Je t’ai mis le ceinturon (…) afin qu’on reconnaisse, au levant du soleil comme au couchant: (…) je suis Dieu, il n’y en a pas d’autre, je forme la lumière et je crée les ténèbres, je fais le bien et le mal, moi, Dieu, je fais tout cela. Esaïe (45: 5-7)
C’est ainsi que finit le monde. Pas sur un boum, sur un murmure. T.S. Eliot
Le Mouvement de la Résistance Islamique aspire à l’accomplissement de la promesse de Dieu, quel que soit le temps nécessaire. L’Apôtre de Dieu -que Dieu lui donne bénédiction et paix- a dit : « L’Heure ne viendra pas avant que les musulmans n’aient combattu les Juifs (c’est à dire que les musulmans ne les aient tués), avant que les Juifs ne se fussent cachés derrière les pierres et les arbres et que les pierres et les arbres eussent dit : ‘Musulman, serviteur de Dieu ! Un Juif se cache derrière moi, viens et tue-le. Charte du Hamas (article 7)
Le Mouvement de la Résistance Islamique croit que la Palestine est un Waqf islamique consacré aux générations de musulmans jusqu’au Jugement Dernier. Pas une seule parcelle ne peut en être dilapidée ou abandonnée à d’autres. Aucun pays arabe, président arabe ou roi arabe, ni tous les rois et présidents arabes réunis, ni une organisation même palestinienne n’a le droit de le faire. La Palestine est un Waqf musulman consacré aux générations de musulmans jusqu’au Jour du Jugement Dernier. Qui peut prétendre avoir le droit de représenter les générations de musulmans jusqu’au Jour du Jugement Dernier ? Tel est le statut de la terre de Palestine dans la Charia, et il en va de même pour toutes les terres conquises par l’islam et devenues terres de Waqf dès leur conquête, pour être consacrées à toutes les générations de musulmans jusqu’au Jour du Jugement Dernier. Il en est ainsi depuis que les chefs des armées islamiques ont conquis les terres de Syrie et d’Irak et ont demandé au Calife des musulmans, Omar Ibn-al Khattab, s’ils devaient partager ces terres entre les soldats ou les laisser à leurs propriétaires. Suite à des consultations et des discussions entre le Calife des musulmans, Omar Ibn-al Khattab, et les compagnons du Prophète, Allah le bénisse, il fut décidé que la terre soit laissée à ses propriétaires pour qu’ils profitent de ses fruits. Cependant, la propriété véritable et la terre même doit être consacrée aux seuls musulmans jusqu’au Jour du Jugement Dernier. Ceux qui se trouvent sur ces terres peuvent uniquement profiter de ses fruits. Ce waqf persiste tant que le Ciel et la Terre existent. Toute procédure en contradiction avec la Charia islamique en ce qui concerne la Palestine est nulle et non avenue.« C’est la vérité infaillible. Célèbre le nom d’Allah le Très-Haut » (Coran, LVI, 95-96). Charte du Hamas (article 11)
Si vous pouvez tuer un incroyant américain ou européen – en particulier les méchants et sales Français – ou un Australien ou un Canadien, ou tout […] citoyen des pays qui sont entrés dans une coalition contre l’État islamique, alors comptez sur Allah et tuez-le de n’importe quelle manière. (…) Tuez le mécréant qu’il soit civil ou militaire. (…) Frappez sa tête avec une pierre, égorgez-le avec un couteau, écrasez-le avec votre voiture, jetez-le d’un lieu en hauteur, étranglez-le ou empoisonnez-le. Abou Mohammed al-Adnani (porte-parole de l’EI)
The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.” This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of Palestinians. (…) The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that itshould have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows in the Palestinian territories and elsewhere that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it. What would the Jews do to the Palestinians if they could do anything they wanted? Well, we know the answer to that question, because they can do more or less anything they want. The Israeli army could kill everyone in Gaza tomorrow. So what does that mean? Well, it means that, when they drop a bomb on a beach and kill four Palestinian children, as happened last week, this is almost certainly an accident. They’re not targeting children. They could target as many children as they want. Every time a Palestinian child dies, Israel edges ever closer to becoming an international pariah. So the Israelis take great pains not to kill children and other noncombatants. (…)What do we know of the Palestinians? What would the Palestinians do to the Jews in Israel if the power imbalance were reversed? Well, they have told us what they would do. For some reason, Israel’s critics just don’t want to believe the worst about a group like Hamas, even when it declares the worst of itself. We’ve already had a Holocaust and several other genocides in the 20th century. People are capable of committing genocide. When they tell us they intend to commit genocide, we should listen. There is every reason to believe that the Palestinians would kill all the Jews in Israel if they could. Would every Palestinian support genocide? Of course not. But vast numbers of them—and of Muslims throughout the world—would. Needless to say, the Palestinians in general, not just Hamas, have a history of targeting innocent noncombatants in the most shocking ways possible. They’ve blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants. They’ve massacred teenagers. They’ve murdered Olympic athletes. They now shoot rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas. And again, the charter of their government in Gaza explicitly tells us that they want to annihilate the Jews—not just in Israel but everywhere.(…) The truth is that everything you need to know about the moral imbalance between Israel and her enemies can be understood on the topic of human shields. Who uses human shields? Well, Hamas certainly does. They shoot their rockets from residential neighborhoods, from beside schools, and hospitals, and mosques. Muslims in other recent conflicts, in Iraq and elsewhere, have also used human shields. They have laid their rifles on the shoulders of their own children and shot from behind their bodies. Consider the moral difference between using human shields and being deterred by them. That is the difference we’re talking about. The Israelis and other Western powers are deterred, however imperfectly, by the Muslim use of human shields in these conflicts, as we should be. It is morally abhorrent to kill noncombatants if you can avoid it. It’s certainly abhorrent to shoot through the bodies of children to get at your adversary. But take a moment to reflect on how contemptible this behavior is. And understand how cynical it is. The Muslims are acting on the assumption—the knowledge, in fact—that the infidels with whom they fight, the very people whom their religion does nothing but vilify, will be deterred by their use of Muslim human shields. They consider the Jews the spawn of apes and pigs—and yet they rely on the fact that they don’t want to kill Muslim noncombatants.(…) Now imagine reversing the roles here. Imagine how fatuous—indeed comical it would be—for the Israelis to attempt to use human shields to deter the Palestinians. (…) But Imagine the Israelis holding up their own women and children as human shields. Of course, that would be ridiculous. The Palestinians are trying to kill everyone. Killing women and children is part of the plan. Reversing the roles here produces a grotesque Monty Python skit. If you’re going to talk about the conflict in the Middle East, you have to acknowledge this difference. I don’t think there’s any ethical disparity to be found anywhere that is more shocking or consequential than this. And the truth is, this isn’t even the worst that jihadists do. Hamas is practically a moderate organization, compared to other jihadist groups. There are Muslims who have blown themselves up in crowds of children—again, Muslim children—just to get at the American soldiers who were handing out candy to them. They have committed suicide bombings, only to send another bomber to the hospital to await the casualities—where they then blow up all the injured along with the doctors and nurses trying to save their lives. Every day that you could read about an Israeli rocket gone astray or Israeli soldiers beating up an innocent teenager, you could have read about ISIS in Iraq crucifying people on the side of the road, Christians and Muslims. Where is the outrage in the Muslim world and on the Left over these crimes? Where are the demonstrations, 10,000 or 100,000 deep, in the capitals of Europe against ISIS? If Israel kills a dozen Palestinians by accident, the entire Muslim world is inflamed. God forbid you burn a Koran, or write a novel vaguely critical of the faith. And yet Muslims can destroy their own societies—and seek to destroy the West—and you don’t hear a peep. (…) These incompatible religious attachments to this land have made it impossible for Muslims and Jews to negotiate like rational human beings, and they have made it impossible for them to live in peace. But the onus is still more on the side of the Muslims here. Even on their worst day, the Israelis act with greater care and compassion and self-criticism than Muslim combatants have anywhere, ever. And again, you have to ask yourself, what do these groups want? What would they accomplish if they could accomplish anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live in peace with them. They would simply continue to build out their high tech sector and thrive. (…) What do groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and even Hamas want? They want to impose their religious views on the rest of humanity. They want stifle every freedom that decent, educated, secular people care about. This is not a trivial difference. And yet judging from the level of condemnation that Israel now receives, you would think the difference ran the other way. This kind of confusion puts all of us in danger. This is the great story of our time. For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet. Sam Harris
Les Etats-Unis sont consternés par le bombardement honteux d’une école de l’UNRWA (l’agence de l’ONU pour l’aide aux réfugiés palestiniens) à Rafah. Nous insistons une nouvelle fois sur le fait qu’Israël doit faire plus pour respecter ses propres standards et éviter les victimes civiles. Le fait de suspecter que des activistes opèrent non loin des écoles ne justifie pas des frappes qui mettent en péril la vie de tant de civils innocents. Jennifer Psaki (porte-parole du Département d’Etat)
The White House has acknowledged for the first time that strict standards President Obama imposed last year to prevent civilian deaths from U.S. drone strikes will not apply to U.S. military operations in Syria and Iraq. A White House statement to Yahoo News confirming the looser policy came in response to questions about reports that as many as a dozen civilians, including women and young children, were killed when a Tomahawk missile struck the village of Kafr Daryan in Syria’s Idlib province on the morning of Sept. 23. The village has been described by Syrian rebel commanders as a reported stronghold of the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front where U.S officials believed members of the so-called Khorasan group were plotting attacks against international aircraft. But at a briefing for members and staffers of the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last week, Syrian rebel commanders described women and children being hauled from the rubble after an errant cruise missile destroyed a home for displaced civilians. Images of badly injured children also appeared on YouTube, helping to fuel anti-U.S. protests in a number of Syrian villages last week. Yahoo news
Last year the Obama administration issued, with considerable fanfare, a new military policy designed to reduce civilian casualties when U.S. forces are attacking enemy targets. This policy required « near certainty » that there will be no civilian casualties before an air attack is permitted. When Israel acted in self-defense this summer against Hamas rocket and tunnel attacks, the Obama administration criticized the Israeli army for « not doing enough » to reduce civilian casualties. When pressed about what more Israel could do—especially when Hamas fired its rockets and dug its terror tunnels in densely populated areas, deliberately using humans as shields—the Obama administration declined to provide specifics. Now the Obama administration has exempted itself from its own « near certainty » standard in its attacks against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In a statement on Sept. 30 responding to questions by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News, the administration said that in fighting Islamic State, also known as ISIS, the U.S. military can no longer comply with Mr. Obama’s vow last year to observe « the highest standard we can meet. » The statement came after a Tomahawk missile last week struck the village Kafr Daryan in Syria, reportedly killing and injuring numerous civilians including children and women. The missile was directed at al Qaeda terrorists that the White House calls the Khorasan Group, but apparently the Tomahawk hit a home for displaced civilians. The Pentagon says it is investigating the incident, but YouTube video of injured children and the appearance by angry Free Syria Army rebel commanders at a congressional hearing about the attack—an attack that prompted protests in several Syrian villages—left little doubt about what happened. If this sounds familiar, it is because in every attack on terrorists who operate from civilian areas, there will be civilian casualties. This is especially so when terrorists employ a policy of hiding behind civilian human shields in order to confront their enemies with a terrible choice: not attack a legitimate military target; or attack it and likely cause civilian casualties, which the terrorists can then exploit in the war of public opinion. Hamas has employed this approach effectively in its periodic wars against Israel. (…) Now ISIS and other jihadists in Iraq and Syria are beginning to emulate the Hamas strategy, embedding fighters in towns and villages, thus making military strikes difficult without risking civilian casualties. That is why the Obama administration has exempted itself from its theoretical « near certainty » policy, which has proved to be unworkable and unrealistic in actual battle conditions involving human shields and enemy fighters embedded in densely populated areas. (…) The decision of the Obama administration to abandon its unrealistic « highest standard » pledge indicates the urgent need to revisit anachronistic rules with which no nation can actually comply, but against which only one nation—Israel—is repeatedly judged. Alan M. Dershowitz
