 |
 |
 |
|
PROTECT
OURSELVES TO PREVENT A RETURN TO THE MIDDLE AGES The
muslim world still lives in a medieval culture where any lack
of respect, even humorous, against religion is not tolerated. That
these countries don’t respect human rights on their own
territory and freedom of expression in their own papers is condemnable,
and even though we should struggle to help improve this situation,
that is their own internal problem. But
what is totally unacceptable is when they dare to attack the freedom
of modern countries. They can do what they want in their own countries,
but please respect the freedom so carefully acquired over the
centuries in western countries, especially the right to atheism,
the right to blaspheme and the right to laugh at anything. Western
countries must protect these fundamental rights without compromise,
and all the more reason to do so when the enemies of freedom brandish
death threats and threaten violence. It is unacceptable to concede
to any threats of violence. Some
Islamic countries are even considering to request the UN to vote
for laws forbidding any texts of drawings lacking religious respect. Some westerners
even try to justify these requests by equating these caricatures
to incitement to racial or religious hatred, comparing them to
the anti-semite drawings that were published in German papers
during the rise of nazi-ism. But the difference
between the two stands out large and clear: the anti-semite drawings
really did incite hatred towards Jews through their texts and
propagated false information such as claiming that the Jews were
pillaging the German economy, or sacrificing children. They did
not just limit themselves to caricaturing a prophet or a god. In the name
of freedom of expression, so long as they don’t explicitly
incite violence or racial and religious hate, which of course
should be forbidden, any other drawing and caricature which is
purely humorous should be allowed, whatever the subject and whoever
their target. No subject should
be taboo or prohibited, otherwise freedom of expression ceases
to exist and the demon of religious or political censorship rears
its ugly head. For sure any explicit incitement to hatred or violence
against any religion or ethnic group should be severely punished
by law, but the right to laugh, and to laugh at anything without
exception should not be touched. But the problem
that this affair raises is in fact much deeper and serious than
that. We are presently seeing what I had prophesised a couple
of decades ago in one of my texts where I was warning the western
world to get ready to defend its fundamental rights against the
influence of other countries still living in the middle ages.
What we have
is the confrontation of two civilisations: a modern and liberated
one clashing with another one trailing behind by a couple of centuries
due to lack of education and science, still stuck in superstitions,
under the grip of primitive beliefs and which has not yet accomplished
the fundamental step of separating church and state. These two civilisations
are now trying to impose their “values” on each other.
The confrontation of these two value systems is irresolvable,
especially when the less advanced one has such tenacious paradigms
that they are fanaticising to the extreme and which prevents them
from seeing the truth. But the greatest
danger is if the modern world makes concessions to the primitive
one. That will be a victory of obscurantism over science and freedom. It is the less
advanced society which must progress and not the other way round.
On the contrary, the western world must continue to accelerate
its progressive reforms which allow it to completely destroy the
last puritanical and conventional traces inherited from the oppressive
judeo-christian traditions. Among other things would be the acceptance
of cloning, stem-cells and genetically modified organisms. If muslims refuse
to eat pork, that is their right, but they don’t have the
right to impose this dietary regime on the rest of the world.
That they refuse to represent their prophet Mohamed is also their
right, but neither should they impose this rule on non muslims.
