THE REBELS!
Être Rebelle-Poète - GHYSLAINE ROC, ADRIANA EVANGELIZT, ANNA POLITKOVSKAÏA...
Être Poète...
Être Poète... on pourrait dire que c'est un sacerdoce. Ce n'est pas seulement écrire, c'est un état d'esprit. Un état, tout court. Pas quelque chose de tout repos, dans tous les cas. Un engagement. Une révolte. Une rébellion. Une sensibilité à fleur de peau. Et puis au fond de soi, la Passion. Pour le pire et pour le meilleur.
Rien n'est facile pour le Poète, j'entends le vrai, pas les rimailleurs qui noircissent des pages pour épater la galerie. Il y a les poètes engagés et les autres. Cela ne va pas sans quelques destructions. Le mal de vivre et la soif d'Absolu peuvent projeter l'être dans des méandres où il lui sera difficile de trouver sa voie mais la Poésie peut s'avérer être un puissant exorcisme qui délivre de ces deux maux redoutables.
Quelques mots de Victor Hugo... "Le poète est « une âme de cristal (...) une âme aux mille voix (...) Le poème s'adresse à la sensiblité, non au savoir (...) à l'imagination, non à la logique (...). L'espace et le temps sont au poète. Que le poète aille où il veut, en faisant ce qui lui plaît ; c'est la loi. (...) La poésie n'est pas dans la forme des idées mais dans les idées elles-mêmes. (...) Le poète doit marcher devant les peuples comme une lumière et leur montrer le chemin. (...) II ne sera jamais l'écho d'aucune parole, si ce n'est celle de Dieu. (...) Si le poète doit choisir dans les choses (et il le doit), ce n'est pas le beau, mais le caractéristique. (...) Un poète est un monde enfermé dans un homme. » « La poésie n'est pas un ornement ; elle est un instrument. » « La poésie est un monde enfermé dans un homme ».
Le poète est libre. Sa liberté lui coûte cher. Il ne peut se plier aux normes, encore moins s'enfermer dans des carcans. Il hait tout ce qui est rigide. Les ordres. Les interdits. Les barrières. Les barreaux. Son âme -emprisonnée dans son corps- rêve d'évasion, lui parle d'un autre univers qui n'a rien à voir avec celui dans lequel il gravite. Si le bonheur est possible, il sait qu'il ne le trouvera pas ici. Ou qu'il sera éphémère. Mais il poursuit malgré tout sa quête... espérant atteindre des rivages meilleurs pour y mener ses frères courbés sous le poids du malheur. Le poète est un Idéaliste perdu dans un monde matérialiste et décadent. Ici tout se monnaye, tout s'achète, tout se vend. Jusqu'aux valeurs. Jusqu'à l'Honneur.
Dans le royaume du Mensonge, le Poète se veut Porteur de Lumière, semeur de Vérité. Il n'est ni à acheter ni à vendre. Son coeur à nu est la seule richesse qu'il peut dispenser sans compter pour livrer ses combats et faire triompher ses causes. Mais qui écoute le Poète ?
Être Rebelle
Jeudi 14 septembre 2006 4 14 /09 /2006 10:54
Être Rebelle...
Pour être Rebelle, il faut en posséder l'âme. C'est comme être Poète. Si tu subis tout ce que l'on t'impose sans broncher, tu feras toujours partie de l'immense troupeau de moutons qui peuple la Terre. Le Rebelle est un insoumis refusant d'obéir à des codes, des lois imposées par des individus qu'il juge inapte à gouverner sa vie et, par extension, le monde dans lequel il gravite. N'est pas Rebelle qui veut. On en revient toujours au même point, la Lâcheté est un frein puissant qui empêche beaucoup de choses. Avoir le courage de ses opinions, de ses prises de position, de ses actes demande un certain courage. Que cela soit avec ses parents, ses amis, ses patrons, l'entourage en général et tous les donneurs de leçons sans moralité en particulier.
Je me revendique donc Rebelle et fière de l'être même si cela apporte plus de désagréments que d'avantages. Le Galiléen qui fut cloué sur la croix en sait quelque chose. Lui, c'est mon modèle. Il a été condamné à mort parce qu'Il voulait apporter un peu plus de justice dans cette Palestine sous occupation romaine où le pouvoir en place ne pensait qu'à ses privilèges en se revendiquant de la religion judaïque sans en appliquer un iota, laissant crever le Peuple dans la misère. Deux mille ans plus tard, rien n'a changé, ce sont les mêmes âmes noires qui détiennent le Pouvoir et qui veulent faire marcher le populo à la baguette et dans leur sens. Je ne suis pas venue au monde -je me répète- pour supporter ce que ces foutraques génèrent au niveau mondial. Quand on voit George W Bush se réclamer de Dieu, de tous ses saints et de Jésus, commettre tout ce qu'il commet, j'aimerais l'avoir en face de moi et lui dire : "Tu devrais avoir honte. Honte de ce que tu es. Honte de ce que tu fais. Honte du malheur que tu sèmes sur cette planète avec ta cohorte de damnés fanatiques. Honte de te revendiquer du Galiléen, alors que tu n'es qu'un apostat et que tu as vendu ton âme au diable. Toi et tous ceux qui te soutiennent et vont dans ton sens." J'exprime très bien cela dans mon Message de Dieu à l'Humanité. Celui qui commet des crimes ou les fait commettre par procuration pour servir le Pouvoir, l'Ambition, le Dieu Argent ne peut en aucun cas se réclamer du Messager de Lumière que fut Ieschoua, le Juif Palestinien, crucifié sur l'autel du mensonge et de la dissimulation.
