omar ibn Abdel Aziz. On ne doit pas confondre les sublimes principes et doctrines de l’islam avec son histoire, remplie d’erreurs, de transgressions et de tragédies. Quand les Abbasides triomphèrent des Omeyyades, ils couvrirent les cadavres de tapis, faisant la fête sur les corps en signe de vengeance. Quand [le calife] Al-Ma’mum eut battu son frère Al-Amin, il lui ôta la peau des os comme on le fait à un agneau. Cette scène se répète tout au long de l’histoire. Le pouvoir politique est la valeur pivot de la culture arabe. A notre époque, les coups d’Etat militaires sont récurrents dans le monde arabe, pour le pouvoir, mais pas pour effectuer des réformes positives. Chaque régime est pire que le précédent.

Okaz: M. Buleihi, n’avez-vous pas ouï dire de centaines de savants dans l’histoire de votre peuple qui ont apporté du sens et eu de l’impact, dont on étudie la vie jusqu’à ce jour, bien qu’il n’aient eu ni pouvoir, ni tribu, ni affiliation religieuse, et qui sont estimés pour leur érudition ?

“L’histoire arabe, à l’exception de la période des califes bien guidés, a été dominée par la politique”

Buleihi: C’est là une déclaration générale qui ne repose pas sur les faits. L’histoire arabe, à l’exception de la période des califes bien guidés, a été dominée par la politique. Quand les Fatamides ont pris le contrôle de l’Egypte et de l’Afrique du Nord, ces régions sont devenues chiites, et quand Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyubi [Saladin] a mis fin au [règne des] Fatamides, il a écarté tout ce qui pouvait avoir un rapport avec le chiisme. Il en a été de même quand les Safavides ont converti l’Iran au chiisme: cela a conduit les Ottomans à agir de façon identique [en imposant le sunnisme]. L’histoire arabe, ou islamique, dans le sens large du terme, résulte des hauts et des bas de la politique.

Okaz: Permettez-moi de faire ici une petite pause. Vous réduisez l’histoire islamique à une histoire politique. Même l’histoire politique islamique, malgré toutes ses tragédies, n’est pas aussi négative que vous le dites. Vous ignorez les aspects scientifiques et culturels de l’histoire islamique, qui ont donné une grande civilisation alors même que l’Europe souffrait sous le règne de la féodalité, de l’Eglise, de l’ignorance et du retard.

“Notre culture a été, et continue d’être, absorbée par la question de ce qui est interdit et permis, de la croyance et de l’incroyance, parce que c’est une civilisation religieuse”

Buleihi: Nous avons hérité de certains clichés concernant notre histoire et l’histoire des autres nations, ne considérant pas notre histoire d’un oeil critique et celle des autres d’un œil juste et objectif. La lumineuse civilisation grecque a émergé au VIème siècle avant J.C., atteignant le sommet de son épanouissement au Vème siècle avant J.C. En d’autres termes, la civilisation grecque a émergé plusieurs siècles avant la civilisation islamique et a été la source des philosophes musulmans. Ces individus dont nous sommes parfois fiers, tels Ibn Rushd, Ibn Al-Haytham, Al-Razi, Al-Qindi, Al-Khawarizmi et Al-Farabi, étaient tous les élèves de la pensée grecque. Quant à notre civilisation, c’est une civilisation religieuse, préoccupée de loi religieuse, complètement absorbée par les détails de ce que les musulmans doivent faire et ne pas faire dans leur rapport à Allah et aux autres. C’est une tâche immense digne d’admiration, parce que la religion est le pivot de la vie. Nous devons toutefois admettre que nos succès se limitent tous à cette grande idée. N’affirmons pas que l’Occident nous a emprunté ses lumières laïques. Notre culture a été, et continue d’être, absorbée par la question de ce qui est interdit et permis, de la croyance et de l’incroyance, parce que c’est une civilisation religieuse (…)

Okaz: Ils [les musulmans] ont appris de la civilisation grecque et ce n’est pas un défaut ; c’est ainsi que font les jeunes générations: elles apprennent des civilisations anciennes et se construisent sur ces dernières. Fallait-il attendre qu’ils abolissent les réussites des Grecs pour recommencer à zéro ?