And if the modern
world accepted to limit its own freedom of expression to placate
the sensitivities of muslims, then they are entering the slippery
slope of a return back to the dark ages. Not only should
the western world refuse to be influenced by the primitive world,
but they must do all they can via the promotion of education and
use of modern medias such as satellite TV or the internet, to
help the primitive societies to liberate themselves from the yoke
of their retrograde religion and to realise a true separation
of their church and state which western nations enjoy today. And the modern
world should concede none of its liberties and protect itself
from the threats of violence perpetrated by the fanatics. Though the Raelian
philosophy promotes absolute non violence, it also promotes the
right to legitimate self-defence, if necessary by force, but a
reasonable force aimed at reducing their attackers to powerlessness
rather than killing them. And though we
condemn all military attacks, such as the illegal invasions of
The western
world should develop weapons to specifically protect itself from
fanatical attacks of those who don’t tolerate our rights
and freedom. It is important
to compare the basic differences of these two clashing societies
in order to understand the differences and bad faith that these
defenders of medieval cultures use to seduce us into taking a
step backwards. Here are a few examples out of many: The right to apostatise : In the western
countries, in accordance with human rights, people are free to
apostatise from their religion, either to convert to another or
just to become atheist and renounce all belief in a god. But in
most Islamic countries, in total disregard to these human rights,
such apostasy is illegal and the law can condemn anyone to death
if they apostatise from the Islamic religion. The right to blaspheme : In
western countries, people are free to blaspheme. In the Islamic
countries the law can heavily condemn someone for this. The right of women : In western countries,
the law on gender equality enshrines equal rights for women as
for men on all levels. In Islamic countries,
women are considered inferior, it is legal to beat them, they
must wear the veil, or even worse the Burka, they are denied access
to education and are not allowed to drive cars, whereas men are
exempt from such restrictions. Men can practice
polygamy (have several wives) whereas women cannot practice polyandry
(have several husbands). Women are never
considered major and depend always on the authority of either
their father, husband or brother. Every
year thousands of women are legally murdered with impunity by
male members of their own family in what is called “crimes
of honour”. Gay rights : In western countries,
homosexuals enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals and can even
legally marry. In
Islamic countries, to be homosexual means heavy prison sentences
or even a sentence of death. Sexual mutilation : In western countries
all sexual mutilation is illegal, whereas in Islamic countries,
excision (cutting off the clitoris) is practiced on millions of
little girls every year, as well as circumcision on boys. The list is almost endless : Each one of
these situations is intolerable and constitutes a breach of human
rights. But what is all the more shocking is that muslims wish
to impose these unilaterally on our modern societies. For example
they demand the right to build mosques in the west and to be allowed
unlimited proselytism aimed at converting as many people as possible
– while in the west citizens are allowed to convert to islam
– and yet in Islamic countries the construction of non Islamic
churches is prohibited and anyone seeking to proselytise in the
name of any religion other than islam will be condemned to a very
heavy prison sentence. And anyone who tries to apostatise from
islam or converts to another religion can be condemned to death.
Double standards. Another example:
muslims demand the right to wear the Islamic veil in western schools
and can freely carry it anytime in public. But if a western woman
visits an Islamic country, she has to cover her hair with an Islamic
scarf and of course wearing a miniskirt would be under pain of
death. Again, double standards. Human rights are very clear on
both of these subjects: they guarantee
religious freedom, the right to convert, the right to proselytise.
But this must be reciprocal: if muslims wish to enjoy freedom
and rights in western countries guaranteed by the most beautiful
fruit produced by the modern world: Human Rights, then they too
must imperatively respect them in their own countries. As long as total
reciprocity is not respected, muslims should not be allowed to
enjoy the rights and freedoms of western countries that they deny
to visitors in their own countries. That means that Islamic proselytism
should be forbidden in the west as long as the proselytism of
other religions, or of atheism is not legalised in Islamic countries.
And the wearing of the veil or burka should be forbidden in the
west as long as women are not allowed to walk about with their
head naked and in mini-skirts in Islamic countries. In that way,
there will be no double standards. The defence
of values of modern countries, especially their rights so preciously
cumulated over the ages is essential particularly when they are
under attack by fanatics who’s religious books teach hate,
crime and violence against those who are not faithful to their
religion. The Koran is
very clear, it says in black and white: “Kill
the idolaters wherever you can find them, capture them, lay siege
to them, and ambush them. But if they convert, if they give money..,
then leave them in peace because Allah forgives and takes pity
on them” Koran IX. 5. Islam also officially
encourages racism and discrimination:“Oh believers, do not
befriend any Jew or Christian, because they are their own allies.
He who befriends them will become like them and god will not be
a guide for such a pervert” Koran V. 51. Islamic sexism
and the encouragement to their family violence also stems from
their “sacred writings”: “Men are
superior to women thanks to the qualities that god gave to men
to raise them above women. Reprimand those women who you fear
might not obey you, banish them to separate beds and beat them”
Koran IV. 34. Even the life
of the prophet Mohamed is considered exemplary and sacred even
though he was a pillager of caravans, or that he married Aicha
when she was still a little girl of only 9 years old as the writings
relate. In modern countries, to sleep with a 9 year old is called
paedophilia. And don’t excuse it by claiming that it was
common at the time. An act of pedophilia always has and always
will be a criminal act. Muslims cannot consider Mohamed as a model
of perfection and infallibility otherwise they approve of pedophilia.