Je tiens à préciser que je ne suis pas catholique, que je n'appartiens à aucune religion mais que je possède l'âme christique, comme je le précise dans cette petite analyse. Quand on sait tous les crimes qui ont été commis par l'Eglise Catholique Romaine au nom de Jésus, on ne peut qu'être dubitatif sur ce que les "ensoutannés" ont fait de l'Enseignement de Ieschoua. Une honte. J'en aurai autant pour les Evangéliques qui sont derrière Bush. Les religions créées par les hommes ne sont que le reflet de leur mauvaise conscience et ne servent qu'à asservir les Peuples. On voit aujourd'hui ce qu'il en est de tous ces fanatiques religieux et extrêmistes qui au nom d'un dieu hypothétique se permettent d'envahir tel pays, de voler telle terre, d'assassiner qui bon leur semble et se permettent, de surcroît, de venir nous faire la morale. Ils n'ont aucune morale à me faire, je sais certainement mieux qu'eux où se situe le Bien et le Mal, la Justice et l'Injustice, la Vérité et le Mensonge. Tout le monde ne prend certainement pas leurs vessies pour des lanternes. Il ne faut pas qu'ils rêvent. Et tous leurs petits tours de passe-passe pour museler la conscience des Êtres Justes et les faire taire est vouée à l'échec. La Vérité reprend toujours ses droits et la Lumière ne pactisera jamais avec l'Ombre. Quant au Rebelle, il est hors de question qu'il se coule dans le moule de ces malfaiteurs -le contraire de bienfaiteurs- quitte à y perdre la Vie... le Rebelle est un kamikase.
A suivre...
Par Adriana Evangelizt - Publié dans : Être Rebelle
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 7 commentaires - Partager
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir les 7 commentaires - Partager
Mardi 10 octobre 2006 2 10 /10 /2006 15:08
A Anna Politkovskaïa...
La Vérité Assassinée...
Anna... douce Guerrière au grand coeur...
grande Guerrière...
tu es partie rejoindre la longue file de nos frères martyrisés,
torturés, crucifiés par les forces de l'Ombre...
ces abominables se repaissant de crimes,
s'ennivrant du sang de leurs victimes,
se saoûlant d'hurlements d'enfants,
de femmes ou d'hommes innocents.
Les bourreaux ont droit de cité ici.
En ce monde.
Ils font la Une des journaux.
Foulent tous les tapis rouges de la planète.
Se congratulent les uns les autres,
affichant le même sourire carnassier.
Ils utilisent pour faire leur sale boulot
de putrides individus
qui contre quelques écus
appuient sur la gâchette
et débarrassent la terre des rayons de lumière
venus apporter un peu d'espoir
à ceux qui n'ont plus rien et plus personne.
Tu étais un de ces rayons fulgurants, Anna...
Anna... était inscrit sur ton visage le mal des autres.
Ton coeur saigné par les atrocités des barbares
n'était qu'une plaie vive
où tu trempais ta plume
pour dénoncer,
accuser,
gueuler à tous ces sourds
qu'un Peuple agonisait
sous les coups de boutoir
d'un infâme potentat.
Qu'il soit maudit, Anna...
comme les assassins de Martin Luther King,
les engeôleurs de Nelson Mandela
ou les crucifieurs du Porteur de Lumière
dont tu étais la soeur.
Je te dis... à bientôt, Anna...
Car il n'est nul repos pour les Guerriers de Feu.
La Mort n'est qu'une étape
employée par les diaboliques
pour ralentir le processus.
Ils ignorent que nous revenons toujours
pour poursuivre le combat.
Telle est la Loi.
Nous t'attendons, Anna...
Mon site sur la Tchétchénie, en musique...
Âme sensibles s'abstenir...
Adriana Evangelizt
Ecrire un commentaire - Voir le commentaire - Partager
| Ghyslaine ROC censurée par le Washington Post (Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham) (Score: 1) par GhyslaineROC le 02 février 2008 à 07:37:48 EST | |
|
Dear you all
"Islam and Violence" "Do you think Islam is a violent religion?" Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on April 19, 2007 7:13 AM First, I think it would be appropriate to define the term “violent” or “violence”. Some definitions: 1. "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," 2. “carry out something THROUGH force” 3. “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.” 4. “Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.” 5. “Abusive or unjust exercise of power” It would seem it is number four that is systematically imputed to Muslims: Muslim “extremists, fanatics, fundamentalists, radicals, fascists, terrorists, suicide-bombers…”, to Muslims who yearn “to be martyrs of Islam and inherit Paradise, to kill for their God, to kill in the name of Islam” and so on. Well, let us put it to the test. Let us find out one Muslim, any Muslim, who the media or a government say has committed an act of violence in the name of his or her religion. Case 1 Suppose we have a “Muslim suspect” in front of us and ask him if he has committed any imputed act of violence. In many instances, he will say that he is innocent (even though he may be guilty!) and has never harmed anybody in his whole life. Why did the Roman authorities crucify Jesus Christ when they said themselves he committed no crime? Obviously Jesus very well knew what “crime” he had committed. With a band of armed men (called his disciples), and himself armed with a whip, he beat the hell out of the Jewish “Money changers” and kicked them out of the temple. When he was hiding in the Garden of Gethsemane, one of his men, Judas, apparently bribed, betrayed him and showed the authorities his hide-out (Although they knew who and where he was!). But, everybody knows Jesus was just a scapegoat. In a similar manner, many Muslims are framed and punished for crimes they never committed, and in most cases, there is no evidence at all, and most of them had to be released. It is well documented that some dodgy Muslims are paid to admit guilt against payment of a certain amount of money to their relatives, or are simply blackmailed into saying they are guilty of violence and almost always of “plots to commit crime” when their family, jobs or businesses are threatened. Very often, trapped to plead guilty in order to avoid a much harsher sentence, these patsies would confess they plotted even to kill the un-elected queen of England, or the Pope, or any world figure chosen by the Secret Services concerned! Many criminals (drug traffickers, crooks, addicts, etc.) amongst the so-called Muslim community are Police informants, and they will almost always do as the Police say. When some refuse, you will find their dead bodies lying somewhere in the gutter! Case 2 Suppose now that the “Muslim suspect” admits having used violence against whatever or whoever. When asked why he has done so, he answers that the person in question has swindled him, burgled his house and stolen his contents, or attacked him or his family causing bodily harm or psychological trauma, and he obtained no help from either the Police or the Law. Case 3 Suppose that the “Muslim suspect” is accused of putting a bomb and killing a certain number of people. The Muslim may say he is innocent again. But, in most cases he will be jailed even in the absence of evidence. In many instances, the government itself has been caught or has even admitted having placed the bombs, like it was the case with the IRA bombings. Scotland Yard admitted that more than 90% of the bombings were carried out and the bomb scare made by themselves. Most of those “violent” Muslims have been jailed for “plotting to commit a crime or many