Buleihi: Je n’ai rien contre le fait d’apprendre [des autres]. Ce que je voulais clarifier est que ces [succès] ne sont pas les nôtres et que ces individus exceptionnels ne sont pas le produit de la culture arabe, mais plutôt de la culture grecque. Ils se trouvent en dehors de notre courant culturel dominant, et nous les avons traités comme des éléments étrangers. C’est pourquoi nous ne méritons pas de nous en enorgueillir, vu que nous les avons rejetés et avons combattu leurs idées. A l’inverse, quand l’Europe eut tiré l’enseignement de ces individus, elle a su profiter d’une grande connaissance: la sienne à l’origine, vu qu’elle est une extension de la culture grecque, source de toute la civilisation occidentale.”

Publié par Claude L à l'adresse 09:34

Le Coran de Jefferson

Inside Thomas Jefferson's Quran
Tuesday, 09 June 2009 15:35 Louis Palme

The first Muslim-American Congressman, Keith Ellison, took his oath by Thomas Jefferson's Quran, which President Obama proudly mentioned in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world. But both Ellison and Obama would be shocked had they looked into what lies in this legendary Quran...

In his June 4 speech to the Muslim world, President Obama noted that when the first Muslim-American [Keith Ellison] was elected to Congress he took his oath to defend the Constitution using the same Holy Quran that one of our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, kept in his personal library. The implication was that Islam has made a long and enriching contribution to the United States.

The Quran he was describing was a translation by George Sale, first published in 1734. Jefferson’s was a two volume edition published in London in 1764. By chance, I was able to buy later edition of this Quran which included the 145 page “Preliminary Discourse” found in all editions. Had Keith Ellison or President Obama read this introduction, they would have never cited this particular Quran as evidence of our Founding Fathers’ respect for Islam. Here are some excerpts:

To the Reader: “…for how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind…"

I imagine it almost needless to make an apology for publishing the following translation, or to go about to prove it a work of use as well as curiosity. He must have a mean opinion of the Christian religion, or be but ill grounded therein, who can apprehend any danger from so manifest a forgery… But whatever use an impartial version of the Quran may be of in other respects, it is absolutely necessary to undeceive those who, from the ignorant or unfair translations which have appeared, have entertained too favourable an opinion of the original, and also to enable us effectually to expose the imposture… [Because Catholic translators and writers attempt to defend their own idolatry and other superstitions causing Muslims to be more adverse to Christians in general,] the Protestants alone are able to attack the Quran with success; and for them, I trust, Providence has reserved the glory of its overthrow… I have not, in speaking of Mohammed or his Quran, allowed myself to use those opprobrious appellations, and unmannerly expressions, which seem to be the strongest arguments of several who have written against them… for how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind, the praised due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him

Regarding Arabs: “Their own writers acknowledge that they have a natural disposition to war, bloodshed, cruelty, and rapine…”
As the Arabs have their excellencies [such as hospitality], so have they, like other nations their defects and vices. Their own writers acknowledge that they have a natural disposition to war, bloodshed, cruelty, and rapine, being so much addicted to bear malice that they scarce ever forget an old grudge… The frequent robberies committed by these people on merchants and travelers have rendered the name of an Arab almost infamous in Europe; this they are sensible of, and endeavour to excuse themselves by alleging the hard usage of their father Ishmael, who, being turned out of doors by Abraham, had the open plains and deserts given to him by God for his patrimony, with permission to take whatever he could find there; and on this account they think they may, with safe conscience, indemnify themselves as well as they can, not only on the posterity of Isaac, but also on anybody else, always supposing a sort of kindred between themselves and those they plunder. And in relating their adventures of this kind, they think it sufficient to change the expressions, and instead of “I robbed a man of such or such a thing,” to say, “I gained it.” We must not, however, imagine that they are the less honest for this among themselves, or towards those whom they receive as friends; on the contrary, the strictest probity is observed in their camp, where everything is open and nothing ever known to be stolen.

Regarding Jews and Christians
The Jews… in Arabia… fled from the destruction of Jerusalem and grew very powerful, several tribes and princes embracing their religion; which made Mohammed at first show great regard to them, adopting many of their opinions, doctrines, and customs; thereby to draw them, if possible, into his interest. But that people… were so far from being his proselytes, that they were some of the bitterest enemies he had, waging continual war with him, so that their reduction cost him infinite trouble and danger, and at last his life. This aversion of theirs created at length as great a one in him to them, so that he used them, for the latter part of his life, much worse than he did the Christians, and frequently exclaims against them in his Quran; his followers to this day observe the same difference between them and the Christians, treating the former as the most abject and contemptible people on earth.