If the sacred
books of Islam openly preach the murder of infidels, that is to
say anyone who is not a muslim or is atheist, then we, who live
in the west are all legitimate targets for them. The only way
out of this massacre is to convert to islam and that is what they
officially announce. In fact the Koran clearly states that muslims
should convert the whole planet to islam and kill all those who
refuse this conversion. It is high time for the free world to
become aware of this reality taught by 1.3 billion muslims, that
is to say about a quarter of the world population. Some people
claim that only fanatics interpret the Koran in this way and that
the majority of muslims interpret it in a more tolerant way and
don’t apply such outdated rules. That is possible, but nevertheless,
it is the fanatics who at any opportunity drag the rest of the
muslim world, even the more tolerant, back to the “righteous
path” by obliging them to apply in full what is called the
“word of god”. And every day,
millions of young muslims around the world go to Koran school
which continue to teach these incitations to hatred and crime.
For sure they are not taught to interpret with tolerance or look
at the larger picture. Since it is
the word of god transmitted by the prophet, such a word by definition
cannot be interpreted in a lighter way, it has to be applied in
its integrality. What is written is written. The only solution
to the problem is to prohibit any religion which teaches violence
and racial, religious or ethnic hate. We would never accept any
political party which promotes such a policy, it would be immediately
forbidden. So why accept it from a religion which conditions the
behaviour of the young generation far more than a political party
does? Therefore we
should forbid islam as long as it continues to teach such illegal
horrors around the world. The only way that islam could escape
such a prohibition would be if its directors accept to censure
its religious texts and remove the passages which incite to crime.
In that way, muslims will prove their good faith and be able to
join the international community where only those religions which
incite tolerance will be able to live in harmony and mutual respect. The UN must
immediately initiate an international committee to censure religious
writings (all religious writings) to ensure they conform to human
rights and to once and for all remove all the passages which infringe
upon them. As long as that is
not done, islam should be declared illegal in western countries
and Islamic schools, and places of such cult where these abominations
are taught every day should be forbidden as the breeding grounds
of the terrorists and criminals of tomorrow The modern and free
world must protect its freedom, if necessary by force, but once
again with the least violent force
to ensure the legitimate defence of its values. The scientific
advance enjoyed by the west allows it to protect itself militarily
and in a most non violent way from the fanatics who wish to bring
it back to the middle ages. This advance should be maintained
so that even if the Islamic fundamentalists largely outnumber
the western population, they remain incapable of presenting a
threat to the modern world. A long time
ago, islam already invaded spain and a part of france before being
pushed back militarily, which shows that the west is not the only
one guilty of invading sovereign states such as Afghanistan or
Iraq. If Islamic fundamentalists had the means technologically
and militarily, there is no shadow of a doubt that they would
invade the western world today and try and exterminate all those
who don’t convert to Islam. And this they
would do using a list of false pretences: because the western
world had previously colonised the muslim world which left them
with a desire for vengeance, because they think that the western
world pillaged their oil riches, because they resent the western
world for having stolen their Palestinian territories to create
the state of Israel, because they are occupying Afghanistan and
Iraq, etc, but all these are just false excuses: the
truth is that their religion teaches them to convert the whole
planet and exterminate all those who refuse to convert, the infidels
and the atheists as their invasion of some parts of This philosophy
of world dominance to create a “kingdom of god” on
earth is what is the most dangerous. And the western world cannot
accept that every day millions of young children are conditioned
to accept this vision of the future. The violent
manifestations following the caricatures of a prophet constitute
just one little detail which reveals another danger. That of our
own modern values and freedom being destroyed by a domination-seeking
and intolerant people, and ourselves being dragged back to the
middle ages. For these reason,
modern societies should protect their values and fundamental rights,
without making the slightest concession, if necessary by the use
of force, arming themselves by developing new technologies so
as to preserve sufficient advance to remain invincible, in the
face of all the primitive and obscurantist forces of the planet. RAEL (copyright free) |