crimes”! The smart, for example, British Police always manage to catch them almost immediately because research is too lengthy and costly; so they make instantaneous arrests of all “guilty in advance suspects”! They already have a list from which to choose! Case 4 Suppose the “Muslim suspect” admits having placed a bomb and killed many people. When asked why, will he say he did so because of his religion, Islam, or that he killed “for his God” or that he wanted to be “a martyr of Islam and go to Paradise”? Have we found a single TRUE Muslim on planet earth to have made such a statement? A COUPLE OF IDIOTS OR FANATICS (SALAFISTS FROM CIA-ISRAEL-SAUDIA), MOST PROBABLY! But, where does the accusation emanate? It is war propaganda by the media and the government that is waging war in the Muslim’s country and killing, maiming, imprisoning, torturing and raping his family, destroying his property, his way of life, and keeping his people in permanent bondage. Now, why would any Muslim in his right mind kill innocent people as this is forbidden by his religion, by his daily practice of the religion, and by simple common sense? Who can guarantee that any Muslim who has survived the extreme violence of the modern invading and occupying armies, the worse killing machines known to mankind, can be in his right mind? It has been proven over and over again that whenever innocent people die, it is almost always the doing of the government or special groups (Blackwater, etc.) that want Muslims to be held accountable, or the act of a desperate and severely traumatised man, and this type of violence has nothing to do with Islam or the fact that those “criminal Muslims” are simply fanatics. Case 5 In all cases of violence imputed to Muslims, there is always a background of war being waged in a Muslim country, or even in countries where they constitute only a minority), and the accusations, in most cases, are false. Western States (even Russia) that want to go to war (for markets and spoils) would sponsor acts of violence (terrorism) and blame it on Muslims and use this as a pretext to invade their countries. But, the funny thing is that they accused 19 Saudis for having bombed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, but the same day they decided to bomb Afghanistan (because of Usama Bin Ladin who they accused of masterminding the attack) and Iraq (who they accused of harbouring Al-Qaeda and of possessing weapons of mass destruction) and not occupied Arabia!!!!!!! DO YOU FOLLOW? How many acts of violence have been imputed to “Al-Qaeda”? Tons and tons! But, Al-Qaeda does not exist, and the only people operating as “Al-Qaeda” are CIA, MOSSAD and MI5 and MI6 agents, trained killers, or patsies. In 2004, the police announced that “Al-Qaeda will attack Britain by the sea”, and will “explode trains and buses in London”. On 7 July 2005, PETER POWER, one former Scotland Yard working for Jewish interests – ELSEVIER – connected to the weapons industry and with a staff 1000 strong – and paid by Jewish interests, were out in the streets of London to carry out drills in order to prevent such attacks, and by an extraordinary coincidence (probability Zero!) the attacks happened right under his very nose AT THE SAME TIME AND ON THE SAME SITES WHERE THEY WERE CARRYING OUT THE DRILLS!!!!!!! (On 11 September 2001, the same scenario was enacted, and in both cases Israeli figures were not far away!) Did you know that the most wanted man on planet earth, Usama Bin Ladin, is not on the wanted list of the CIA and Bush said Usama was not his priority??????? Why after Usama’s dead silence for more than SIX YEARS (apart from the CIA manufactured tapes!), don’t they even contemplate that he might be in fact dead? Simply because they “bloody” know that Usama died in December 2001, and its suits them to keep him alive! Was he not created for that particular purpose, to be the scapegoat of all acts of terror perpetrated by the US and their allies themselves? In conclusion, we have to stop equating Islam with violence. The violence comes from those very nations who are accusing Muslims and invading Muslim lands. Violence and acts of terrorism are state sponsored and not the doings of Muslims. The only Muslims using “violence” are those fighting the invading armies of the West, of Russia, and the occupying forces in Lebanon and Palestine. When deluded Pr Richard Dawkins say religious people (without mentioning Muslims) “kill for their God” or in the name of their religion in order to obtain Paradise, he surely means Muslims, and I do not think he was talking of the 40 million US Zionist Christians who say they are busy working and helping Apartheid Israel to EXTERMINATE THE ARABS AND MUSLIMS IN ORDER TO HASTEN THE COMING OF THEIR MESSIAH AND BE RAPTURED, or THOSE JEWS, ISRAELIS AND RABBIS WHO PUBLICLY CALL FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF THE “SAND NIGGERS”!!!!!!!! Alex Jones has provided all the evidence required to prove that violence is the doing of the Western States in his video Terrorstorm 2007. People like David Ray Griffin (The 9/11 Myth), Dylan Avery (Loose Change 3rd edition), Eric Hufschmid’s Painful Questions/Deceptions, and many others have already proved that violence is the daily activity of the US, Apartheid Israel, Britain, etc., and not of Muslims. The use of “violence” imputed on some fighting Muslims is not “for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing”, and is strictly in SELF-DEFENCE. Any killing of innocent people (which amounts to murder) is strictly forbidden in Islam. When Pr Dawkins say their religion makes them commit these acts in order to gain Paradise, he does not have a clue what he is talking about! According to what I have read, Pr Richard Dawkins is paid by our tax money to preach his religion of Atheism and nogodism. But, at the same time, he has espoused the policies of various western regimes and that of ApartheidIsrael. He condones the massacre of millions of defenceless people in the mainly Muslim and Arab countries. In one of his talks (monologues) in front of a sheepish university crowd, he said that the cleverest man that has ever existed was Aristotle and that he himself descended from the cleverest of apes (Aristotle!) and that the white Europeans are descended from Aristotle, or something like that. Is this not an absolutely racist statement? Is it fair on Pr Dawkins’ part not to name the Muslims in his post “Kill for Your God? There is No God”? Pr Richard Dawkins is the Master of Lies, because it is a big lie to say that Muslims “kill for their God”. 1. The deluded Professor still does not know that there is no such thing as “the God of Muslims”! 2. When Pr Dawkins speaks of “religious extremists”, again it is unfair on his part not to say Muslim “extremists”. Who told the deluded Professor that Muslim “extremists” kill for their God”? Is he a scientist or a propagandist who believes every lie that is propagated by a racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic and anti-God controlled media? 3. Any Muslim who is seen using violence against anybody, is it because of his religion or because of “his God” as Pr Dawkins alleges? 