La condition préalable à tout dialogue est que chacun soit honnête avec sa tradition. (…) les chrétiens ont repris tel quel le corpus de la Bible hébraïque. Saint Paul parle de » greffe » du christianisme sur le judaïsme, ce qui est une façon de ne pas nier celui-ci . (…) Dans l’islam, le corpus biblique est, au contraire, totalement remanié pour lui faire dire tout autre chose que son sens initial (…) La récupération sous forme de torsion ne respecte pas le texte originel sur lequel, malgré tout, le Coran s’appuie. René Girard
Dans la foi musulmane, il y a un aspect simple, brut, pratique qui a facilité sa diffusion et transformé la vie d’un grand nombre de peuples à l’état tribal en les ouvrant au monothéisme juif modifié par le christianisme. Mais il lui manque l’essentiel du christianisme : la croix. Comme le christianisme, l’islam réhabilite la victime innocente, mais il le fait de manière guerrière. La croix, c’est le contraire, c’est la fin des mythes violents et archaïques. René Girard
Le conflit avec les musulmans est bien plus considérable que ce que croient les fondamentalistes. Les fondamentalistes pensent que l’apocalypse est la violence de Dieu. Alors qu’en lisant les chapitres apocalyptiques, on voit que l’apocalypse est la violence de l’homme déchaînée par la destruction des puissants, c’est-à-dire des États, comme nous le voyons en ce moment. Lorsque les puissances seront vaincues, la violence deviendra telle que la fin arrivera. Si l’on suit les chapitres apocalyptiques, c’est bien cela qu’ils annoncent. Il y aura des révolutions et des guerres. Les États s’élèveront contre les États, les nations contre les nations. Cela reflète la violence. Voilà le pouvoir anarchique que nous avons maintenant, avec des forces capables de détruire le monde entier. On peut donc voir l’apparition de l’apocalypse d’une manière qui n’était pas possible auparavant. Au début du christianisme, l’apocalypse semblait magique : le monde va finir ; nous irons tous au paradis, et tout sera sauvé ! L’erreur des premiers chrétiens était de croire que l’apocalypse était toute proche. Les premiers textes chronologiques chrétiens sont les Lettres aux Thessaloniciens qui répondent à la question : pourquoi le monde continue-t-il alors qu’on en a annoncé la fin ? Paul dit qu’il y a quelque chose qui retient les pouvoirs, le katochos (quelque chose qui retient). L’interprétation la plus commune est qu’il s’agit de l’Empire romain. La crucifixion n’a pas encore dissout tout l’ordre. Si l’on consulte les chapitres du christianisme, ils décrivent quelque chose comme le chaos actuel, qui n’était pas présent au début de l’Empire romain. (..) le monde actuel (…) confirme vraiment toutes les prédictions. On voit l’apocalypse s’étendre tous les jours : le pouvoir de détruire le monde, les armes de plus en plus fatales, et autres menaces qui se multiplient sous nos yeux. Nous croyons toujours que tous ces problèmes sont gérables par l’homme mais, dans une vision d’ensemble, c’est impossible. Ils ont une valeur quasi surnaturelle. Comme les fondamentalistes, beaucoup de lecteurs de l’Évangile reconnaissent la situation mondiale dans ces chapitres apocalyptiques. Mais les fondamentalistes croient que la violence ultime vient de Dieu, alors ils ne voient pas vraiment le rapport avec la situation actuelle – le rapport religieux. Cela montre combien ils sont peu chrétiens. La violence humaine, qui menace aujourd’hui le monde, est plus conforme au thème apocalyptique de l’Évangile qu’ils ne le pensent. (…) La lutte se trouve entre le christianisme et l’islam, plus qu’entre l’islam et l’humanisme. Avec l’islam je pense que l’opposition est totale. Dans l’islam, si l’on est violent, on est inévitablement l’instrument de Dieu. Cela veut donc dire que la violence apocalyptique vient de Dieu. Aux États-Unis, les fondamentalistes disent cela, mais les grandes églises ne le disent pas. Néanmoins, ils ne poussent pas suffisamment leur pensée pour dire que si la violence ne vient pas de Dieu, elle vient de l’homme, et que nous en sommes responsables. René Girard
Ceux qui affirment que Mahomet était pacifiste sont des menteurs et des incultes. Il a usé de la violence et l’a prêchée. Mohammed Bouyeri (assassin de Theo Van Gogh, 2 février 2006)
Dire que l’islamisme n’est pas l’islam, qu’il n’a rien à voir avec l’islam, est faux. Pour le musulman d’hier et d’aujourd’hui il n’y a qu’un seul Coran comme il n’y a qu’un seul prophète. (…) Entre l’islam et l’islamisme, il n’y a pas de différence de nature mais de degré. L’islamisme est présent dans l’islam comme le poussin l’est dans l’oeuf. Il n’y a pas de bon ou mauvais islam, pas plus qu’il n’y a d’islam modéré. En revanche il y a des musulmans modérés, ceux qui n’appliquent que partiellement l’islam. Anne-Marie Delcambre
Il est ironique et décourageant que beaucoup d’intellectuels occidentaux non-musulmans – qui prétendent sans cesse qu’ils soutiennent les droits de la personne – sont devenus des obstacles à la reforme de l’islam. Le politiquement correct parmi les Occidentaux empêche la critique non ambiguë de l’inhumanité de la charia. Ils trouvent des excuses socio-économiques ou politiques pour le terrorisme islamiste tels que la pauvreté, le colonialisme, la discrimination ou l’existence d’Israël. Quelle incitation peut-il y avoir pour que les musulmans exigent la réforme de leur religion quand les “progressistes” occidentaux préparent le terrain pour la barbarie islamiste? Tawfik Hamid
Beaucoup, violents ou pas, sont abreuvés par des sites qui montrent l’ennemi « croisé » ou « sioniste » dans son horreur destructrice, « tueur d’enfants et de civils »… Mais le point crucial est le retour qu’on leur fait faire au texte fondateur, au Coran, où les « gens du Livre », juifs et chrétiens, représentés aujourd’hui par l’Amérique, Israël et un peu l’Europe, sont qualifiés de pervers, faussaires, injustes, traîtres, etc. Certains leur citent des versets plus calmes, comme « Point de contrainte en religion », ou comme « Ne tuez pas l’homme que Dieu a sacré », mais c’est qu’ils vont voir de près dans le texte, ils vérifient et ils trouvent : « Ne tuez pas l’homme que Dieu a sacré sauf pour une cause juste. » Quant au verset du libre choix, ils le voient encadré de violentes malédictions contre ceux qui font le mauvais choix. En somme, on manque cruellement d’une parole ouverte et libre concernant les fondamentaux de l’islam ; et pour cause, ils sont recouverts d’un tabou, et toute remarque critique les concernant passe pour islamophobe dans le discours conformiste organisé, qui revient à imposer aux musulmans le même tabou, à les enfermer dans le cadre identitaire dont on décide qu’il doit être le leur (on voit même des juges de la République se référer au Coran pour arrêter leur décision…). Il y a donc un secret de Polichinelle sur la violence fondatrice de l’islam envers les autres, violence qui, en fait, n’a rien d’extraordinaire : toute identité qui se fonde est prodigue en propos violents envers les autres. Mais, avec le tabou et le conformisme imposés, cette violence reste indiscutée et semble indépassable. Récemment, dans Islam, phobie, culpabilité (Odile Jacob, 2013), j’ai posé ce problème avec sérénité, en montrant que les djihadistes, les extrémistes, sont au fond les seuls à crier une certaine vérité du Coran, portés par elle plutôt qu’ils ne la portent ; ils se shootent à cette vérité de la vindicte envers les autres, et même envers des musulmans, qu’il faut rappeler au droit chemin. Le livre est lu et circule bien, mais dans les médias officiels il a fait l’objet d’une vraie censure, celle-là même qu’il analyse, qui se trouve ainsi confirmée. Raconter ses méandres, ce serait décrire l’autocensure où nous vivons, où la peur pour la place est la phobie suprême : une réalité se juge d’après les risques qu’elle vous ferait courir ou les appuis qu’elle lui apporte. (…) La difficulté, c’est qu’un texte fondateur est comme un être vivant : dès qu’il se sent un peu lâché par les siens, il suscite des êtres « héroïques », des martyrs pour faire éclater sa vérité. Quitte à éclater le corps des autres. D’autres approches de cette « vérité » exigeraient un peu de courage de la part des élites, qui sont plutôt dans le déni. Pour elles, il n’y a pas de problème de fond, il y a quelques excités qui perdent la tête. Il ne faut pas dire que leur acte serait lié au Coran, si peu que ce soit. Le problème est bien voilé derrière des citations tronquées, des traductions édulcorées, témoignant, au fond, d’un mépris pour le Coran et ses fidèles. On a donc un symptôme cliniquement intéressant : quand un problème se pose et qu’il est interdit d’en parler, un nouveau problème se pose, celui de cet interdit. Puis un troisième : comment zigzaguer entre les deux ? Cela augmente le taux de poses « faux culs » très au-delà du raisonnable. Daniel Sibony
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians – most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Paul E. Marek
Le fondamentalisme religieux (…) trouve son origine dans un mouvement de réveil protestant du début du XXe siècle aux États-Unis qui propage un retour aux « fondements » de la foi chrétienne au moyen d’un strict respect et d’une interprétation littérale des lois de la Bible. Un grand nombre d’études sur l’intégrisme religieux chrétien protestant aux Etats-Unis ont montré qu’il est fermement et constamment associé aux préjugés et à l’hostilité contre les minorités raciales et religieuses, ainsi que les groupes « déviants » tels que les homosexuels. En revanche, notre connaissance de l’étendue à laquelle des minorités musulmanes dans les pays occidentaux adhèrent à des interprétations de l’Islam fondamentalistes est étonnamment limité. Plusieurs études ont montré que, par rapport à la majorité de la population, les immigrés musulmans se définissent plus souvent comme religieux, s’identifient fortement à leur religion et participent plus souvent à des pratiques religieuses telles que prier, aller à la mosquée ou suivre des préceptes religieux tels que la nourriture halal ou le port du foulard. Mais la religiosité comme telle dit peu de choses sur la mesure dans laquelle ces croyances et pratiques religieuses peuvent être considérées comme « fondamentalistes » et sont associées à l’hostilité à l’exogroupe. (…) Comme les profils démographiques et socioéconomiques des immigrés musulmans et les chrétiens indigènes divergent fortement et puisqu’il est connu de la littérature que les individus marginalisés des classes inférieures sont plus fortement attirés par les mouvements fondamentalistes, il serait bien sûr possible que ces différences soient dues à la classe plutôt qu’à la religion. Cependant, les résultats de la régression tenant compte de l’éducation, situation du marché du travail, âge, sexe et état matrimonial des analyses révèlent que si certaines de ces variables expliquent la variation dans le fondamentalisme dans les deux groupes religieux, elles n’expliquent pas du tout ou même diminuent la différence entre musulmans et chrétiens. Une source d’inquiétude est que tandis que parmi les chrétiens l’intégrisme religieux est beaucoup moins répandu chez les personnes plus jeunes, les attitudes fondamentalistes sont aussi répandues chez les jeunes que chez les musulmans âgés. (…) Près de 60 % d’entre eux rejettent les homosexuels comme amis et 45 pour cent pense que les Juifs ne sont pas fiables. Alors qu’environ une personne sur cinq parmi les nationaux peuvent être qualifiées d’islamophobes, le niveau de phobie contre l’Occident parmi les musulmans – pour laquelle curieusement il y a aucun mot ; On pourrait dire « Occidentophobie » – est beaucoup plus élevé encore, 54 pour cent pensent que l’Occident cherche à détruire l’Islam. Ces conclusions sont en parfaite concordance avec le fait que, comme une étude de 2006 de l’Institut de recherche Pew l’a montré, près de la moitié des musulmans vivant en France, Allemagne et Royaume Uni croient en la théorie du complot selon laquelle les attentats du 11 septembre n’ont pas perpétrés par des musulmans, mais ont été orchestrés par l’Occident ou les Juifs. (…) Ces résultats contredisent clairement l’affirmation souvent entendue que le fondamentalisme religieux islamique est un phénomène marginal en Europe occidentale ou qu’il ne diffère pas du taux de fondamentalisme de la majorité chrétienne. Les deux affirmations sont manifestement fausses, comme près de la moitié des musulmans européens conviennent que les musulmans doivent retourner aux racines de l’Islam, qu’il n’y a qu’une seule interprétation du Coran et que les règles fixées par celui-ci sont plus importantes que lois laïques. Parmi les chrétiens de souche, mois d’un sur cinq peut être qualifié d’intégristes dans ce sens. (…) A la fois l’étendue de l’intégrisme religieux islamique et ses corrélats – l’homophobie, l’antisémitisme et « l’Occidentophobie » – devraient être de sérieux motifs de préoccupation pour les responsables politiques ainsi que les dirigeants de la communauté musulmane. Bien sûr, l’intégrisme religieux ne saurait être assimilée à la volonté de soutenir ou même de s’engager dans la violence religieusement motivée. Mais compte tenu de ses liens étroits avec l’hostilité à l’exogroupe, l’intégrisme religieux est très susceptible de fournir un terreau pour la radicalisation. Ruud Koopmans (WZB, Berlin Social Science Center, 2013)