The [Christian] Roman Empire declined apace after Constantine, as did the lands of the Grecians and the Persians. As these empires were weak and declining, so Arabia, at Mohammed’s setting up, was strong and flourishing… The Arabs seem to have been raised up on purpose by God, to be a scourge to the Christian church, for not living answerably to that most holy religion which they had received… But the damage done by Mohammed to Christianity seems to have been rather owing to his ignorance than malice; for his great misfortune was, his not having a competent knowledge of the real and pure doctrines of the Christian religion, which was in his time so abominably corrupted, that it is not surprising if he went too far, and resolved to abolish what he might think incapable of reform.

Regarding Muhammad: "…Mohammed had a violent desire of being reckoned an extraordinary person… by pretending to be a messenger sent from God"
It is scarce to be doubted but that Mohammed had a violent desire of being reckoned an extraordinary person, which he could attain to by no means more effectively, than by pretending to be a messenger sent from God, to inform mankind of his will. The scheme of religion which Mohammed framed, and the design and artful contrivance of those written revelations (as he pretended them to be) which compose his Quran, shall be the subject of the following sections… It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than a human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword; and it is one of the strongest demonstrations of the divine original of Christianity, that it prevailed against all the force and powers of the world by the mere dint of its own truth, after having stood the assaults of all manner of persecutions, as well as other oppositions, for 300 years together and at length made the Roman emperors themselves submit thereto; after which time, indeed, this proof seems to fail…

On the Quran: “Mohammed was really the author and chief contriver of the Quran is beyond dispute"

The style of the Quran is generally beautiful and fluent, especially where it imitates the prophetic manner and scripture phrases. He must have a very bad ear who is not uncommonly moved with the very cadence of a well-turned sentence; and Mohammed seems not to have been ignorant of the enthusiastic operation of rhetoric on the minds of men; for which reason he has not only employed his utmost skill in these his pretended revelations, to preserve that dignity and sublimity of style, which might seem not unworthy of the majesty of that Being, whom he gave out to be the author of them; and to imitate the prophetic manner of the Old Testament; he has not neglected even the other arts of oratory; wherein he succeeded so well, and so strangely captivated the minds of his audience, that several of his opponents thought it the effect of witchcraft and enchantment, as he sometimes complains… That Mohammed was really the author and chief contriver of the Quran is beyond dispute… However it be, the Mohammedans absolutely deny the Quran was composed by their prophet himself; that it is eternal and uncreated, that the first transcript has been from everlasting by God’s throne, written on a table of vast bigness.

Other Holy Scriptures
As to the scriptures, the Mohammedans are taught by the Quran that God, in diverse ages of the world, gave revelations of his will in writing to several prophets, the whole and every word of which it is absolutely necessary for a good Moslem to believe. The number of these sacred books were, according to them, 104. Of which ten were given to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Edris or Enoch, ten to Abraham, and the other four, being the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Quran, were successively given to Moses, David, Jesus, and Mohammed; which last being the seal of the prophets, those revelations are now closed, and no more are to be expected. All these divine books, except the four last, they agree to be now entirely lost, and their contents unknown… And of those four the Pentateuch, Psalms, and Gospel, they say, have undergone so many alterations and corruptions, that though there may possibly be some part of the true word of God therein, yet no credit is to be given to the present copies in the hands of the Jews and Christians. The Mohammedans have also a Gospel in Arabic, attributed to St.Barnabas, wherein the history of Jesus Christ is related in a manner very different from what we find in the true Gospels, and correspondent to those traditions which Mohammed has followed in his Quran. [This Gospel of Barnabas contains a complete history of Jesus Christ from His birth to His ascension; and most of the circumstances in the four real Gospels are to be found therein, but many of them turned, and some artfully enough, to favor the Mohammedan system. From the design of the whole, and the frequent interpolations of stories and passages wherein Mohammed is spoken of and foretold by name, as the messenger of God, and the great prophet who was to perfect the dispensation of Jesus, it appears to be a most barefaced forgery. One particular I observe therein induces me to believe it to have been dressed up by a renegade Christian, slightly instructed in his new religion, and not educated a Mohammedan; I mean the giving to Mohammed the title of Messiah, and that not once or twice only, but in several places; whereas the title of the Messiah, or, as the Arabs write it, al Masih, i.e., Christ, is appropriated to Jesus in the Quran, and is constantly applied by the Mohammedans to Him, and never to their own prophet.]