4. Why does Pr Dawkins not say that those Muslims and non Muslims who are fighting against the invading armies of the West, of Apartheid Israel, of Russia, or of Bharat (Anglo-India), are only DEFENDING their lives, their families, their country, and their Way of Life? 5. It suits Pr Dawkins to LIE outright about the Freedom Fighters because he has espoused the racist and genocidal policies of the West, ofRussia and of Apartheid Israel! 6. The people who are fighting and dying by the millions, it is not because of their faith or for their God, as Pr Dawkins falsely alleges, but, it is simply for survival (and they will never stop fighting!) because they are being bombed day and night and their resources plundered by the invading armies, and they are prevented from being independent of the International Bankers. Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln, John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Malcom X are not the only ones who mere murdered because they stood up against the bankers! 7. The US,Britain, Apartheid Israel, Russia and Bharat are using violence on a daily basis against their Muslim prisoners who are treated worse than the Nazis of the Third Reich! Like racism, violence is institutionalised in all western regimes and those of the allies. 8. Pr Richard Dawkins tells, for example, the Bosnian Freedom Fighters not to (use violence to) defend their wives, mothers, daughters and sisters from being raped by the Serbs! But, although be taking up arms against the Serbs, sixty thousand (official figure) were raped! Taking the defence of ex-President Bill Clinton, Pr Richard Dawkins is of the opinion that “where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business.” So, would he also find no objection to the Israeli, British and US mercenaries who involve themselves in systematic rape and sodomy on the prisoners of Abu Ghuraib? By this reckless and vulgar statement, is he not also insinuating that even bestiality and paedophilia are none of our business? 9. By the way, fifteen per cent of those defendingSarajevo were Serbs! It is the racist controlled media that made the Bosnian “Ethnic Cleansing” a religious matter! And, while people are distracted by the false religious scapegoat, the genocide, and mass rape goes on. 10. The mother of Rothschild once said: If my son does not want war, there will be no war! (Read the letter of PM John Major to his minister Douglas Hogg regarding the planned genocide (“ethnic cleansing”in the Balkans. (Sorry, BAFS and I found out later that the letter was indeed a forgery! We initially did suspect it was a forgery because of its bad English and poor grammar, but it was published in a book printed in Britain!). So, who is the Grand- Father and Father of International Violence?US former Attorney General Ramsey Clark said his country (the US) was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world! Pr Dawkins should read more serious stuff and not drown himself in fetid Western and Zionist propaganda. 11. Is it not strange, that out of all the countries, Muslim and non Muslim, that are fighting western invading armies, Pr Dawkins does not find a single one having the RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE? 12. As Malcom X said once: It is a crime to teach a man not to defend himself (by whatever means) when he is attacked! 13. When Pr Dawkins says: “There is no God”. He does not speak like a scientist. The author of “The God Delusion” is deluded himself, but he is paid by our tax money not to see that. 14. Pr Richard Dawkins hates religion, especially Christianity and Islam (not Judaism!), and Christians and Muslims (not Jews!), and of course GOD (but not “Lucifer”!)! It is perfectly his right, but why should our tax money pay for his Atheist and Zionist preaching? 15. Pr Dawkins accused Muslims for 9/11 and for 7/7. Where is his evidence? 16. Pr Richard Dawkins has an agenda. He tells lies. He lies, lies and lies! And, this is a MOSSAD motto! “By deception we shall make war!” 17. Pr Richard Dawkins does not give a damn about the millions theUS, his country Britain, and the West have slaughtered like cattle during the past centuries, with undescribable violence and cruelty. The official figure is staggering: 487 million killed, including between 75 and 150 million Muslims, and he dares say that Muslim “extremists kill for their God in order to get Paradise”!!!!!!! 18. And the Holocaust is ongoing! As a “Darwinist” or “Neo-Darwinist”, Pr Dawkins is in favour of the “survival of the fittest” by weapons of mass destruction that his protégés are the only ones to have, to manufacture, to sell, and to use!!!!!!! When the West uses cluster bombs, depleted uranium, torture, rape, incitation to religious and racial hatred it never qualifies as violent. Is that fair? 19. Just look at the type of Muslim the West has accused of masterminding 9/11, one “Mohamed Atta “(in fact a MOSSAD operative who is still alive somewhere, probably in Tel-Aviv!). He drinks alcohol, eats pork, pays lap dancers, team with prostitutes, takes drugs and carries his Koran to night clubs!!!!!!! 20. VIOLENCE IS THE DAILY BREAD OF WESTERN MILITARY REGIMES AND THAT OF THEIR ALLIES AND NOT OF ISLAM OR THE MUSLIMS (OR OF FAITHFUL JEWS AND CHRISTIANS)!!!!!!! Truly practicing Muslims and Christians have no time to get themselves involved in wars or acts of terror or violence as they are too busy with doing good to their neighbours, fasting, praying, pilgrimage, charity, preaching, and leading a peaceful and moral life. Gloria in excelsis deo, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis Laudamus te. Benedicimus te. Adoramus te. Glorificamus te. Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace (SALAAM) to people of good will. We praise you. We bless you. We adore you. We glorify you. We give thanks to you for your great glory. Regards Ghyslaine ROC Wednesday 30th of January 6008 Posted by: Ghyslaine ROC [newsweek.washingtonpost.com] | January 30, 2008 12:37 PM | Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner. Return to the original entry [newsweek.washingtonpost.com] [newsweek.washingtonpost.com] Le commentaire ci-dessus fut présenté deux fois, et refusé deux fois. Les Juifistes ont des bombes atomiques, nucléaires, thermobariques, et « ethniques », de quoi ont-ils peur ? De la puissance des mots, bien évidemment, et ces sots de Musulmans qui ne savent toujours pas que les mots font peur aux criminels juifs et à leurs acolytes sionistes et qu’ils ne doivent jamais avoir peur de s’en servir, mais ils attendent qu’il soit TROP TARD pour alors crier Allahu Akbar ou Jihaad, mais en vain ! Ghyslaine ROC Ce samedi 2 février 6008 P.S. J’ai fait exprès de ne pas mentionner DARYL BRADFORD SMITH pour ne pas les terroriser, mais, ils le sont quand même ! C’est le lourd fardeau de la culpabilité ! |
[ Répondre à ce message | Racine ]
The Blind Professor
Richard Dawkins is a man whose missionary zeal and the fervour of whose evangelical atheism puzzle even other atheists. I have read articles on him in which journalists have tried to analyse him and his family history (without success) looking for clues – family traumas, neuroses, etc. – which might explain what drives his passionate crusade (I know no more appropriate term) against God. He is a man who as well as anyone else and better than many embodies some of the essential themes with which to decode the science of this epoch, which arguably began with Galileo.