Les guerres mondiales du XXe siècle sont considérées historiquement comme des guerres laïques centrées sur des intérêts politiques, géographiques et économiques. Pourtant, en Europe, 6 millions de Juifs ont été exterminés à la suite de siècles d’enseignement antisémite au cœur de la chrétienté médiévale. Depuis l’époque de Mahomet et pendant près de treize cents ans après, l’Islam a mené des guerres de religion contre des populations entières, forçant la conversion à l’Islam (à l’exclusion des Juifs et des chrétiens, connus comme « peuple du livre ») comme moyen de propager sa foi. (…) Le conflit israélo-arabe, même si apparemment centré sur un territoire, contient une puissante composante religieuse, en particulier autour de Jérusalem, dont des milliers ont été tués et beaucoup plus pourraient mourir si elle n’est pas résolu pacifiquement. Dans tous les cas, les convictions religieuses, qui a été appelée à plusieurs reprises, a amplifié un sens du droit aux terres et la richesse des autres. Cela pose la question : de quoi est vraiment fait la religion ? (…) Bien que techniquement, moins de 10 % de toutes les guerres jamais combattu étaient des guerres de religion, seuls quelques-uns n’a pas englober ou incarnent une composante religieuse ou le sentiment. De la même façon que nous soutenons les enseignements éthiques des religions, nous doit autant et à l’unisson condamner messagers autoproclamés et porte-parole du divin que fomenter des massacres au nom de Dieu. Car à moins que nous croyons que ce tout-Miséricordieux, paternel, épris de paix et jamais salutaire de Dieu veut pour ses fidèles s’entre-tuer en son nom, Nous devons conclure que les religions sont endommagées à plusieurs reprises pour opposer entre eux les enfants de Dieu. (…) Cela ne veut ne pas dire que l’approche intellectuelle a toutes les réponses, ne l’oublions rappel d’Einstein concernant les limites éthiques de la science. Car alors que l’Occident paie tout naturellement une grande attention à l’assassinat actuel au nom de Dieu dans certains États arabes, les nombres impliqués ne sont pas comparent à la 50 millions ou plus abattus dans la seconde guerre mondiale seule pour la plupart des chrétiens contre les chrétiens. Intellectuellement bent sociétés occidentales peuvent introduire la « civilité » de la guerre, avec les Conventions de Genève et autres règles par lesquelles le sang peut être versé. Mais leurs guerres, à ce jour, englobent une puissance destructive beaucoup plus grande que ne le font les conflits des autres peuples, notamment dans le conflit actuel des musulmans contre les musulmans au Moyen-Orient. Comprendre la violence dans le contexte plus large, l’Occident peut à certains égards être réellement plu éloignée de la réalisation de cet objectif. Alors que les péages de la mort de soldats sont faciles à diffuser, le quotidien de souffrance de millions de luxé, déshonoré et apatrides vies ne pas aussi facilement s’insère dans notre alimentation de nouvelles. L’Occident ne vit pas dans le cadre de l’histoire. Alon Ben-Meir
Quand on pense aux crimes de masse, le premier nom qui vient à l’esprit est celui d’Hitler. Ou alors Tojo, Staline ou Mao. Les totalitarismes du XXe siècle sont considérés comme la pire espèce de tyrannie de l’histoire. Cependant, la vérité alarmante est que l’Islam a tué plus que n’importe lequel d’entre eux et peut tous les dépasser combinés en nombre et en cruauté. L’énormité des massacres perpétrés par la « religion de paix » sont dépassent tellement la compréhension que les historiens même honnêtes n’en remarquent même plus l’échelle. Si l’on va un peu au-delà de notre vision tronquée des choses, on verra que l’Islam est la plus grande machine à tuer de l’histoire de l’humanité, sans aucune exception. (…) Si l’on additionne tout ça. Les victimes africaines. Les victimes indiennes. Les victimes européennes. Le génocide arménien. Puis le nombre moins connu mais sans doute assez grand de victimes de l’Asie orientale. Le djihad commis par les musulmans contre la Chine, qui a été envahie en 651. Les prédations du khanat de Crimée sur les Slaves, en particulier leurs femmes. Bien que les chiffres ne soient pas claires, ce qui est évident c’est que l’Islam est la plus grande machine de meurtre dans l’histoire sans aucune exception, ayant causé la mort de peut-être plus de 250 millions de personnes. Mike Konrad
Le problème que le révérend Schall fait ressortir dans sa tribune, c’est que nous ici en Occident et très certainement cette administration Obama, tentons de rationaliser et de nous débarrasser du problème. Nous ne parvenons pas à tout simplement accepter ce qui se passe, comme par le passé, sous nos yeux. Certes, il n’est pas question de condamner les musulmans. En revanche, il s’agit bien de dénoncer une idéologie politique théocratique impérialiste et totalitaire — ce n’est pas la violence au travail, les gars. Nous entendons toujours parler de « croisades » et pourtant personne ne veut parler de la manière dont l’Islam a cherché à se répandre, certainement pas par le prosélytisme pacifique — de l’ Afrique du Nord à l’Espagne (Al Andalusia) à la France (bataille de Poitiers) à la Méditerranée (bataille de Lépante) à Constantinople (Istanbul) dans les Balkans à Vienne en Inde hindoue de la Chine aux Philippines et aujourd’hui à Fort Hood au Texas et Moore en Oklahoma. Et pourtant nous avons des gens comme le directeur de la CIA John Brennan qui nous donne une définition éduclcorée du djihad ou B. Hussein Obama nous disant qu’EIIL n’est pas islamique. Allen West
Oecuménisme comme libéralisme, chacun à sa façon et à cause de leur attachement à la tolérance et la liberté d’expression, rendent difficile de rendre compte de ce qui se passe dans les États islamiques. (…) Les preuves ne manquent pas, tant dans la longue histoire de l’expansion militaire musulmane initiale que dans son interprétation théorique du Coran lui-même, pour montrer que l’État islamique et ses sympathisants ont fondamentalement raison. Le but de l’Islam, avec les moyens souvent violents qu’il utilise pour l’accomplir, est d’étendre son pouvoir, au nom d’Allah, au monde entier. Le monde ne peut pas être en « paix » tant qu’il n’est pas tout entier musulman. (…) Le jihadisme, si l’on peut l’appeler ainsi, est d’abord et avant tout un mouvement religieux. Allah accorde à la violence une place importante. C’est sur la vérité de cette position, ou mieux l’incapacité de la réfuter, que réside la véritable controverse. Un essai récent sur American thinker a calculé qu’au cours des années de son expansion, depuis ses débuts dans les VIIe et VIIe siècles, quelque 250 millions de personnes ont été tuées dans des guerres et des persécutions causées par l’islam. Rien d’autre dans l’histoire du monde, y compris les totalitarismes du siècle dernier, n’a été aussi meutrier. (…) Il est possible pour certains de lire l’Islam comme une religion de « paix ». Mais sa « paix », selon ses propres termes, signifie la paix d’Allah sur son territoire. Avec le reste du monde extérieur, elle est en guerre pour accomplir un but religieux, à savoir, que l’ensemble soumis à Allah dans la voie passive que spécifie le Coran. (…) Présenter les djihadistes et les dirigeants de l’Etat islamique comme de simples « terroristes » ou des voyous revient à utiliser des termes politiques occidentaux et ne peut que nous aveugler sur le dynamisme religieux de ce mouvement. (…) Les racines de l’Islam sont théologiques, une plutôt mauvaise théologie, mais toujours cohérente au sein de sa propre orbite et ses présupposés. Bref, l’Islam, dans sa fondation, est censé être, littéralement, la religion du monde. Rien d’autre n’a d’existence à côté. Il s’agit d’amener le monde entier à adorer Allah selon les canons du Coran. (…) Dans la doctrine musulmane, toute personne née dans le monde est musulmane. Personne n’a quelque droit ou raison de ne pas l’être. Par conséquent, tout individu qui n’est pas musulman doit être converti ou éliminé. Ceci est également vrai de toute œuvre littéraire, monumentale, et d’autres marques de civilisation ou d’États qui ne sont pas musulmans. Ils sont voués à la destruction comme non autorisés par le Coran. C’est la responsabilité religieuse de l’Islam pour accomplir sa mission assignée de soumettre le monde à Allah. Lorsque nous essayons d’expliquer cette religion en termes économiques, politiques, psychologiques ou autres, nous ne voyons tout simplement pas ce qui se passe. De l’extérieur, il est presque impossible de voir comment ce système coïncide en lui-même. Mais, une fois acceptés ses prémisses et la philosophie du volontarisme qui permet de l’expliquer et de le défendre, il devient beaucoup plus clair qu’il s’agit en fait d’une religion qui prétend être vraie en insistant sur le fait qu’elle réalise la volonté d’Allah, pas la sienne.(…) Si Allah transcende la distinction du bien et du mal, s’il peut vouloir ce qui sera son contraire demain, comme la toute-puissance d’Allah est comprise dans l’islam, il ne peut y avoir de discussion réelle qui ne soit autre chose qu’une trêve temporaire et pragmatique, un équilibre des intérêts et des pouvoirs. Chaque fois qu’on observe des incidents violents dans le monde islamique ou dans d’autres parties du monde causées par des agents islamiques, on les uns ou les autres se plaindre que presque aucune voix musulmane ne prend la parole pour condamner cette violence. Lorsqu’à l’origine le 9/11 s’est produit, il n’a pas été l’objet de condamnations mais de célébrations de l’intérieur du monde islamique. L’Islam a été considéré comme gagnant. Mais tous les érudits musulmans savent qu’ils ne peuvent pas, sur la base du Coran, condamner le recours à la violence pour l’expansion de leur religion. Il y a tout simplement trop de preuves que cet usage est autorisé. Le nier reviendrait à saper l’intégrité du Coran. De toute évidence, les ennemis de l’État islamique et ses alliés djihadistes sont non seulement les « croisés » ou l’Occident. Certains des guerres les plus sanglantes de l’Islam ont été son invasion de l’Inde hindoue où la tension reste marquée. Il y a aussi les efforts de musulmans en Chine. Les Philippines ont un problème majeur, comme la Russie. Mais l’Islam se bat aussi avec lui-même. Les luttes sunnites/chiites sont légendaires. Il est important de noter qu’une des premières choses de l’ordre du jour de l’État islamique, s’il réussit à survivre, est d’unir tout l’Islam dans son unité de foi. (…) Il y a ou y a eu des chrétiens et autres minorités au sein de ces États qui sont plus ou moins tolérés. Mais ils sont tous, comme les non-musulmans, traités comme des citoyens de seconde zone. Le mouvement islamique renouvelle ce côté puriste de l’islam qui insiste pour éradiquer ou expulser les non-musulmans des terres musulmanes. L’archevêque de Mossoul, en voyant son peuple exilé et tué et obligé de choisir entre la conversion et la mort, a révélé que ses bâtiments étaient détruits, avec les archives et toutes les traces de la longue présence chrétienne dans cette région. Il a averti que c’était la forme de traitement à laquelle devaient s’attendre tôt ou tard les nations occidentales. Il y a maintenant d’importantes et préoccupantes enclaves musulmanes dans toutes les régions d’Europe et d’Amérique comme centres de soulèvements futurs au sein de chaque ville. Il y a maintenant des milliers de mosquées en Europe et en Amérique, financées en grande partie par l’argent du pétrole, qui font partie d’une enclave privée qui exclut le droit local et applique la loi musulmane. Pourtant, nous pouvons nous demander : cet État islamique n’est-il pas après tout qu’une chimère ? Aucun État islamique n’a de possibilité sérieuse de vaincre les armées modernes. Mais, ironie du sort, ils ne pensent plus que des armées modernes seront nécessaires. Ils sont convaincus que l’utilisation généralisée du terrorisme et d’autres moyens de désordre civil peuvent réussir. Personne n’a vraiment la volonté ou les moyens de contrôler les forces destructrices que l’État islamique a déjà mis en place. (…) Enfin, l’affaire de l’État islamique et des djihadistes n’est pas seulement une menace découlant de la mission de l’Islam pour conquérir le monde pour Allah. C’est aussi une affaire de morale, rappelant que la vie en Occident est sas Dieu et décadente. Elle ne mérite pas sa prospérité et sa position. La mission de l’humanité est la soumission à Allah en toutes choses. Une fois que cette soumission est assurée, le domaine de la guerre sera aboli. Plus de décapitations ou d’attentats à la voiture piégée ne seront nécessaires ou tolérés. Aucune dissidence au sein de l’Islam ne sera possible ou permise. Tous seront en paix sous la Loi de l’islam. C’est là le but même de l’État islamique. C’est une folie d’y penser en n’importe quels autres termes. Révérend James V. Schall (traduction au babelfish)
Attention: un djihadisme peut en cacher un autre !
