Charlie Hebdo and Islam, Some Further Considerations

By Max Musson:

Despite statements made by establishment politicians and so called ‘moderate’ Muslim leaders in the West, aimed at calming the controversy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and the magazine’s repeated publication of cartoons representing the Prophet Mohammed, tensions surrounding this issue continue to dominate the news, and the reason for this is a fundamental misunderstanding and a large measure of hypocrisy on the part of those who seek to create liberal and largely secular multicultural societies here in the West.

The fundamental misunderstanding stems from a lack of appreciation of the way in which culture, and religion as a facet of culture is a product of race, and what I mean by this is that the genetic predisposition of a people determines the customs, conventions and artifacts with which they feel comfortable and to which they are naturally attuned and consequently, people have a natural tendency to create cultures that are in tune with their innate genetic predispositions.

Furthermore, when people are induced to live within a culture that is alien to them, to which they are not genetically attuned, they experience ‘cultural stress’, which has an adverse effect upon their behaviour, creating tensions that cause them to react in a more volatile way especially when they are challenged or when crises occur.

It is no mere coincidence that virtually all North African and Middle Eastern countries are either one party states, monarchies or theocracies with only at best a cosmetic veneer of democracy and with severe limitations on freedom of speech. Even Turkey which has attempted to bring itself into line with the requirements of EU membership, is still dominated politically by their military, who have carried out three coups d’etat during the last century, the last time being in September 1980.

Clearly, irrespective of the role played by Islam in the government of their countries, people of Hamatic, Arabic and Turkic ethnicity have an innate predisposition towards authoritarian rule that is intolerant of dissent. There is a widely held attitude among them that people should live according to strictly imposed guidelines and when these guidelines are broken, either their governments respond swiftly, or the people themselves are driven into a frenzy of anger, imposing their own summary justice in ways that are often very cruel by Western standards.

It should come as little surprise therefore that Islam as the religion of North African, Middle Eastern and South Asian peoples is intolerant of religious dissent and prescribes severe punishment for those who defy its teachings.

Peoples of Hamatic, Arabic and Turkic ethnicity are clearly comfortable with such a culture and as I have explained in an earlier article, when they immigrate into Western countries, the experience of living within a culture that does not share their predisposition towards authoritarianism and religious intolerance generates cultural stresses that they struggle to cope with.

Within Western cultures, the most serious offence that an individual can commit is premeditated murder. No other offence carries such a high tariff in terms of prison sentence imposed. However, within Islamic culture, murder, while still a serious crime is not the most serious offence and in certain circumstances can actually be mitigated entirely if committed in defence of family honour or in defence of the honour of God (Allah) or his Prophet Mohammed.

It is on this basis that ‘fatwahs’ have been declared by Muslim clerics against people who are seen as heretic infidels or apostates. The Quran in several places declares that unbelievers should be put to death and the Quran is regarded as the literal word of Mohammed and through him the literal word of God – a sacred text. Therefore the text of the Quran cannot be questioned or altered without the person advocating such a thing being regarded as a blasphemer or apostate themselves in Muslim eyes, and thereby risking death.

This is why the Quran has remained unchanged since medieval times and this is why Muslim clerics issue fatwahs against individuals who insult the Prophet Mohammed and why other Muslim clerics and secular leaders are most reluctant to publicly condemn such things for fear of being seen as blasphemers or apostates themselves.

In the Islamic world the most serious offence that can be committed is not premeditated murder, but blasphemy against God or his Prophet Mohammed and when such an offence is committed, as it was committed so many times in recent years by Charlie Hebdo, Muslims as one would expect were enraged, just as we would have been enraged if Charlie Hebdo had been repeatedly committing murder.

This is why, despite the murders of the staff at Charlie Hebdo and the murders in the kosher supermarket, Muslim leaders and Muslim zealots across the Islamic world have spoken out and demonstrated against Charlie Hebdo yet again. For them, the deaths caused by the Islamic terrorists mean nothing in comparison with the crime of insulting their Prophet Mohammed.

When the French authorities refused to act to punish Charlie Hebdo as Muslims would have expected an Islamic government to, individual Muslims already alienated from French culture and French society, already in a state of heightened tension through cultural stress, chose the most volatile course of action and decided to take the law into their own hands, as they would have done against unpunished apostates in their home countries.

I make these points not in defence of what recent Islamic terrorists have done, but so that we can understand why what they did was wholly predictable and why a major factor in the commission of the murders of the staff of Charlie Hebdo was the presence of a large community of people of North African and Middle Eastern origin living in France. As I have said previously, multicultural and multiracial societies are inevitably dysfunctional and it was an act of unmitigated folly for liberal political leaders to juxtapose within a liberal Western society a mass of people who by virtue of their ethnicity are genetically predisposed to authoritarian rule and religious intolerance. It is like sitting on a thousand ticking time-bombs and now, as we have seen, those time-bombs are beginning to explode, with a further incident in Belgium just yesterday.

I have also levelled the charge of hypocrisy against liberal Western leaders who are now clutching their ‘Je suis Charlie’ placards and proclaiming their commitment to freedom of speech, because while they have been content to see the Prophet Mohammed lampooned in countless cartoons in the press generally and by Charlie Hebdo in particular, they too have their ‘sacred cows’ with regard to which freedom of speech is rigorously suppressed.

Furthermore, on this point it is instructive to note that following the drawing of a cartoon in July 2008 by Maurice Sinet, at the time a cartoonist for Charlie Hebdo, which lampooned the son of Nicholas Sarkozy, Sinet was sacked by Charlie Hebdo.

Upon news that Nicholas Sarkozy’s son was due to marry the Jewish heiress to a large commercial enterprise, Sinet had drawn a cartoon which allegedly hinted at a penchant that Jews have for acquiring money. Nicholas Sarkozy is a quarter Jewish via his maternal grandfather, albeit that his family profess Catholicism.

The cartoon by Sinet caused a furure in which he was denounced by prominent French Jews , prosecuted under French hate crime laws and when he refused to apologise was sacked by Charlie Hebdo. So much for freedom of speech in France and that ‘courageous secularism’ when the subject matter of the cartoon is Jewish!

Likewise if the subject being lampooned or critically examined is the so called ‘Jewish Holocaust’. Poking fun at Holocaust victims or suggesting that some aspects of the Holocaust narrative have been exaggerated is I believe, punishable in France by up to five years in prison.

The French government and French liberals including the staff of Charlie Hebdo have therefore been shamelessly hypocritical in their condemnation of Muslim attempts to limit freedom of speech in connection with cartoons featuring Mohammed.

Again, I would reiterate that I explain these matters not with the intention of defending the actions of the Muslim terrorists, but solely in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy and folly of liberal political leaders and the liberal press in France.

Complete freedom of speech does not exist in France or anywhere else in the Western World today and it is the height of dishonesty to claim that it does.

It is also the height of folly to expect a civilised and law abiding society to result from the current obsession by liberal Western leaders with the imposition of multiculturalism upon every White country throughout the world. It is as the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the subsequent Islamic terrorist incidents illustrate so well, a recipe for disaster and we must all strive to separate ourselves from the dysfunctional multicultural towns and city areas that have already been created. We must build racially intentional communities where we can live safely and confidently as White people and campaign at every opportunity to reverse the non-White immigration of recent decades that has so blighted the nations of the West.

By Max Musson © 2015

# # # #