On Women and Paradise: “[T]he very meanest in paradise will have eighty thousand servants, seventy-two wives of the girls of paradise…”
But all the glories [of Paradise] will be eclipsed by the resplendent and ravishing girls of paradise, called, from their large black eyes, Hur al oyun, the enjoyment of whose company will be a principal felicity of the faithful... [T]he very meanest in paradise will have eighty thousand servants, seventy-two wives of the girls of paradise, besides the wives he had in this world, and a tent erected for him of pearls, jacinths, and emeralds, of a very large extent; and, according to another tradition, will be waited on by three hundred attendants while he eats, will be served in dishes of gold, whereof three hundred shall be set before him at once, containing each a different kind of food… [T]here will be no want of wine, which, though forbidden in this life, will yet be freely allowed to be drunk in the next, and without danger, since the wine of paradise will not inebriate, as that we drink here… [T]he inhabitants of paradise will not need to ease themselves, nor even to blow their nose, for that all superfluities will be discharged and carried off by perspiration, or a sweat as odoriferous as musk, after which their appetite shall return afresh.
Before we quit this subject it may not be improper to observe the falsehood of a vulgar imputation on the Mohammedans, who are by several writers reported to hold that women have no souls, or, if they have, that they will perish, like those of brute beasts, and will not be rewarded in the next life. In an answer returned to an old women, who, desiring him to intercede with God that she might be admitted into paradise, [Mohammed] told her that no old woman would enter that place; which setting the poor woman a-crying, he explained himself by saying that God would then make her young again.

The Pilgrimage: "The pilgrimage to Mecca, and the ceremonies… not only as silly and ridiculous in themselves, but as relics of idolatrous superstition."
The pilgrimage to Mecca is so necessary a point of practice that, according to a tradition of Mohammed, he who dies without performing it, may as well die a Jew or a Christian, and the same is expressly commanded in the Quran. The [pilgrimage] ceremonies, by the confession of the Mohammedans themselves, were almost all of them observed by the pagan Arabs many ages before their prophet’s appearance; and particularly the compassing of the Kabah, the running between Safa and Merwa, and the throwing of the stones in Mina, and were confirmed by Mohammed, with some alteration in such points as seemed most exceptional: thus, for example, he ordered that when they compassed the Kabah they should be clothed; whereas, before his time, they performed that piece of devotion naked, throwing off their clothes as a mark that they had cast off their sins… It is also acknowledged that the greater part of these rites are of no intrinsic worth, neither affecting the soul, nor agreeing with natural reason, but altogether arbitrary, and commanded merely to try the obedience of mankind, without any further view; and are therefore to be complied with; not that they are good in themselves, but because God has so appointed. The pilgrimage to Mecca, and the ceremonies prescribed to those who perform it, are, perhaps, liable to greater exception than other of Mohammed’s institutions; not only as silly and ridiculous in themselves, but as relics of idolatrous superstition.
The temple of Mecca was held in excessive veneration by all the Arabs… and especially those of Mecca… [A]s the most silly and insignificant things are generally the objects of the greatest superstition, Mohammed found it much easier to abolish idolatry itself, than to eradicate the superstitious bigotry with which they were addicted to that temple, and the rites performed there…

C'est sur ce Coran que le sénateur américain Musulman Keith Elisson a prêté serment....

http://www.islamwatch.org/ Louis Palme

Obama, le Coran et l'Histoire

"Celui qui tue....


[Q 5:32] On that account: "We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

PS : (Ce que dit le Talmud est en rouge. Le reste a été ajouté par Mahomet.)

What many people seem to be ignorant of or overlook is that this is directly plagiarized this saying directly from the Jewish Talmud and it never was a command from Allah. It was a commentary made on Genesis 4:10 made by a rabbi in the 2nd or 3rd century AD.