Alors qu’une étude récente montre la surintolérance (à 45% pour l’application de la charia en Europe et à 55% antisémites) de musulmans européens si sensibles il y a quelques mois à la souffrance des gazaouis mais étrangement silencieux face aux actuelles exactions djihadistes …
Et qu’avec la multiplication, par lesdists jihadistes, des selfies sanglants et des appels à égorger nos fils et nos compagnes, les premières têtes de ce côté comme de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique commencent à tomber …
Pendant qu’accusé à son tour du même type de bavures pour lesquelles il avait si promptement dénoncé Israël pour une guerre qu’il se refuse même à dénommer, s’exempte tranquillement des critères d’élimination des terroristes utilisant des boucliers humains …
Comment ne pas voir, avec l’excellent papier du politologue catholique James V. Schall, qu’il est grand temps de prendre le djihadisme au sérieux …
Et de prendre enfin conscience, au-delà de nos préventions oecuméniques ou progressistes et de Mosoul à Gaza ou de Londres à Paris ou Berlin, de la réalité proprement religieuse et théologiquement fondée de ses revendications …
Et partant la difficulté toute particulière face à des groupes pour lesquels il ne saurait y avoir de paix dans le monde…
Tant que ledit monde ne s’est pas, de gré ou de force, soumis à l’islam ?
It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J.
Crisis
September 23, 2014
Islam has no central or definitive body or figure authorized to define what exactly it is. Opinions about its essence and scope vary widely according to the political or philosophic background of its own interpreters. The current effort to establish an Islamic State, with a designated Caliph, again to take up the mission assigned to Islam, brings to our attention the question: “What is Islam?”
The issue of “terror” is a further aspect of this same understanding. Many outside Islam seek to separate “terror” and “Islam” as if they were, in their usage, independent or even opposed ideas. This latter view is almost impossible seriously to maintain in the light of Islamic history and the text of the Qur’an itself.
John Kerry, however, insists that what we see is “terrorism” with nothing to do with Islam. The Obama administration seems to have a rule never to identify Islam with “terrorism,” no matter what the evidence or what representatives of the Islamic State themselves say. The vice-president speaks of “Hell” in connection with actions of the Islamic State. Diane Feinstein speaks of “evil” behind the current slaughters in Iraq and Syria. The pope mentions “stopping aggression.” The English hate-laws prevent frank and honest discussion of what actually goes on in Islamic countries or communities in the West. Not even Winston Churchill’s critical view of Islam is permitted to be read in public.
Ecumenism and liberalism both, in their differing ways, because of their commitment to tolerance and free speech, make it difficult to deal with what is happening in Islamic states. Islam is not friendly to relativism or to subtle distinctions.
Is terror intrinsic to Islam?
What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. I do not conceive this reflection as definitive. Nor do I document it in any formal sense, though it can be. It is a view that, paradoxically, has, I think, more respect for Islam than most of its current critics or advocates.
This comment is an apologia, as it were, for the Islamic State at least in the sense that it accepts its sincerity and religious purpose. It understands how, in its own terms, the philosophic background that enhances its view does, in its own terms, justify its actions, including the violent ones.
The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim. The “terror” we see does not primarily arise from modern totalitarian theories, nationalism, or from anywhere else but what is considered, on objective evidence, to be a faithful reading of a mission assigned by Allah to the Islamic world, which has been itself largely procrastinating about fulfilling its assigned mission.
To look elsewhere for an explanation is simply not to see what the Islamic State and its friends are telling us about why they act as they do. The tendency among pragmatic Western thinkers, locked into their own narrow views, is to exclude any such motivation as an excuse of raw power. This view shows the intellectual shortcomings of Western leaders and the narrowness of much Western thought.
Jihadism, as it were, is a religious movement before it is anything else. Allah does grant violence a significant place. It is over the truth of this position, or better the inability to disprove it, that the real controversy lies. A recent essay in the American Thinker calculated that over the years of its expansion, from its beginning in the seventh and eighth centuries, some 250 million people have been killed in wars and persecutions caused by Islam. Nothing else in the history of the world, including the totalitarianisms of the last century, has been so lethal.
If Islam is a religion of peace, what sort of peace does it bring?
Other understandings of Islam’s record, though not its mission, within Islam may be also plausible, but no more so than this jihadist interpretation. It may be possible for some to read Islam as a religion of “peace.” But its “peace,” in its own terms, means the peace of Allah within its boundaries. With the rest of the outside world, it is at war in order to accomplish a religious purpose, namely, to have all submitted to Allah in the passive way that the Qur’an specifies.
Islam can at times be defeated or stopped, as at Tours or Vienna, but it will always rise again as it is now bent on so doing. To picture the jihadists and leaders of the Islamic State as mere “terrorists” or thugs is to use Western political terms to blind ourselves to the religious dynamism of this movement. No wonder our leaders cannot or will not understand it. This purpose, when successful, is a terrible thing. But we are not seeing a group of gangsters, as many are wont to maintain. The roots of Islam are theological, rather bad theology, but still coherent within its own orbit and presuppositions.
Briefly put, Islam, in its founding, is intended to be, literally, the world religion. Nothing else has any standing in comparison. It is to bring the whole world to worship Allah according to the canons of the Qur’an. It is a belief, based on a supposed revelation to Mohammed, of which there is little evidence. Sufficient justification to expand this religion, once founded, to all the world by use of arms is found in the Qur’an and in its interpreters to explain the violent means used, often successfully, to establish, pacify, and rule tribes, states, territories, and empires.
In Muslim doctrine, everyone born into the world is a Muslim. No one has any right or reason not to be. Hence, everyone who is not a Muslim is to be converted or eliminated. This is also true of the literary, monumental, and other signs of civilizations or states that are not Muslim. They are destroyed as not authorized by the Qur’an.
It is the religious responsibility of Islam to carry out its assigned mission of subduing the world to Allah. When we try to explain this religion in economic, political, psychological, or other terms, we simply fail to see what is going on. From the outside, it is almost impossible to see how this system coheres within itself. But, granted its premises and the philosophy of voluntarism used to explain and defend it, it becomes much clearer that we are in fact dealing with a religion that claims to be true in insisting that it is carrying out the will of Allah, not its own.
If we are going to deal with it, we have to do so on those terms, on the validity of such a claim. The trouble with this approach, of course, is that truth, logos, is not recognized in a voluntarist setting. If Allah transcends the distinction of good and evil, if he can will today its opposite tomorrow, as the omnipotence of Allah is understood to mean in Islam, then there can be no real discussion that is not simply a temporary pragmatic stand-off, a balance of interest and power.
Whenever incidents of violence are witnessed in the Islamic world, or in other parts of the world caused by Islamic agents, we hear complaints that almost no Muslim voices rise to condemn this violence. When the original 9/11 happened, there was not condemnation coming from within Islam, but widespread celebration. Islam was seen as winning. But all Muslim scholars know that they cannot, on the basis of the Qur’an, condemn the use of violence to expand their religion. There is simply too much evidence that this usage is permitted. To deny it would be to undermine the integrity of the Qur’an.
Obviously, the enemies of the Islamic State and its jihadist allies are not only the “Crusaders” or the West. Some of Islam’s bloodiest wars were its invasion of Hindu India, where the tension remains marked. There are also Muslim efforts into China. The Philippines has a major problem as does Russia. But Islam wars with itself. The Sunni/Shiite struggles are legendary. It is important to note that one of the first things on the Islamic State’s agenda, if it is successful in surviving, is to unite all of Islam in its creedal unity.
The unfinished business from Tours and Vienna
All existing Islamic states are some sort of compromise between the true Islamic mission and forces, usually military forces that limit this world-wide unification. Almost all standing Muslim governments recognize the danger to themselves of a successful Caliphate. They all have some form of jihadist presence within their boundaries that seek to control it in the name of their very survival. There are or were Christian and other minorities within these states that are, to a greater or lesser extent, tolerated. But they are all, as non-Muslims, treated as second-class citizens. The Islamic movement renews that purist side of Islam that insists in eradicating or expelling non-Muslim presences in Muslim lands.
