7 May 2011
by Guillaume Faye
Islam is in essence intolerant, and its highly Machiavellian logic alternates between force and deception: deception, when Muslims are weakest and form a minority; force, when their dominance begins to be assured. Among Arabo-African immigrants Islam is not conceived of as a spiritual religion (its moral precepts are seldom followed) but as a revanchist form of ethnic self-assertion against Europeans, often called “crusaders.” Much more than Christianity, today enfeebled, Islam is fundamentally a religion of the imperative revealed truth and it has always believed, with a thoroughly blind conscience, in its own rightness, and it has justified all acts, even atrocities, committed in the name of Islamic expansion and for the glory of Allah.
Europeans, naive defenders of Islam, fail to comprehend it and interpret the Koran as a sincere whole, as a single unified text with a consistent logic, whereas in fact it is rich in prevarication, a text with multiple gears.
Islam can propose “tolerance and fraternity among religions” and “the freedom of the believer’s preferred faith” on the basis of a Koranic precept: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Sura 2.256); it can insistently reject any fundamentalism and fanaticism: “Islam is the community of the just balance” (Sura 2.143) or “no violence in matters of religion! Truth stands out clearly from error” (Sura 2.257). Islam can commit itself to compassion and forgiveness of offenses: “evil must be requited by good” (Sura 41.34; 22.96); Islam can even commit itself to humane treatment of an enemy and the Islamic obligation to offer him aid (Sura 9.6). Yet these verses are absolutely contradicted by fourteen centuries of Islamic behavior, for Islam has always preferred violence whenever the balance of power is in its favor, ignoring forgiveness and compassion, eradicating or subjecting in ghettos other religions in the territories that it has conquered, and tolerating in the latter neither pagan polytheists nor atheists.
These peaceful Koranic verses are a ruse. Theologically they have been annulled by the bellicose verses written later, in particular those of Sura 4 ….
Almsgiving (zakat), which constitutes the third “pillar of Islam,” is completely different in character from Christian charity. The latter is universalist and altruistic — which seems quite naive to a Muslim. Although Muslims and their allies, by a pure propaganda trick, attempt to convince us that Islamic almsgiving is a philanthropic requirement that demonstrates the humane and peaceful spirit of Islam, reality is very different.
Zakat concerns only the umma, the community of Muslim believers. A Muslim is by no means held responsible for giving alms to impoverished Jews and Christians, nor to succor them in any way; as for acts of charity toward the pagan or the atheist, they are deemed blasphemous. Charity is not based on commiseration or love of one’s neighbor in this conquering, intolerant and warlike religion. It is motivated, according to the Koran, by two considerations: first, to practice solidarity toward indigent members of the umma, in order to foster cohesion within the community; second, to teach any Muslim that he is not the real owner of the goods at his disposal, which are merely a loan authorized by Allah in order to illustrate his power and to spread Islam everywhere, by conversion or the sword.
There is thus no question of a Muslim indiscriminately coming to assistance of other human beings. For this implacable revealed monotheism, the Infidel is unworthy. Some may have noticed, though the media largely ignored it, that the Muslim Red Crescent during the wars in the Balkans only aided Bosnian refugees or Muslim Kosovars, completely indifferent to the fate of the Orthodox Serbs or the Croatian Catholics afflicted by war. The Red Cross, on the other hand, did not make any ethnic or religious distinctions.
Generally, Islam practices a policy of peace and apparent tolerance only when it is weak and remains in the minority.
Many Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia, absolutely proscribe the construction of churches in their territory. Christian worship is prohibited to foreigners stationed in these countries. In the majority of Muslim countries, the entry or residence of Christian priests is almost impossible; any proselytism is prohibited, under penalty of immediate expulsion. In Europe, however, Muslim proselytism is encouraged and financed (e.g. the construction of mosques) by the authorities, whose secularism is tantamount to naivety. The rule of reciprocity that governs international law is completely scorned; to their discredit Europeans readily accept this double-standard, which in the eyes of Muslims betrays a sign of weakness and resignation that encourages and legitimates, as though justified by divine will, their movement of ethno-religious conquest in Europe.
For the Islamic mind, the fact that Europeans do not demand from Muslim countries the same secular neutrality, the same freedom of worship that we extend to Muslims, means this: “Europeans know that they are in error, they recognize the superiority of Islam and the superiority of Allah; they prostrate themselves before us and acknowledge themselves to be Infidels, and thus it is just that they should become a land for our conquest.” These remarks were made by an Egyptian imam in the Cairo newspaper Al Ahram.
Europeans are unaware of the very foundations of Islam, notably the cynical imperative of the three stages of conquest. Initially a Muslim community established in a foreign land and still forming a minority practices Dar Al-Sulh, “temporary peace,” because the Infidel, in his blindness and naivety, permits Islamic proselytism in his country, without demanding any reciprocity on Muslim soil. This is the stage that Europe is currently experiencing, which makes many believe that a “secular and Europeanized Islam” is possible.
Only in the second stage, after the settlement of an Islamic community has been established, does the requirement of conquest and violence become apparent. This is Dar Al-Harb, in which the Infidel’s soil becomes a “zone of war,” either because of resistance to the establishment of Islam, resistance that must be broken, or because Muslims, now in sufficient numbers, no longer need peace and can abandon the prudence that marked the first stage of their conquest. This phase will soon be upon us: We can already see its premises.
In the third stage Muslims end up dominating. This is Dar Al-Islam, the “reign of Islam.” The Jew and the Christian are tolerated but reduced in status, enjoying at best an inferior position, that of dhimmis (“protected”) paying a special poll-tax and deprived of most of their rights; pagan polytheists (“idolaters”) and atheists are persecuted; and the whole population must submit to Islam’s social regulations. Under this “reign of Islam” the non-Muslim has no chance of occupying any leading social position. In Morocco, where Christians and Jews were the most tolerated and protected, they were nevertheless compelled to leave at the end of the French protectorate, even though there had been no war, as was the case in Algeria.
For many of the leaders of international Islamic networks today, the ultimate objective is to impose on Europe the law of Dar Al-Islam. It is a consequent project, propelled by an unwavering political will, which has already been set in motion. Because God has so ordained.
Source: Guillaume Faye, La Colonisation de l’Europe: Discours vrai sur l’immigration et l’islam, Paris: L’Aencre, 2000