This rabbi said Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5 " We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth" (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race." Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:8 (37a) "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

So rabbi's interpretation on genesis 4:10 made its way into the Koran some 400 years later as a command from god for the children of Israel after Cain killed Abel something it never was. this saying did not exist until looong after the torah was 1st written so if it was a command from Allah after Cain killed Abel for the children of Israel it was very slow in coming. Either This Rabbi became Allah and time traveled back in time to issue the aforesaid “command” or Mohammad got it wrong confusing the Torah with the Talmud which I think is far more likely.

Lol Its absurd that something that was never anything more than a Talmudic exegetical commentary on the reason the torah uses bloods in the plural form in Genesis 4:10 could ever be misinterpreted in this way but we cant expect much from Mohammad can we?

S'il fallait donner une preuve irréfutable que le Coran n'est pas une révélation divine, celle-ci en est une, et il y en a beaucoup d'autres. Allah citait le Talmud et croyait citer la Torah. De plus, et le Talmud et la Torah sont mal cités et mal interprétés.

Obama, historien:

In his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, President Barack Obama claimed: “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar University — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing.”

Obama is not much of a “student of history” if he believes this. Almost every advance he attributes to the Muslims was due to someone else.

The non-Muslim Chinese invented the magnetic compass and printing (Gutenberg invented not printing, but movable type). The non-Muslim Hindu Indians invented algebra and the decimal numbering system. The non-Muslim European Christians invented the university.

I can’t address advances in medicine, but I have studied the history of astronomy and physics. The Muslims contributed nothing.

All modern physics descends from Galileo (1564 -1642); all modern astronomy from Copernicus (1473-1543). If you study Galileo’s works carefully, as I have, you see that he started with the achievements of the Greek mathematical physicist Archimedes of Syracuse (c. 287 BC - c. 212 BC). If you study Copernicus’ works carefully, as I have, you will see that Copernicus’ great book On the Revolutions is essentially a heliocentric re-working of the geocentric astronomy textbook by the Greek Ptolemy (c. 90 AD - 168 AD). Copernicus mostly used even Ptolemy’s data for the positions of the planets.

Note the dates for Archimedes/Galileo and Ptolemy/Copernicus. It is as if the Muslim world never existed. As far as their fundamental contributions to physics and astronomy, it did not.

Critique du discours d'Obama au Caire

Mr. Obama is a politician, and a very astute one. However, his speech revealed that his view is unduly influenced by naïve desire. His perception of Islam and the reality of Islam need to be synchronized. I am a physician and a realist who has lived and experienced the effect of my Arab culture and Islamic religion since childhood.
The president pandered to Muslims: praised their accomplishments, commiserated with their grievances, and apologized for injustices done to them by centuries of colonialism -- without once mentioning the history of rampant and violent Arab colonialism. He avoided any mention of Jihadi tenets, or of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non Muslims -- principles embedded in Sharia law. These are taught and sanctioned openly by Al-Azhar, the university that hosted him, the foremost center of Sharia studies. Obama underscored the supposed American mistreatment of terrorists and apologized for torture in Guantanamo, forgetting that Islamic regimes are brutal to their own people. The president also repudiated significant U.S. contributions in both the lives of its soldiers and humanitarian aid to Muslims across the globe made throughout history -- despite Muslim attacks against America and Americans. In short, parts of his speech sounded like a new Pan-Arab messiah come to usher the Arab world back into its rightful world dominion.

www.jihadWatch.org Robert Spencer

Le discours d'Obama, Guy Millière

Le discours d'Obama au Caire analysé par Guy Millière pour Metula News

Le discours de Barack Hussein Obama prononcé au Caire était attendu. Il était présenté comme devant être un événement majeur par les services de communication de la Maison Blanche, et tous les journalistes obamaniaques de la planète l’ont décrit sur un mode tout à fait normal pour des obamaniaques : celui de l’admiration éperdue et de l’amour fou.

Si on garde les pieds sur terre, ce qui est mon cas, et si on a face à Barack Hussein Obama, le sentiment d’avoir affaire à un homme dangereux, ce qui est également mon cas, on peut se montrer bien plus circonspect.