The Archbishop of Mosul, on seeing his people exiled and killed, forced to choose between conversion and death, empathized that his buildings were destroyed, the archives and all record of the long Christian presence in that area destroyed. He warned that this form of treatment is what the nations of the West could expect sooner or later. There are now significant Muslim enclaves in every part of America and Europe to be of great concern as centers of future uprisings within each city. There are now thousands of mosques in Europe and America, financed largely by oil money, that are parts of a closed enclave that excludes local law and enforces Muslim law.
Yet, we can ask: is this Islamic State anything more than a pipe-dream? No Islamic state has any serious possibility of defeating modern armies. But, ironically, they no longer think that modern armies will be necessary. They are convinced that widespread use of terrorism and other means of civil disorder can be successful. No one really has the will or the means to control the destructive forces that the Islamic State already has in place.
The Islamic State strategists think it is quite possible to take another step in the expansion of Islam, to take up again the assault on Europe left off at Tours and Vienna. Muslim armies have always been known for cruelty and craftiness. Men often shrank in fear before its threat, as they are intended to do. A Muslim theoretician once remarked that their aim was to make the streets of Western cities look like those battlefields we see in the cities of the Middle East. Again with the suicide bomber and believers in their use, for which they are said to be “martyrs,” this may be possible.
Finally, the case of the Islamic State and of the jihadists is not just a threat arising out of Islam’s mission to conquer the world for Allah. It is also a moral case, that the life of the West is atheist and decadent. It does not deserve its prosperity and position. The mission of mankind is the submission to Allah in all things. Once this submission is in place, the sphere of war will be over. No more beheading or car-bombings will be necessary or tolerated. No dissent within Islam will be possible or permitted. All will be at peace under the law of Islam. This is the religious purpose of the Islamic State. It is folly to think of it in any other terms.
But with great opposition both from the West and from within Islamic states to this vision, is there any possibility of its success? Pat Buchanan thought that a group of Seals one of these days would eliminate the new Caliph. Existing Muslin government officials know that their days are numbered if the Islamic State succeeds. But, at the same time, this vision does seem to be the real impetus of the Islamic peoples.
It is easy to write this movement off as fanatical and ruthless, which it is. To the outside world, it sounds horrific, but I suspect not to those who believe its truth and see the current revival of Islam with relief. The second or third class ranking of Islam in the modern world is over. But to the degree that we misjudge what is motivating the renewal of Islam, we will never understand why it exists as it does.
Editor’s note: This essay first appeared September 17, 2014 on Mercatornet.com and published under a Creative Commons license.
Rev. James V. Schall, S.J., taught political science at Georgetown University for many years. His latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic from Catholic University of America Press; Remembering Belloc from St. Augustine Press; and Reasonable Pleasures from Ignatius Press.
Voir aussi:
55% des Musulmans d’Europe sont fortement antisémites
Jean-Patrick Grumberg
Dreuz.info.
3 octobre 2014
Islam modéré ? « Majorité silencieuse et quiétiste » ? Un leurre total, selon une récente étude scientifique très documentée.
45% des musulmans européens souhaitent la sharia en Europe, 55% sont fortement antisémites, et 85% sont homophobes.
Selon une étude menée par 160 scientifiques allemands dans 6 pays européens sur 9 000 personnes, il s’avère que 45% des musulmans européens souhaitent que la sharia soit appliquée en Europe, 55% sont fortement antisémites, et 85% sont homophobes.
On nous serine à longueur de matraquage médiatique que l’islam est compatible avec les valeurs démocratiques, que les musulmans d’Europe, dans leur écrasante majorité, sont modérés, et qu’ils n’aspirent qu’à une chose, s’intégrer dans la société occidentale.
On nous dit que l’islam jihadiste, qui égorge et commet des attentats, ce n’est pas l’islam.
Mais lorsque quelques centaines (3 à 500, à la sortie de l’office de la mosquée de Paris, donc qui ne pouvaient plus s’en aller !) de musulmans manifestent pour se désolidariser du terrorisme, ce sont les médias eux-mêmes qui font un amalgame, dans l’autre sens cette fois, en affirmant que ces cents là représentent la majorité.
Seriner n’est pas démontrer.
Aucun média n’a eu le courage de mener une enquête afin de prouver que tout cela est autre chose que la méthode d’Émile Coué face au miroir.
Apparemment, les Allemands sont moins frileux, et une étude importante vient d’être conduite par le Centre scientifique et social de Berlin WZB.
Comme le WZB rassemble 160 chercheurs en sciences humaines, que plus de 9 000 personnes ont été interrogées au téléphone en Allemagne, en France, en Hollande, en Autriche, en Belgique et en Suède, que les personnes interrogées sont des immigrants mais aussi des personnes issues de l’immigration nées dans ces pays, et que cette étude est la première qui permet de faire une analyse empirique sur l’impact du fondamentalisme islamique sur la population musulmane européenne, l’enquête a été largement ignorée par les grands médias français.
Selon l’étude, menée je le disais, par 160 scientifiques allemands, 45% des musulmans européens souhaiteraient que la sharia soit appliquée en Europe, 55% ont de forts sentiments antisémites, et 85% sont homophobes. 9 000 personnes interrogées dans six pays, voilà de quoi tirer quelques leçons. Leçon numéro un : les musulmans radicaux sont la majorité, et non une infime minorité
Le fondamentalisme religieux, l’islamisme, n’est pas, en Europe de l’ouest, un phénomène marginal.
Ruud Koopmans membre du WZB Berlin, et auteur du rapport, a analysé les résultats de l’enquête.
65% des musulmans interviewés déclarent que les lois religieuses sont plus importantes pour eux que les lois du pays où ils vivent ;
75% affirment qu’il n’existe qu’une seule interprétation légitime du coran, et que tout musulman doit s’y conformer ;
60% considèrent que les musulmans doivent revenir aux racines de l’islam ;
Leçon numéro deux : le fondamentalisme génère l’antisémitisme et l’homophobie
Cette tendance, selon Koopmans, est alarmante : “le fondamentalisme n’est pas une forme innocente de strict respect religieux. Il existe une forte corrélation entre le fondamentalisme et l’hostilité contre des groupes comme les homosexuels et les juifs.”
Presque 60% des musulmans déclarent qu’ils refusent d’être amis avec des homosexuels ;
45% pensent qu’on ne peut pas faire confiance aux juifs ;
45% pensent que l’occident veut détruire l’islam [ah s’ils disaient vrai].
Leçon numéro trois : le fondamentalisme n’est pas le résultat de l’islamophobie et du rejet
Contrairement à l’idée que le fondamentalisme est une réaction à l’islamophobie, à l’exclusion et au rejet de la société, l’étude démontre que les musulmans les moins radicaux sont allemands, alors que c’est le pays où ils jouissent du moins de liberté religieuse des six pays examinés. Mais qu’on ne se laisse pas tromper par le constat précédent : même en Allemagne, 30% des répondants entrent dans la catégorie des fondamentalistes, d’après l’étude.
Leçon numéro quatre : les Chrétiens fondamentalistes, eux, sont ultra minoritaires
Les Chrétiens, interrogés sur les mêmes questions pour valider l’enquête, prouvent que le fondamentalisme religieux existe aussi, mais pas du tout dans la même proportion.
Seulement 13% placent la bible au dessus des lois de leur pays ;
Moins de 20% refusent d’accepter différentes interprétations de la bible ;
9% sont ouvertement antisémites ;
13 % ne veulent pas être amis avec des homosexuels ;
et 23% sont islamophobes (ils pensent que les musulmans veulent détruire la civilisation occidentale.)
Même parmi les sous groupes comme les Adventistes du 7e jour, les Témoins de Jéhova, et les Pentecôtistes, les idées fondamentalistes ne sont suivies que par 12% d’entre eux, soit bien moins que les musulmans sunnites, eux-mêmes légèrement moins radicaux que la moyenne.
Leçon numéro cinq : les milieux sociaux défavorisés ne favorisent pas le radicalisme
Il est connu que les milieux socio-économiques défavorisés, les classes ouvrières, sont plus attirés par les mouvements extrémistes que les catégories privilégiées.
Comme les niveaux de vie des musulmans sont généralement inférieurs à celui des chrétiens, il est possible que le fondamentalisme musulman soit d’origine sociale, et non religieuse.
Cependant, les résultats de l’analyse de contrôle selon la méthode régressive pour le niveau d’éducation, le statut salarial, l’âge, le sexe, et le statut marital révèlent que, bien que certaines de ces variables font ressortir des variations dans le degré de radicalisme dans les deux groupes religieux étudiés, ils n’expliquent pas du tout, voire même réduisent la théorie selon laquelle un milieu social défavorisé pousse vers le fondamentalisme.
Et alors que le fondamentalisme est plus rare chez les jeunes chrétiens, les attitudes radicales sont très fréquentes chez les jeunes musulmans.
Leçon numéro six : le racisme anti-blanc, sorte d’équivalent musulman à l’islamophobie, est plus fortement développé
Alors qu’environ 23% des Européens peuvent être considérés comme islamophobes selon l’étude, le degré de « phobie » (pour lequel il n’existe pas de mot – Occidentophobie ?) ou de haine des musulmans envers les blancs européens, est très élevé.
54% des musulmans pensent que l’occident veut détruire l’islam.
Cette conclusion concorde d’ailleurs avec l’étude conduite en 2006 par l’institut de recherche Pew, qui montrait qu’environ la moitié des musulmans de France, d’Allemagne et de Grande Bretagne croient en cette théorie de la conspiration selon laquelle les attentats du 11 septembre n’ont pas été provoqués par des musulmans, mais par des occidentaux et/ ou des juifs.
Un autre aspect inquiétant est que l’islamophobie est plus faible chez les jeunes européens de souche, tandis que l’hostilité contre les Européens natifs est très forte parmi les jeunes musulmans.
Là encore, il est connu que la xénophobie et le racisme sont plus forts dans les classes défavorisés, et l’étude devait vérifier les différences selon les catégories socio-économiques.
Les analyses régressives à variables multiples ont montré que c’est bien le cas, mais le contrôle avec les variables socio-économiques ne parviennent pas à expliquer la différence entre les musulmans et les chrétiens.
Ainsi, nous avons trouvé que la différence de racisme et de xénophobie entre les personnes de niveau universitaire et ceux du niveau certificat d’étude est deux fois moins importante que la différence entre les musulmans et les natifs européens.
Voir également:
The Greatest Murder Machine in History
Mike Konrad
American thinker
May 31, 2014
When one thinks of mass murder, Hitler comes to mind. If not Hitler, then Tojo, Stalin, or Mao. Credit is given to the 20th-century totalitarians as the worst species of tyranny to have ever arisen. However, the alarming truth is that Islam has killed more than any of these, and may surpass all of them combined in numbers and cruelty.
The enormity of the slaughters of the « religion of peace » are so far beyond comprehension that even honest historians overlook the scale. When one looks beyond our myopic focus, Islam is the greatest killing machine in the history of mankind, bar none.
The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. — Will Durant, as quoted on Daniel Pipes site.<
Conservative estimates place the number at 80 million dead Indians.
According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate). — Koenrad Elst as quoted on Daniel Pipes site
80 Million?! The conquistadors’ crimes pale into insignificance at that number. No wonder Hitler admired Islam as a fighting religion. He stood in awe of Islam, whose butchery even he did not surpass.
Over 110 Million Blacks were killed by Islam.
