Fanatic comes from the Roman “fanum”, the temple. Thus, a fanatic is one from the temple. I let fanatics comment on my site: it’s important to know how the minds of the deranged work. So one of those who thinks that they should fight for that weakling, god, claimed that: “… you said in your other articles you wanted to exterminate Muslims…”
I, of course, never said such a thing, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. This lie is an example of the old method of aggression known as “who wants to drown his dog accuses it of the rabies.”
I, of course, never said that I wanted to exterminate all Muslims, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. Saudi Arabia has decapitated people for much less than that. And Pakistan condemned individuals to death for just telling truths about the so-called “Prophet“. Moreover, I do not think such a thing: I had very close friends, and even teachers, who were Muslims, and so on. Somewhat observant Muslim friends watch over my little daughter (I don’t mind she can’t eat pork when they feed her…)
This is simpler than the distinction between “state” and “particle” which has confused physicists. Islam is a system of thought. (Or, rather: various versions of Islam are systems of thought.) “Muslims” are individuals, and millions of them believe in god roughly as much as I do, that is, not at all.
Wanting to exterminate literal interpretations of “Islam” is, not just allowed, but honorable: that is what “Christians” did to hard core “Christianism”.
When fanatics claim others profer rabidly hateful, unlawful statements, they are actually trying to motivate, and justify, their own rabid rage.
The problem with Islam is simple:
the Qur’an has around 83,000 words. However, in the following post, the author has isolated hundreds of verses of the Qur’an, for a total of around 10,000 words, calling for violent acts, many of them most gruesome:
I have quoted some of the verses in the Qur’an before, complete with all references, and the magazine “The Economist” then censored the posts, as it claimed they “violated guidelines“. That “The Economist” considers that the Qur’an ought to be censored, speaks volumes. Now “The Economist” pretends to have something to say on the subject: “First, Do No Harm” (it’s better than their old Politically Correct, insipid, anti-civilizational and despicable positions).
Similar calls to violence exists in the Bible, which inspired the Qur’an. However, around 400 CE, the so-called “Fathers of the Church” decided that such statements were allegorical, and metaphorical (still the question was debated for another 13 centuries, and many were burned alive, when the Church insisted that “scripture” had to be taken seriously!)
So what to do? Certainly shut down all religious establishments and preachers who do not present the material in the Qur’an as allegorical and metaphorical.
Tunisia took such measures today, closing scores of mosques where a literal interpretation of the Qur’an was made.
Another important point to be made is that it is the West itself, or more exactly its dark operators, all the way to the president of the USA in 1945, which encouraged violent, literal interpretations of the Qur’an, in the apparent hope of dividing Muslims, and manipulating them.
An example is that the CIA and its colleagues pushed, financed and armed Khomeini and his Shias to revolt against the Iranian Parliament in 1953. The bloody coup enabled to institute there Reza Pahlavi ‘s absolute and torturous monarchy. No wonder Khomeini viewed the USA as the “Great Satan”.
Hence, if the (supposedly secular) West stopped flattering Islam obsequiously (as Obama did) to just then bomb its strictest adherents (as Obama does), that would constitute a measure of progress.
Secularism is the religion of doing our best now, according to the science, technology, and understanding we have. It is millions of year old. It is the attitude which propelled human evolution. It is the natural religion of man.
Islamism, like Christianism and Judaism which inspired it, is a fascist religion. It is focused on the myth of a (quasi) omnipotent, jealous and furious god in the sky, who is a murdeorous maniac. According to the Bible, in the so-called “Ancient Testament”, god is furious against King David of Israel, because the latter refused to exterminate an entire people. God had told David to exterminate that People, and David refused. So what does “god” do? God tortures to death David’s son, for a week, just to punish King David.
With a god like that, who needs rabid dogs?
Of course that ideology, Abrahamism, justifies all and any fascist method: if the Great Leader orders you to kill your child, you must immediately obey, and all Muslims are supposed to celebrate Abraham’s abject and murderous superstition, every year.
Justifying fascism of the worst type is the bottom line of Abrahamism. Abrahamism is an embarrassingly primitive religion. Make no mistake: sometimes, it’s optimal. It’s thanks to that crazed ideology, perfect for making armies of fanatics, that, in a few years, Muhammad and his followers, were able to carve the world’s largest empire. Neither the Romans, nor the Persians, were ready for seeing the wounded being exterminated on the battlefield (Arab women did this, accompanying the initial 40,000 men Islamist army). Rome and Persia were caught by complete surprise by the ferocity of Arab Muslim warriors, and that allowed the latter to succeed.
So today’s ferocity is nothing new. When three massive Islamist invasions of Francia happened between 712 CE and 745 CE, the Franks reciprocated in kind: after the battle of Poitier (732 CE), they let all their slain enemies, thousands of Muslims, rot in the sun, refusing them burial.
Ferocity can only be defeated by a greater ferocity: just ask the Nazis. Earth is now a village, and it has no place for maniacal fascism. Ignoring this fact all too long, will only make the situation worse.
Two days ago, a solitary student walking on the beach with a sun umbrella, revealed his weapons, and proceeded to kill and wound 80 people in seven minutes. (Videos showed he had been trained by the Islamist State.) The next day, the Tunisian government closed down 80 mosques teaching literal Islam.
In the Eight Century, the Franks, who, by then, called themselves the “Europeans”, responding to the Islamist invasions, nationalized the Catholic church, and then forced all and any religious establishment to teach secular knowledge; thus the West rests on secular intervention by the government. And that does not mean to put ; nice to see Tunisia emulating that example.
Literal interpretations of Islam ought to be made unlawful. As the Christian ones already, de facto, are.
As simple as that.