On peut, si on entend chercher des aspects positifs commencer en disant qu’il y avait des éléments présentables et dignes dans le discours : paroles positives sur la place de la liberté dans l’histoire des Etats-Unis, dénonciation de l’antisémitisme et du négationnisme, affirmation de ce que les Etats-Unis ne sont pas en guerre avec l’islam et la civilisation musulmane. Mais il faut ajouter aussitôt que ces éléments présentables et dignes constituent une sorte de « service minimum » pour quelqu’un qui occupe la fonction qu’occupe Obama. George Bush a, dans nombre de discours, parlé de tout cela de manière plus vibrante.

On doit, ceci précisé, examiner le reste : à savoir les quatre vingt dix neuf pour cent restants. Et ce reste peut, si on veut être charitable, être qualifié de très inquiétant, ou, si on veut être plus franc, défini comme bien davantage que douteux.

D’abord, après en avoir fait brièvement l’éloge, Obama ne cesse de critiquer son propre pays et de l’abaisser aux yeux de ceux à qui il s’adresse. Les Etats-Unis sont responsables de l’hostilité iranienne à leur égard, car, explique Obama, leurs services secrets ont renversé le gouvernement de Mossadegh en 1953 : dire cela sans expliquer le contexte de la guerre froide et les circonstances historiques est donner des verges aux mollahs pour se faire battre.

Les Etats-Unis, poursuit Obama, sont mal placés pour donner des leçons à qui que ce soit, car ils ont été esclavagistes : dire cela en présence de représentants de pays qui ont été récemment ou sont encore esclavagistes, tels le Soudan et l’Arabie Saoudite, est adopter une position servile.

Les Etats-Unis, ajoute Obama, continuent à traiter les femmes de manière inégale : oser ce genre de propos en terre d’islam se passe de commentaires. La façon qu’a Obama de parler des Etats-Unis négativement en s’adressant à des gens globalement hostiles aux Etats-Unis est sans précédents et laissera des traces.

Ensuite, Obama émaille son discours de références erronées à des faits, voire de travestissement de ceux-ci, ou carrément de mensonges. Il dit que Thomas Jefferson était un lecteur du Coran, mais omet de rappeler, ce que tout lecteur de la correspondance de Jefferson sait, que si celui qui fut le troisième Président des Etats-Unis a lu le Coran, c’était pour comprendre la mentalité de gens qui exerçaient des actes de prédation violente contre des navires marchands américains.

Obama cite par ailleurs une phrase de John Adams disant que « les Etats-Unis sont en paix » avec le monde musulman, mais il omet de signaler que la phrase de John Adams figure dans un accord de paix qui suit une action de guerre menée par les Etats-Unis aux fins que les actes de prédation susdits cessent. Comme l’a écrit un commentateur : ou bien Obama ignore l’histoire, et cela est navrant, ou bien il connaît l’histoire et choisit de mentir, et là c’est bien davantage que navrant.

Obama procède aussi à des citations très sélectives, et souvent tronquées, du Coran : ignore-t-il que les citations qu’il utilise sont tronquées ? Ment-il ? Lui seul pourrait répondre. Et je passe sur les propos concernant l’invention de l’algèbre, du compas, de la boussole, de l’imprimerie de la médecine moderne, par des musulmans. Obama, ou son téléprompteur, n’ont jamais dû ouvrir un livre d’histoire des sciences et des techniques.

Il est vrai qu’il ignore l’histoire, comme il l’a montré de nombreuses fois au cours des mois précédents, et aussi la géographie, même celle de son propre pays, puisqu’il pensait, trois mois avant l’élection, que celui-ci comptait cinquante sept Etats.

Je garde le meilleur pour la fin : « tout au long de l’histoire, l’islam a démontré, par les paroles et par les actes, les possibilités de la tolérance religieuse et de l’égalité raciale ». Obama a prononcé cette phrase sans rire : s’il est oublié à la cérémonie des Oscars l’an prochain, dans la catégorie « meilleur acteur de l’année », c’est qu’Hollywood est devenu injuste et n’accepte pas la concurrence. Dire une telle phrase en gardant son sérieux implique un talent certain dans l’aptitude à dire n’importe quoi en gardant son sérieux.

Enfin, et c’est le plus grave, c’est même si grave que là, on n’est plus dans le douteux, mais dans le répugnant, Obama pousse le relativisme moral et les comparaisons bancales jusqu’à un degré où il frôle le révisionnisme qu’il dénonce par ailleurs.