My initial sortie into this arena was after being provoked somewhat by the introduction of Richard Dawkins to his book The Blind Watchmaker in which he claims that science has disproved God. In what I write here I claim no great scholarly authority or mastery, and indeed would be unable to write anything whatsoever if it had not been that Allah had brought about various events in my life which provided me with the very different materials necessary. So, far be it from me to try and prove God, since I am only engaging in this because of His providential arrangement. He is in no need of proof. Does the Real need to be proved by the Unreal?
Mr Dawkins attacks a Christian argument long realised by philosophers to be weak, the “argument from design”. In essence, that argument states that if one finds a watch on the road there is no doubt in one’s mind that the watch had a watchmaker since it is impossible for something so intricate to have come about by accident. Thus, the argument goes, if one finds an intricate cosmos, one must necessarily believe in a cosmos-maker simply because of the intricate and beautiful workmanship of the cosmos.
Mr Dawkins’ argument, which is merely the most abrasive statement of a position widely believed by scientists, is that the physical sciences and in particular those of genetics and evolutionary science successfully explain the intricacy of the cosmos thus removing the need for a cosmic maker or cosmic designer. The argument from design has a chequered history in christian Europe and the West, and Mr Dawkins’ attack on it is only the latest in a long and unfortunate story.
Given the parochialism of Western thought, that a christian proof has fallen is regarded as the death of God, rather than a localised cultural event of European and Western christian history. Of course, this confusion is compounded by the work of many Muslim authors who import christian arguments wholesale into their books without realising that they are already widely discredited and disproved in Europe and were never the basis of Muslim proof in this arena in the first place.
My first encounter with the relevant Islamic material long predates Dawkins’ book, when I was in Cairo, in our study of the most elementary works of tawhid which we were taught in preparatory classes in the Azhar. What I learnt there was later confirmed in study of the renowned work of Abdalwahid ibn ‘Ashir, may Allah be merciful to him, his poem al-Murshid al-mu’in. The basic argument of this Ash’ari teaching is that stated by him so eloquently:
Thus right away, the argument from design is abandoned. Indeed, in Muslim thought it simply never entered into the equation. The real issue is that something cannot come out of nothing of its own volition since it did not exist and thus had no volition. A void that had the potential for quantum fluctuations out of which matter emerges is not a real void. For a materialist, out of nothing, nothing can emerge. For Allah everything is possible.
The Shaykh proceeds:
So this is the crux of Muslim thinking on the proof of the creation of the universe. But what about the complexity and intricacy of the cosmos? The argument of the scholars of this science proceeds, once the impossibility of the universe simply emerging spontaneously from nothing is clear, to argue that the intricacy does not prove the existence of Allah, but demonstrates His knowledge and wisdom, in the same way that the painting can be studied for insight into the painter, or the musical composition for knowledge of the composer.
Thus the argument from design falls because it telescopes two arguments into one, which damages both, but if they are separated as Muslim scholars have done, then a new picture emerges.
There is a point though in having some sympathy with Richard Dawkins and atheist scientists. The whole history of the West is its emergence from under the dead dogmatic hand of the church, which espoused a religious doctrine that was simply absurd and insulting to the intellect, a dead hand which simply consigned its opponents to the flames. Scientists have by-and-large never shaken off the stamp of this long history of oppression, and although that battle is long over and scientists themselves have become a dogmatic and doctrinaire body labelling almost anything fresh, new and interesting as ‘heresy’, yet they earnestly rehearse the long story of christian oppression.
It would be a great mistake in this context, in reaction to scientists’ atheism to embrace the doctrines of the christians, because they are simply unacceptable to us, no matter how attractive they might appear initially. It is no use for us to wrestle with them, for example, using christian creationist arguments, since they are often simply wrong.
Let us hold close to the thread of our argument, and return to Dawkins. If he is evangelical then what is he evangelical for? What does he believe? Arguably in the middle ages, the church was simply a profession, and when priests fought heretics they were professionals defending their livelihoods. The church was big business. It may be for that reason that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is said to have remarked that there is no priesthood in Islam. So what church is Dawkins defending? Who pays him and for whom does he work? Well, this is an interesting question with a no less interesting answer. Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a seat endowed by Simonyi who was a software architect within Microsoft until starting his own company in 2001.
You may not immediately see the significance of this. What, you may ask, has working for the popularisation of science got to do with a major software company, and why should it matter? Let us take this thread further back and indeed right to the beginning.