… a minumum of 28 Million African were enslaved in the Muslim Middle East. Since, at least, 80 percent of those captured by Muslim slave traders were calculated to have died before reaching the slave market, it is believed that the death toll from 1400 years of Arab and Muslim slave raids into Africa could have been as high as 112 Millions. When added to the number of those sold in the slave markets, the total number of African victims of the trans-Saharan and East African slave trade could be significantly higher than 140 Million people. — John Allembillah Azumah, author of The Legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A Quest for Inter-religious Dialogue<
Add just those two numbers alone together, and Islam has surpassed the victims of 20th-century totalitarianism. However, it does not end there. Add the millions who died at the hand of Muslims in the Sudan in our lifetime.
Much of Islamic slavery was sexual in nature, with a preference for women. Those men who were captured were castrated. The mulatto children of the women were often killed, which explains why Islam was not demographically shifted towards the black race, unlike slaves in the West, who bore children to breed a mestizo class. Add in those dead children; and we arrive at well over 200 million.
Remember that in the 7th century, North Africa was almost totally Christian. What happened to them?
By the year 750, a hundred years after the conquest of Jerusalem, at least 50 percent of the world’s Christians found themselves under Muslim hegemony… Today there is no indigenous Christianity in the region [of Northwest Africa], no communities of Christians whose history can be traced to antiquity.– « Christianity Face to Face with Islam, » CERC
What happened to those Christian millions? Some converted. The rest? Lost to history.
We know that over 1 million Europeans were enslaved by Barbary Pirates. How many died is anybody’s guess.
…for the 250 years between 1530 and 1780, the figure could easily have been as high as 1,250,000 – BBC
In the Middle Ages…
…many slaves were passed through Armenia and were castrated there to fill the Muslim demand for eunuchs. — Slavery in Early Medieval Europe.
The same practice ran through Islamic Spain. North Europeans captured from raids up to Iceland, or purchased, were butchered in the castratoriums of Iberia. Many died from the operations that ran for centuries.
The number of dead from the Muslim conquest of the Balkans and Southern Italy is unknown, but again the numbers add up, surely into the millions over the centuries. Don’t forget the 1.5 million Armenian Christians killed by the Turks during WWI. We do know that over five centuries, vast numbers of Christian boys were kidnapped to become Islamic Janissary mercenaries for the Turks. Add those in, too.
Muslims prized blonde women for their harems; and so enslaved Slavic women were purchased in the bazaars of the Crimean Caliphate. In Muslim Spain, an annual tribute of 100 Visigothic [blonde] women was required from Spain’s Cantabrian coast.
For decades, 100 virgins per year were required by the Muslim rulers of Spain from the conquered population. The tribute was only stopped when the Spaniards began fighting back — Jihad: Islam’s 1,300 Year War Against Western Civilisation<
Add in the death toll from the Reconquista and the numbers climb higher.
Research has shown that the Dark Ages were not caused by the Goths, who eventually assimilated and Christianized:
…the real destroyers of classical civilization were the Muslims. It was the Arab Invasions… which broke the unity of the Mediterranean world and turned the Middle Sea — previously one of the world’s most important trading highways — into a battleground. It was only after the appearance of Islam… that the cities of the West, which depended upon the Mediterranean trade for their survival, began to die. — Islam Caused the Dark Ages
Add in those unknown millions who died as a consequence.
How many know the horrors of the conquest of Malaysia? The Buddhists of Thailand and Malaysia were slaughtered en masse.
When attacked and massacred by the Muslims, the Buddhists initially did not make any attempt to escape from their murderers. They accepted death with an air of fatalism and destiny. And hence they are not around today to tell their story. – History of Jihad.org
We may never know the numbers of dead.
After Muslims came to power in the early 15th century, animist hill peoples eventually disappeared due to their enslavement and ‘incorporation’ into the Muslim population of Malaya, Sumatra, Borneo, and Java via raids, tribute and purchase, especially of children. Java was the largest exporter of slaves around 1500. — Islam Monitor<
In the same manner, Islam arrived in the Philippines. Only the appearance of the Spanish stopped a total collapse, and confined Islam to the southern islands.
The coming of the Spanish saved the Philippines from Islam, except for the Southern tip where the population had been converted to Islam.– History of Jihad.org<
Again, the number of dead is unknown; but add them to the total.
The animist Filipinos were eager to ally with the Spanish against Islam. In fact, much of Southeast Asia welcomed the Spanish and Portuguese as preferable to Islam.
…from the 17th century successive Thai kings allied themselves with the seafaring Western powers – the Portuguese and the Dutch and succeeded in staving off the threat of Islam from the Muslim Malays and their Arab overlords.– History of Jihad.org
A few galleons and muskets were not enough to conquer Asia. Islam had made the Europeans initially appear as liberators; and to a certain extent they were. Who were the real imperialists?
Even today…
…Malaysian Jihadis are plotting to transform multi-ethnic Malaysia into an Islamic Caliphate, and fomenting trouble in Southern Thailand.– History of Jihad.org<
Add this all up. The African victims. The Indian victims. The European victims. Add in the Armenian genocide. Then add in the lesser known, but no doubt quite large number of victims of Eastern Asia. Add in the jihad committed by Muslims against China, which was invaded in 651 AD. Add in the Crimean Khanate predations on the Slavs, especially their women.
Though the numbers are not clear, what is obvious is that Islam is the greatest murder machine in history bar none, possibly exceeding 250 million dead. Possibly one-third to one-half or more of all those killed by war or slavery in history can be traced to Islam; and this is just a cursory examination.
Now consider the over 125 Million women today who have been genitally mutilated for Islamic honor’s sake. In spite of what apologists tell you, the practice is almost totally confined to Islamic areas.
New information from Iraqi Kurdistan raises the possibility that the problem is more prevalent in the Middle East than previously believed and that FGM is far more tied to religion than many Western academics and activists admit. – “Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?” ME Quarterly
Once thought concentrated in Africa, FGM has now been discovered to be common wherever Islam is found.
There are indications that FGM might be a phenomenon of epidemic proportions in the Arab Middle East. Hosken, for instance, notes that traditionally all women in the Persian Gulf region were mutilated. Arab governments refuse to address the problem. — « Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem? » ME Quarterly
Remember that this has gone on for 1400 years; and was imposed on a population that had been formerly Christian or pagan.
FGM is practiced on large scale in Islamic Indonesia; and is increasing.
…far from scaling down, the problem of FGM in Indonesia has escalated sharply. The mass ceremonies in Bandung have grown bigger and more popular every year. — Guardian
The horrified British author of that Guardian article is still deluded that Islam does not support FGM, when in fact it is now settled that FGM is a core Islamic practice. Islamic women have been brainwashed to support their own abuse.
Abu Sahlieh further cited Muhammad as saying, « Circumcision is a sunna (tradition) for the men and makruma (honorable deed) for the women. » — “Is Female Genital Mutilation an Islamic Problem?” ME Quarterly
What other tyranny does this? Not even the Nazis mutilated their own women!
Unlike the 20th-century totalitarians whose killing fury consumed themselves, reducing their longevity, Islam paces itself. In the end, though slower, Islam has killed and tortured far more than any other creed, religious or secular. Unlike secular tyranny, Islam, by virtue of its polygamy and sexual predations, reproduces itself and increases.
Other tyrannies are furious infections, which burn hot, but are soon overcome. Islam is a slow terminal cancer, which metastasizes, and takes over. It never retreats. Its methods are more insidious, often imperceptible at first, driven by demographics. Like cancer, excision may be the only cure.
So whenever you read about this or that Israeli outrage — and there may be truth to the complaint — place the news in context. Look whom the Israelis are fighting against. Islam is like nothing else in history.
Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who is not Jewish, Latin, or Arab. He runs a website, http://latinarabia.com, where he discusses the subculture of Arabs in Latin America. He wishes his Spanish were better.
Killing In The Name Of God
Alon Ben-Meir
American thinker
July 21, 2013
Notwithstanding the cultural and interpretive differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the God worshiped by Muhammad is the same God that communicated with Abraham and to which Jesus prayed.
This one God, it is believed, revealed sublime values which were then disseminated by the three largest monotheistic religions. It is therefore easy to wholeheartedly support these religions for giving voice to ethical injunctions for centuries.
That is, despite myriad conflicts, religion at its core was created to foster peace, compassion, and brotherhood while providing ethical guidance and nurturing the inherent good in humanity, reflecting a generous and loving Supreme Being.
Giving voice to this truth, Einstein said that without religion, science was lame. Science, he argued, can measure and predict events but cannot directly provide advice concerning what is right or wrong, where religion can offer guidance in ethical conduct.
Considering the ever-present challenge for human survival in a hostile world, it is understandable that religions would occasionally remain silent on the verdict of war or fail in their missions to promote peace and amity.
The World Wars of the twentieth century are historically considered secular wars fought over political, geographic, and economic interests. Yet in Europe, six million Jews were exterminated as a result of centuries of anti-Semitic teachings brewing in the heart of medieval Christendom.
From the time of Muhammad and for nearly thirteen hundred years after, Islam waged religious wars against whole populations, forcing conversion to Islam (excluding Jews and Christians, known as « the people of the book ») as a means by which to spread its faith.
The major Christian response to the spread of Islam manifested as the Crusades, which spanned the 11th to 13th centuries.
The European wars of religion between rivaling Christian sects encompassed roughly 125 years of conflict in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, though ostensibly fought over territory, contains a powerful religious component, especially in connection with Jerusalem, for which thousands have been killed and many more might die if it is not resolved peacefully.
In all cases, religious conviction, which was repeatedly invoked, amplified a sense of entitlement to the lands and wealth of other.
This begs the question: of what stuff is religion truly made? For in all the conflicts in the history of the world, the violence and atrocities incited by religious fervor comprise some of the worst violations of human dignity.
Historically speaking, a religious war is a conflict exclusively incited and fueled by diversity in religious identity. While technically less than 10% of all the wars ever fought were wars of religion, only a few did not encompass or embody some religious component or sentiment.
By the same token that we support the ethical teachings of religions, we must all the more and in unison condemn self-appointed messengers and spokespersons of the divine that foment mass murder in the name of God.
For unless we believe that this all-merciful, fatherly, peace-loving, and ever-beneficent God wills for his believers to kill each other in His name, we must conclude that religions are repeatedly corrupted to pit the children of God against each other.
Ironically, conflict more often occurs within religions than between them. Today we witness the eruption of centuries of enmity between Sunni and Shiites Muslims that has been nurtured by prolonged persecution.
The Sunni-Shiite schism occurred when Muhammad died in 632, causing disagreement over the succession to Muhammad’s religious authority. Following the murder of Hussein (Ali’s son and Muhammad’s grandson), the Muslim community became squarely and eternally divided.
Nevertheless, tensions between Sunnis and Shiites are more often about political persecution than strictly theology, though religious convictions are frequently invoked, fomenting anger and resentment.
During the Safavid era in Persia between the years 1501-1736, forced conversion of Sunnis to Shiites was systematically done to change the demographic balance between the two; those who refused were killed.
The 1979 revolution in Iran that brought the Shiites to power (with regional hegemonic ambitions) further heightened the tension between the two sects.
Further radicalization of Shiites came with Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the establishment of the Shiite Hezb’allah.
While the average Sunni and Shiite have been relatively able to live in peace, the theological division has allowed despots, like Saddam Hussein, to disempower and dehumanize Shiites.
The 2003 Iraq war, though subsequently bringing the Shiite majority to power, ignited a bloody conflict between Shiites and Sunnis that continues to this day.
Conflicting interests between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia and Turkey have made Syria the battleground between the two sects, deepening the fissure more than at any other time in living memory.
Though Sunni and Shiites agree on the unquestioned authority of the Qur’an, sectarian factionalism has persisted and remains a destabilizing force in the Middle East, leaving a terrible inheritance passed down from generation to generation.