Oser comparer la destruction des Juifs d’Europe par le régime nazi et ses complices au sort subi par le « peuple palestinien » depuis soixante années montre, qu’à force d’écouter des gens comme Jeremiah Wright, il reste des salissures dans les neurones.

Les Juifs d’Europe ont été abandonnés par le reste du monde, conduits à l’extermination simplement parce qu’ils étaient Juifs, et, comme Obama l’a dit lui-même, six millions d’entre eux sont morts, des hommes, des femmes, des enfants, des vieillards, dans des lieux tels qu’Auschwitz.

Si les Arabes de Judée-Samarie et de Gaza ont été abandonnés ou pris en otage, c’est par les régimes arabes de la région, mais le moins qu’on puisse dire est qu’ils n’ont pas été abandonnés par le reste du monde, si on prend en compte les milliards d’aide déversés année après année.

S’ils ont été exterminés, c’est par une opération très étrange, puisqu’il n’y a ni camp de concentration sinon dans l’esprit maladif d’islamistes, ni chambres à gaz, et que, de surcroît, les « réfugiés » sont dix fois plus nombreux qu’ils ne l’étaient en 1948.

Dans le parallèle, on voit mal qui sont les nouveaux nazis, sinon les soldats israéliens. On peut noter aussi que, selon Obama, l’occupation et la tragédie vécue par les « Palestiniens » commence en 1948, en somme au moment que ceux qui veulent effacer Israël de la carte appellent la nakba, la catastrophe. Les islamistes n’ont plus besoin de faire de la propagande : ils ont un propagandiste à la Maison Blanche, et le monde entier l’écoute.

Le reste découle. Obama ne parle jamais de terrorisme, mais qualifie les actes de terreur palestiniens de « résistance » : les victimes du Delphinarium de la pizzeria Sbarro et d’autres lieux d’attentats apprécieront.

Il ajoute, certes, que la non-violence est préférable et que la violence est un mauvais moyen de parvenir à ses fins, mais c’est dans un contexte où il a comparé cette fois, la lutte des « Palestiniens » à celle des noirs contre l’esclavagisme aux Etats-Unis et contre l’apartheid en Afrique du Sud.

Si vous êtes Israéliens, Obama vous laisse le choix du costume : si l’uniforme SS vous déplait, vous avez celui d’esclavagiste faisant claquer son fouet dans une plantation de la banlieue d’Atlanta en 1850, ou celui de policier au service de la discrimination du côté de Soweto. Joli choix, non ?

S’il donne des conseils de modération aux « résistants », Obama n’hésite pas à s’en prendre sans retenue à Israël, et à charger les dirigeants israéliens de tous les péchés du monde : n’a-t-il pas dit, un peu plus tôt, que les liens d’amitié entre Israël et les Etats-Unis étaient indéfectibles ? Ceux qui veulent être sourds sélectivement et n’entendre que les propos d’amitié, ou ceux qui considèrent qu’entre amis, on peut se cracher au visage, apprécieront sans doute.

Les propos tenus par Obama sur le nucléaire ne surprendront que les distraits : Obama comprend que le régime iranien veuille accéder au nucléaire, et il comprend aussi qu’il n’y a aucune raison d’accepter que certains pays aient accès à l’arme atomique, et pas d’autres. Il veut avancer vers un renoncement généralisé à l’arme nucléaire. Ceux qui auront vu, en filigrane, non seulement une acceptation du nucléaire iranien, mais aussi une incrimination d’Israël, ressemblant trait pour trait à ce qu’une dénommée Goettenmoeller a dit à l’Onu, ont fait preuve de perspicacité.

Lorsque j’écrivais, l’automne dernier, qu’une présidence Obama pouvait se révéler pire que la présidence Carter, on me traitait de pessimiste. J’aurais vraiment préféré me tromper. Certains me disaient qu’Obama était pragmatique et qu’il y aurait peu de changements par rapport à la politique de George Bush regrettent-ils leurs paroles ? Je dois avouer que je ne le sais pas. Et si on ose me répéter que j’ai eu tort en écrivant le nom entier, Barack Hussein Obama, je répondrai que, désormais, c’est Obama lui-même qui insiste sur la présence d’Hussein dans son nom, considérant apparemment que dans certains cercles, c’est un message porteur. Le message est porteur, sans doute. La question est de savoir : jusqu’où.