Consider Galileo, arguably the beginning point of our specifically modern view of physics, the man whose encounter with the church many modern scientists, not the least of them Richard Dawkins, relive in their imaginations. Galileo’s patrons were the Medicis, the Italian banking family that played a very major part in the renaissance2, since they also bank-rolled Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci among a host of other luminaries. The Medicis were catholics from Florence but they were usurers. Banking was recognised in christian dogma of the time as the mortal wrong action of usury, even though the Vatican engaged in it, and, in fact, founded one of the very first banks anywhere in the world. Nevertheless, in the meeting of the Vatican and the Medicis – they were at times the Pope’s own bankers and for one memorable papacy supplied the incumbent – you see the coming into existence of a new dialectic, the commercial secular worldliness that amounts to agnosticism or atheism – although taking a historical detour through protestantism – both abetting and then finally at war with the tyrannical and admittedly hypocritical catholic church.
Next stop on our tour would have to be Isaac Newton. Newton is falsely thought of by Muslims as a unitarian, and thus somehow Islam-friendly. This is not a view that makes the real significance of Newton amenable to us. Although Newton was theologically (and most importantly ‘privately’) a unitarian, he concealed this all his life, since it would simply have stopped his progress in the world. This is not a zone for personal opinion. Our ulama’ have often considered carefully when taqiyyah – dissimulation – is permissible. There are situations in which it is possible to dissimulate, i.e. not to own up to the truth, when to do so would prove life-threatening. When it comes to association of partners with Allah (shirk) at that point dissimulation and concealing one’s belief are not acceptable, and certainly not for the purposes of career advancement. Newton lived at a time when monarchs coerced their citizens into endorsing the Creed, which contains a specific statement of trinitarianism.
The prospect grows more complex in Newton’s case because he lived through the time in English history called ‘the Glorious Revolution’. This event saw a dynasty – the Stewarts – removed from the throne, and a King and Queen ensconced on it who were to prove amenable to a new force emerging from the shadows on to centre stage of history, but this new force was the same as that already encountered in the story of Galileo: banking. But now banking arrives in the form of the Bank of England, the National bank, which was in fact then and until after the second world war a private bank. This bank began the issuance of paper money, which introduces the entire modern monetarist epoch, and was the entity owed the national debt, and that was something completely new. Previously kings had their debts, which they paid off. But now the debt was national, and owed by the people from generation to generation along with the accumulated interest-generated debt.
Newton’s job in this new order, upon acceptance of which he left his scientific work entirely, was first as Warden of the Mint, and then finally its Master. It sounds very commendable in this setting because he was personally responsible for the minting of gold, silver and copper coins. But he did something very important: in 1717 he set the price of gold at £4 4s 111/2d per troy ounce. That sounds an eminently sensible thing to do, to set the price of gold, but the question is, “What was the price of the gold to be paid in?” It was to be paid in the new paper money. What Newton did was to set a price for the new specie of money, to give value to paper in terms of the old value which was universally recognised (and is in many parts of the world today, such as the Arab countries, India and most of the Muslim lands). So Newton used his eminence as a scientist to validate the modern monetary system.
Now, you see this very straight line that we can draw from Galileo through Newton right up to Dawkins: the mysterious connection between usury-capitalism and science. You can also see that Dawkins’ missionary zeal has more than doctrinal significance. Like Newton before him, he validates usury capitalism, if only by his silence on it, because if he does not defeat and disprove God, then every revealed religion we know has declared usury haram and this is a major obstacle for them. His atheism serves a very useful function indeed to some extremely practical and worldly people.
The argument is not simply a theological one, although the importance of clear tawhid as the foundation of the din is admitted by everyone. As Ibn ‘Ashir said, may Allah be merciful to him:
The entire zone of the dunya, of worldliness, revolves around the mistaken thought that such attributes might be attainable by human beings independently of the Creator. In extremes it leads to the desire for all wealth and all power. The person who knows deep in his being that his Lord is All-Wealthy and All-Powerful is not the same as this other.
Figures such as the Medicis and the mediaeval German bankers the Fuggers were vastly wealthier and had more real power than any king of their time. They ushered in the era of dominance by the power of money with political processes remaining simply as theatre to mask the true realities of power. Thus, the British Empire was really the Bank of England Empire, and the Empire’s greatest conquest, India, was a project of the East India Company which had its own armies and administration. The mantle of all of these has passed to a relatively small cabal of financiers and corporate figures.
It is thus that Dawkins has placed his knowledge at the disposal of people who do not acknowledge the wealth, power, knowledge, will and compassion of God, but seek massive wealth and power for themselves. Dawkins is ultimately a priest in a new religion, and this is something that even freethinkers have always puzzled about in him. It is the new religion of global capitalism. Opposite it is the pure teaching of tawhid embedded in the practice of of Islam, pivotal to which is the knowledge of the mu’amalat, the ordinary practices of trade and buying and selling, a relearning of which by us – as traders and men of commerce, employers and employees, shoppers, buyers and sellers, as well as our scholars – will lead to the decoding and dismantling of the capitalist killing machine. For just as the authentic grasping of tawhid is the genuine foundation of the entire din, yet strangely enough this clarity of commercial transactions in the market is itself the indispensable base without which none of the rest of the din will make any sense or be acceptable to Allah. Thus to grasp the mu’amalat is to be on the royal road to the restoration of justice.
More germane to our topic however, given the significance of the relationship between finance/commerce and science, is our question, “What would the sciences look like if they sprang from the soil of a society which had non-usurious and just commercial transactions?” If we do not answer that question here, we do know that it is the Muslims who are obliged to take a lead in creating such a society and thus in bringing about the renewal of the sciences.
2 See Strathearn, The Medicis: Godfathers of the Renaissance, in which he compellingly shows that the renaissance was very much a banking event.
My initial sortie into this arena was after being provoked somewhat by the introduction of Richard Dawkins to his book The Blind Watchmaker in which he claims that science has disproved God. In what I write here I claim no great scholarly authority or mastery, and indeed would be unable to write anything whatsoever if it had not been that Allah had brought about various events in my life which provided me with the very different materials necessary. So, far be it from me to try and prove God, since I am only engaging in this because of His providential arrangement. He is in no need of proof. Does the Real need to be proved by the Unreal?