Children, especially of the disenfranchised and poorly educated, have effectively become not the recipients of the necessary ethical teachings of Islam, but the targets of religious extremism, promoting endless sectarian strife.
Part of the problem is that the codification of religious precepts opens it up to all manner of interpretation; indigent and marginalized peoples are particularly vulnerable to the most radical and violence-producing interpretations of Islam.
It is in this way that a precept, for example, to not murder, is literally turned on its head and becomes the precise opposite; where once religion decried violence, now violence and death are associated with martyrdom. Yet the situation in the Middle East is far graver than this.
When true believers habitually use religious language to explain and frame the events of their lives, the heart and emotions, more often than reason and science, are employed as a means of defining one’s place in the world.
Moreover, if the avenue to self-determination is exclusively faith-based, radical responses to extreme situations of disempowerment, as in Iraq post-Saddam Hussein and poverty-stricken Yemen, will be more passionate than tempered.
Herein lies the danger, for this is no longer a world where we can afford to view whole peoples as populations to be conquered and converted, whether to a religious, economic, or political paradigm.
The monotheistic faiths must at once embrace their ethical heritage and disavow their antiquated views of God, acknowledging that humanity has invented thousands of gods. All these gods, without exception, reflect the people who invented them and the conditions under which they lived.
In other words, religions spiritually succeed when they embrace the spirit of God embodied in their very ethical teachings but utterly fail when they become little more than a ruse designed to supplant God with tribal, ethnic, and sectarian divisiveness.
The work of Baruch Spinoza (1632 – 1677) may be of help here. Einstein once said that his God was the God of Spinoza. Pantheism, or understanding God as the cosmos, was already ancient in the East when Spinoza was born.
Yet the idea that God might be conceived by the mind — as in his famous interpretation of natura naturans (« nature nurturing »)– was relatively new in the West.
While denying a personal God « up there, » Spinoza reminds us that we can embrace the idea of an Infinite Being that has passively produced, as part of its very nature, the cosmos.
Although the rabbinic tradition considered this heresy and excommunicated Spinoza, I would argue that, far from lowering God’s status as the clergy believed, it elevated it.
Such an elevated God inspires a more personal religion wherein virtue is internalized, selfishness is nullified, and a sincere jihad against the biological responses to fear, fight or flight, and insecurity is waged within.
Humanity has suffered for too long due to a lowered conception of the infinite that was easily exploited to pit man against man. Increased used of the scientific method and reason, especially among those afforded a high degree of education, may tone down emotional and passionate responses to challenging circumstances.
This is not to say that the intellectual approach has all of the answers, lest we forget Einstein’s reminder regarding science’s ethical limits.
For while the West understandably pays a great deal of attention to the current killing in the name of God in some of the Arab states, the numbers involved do not compare to the fifty million or more slaughtered in World War II alone mostly Christians against Christians.
Intellectually-bent Western societies may introduce the « civility » of war, complete with Geneva Conventions and other rules by which blood can be spilt. But their wars, to date, encompass a far greater destructive power than do the conflicts of any other peoples, especially in the current conflict of Muslims against Muslims in the Middle East.
So the question remains: how can we cease the religious (in the name of God) and corporate (in the name of Mammon) justification of violence?
Understanding violence in the broadest context, the West may in some respects be actually farther away from realizing this goal. While the death tolls of soldiers are easy to disseminate, the daily suffering of millions of dislocated, dishonored, and stateless lives does not as easily fit into our news diet.
The West also does not live within the scope of history. While for us yesterday is already history, the Arab world lives day in and day out conscious of its histories of divisiveness, colonialism, dictatorships, and arbitrary borders imposed by Western powers that fostered sectarian conflicts and territorial claims and counterclaims.
Nevertheless, the Arab world is left with the challenge to compartmentalize religion and God, just as the West has done; albeit far from perfect, religion in the West remains functional, consistent, and in the spirit of one’s personal choice.
For the Muslim world, Islam is more than a mere belief to embrace, but a way of life and part and parcel of a cultural heritage; as such, it remains a part of the heart and self-identity.
That said, nearly 60 percent of the Arab population (250 million out of 422 million in total) is under the age of 25. They yearn for freedom, education, health care, and the opportunity for a better future.
They are Muslims at heart and mind but they do not wish to be ruled by either secular or religious dictators (albeit ostensibly freely-elected) as demonstrated by Egypt’s second revolution.
They want to be free while adhering to Islamic tradition and culture and draw a balance between secularism and orthodoxy.
Religion, like it is today in Israel and to a great extent in Muslim Malaysia and Bangladesh, may be used to reconcile family issues, including marriage, divorce, children and custody issues, death, and coming-of-age rituals.
Beyond this, religion must go no farther. It must have no bearing on medical science, international relations, or national defense, and a host of other international and domestic issues. Other than that religion must foster unconditional peace, amity, love, and compassion in humankind.
Thus in writing new constitutions in the emerging transitional authorities, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and other Arab states must recognize that whereas collaboration between the religious and the secular is necessary, legislatively codifying Sharia law as a source for legislation is a step backward.
For the world today, Arab states that have overwhelming majorities of youth are not so intellectually poor as to require religion for its only source of ethics. Codes of behavior flow from secular humanism, law, and philosophical debate.
Those who look to religion for personal guidance are free to do so and their right must be protected, but they must also abide by the laws that separate church and state. No longer should any religious edict be forced on anyone.
Under these conditions, religious freedom goes hand in hand with personal freedom, which is central in promoting all religions’ fundamental tenets of brotherhood, compassion, amity and peace.
And perhaps this may bring an end to the killing in the name of God that betrays the essence of why and to what end religion was created in the first place.
Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. alon@alonben-meir.com Web: http://www.alonben-eir.com
Voir de même:
Catholic Reverend: Not possible to extract violence and terror from Islam
Allen West
October 3, 2014
As we sit quietly by, watching this entity called ISIS endeavor to create an Islamic caliphate or recoil at the recent beheading of an American woman, I believe it’s time to conduct a serious analysis of Islam.
I care not for the cultural jihadist apologists and their PC dismissals. The time has come for the sake of Western civilization and our Constitutional Republic to ask the hard questions and make the tough assessments.
What separates Islam from other religions is a single word — reformation. It’s interesting how so many want to play the relativism game when it comes to Christianity and Islam. First, let’s make a clear distinction: Christianity is a faith, not a religion. As a matter of fact, there can be no debate that America – if not most of Western civilization — has a Judeo-Christian faith heritage in the formulation of its foundational principles.
Religion is manmade dogma, not a faith — such as Judaism is a faith but there are many different subsets, in other words, religious practices, such as Orthodox Hasidic, Chabad Lubavitch, Conservative, and Reform. As for the Christian faith, it comes down to Catholicism and Protestantism – but there are countless subsets of religious practices in Protestantism (Calvinists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc).
Some say Christianity has fought many wars, but actually it was the clash between the traditions of Catholicism and the newly advocated Protestantism. It was Martin Luther’s 95 Theses of 1517 that was the impetus of what would become the Protestant [root word being protest] Reformation. It was a revolutionary endeavor to promote the right and freedom of the individual to have a relationship with God not requiring an intermediary — such as what the Catholic Church at the time promoted. It was this that led to the Gutenberg printing of the Bible in mass for all to read and understand. It’s critical to understand what Luther actually set in motion.
First of all, it was the beginning of individual sovereignty in challenging the prevalent belief that the collective was preeminent over the individual. It unlocked the beginning of individual enlightenment and the ability to question and reason. And most important, it challenged the ruling monarchial concept of Divine Law theory — rule being granted to Kings and such by God — and laid the seeds for the Natural Law theory, which led to the concept of unalienable individual rights from the Creator — since Luther had established this personal relationship. It was the Protestant Reformation that has led to the elevation of the individual instead of the subjugation of the collective — the seminal fundamental principle of Western civilization.
The problem we are facing today is that Islam has never been reformed and still holds onto 7th century precepts as promoted by an illiterate, violent, war lord and pedophile — who is considered the “perfect man.”
And so I found particularly relevant a recent article entitled “It’s time to take the Islamic State Seriously” posted on Crisismagazine.com by Reverend James V. Schall, S.J. Rev. Schall taught political science at Georgetown University for many years and his latest books include The Mind That Is Catholic, Remembering Belloc, and Reasonable Pleasures.
Rev Schall’s piece was thought-provoking, and theologically and historically spot on. He writes, “What I want to propose here is an opinion. An opinion is a position that sees the plausibility but not certainty of a given proposition. But I think this opinion is well-grounded and makes more sense both of historic and of present Islam than most of the other views that are prevalent. The Islamic State and the broader jihadist movements throughout the world that agree with it are, I think, correct in their basic understanding of Islam. Plenty of evidence is found, both in the long history of early Muslim military expansion and in its theoretical interpretation of the Qur’an itself, to conclude that the Islamic State and its sympathizers have it basically right. The purpose of Islam, with the often violent means it can and does use to accomplish it, is to extend its rule, in the name of Allah, to all the world. The world cannot be at “peace” until it is all Muslim.”
And we must not forget that Islam means “submission” — quite in contrast to what Luther was promoting.
Rev. Schall is saying that it’s not possible to extract violence and terror from Islam itself as that is an integral part of its calling. Islam began in 612AD and its first convert was Mohammed’s first wife Kadeisha. The so-called “peaceful verses” of the Qur’an come in the time period from 612AD-622AD. Around 622AD, Mohammed took his “night ride” to Jerusalem because he was rejected in his home tribal area of Mecca, and he enacted the Hijra to Medina. This began the second phase when Mohammed aligned himself with violent tribes and started his actions with the Nahkla raid and the verses of the Qur’an shifted to violent — but based upon the Arabic term “Nakesh” which means abrogation, the latter more violent verses supersede all those previous, but all verses have validity. This lends to the duplicity of Islam.
“In Muslim doctrine,” Rev. Schall writes, “everyone born into the world is a Muslim. No one has any right or reason not to be. Hence, everyone who is not a Muslim is to be converted or eliminated — [as we saw done to the Christian community and others in Mosul]. This is also true of the literary, monumental, and other signs of civilizations or states that are not Muslim. They are destroyed as not authorized by the Qur’an. It is the religious responsibility of Islam to carry out its assigned mission of subduing the world to Allah. It may be possible for some to read Islam as a religion of “peace.” But its “peace,” in its own terms, means the peace of Allah within its boundaries, Dar-al-Islam. With the rest of the outside world, it is at war — Dar al-Harb — in order to accomplish a religious purpose, namely, to have all submitted to Allah in the passive way that the Qur’an specifies.”
The problem Rev. Schall brings out in his piece is that we here in the West, and certainly this Obama administration, attempt to rationalize and reason the problem away. We fail to just accept what is happening, and has happened historically, before our eyes.
Now, this is not about condemning Muslims. However, it is about indicting a political-theocratic totalitarian imperialistic ideology — it ain’t workplace violence folks. We always hear about “crusades” yet no one wants to talk about how Islam sought to spread — certainly not by peaceful proselytization — as could be seen from North Africa to Spain (Al Andalusia) to France (Battle of Tours) to the Mediterranean (Battle of Lepanto) to Constantinople (Istanbul) to the Balkans to Vienna to Hindu India to China to the Phillipines and today to Ft. Hood, Texas and Moore, Oklahoma. And yet we have individuals such as CIA Director John Brennan giving us some wishy-washy definition of jihad or B. Hussein Obama telling us ISIS isn’t Islamic.