Mr Dawkins attacks a Christian argument long realised by philosophers to be weak, the “argument from design”. In essence, that argument states that if one finds a watch on the road there is no doubt in one’s mind that the watch had a watchmaker since it is impossible for something so intricate to have come about by accident. Thus, the argument goes, if one finds an intricate cosmos, one must necessarily believe in a cosmos-maker simply because of the intricate and beautiful workmanship of the cosmos.
Mr Dawkins’ argument, which is merely the most abrasive statement of a position widely believed by scientists, is that the physical sciences and in particular those of genetics and evolutionary science successfully explain the intricacy of the cosmos thus removing the need for a cosmic maker or cosmic designer. The argument from design has a chequered history in christian Europe and the West, and Mr Dawkins’ attack on it is only the latest in a long and unfortunate story.
Given the parochialism of Western thought, that a christian proof has fallen is regarded as the death of God, rather than a localised cultural event of European and Western christian history. Of course, this confusion is compounded by the work of many Muslim authors who import christian arguments wholesale into their books without realising that they are already widely discredited and disproved in Europe and were never the basis of Muslim proof in this arena in the first place.
My first encounter with the relevant Islamic material long predates Dawkins’ book, when I was in Cairo, in our study of the most elementary works of tawhid which we were taught in preparatory classes in the Azhar. What I learnt there was later confirmed in study of the renowned work of Abdalwahid ibn ‘Ashir, may Allah be merciful to him, his poem al-Murshid al-mu’in. The basic argument of this Ash’ari teaching is that stated by him so eloquently:
“His existence has a conclusive proof: The need of everything that is in-time for a Maker.”Note here that no account whatsoever is taken of the intricacy of the thing or things, in this case the cosmos. It is the mere fact of its existence that matters. This thought is supported by the famous question of the philosopher Leibnitz which Martin Heidegger quotes in his Introduction to Metaphysics, “Why is there something rather than nothing at all?” a question he regards as the very first in philosophy. It is well worth the reader stopping and reflecting on this question.1
Thus right away, the argument from design is abandoned. Indeed, in Muslim thought it simply never entered into the equation. The real issue is that something cannot come out of nothing of its own volition since it did not exist and thus had no volition. A void that had the potential for quantum fluctuations out of which matter emerges is not a real void. For a materialist, out of nothing, nothing can emerge. For Allah everything is possible.
The Shaykh proceeds:
If beings had originated by themselves, equality and preponderance would be united.The Shaykh considers the possibility that things could somehow engender themselves, or the cosmos simply pop into being out of nothing. Quite interestingly, he considers it calmly and coolly, not as a religious intellect confronted and disturbed by rational argument. Rather he considers it rationally, and says, “If beings had originated by themselves”. Then he says that if that had been the case, two matters would have been united, and the image he uses is that of the scales. At-tasawi – equality – indicates when both pans of the scales are equal and level, and ar-rujhan – preponderance – indicates when one pan of the scales outweighs the other. And he is saying that these two cases would be united and concludes at the beginning of the next verse:
And that is impossible.So he assigns a fifty-fifty probability to the emergence of the cosmos out of nothing, which is being generous, i.e. he is willing to consider it as merely a flip of the coin whether there is something or nothing, an equal probability of either. But then he says that the reality is that there is something, the cosmos exists, and thus it is not fifty-fifty, and these two are contradictory. The scales are not both balanced and imbalanced. The fact that the cosmos exists indicates that there is some factor which renders the chance not fifty-fifty, but one hundred to none.
So this is the crux of Muslim thinking on the proof of the creation of the universe. But what about the complexity and intricacy of the cosmos? The argument of the scholars of this science proceeds, once the impossibility of the universe simply emerging spontaneously from nothing is clear, to argue that the intricacy does not prove the existence of Allah, but demonstrates His knowledge and wisdom, in the same way that the painting can be studied for insight into the painter, or the musical composition for knowledge of the composer.
Thus the argument from design falls because it telescopes two arguments into one, which damages both, but if they are separated as Muslim scholars have done, then a new picture emerges.
There is a point though in having some sympathy with Richard Dawkins and atheist scientists. The whole history of the West is its emergence from under the dead dogmatic hand of the church, which espoused a religious doctrine that was simply absurd and insulting to the intellect, a dead hand which simply consigned its opponents to the flames. Scientists have by-and-large never shaken off the stamp of this long history of oppression, and although that battle is long over and scientists themselves have become a dogmatic and doctrinaire body labelling almost anything fresh, new and interesting as ‘heresy’, yet they earnestly rehearse the long story of christian oppression.
It would be a great mistake in this context, in reaction to scientists’ atheism to embrace the doctrines of the christians, because they are simply unacceptable to us, no matter how attractive they might appear initially. It is no use for us to wrestle with them, for example, using christian creationist arguments, since they are often simply wrong.
Let us hold close to the thread of our argument, and return to Dawkins. If he is evangelical then what is he evangelical for? What does he believe? Arguably in the middle ages, the church was simply a profession, and when priests fought heretics they were professionals defending their livelihoods. The church was big business. It may be for that reason that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is said to have remarked that there is no priesthood in Islam. So what church is Dawkins defending? Who pays him and for whom does he work? Well, this is an interesting question with a no less interesting answer. Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, a seat endowed by Simonyi who was a software architect within Microsoft until starting his own company in 2001.
You may not immediately see the significance of this. What, you may ask, has working for the popularisation of science got to do with a major software company, and why should it matter? Let us take this thread further back and indeed right to the beginning.
Consider Galileo, arguably the beginning point of our specifically modern view of physics, the man whose encounter with the church many modern scientists, not the least of them Richard Dawkins, relive in their imaginations. Galileo’s patrons were the Medicis, the Italian banking family that played a very major part in the renaissance2, since they also bank-rolled Michaelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci among a host of other luminaries. The Medicis were catholics from Florence but they were usurers. Banking was recognised in christian dogma of the time as the mortal wrong action of usury, even though the Vatican engaged in it, and, in fact, founded one of the very first banks anywhere in the world. Nevertheless, in the meeting of the Vatican and the Medicis – they were at times the Pope’s own bankers and for one memorable papacy supplied the incumbent – you see the coming into existence of a new dialectic, the commercial secular worldliness that amounts to agnosticism or atheism – although taking a historical detour through protestantism – both abetting and then finally at war with the tyrannical and admittedly hypocritical catholic church.
Next stop on our tour would have to be Isaac Newton. Newton is falsely thought of by Muslims as a unitarian, and thus somehow Islam-friendly. This is not a view that makes the real significance of Newton amenable to us. Although Newton was theologically (and most importantly ‘privately’) a unitarian, he concealed this all his life, since it would simply have stopped his progress in the world. This is not a zone for personal opinion. Our ulama’ have often considered carefully when taqiyyah – dissimulation – is permissible. There are situations in which it is possible to dissimulate, i.e. not to own up to the truth, when to do so would prove life-threatening. When it comes to association of partners with Allah (shirk) at that point dissimulation and concealing one’s belief are not acceptable, and certainly not for the purposes of career advancement. Newton lived at a time when monarchs coerced their citizens into endorsing the Creed, which contains a specific statement of trinitarianism.
The prospect grows more complex in Newton’s case because he lived through the time in English history called ‘the Glorious Revolution’. This event saw a dynasty – the Stewarts – removed from the throne, and a King and Queen ensconced on it who were to prove amenable to a new force emerging from the shadows on to centre stage of history, but this new force was the same as that already encountered in the story of Galileo: banking. But now banking arrives in the form of the Bank of England, the National bank, which was in fact then and until after the second world war a private bank. This bank began the issuance of paper money, which introduces the entire modern monetarist epoch, and was the entity owed the national debt, and that was something completely new. Previously kings had their debts, which they paid off. But now the debt was national, and owed by the people from generation to generation along with the accumulated interest-generated debt.
Newton’s job in this new order, upon acceptance of which he left his scientific work entirely, was first as Warden of the Mint, and then finally its Master. It sounds very commendable in this setting because he was personally responsible for the minting of gold, silver and copper coins. But he did something very important: in 1717 he set the price of gold at £4 4s 111/2d per troy ounce. That sounds an eminently sensible thing to do, to set the price of gold, but the question is, “What was the price of the gold to be paid in?” It was to be paid in the new paper money. What Newton did was to set a price for the new specie of money, to give value to paper in terms of the old value which was universally recognised (and is in many parts of the world today, such as the Arab countries, India and most of the Muslim lands). So Newton used his eminence as a scientist to validate the modern monetary system.
Now, you see this very straight line that we can draw from Galileo through Newton right up to Dawkins: the mysterious connection between usury-capitalism and science. You can also see that Dawkins’ missionary zeal has more than doctrinal significance. Like Newton before him, he validates usury capitalism, if only by his silence on it, because if he does not defeat and disprove God, then every revealed religion we know has declared usury haram and this is a major obstacle for them. His atheism serves a very useful function indeed to some extremely practical and worldly people.
The argument is not simply a theological one, although the importance of clear tawhid as the foundation of the din is admitted by everyone. As Ibn ‘Ashir said, may Allah be merciful to him:
The first obligation on him who is given responsibility | if he has the ability to search (and reflect) is to know
Allah and the Messengers with the attributes | for which He has erected signs.Now this is the entire point of departure for the din: recognition (ma’rifah) of Allah and His Messengers: knowledge of Allah’s attributes among which are al-ghina – absolute independence, freedom from need, and total wealth, and qudrah – power, capability, the ability to do that which He wills or leave undone whatever He wishes, e.g. He could have left the world uncreated so that there was nothing.
The entire zone of the dunya, of worldliness, revolves around the mistaken thought that such attributes might be attainable by human beings independently of the Creator. In extremes it leads to the desire for all wealth and all power. The person who knows deep in his being that his Lord is All-Wealthy and All-Powerful is not the same as this other.
Figures such as the Medicis and the mediaeval German bankers the Fuggers were vastly wealthier and had more real power than any king of their time. They ushered in the era of dominance by the power of money with political processes remaining simply as theatre to mask the true realities of power. Thus, the British Empire was really the Bank of England Empire, and the Empire’s greatest conquest, India, was a project of the East India Company which had its own armies and administration. The mantle of all of these has passed to a relatively small cabal of financiers and corporate figures.
It is thus that Dawkins has placed his knowledge at the disposal of people who do not acknowledge the wealth, power, knowledge, will and compassion of God, but seek massive wealth and power for themselves. Dawkins is ultimately a priest in a new religion, and this is something that even freethinkers have always puzzled about in him. It is the new religion of global capitalism. Opposite it is the pure teaching of tawhid embedded in the practice of of Islam, pivotal to which is the knowledge of the mu’amalat, the ordinary practices of trade and buying and selling, a relearning of which by us – as traders and men of commerce, employers and employees, shoppers, buyers and sellers, as well as our scholars – will lead to the decoding and dismantling of the capitalist killing machine. For just as the authentic grasping of tawhid is the genuine foundation of the entire din, yet strangely enough this clarity of commercial transactions in the market is itself the indispensable base without which none of the rest of the din will make any sense or be acceptable to Allah. Thus to grasp the mu’amalat is to be on the royal road to the restoration of justice.
More germane to our topic however, given the significance of the relationship between finance/commerce and science, is our question, “What would the sciences look like if they sprang from the soil of a society which had non-usurious and just commercial transactions?” If we do not answer that question here, we do know that it is the Muslims who are obliged to take a lead in creating such a society and thus in bringing about the renewal of the sciences.
Notes
1 Moreover, there is the principle of sufficient reason as formulated by Leibniz: “no fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise” (Leibniz, 198). This principle is often stated as “everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence” or “every event has a cause.” The entire edifice of science rests on this axiomatic understanding and yet an increasingly vocal group would have us believe that the universe itself is the only exception to this rule.2 See Strathearn, The Medicis: Godfathers of the Renaissance, in which he compellingly shows that the renaissance was very much a banking event.
Posted in Articles.
13 comments
– June 17, 2010