I highly encourage you all to read Rev. Schall’s entire piece. It is highly enlightening and I leave you with his conclusion, “It is easy to write this movement off as fanatical and ruthless, which it is. To the outside world, it sounds horrific, but I suspect not to those who believe its truth and see the current revival of Islam with relief. The second or third class ranking of Islam in the modern world is over. But to the degree that we misjudge what is motivating the renewal of Islam, we will never understand why it exists as it does.”
Luther’s reformation brought about great strides for the civilized world. If Islam does not undergo a reformation, there is no coexistence, only a new Dark Age.
Voir par ailleurs:
Fundamentalism and out-group hostility
Muslim immigrants and Christian natives in Western Europe
Ruud Koopmans
WZB Mitteilungen
December 2013
In the heated controversies over immigration and Islam in the early 21st century, Muslims have widely become associated in media debates and the popular imagery with religious fundamentalism. Against this, others have argued that religiously fundamentalist ideas are found among only a small minority of Muslims living in the West, and that religious fundamentalism can equally be found among adherents of other religions, including Christianity. However, claims on both sides of this debate lack a sound empirical base because very little is known about the extent of re ligious fundamentalism among Muslim immigrants, and virtually no evidence is available that allows a comparison with native Christians. Religious fundamentalism is certainly not unique to Islam. The term has its origin in a Protestant revival movement in the early 20th century United States, which propagated a return to the “fundaments” of the Christian faith by way of a strict adherence to, and literal interpretation of the rules of the Bible. A large number of studies on Protestant Christian religious fundamentalism in the USA have shown that it is strongly and consistently associated with prejudices and hostility against racial and religious out-groups, as well as “deviant” groups such as homosexuals. By contrast, our knowledge of the extent to which Muslim minorities in Western countries adhere to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam is strikingly limited. Several studies have shown that, compared to the majority population, Muslim immigrants more often define themselves as religious, identify more strongly with their religion, and engage more often in religious practices such as praying, visiting the mosque, or following religious prescriptions such as halal food or wearing a headscarf. But religiosity as such says little about the extent to which these religious beliefs and practices can be deemed “fundamentalist” and are associated with out-group hostility.
The WZB-funded Six Country Immigrant Integration Comparative Survey (SCIICS) among immigrants and natives in Germany, France, the Neth erlands, Belgium, Austria and Sweden provides for the first time a solid empirical basis for these debates. The survey with a total sample size of 9,000 respondents was conducted in 2008 among persons with a Turkish or Moroccan immigration background, as well as a native comparison group. Following the widely accepted definition of fundamentalism of Bob Altermeyer and Bruce Hunsberger, the fundamentalism belief system is defined by three key elements:
– that believers should return to the eternal and unchangeable rules laid down in the past;
– that these rules allow only one interpretation and are binding for all believers;
– that religious rules have priority over secular laws.
These aspects of fundamentalism were measured by the following survey items that were asked to those native respondents who indicated that they were Christians (70%), and to those respondents of Turkish and Moroccan origin who indicated they were Muslims (96%):
“Christians [Muslims] should return to the roots of Christianity [Islam].”
“There is only one interpretation of the Bible [the Koran] and every Christian [Muslim] must stick to that.”
“The rules of the Bible [the Koran] are more important to me than the laws of [survey country].”
Figure 1 shows that religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon within West European Muslim communities. Almost 60 per cent agree that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam, 75 per cent think there is only one interpretation of the Koran possible to which every Muslim should stick and 65 per cent say that religious rules are more important to them than the laws of the country in which they live. Consistent fundamentalist beliefs, with agreement to all three statements, are found among 44 per cent of the interviewed Muslims. Fundamentalist attitudes are slightly less prevalent among Sunni Muslims with a Turkish (45% agreement to all three statements) compared to a Moroccan (50%) background. Alevites, a Turkish minority current within Islam, display much lower levels of fundamentalism (15%). Against the idea that fundame
ntalism is a reaction to exclusion by the host society, we find the lowest levels of fundamen talism in Germany, where Muslims enjoy fewer religious rights than in any of the other five countries. But even among German
Muslims fundamentalist attitudes are widespread, with 30 per cent agreeing to all three statements. Comparisons with other German studies reveal remarkably similar patterns. For instance, in the 2007 Muslime in Deutschland study 47 per cent of German Muslims agreed with the statement that following the rules of one’s religion is more important than democracy, almost identical to the 47 per cent in our survey that finds the rules of the Koran more important than the German laws.
Another striking finding in Figure 1 is that religious fundamentalism is much more widespread among Muslims than among Christian natives. Among Christians agreement to the single statements ranges between 13 and 21 per cent and less than 4 per cent can be characterized as consistent fundamentalists who agree with all three items. In line with what is known about Christian fundamentalism, levels of agreement are slightly higher (4% agreeing with all statements) among mainstream Protestants than among Catholics (3%), and most pronounced (12%) among the adherents of smaller Protestant groups such as Seventh Day Adventists, Jehova’s Witnesses and Pentecostal believers. However, even among these groups support for fundamentalist attitudes remains much below the levels found among Sunni Muslims. Turkish Alevites’ view on the role of religion is however more similar to that of native Christians than of Sunni Muslims.
Because the demographic and socio-economic profiles of Muslim immigrants and native Christians differ strongly, and since it is known from the literature that marginalized, lower-class individuals are more strongly attracted to fundamentalist movements, it would of course be possible that these differences are due to class rather than religion. However, the results of regression analyses controlling for education, labour market status, age, gender, and marital status reveal that while some of these variables explain variation in fundamentalism within both religious groups, they do not at all explain or even diminish the difference between Muslims and Christians. A cause for concern is that while among Christians religious fundamentalism is much less widespread among younger people, fundamentalist attitudes are as widespread among young as among older Muslims.
Research on Christian fundamentalism in the United States has demonstrated a strong association with hostility towards out-groups, which are seen as threatening the religious in-group. To what extent do we find this linkage also in the European context? To answer this question, we use three statements that measure rejection of homosexuals and Jews, as well as the degree to which the own group is seen as threatened by outside enemies:
“I don’t want to have homosexuals as friends.”
“Jews cannot be trusted.”
“Muslims aim to destroy Western culture.” [for natives]
“Western countries are out to destroy Islam.” [for persons with a Turkish or Moroccan migration background]
Figure 2 shows that out-group hostility is far from negligible among native Christians. As much as 9 per cent are overtly anti-semitic and agree that Jews cannot be trusted. In Germany that percentage is even somewhat higher (11%). Similar percentages reject homosexuals as friends (13 % across all countries, 10% in Germany). Not surprisingly, Muslims are the out-group that draws the highest level of hostility, with 23 per cent of native Christians (17% in Germany) believing that Muslims aim to destroy Western culture. Only few native Christians display hostility against all three groups (1.6%).
If we consider all natives instead of just the Christians, levels of out-group hostility are slightly lower (8% against Jews, 10% against homosexuals, 21% against Muslims, and 1.4% against all three).
Even though these figures for natives are worrisome enough, they are dwarfed by the levels of out-group hostility among European Muslims. Almost 60 per cent reject homosexuals as friends and 45 per cent think that Jews cannot be trusted. While about one in five natives can be considered as Islamophobic, the level of phobia against the West among Muslims – for which oddly enough there is no word; one might call it “Occidentophobia” – is much higher still, with 54 per cent believing that the West is out to destroy Islam. These findings concord with the fact that, as a 2006 study of the Pew research institute showed, about half of the Muslims living in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom believe in the conspiracy theory that the attacks of 9/11 were not carried out by Muslims, but were orchestrated by the West and/or Jews.
Somewhat more than one quarter of Muslims display hostility towards all three out-groups. Contrary to the results for religious fundamentalism, out-group hostility is more widespread among Muslims of Turkish (30% agreeing with all three statements) than among those of Moroccan origin (17%). Although the difference is smaller than in the case of religious fundamentalism, Alevites (13% agreeing to all three statements) display considerably lower levels of out-group hostility than Sunni Muslims of Turkish origin (31%). A worrying aspect is again that while among natives out-group hostility is significantly lower among younger generations, this is not the case among Muslims.
Here too, we must of course make sure that differences between Muslims and natives are not due to the different demographic and socio-economic compositions of these groups, since xenophobia is known to be higher among socio-economically deprived groups. Multivariate regression analyses indeed show this to be the case, but controlling for socio-economic variables hardly reduces group differences. Group differences are moreover much more important than socio-economic differences. For instance, the difference in out-group hostility between those with low and university levels of education is about half as large as the difference between Muslims and natives.
When we take into account religious fundamentalism, this turns out to be by far the most important predictor of out-group hostility and explains most of the differences in levels of out-group hostility between Muslims and Christians.
Also the greater out-group hostility among Turkish-origin Sunnis compared to Alevites is almost entirely explained by the higher level of religious fundamentalism among the Sunnis. A further indication that religious
fundamentalism is a major factor behind out-group hostility is that it is also the most important predictor in separate analyses for Christians and Muslims. In other words, religious fundamentalism not only explains why Muslim immigrants are generally more hostile towards out-groups than native Christians, but also why some Christians and some Muslims are more xenophobic than others.
These findings clearly contradict the often-heard claim that Islamic religious fundamentalism is a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe or that it does not differ from the extent of fundamentalism among the Christian majority. Both claims are blatantly false, as almost half of European Muslims agree that Muslims should return to the roots of Islam, that there is only one interpretation of the Koran, and that the rules laid down in it are more important than secular laws. Among native Christians, less than one in 25 can be characterized as fundamentalists in this sense. Religious fundamentalism is moreover not an innocent form of strict religiosity, as its strong relationship – among both Christians and Muslims – to hostility towards out-groups demonstrates.
Both the extent of Islamic religious fundamentalism and its correlates – homophobia, anti-semitism and “Occidentophobia” – should be serious causes of concern for policy makers as well as Muslim community leaders. Of course, religious fundamentalism should not be equated with the willingness to support, or even to engage in religiously motivated violence. But given its strong relationship to out-group hostility, religious fundamentalism is very likely to provide a nourishing environment for radicalization. Having said that, one should not forget that in Western Europe Muslims make up a relatively small minority of the population.
Although relatively speaking levels of fundamentalism and out-group hostility are much higher among Muslims, in absolute numbers there are at least as many Christian as there are Muslim fundamentalists in Western Europe, and the large majority of homophobes and anti-semites are still natives. As a religious leader respected by both Muslims and Christians once said: “let those who are without sin, cast the first stone.”
Voir aussi:
Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
History lessons are often incredibly simple.
Israelnews
Paul E. Marek
Paul E. Marek is a second-generation Canadian, whose grandparents fled Czechoslovakia just prior to the Nazi takeover. He is an educational consultant specializing in programs that protect children from predatory adults.
March 18, 2007
I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis,” he said, “but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority,” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians – most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Voir par ailleurs:
jcdurbant 
[…] que ledit monde ne s’est pas, de gré ou de force, soumis à l’islam […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] ces temps étranges du retour des crucifixions et égorgements au couteau de boucher comme du sacrifice d’enfants […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] ces temps étranges du retour des crucifixions et égorgements au couteau de boucher comme du sacrifice d’enfants […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] ces temps étranges du retour des crucifixions et égorgements au couteau de boucher comme du sacrifice d’enfants […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] ces temps étranges du retour massif des crucifixions et égorgements au couteau de boucher comme du sacrifice d’enfants […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] l’intégrisme religieux est très susceptible de fournir un terreau pour la radicalisation. Ruud Koopmans (WZB, Berlin Social Science Center, […]
J’aimeJ’aime
[…] que du Proche-Orient à l’Afrique, la religion de paix et d’amour démontre chaque jour un peu plus le véritable fond de sa pensée […]
J’aimeJ’aime