Today’s jihad attack at the Louvre — to which the mujahid is said to have carried a backpack containing paint bombs — suggests that the attacker intended to damage or destroy some of the priceless works of art that are exhibited in the most renowned art museum in the world.
For those who study the Islamic theology and law, the attempt is no surprise. Islam mandates the destruction of art and other artifacts created by infidels, because they represent the jahiliyyah, the “time of ignorance” before Mohammed brought the word of Allah to his disciples.
Earlier today Vlad Tepes interviewed Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam about the attack at the Louvre and related matters, including the Koranic basis for such acts. Dr. Warner emphasizes that Islam is waging an all-out war against war against kuffar civilization. He says, “Paint bombs are part of the civilizational war started by Mohammed 1,400 years ago.”
Many thanks to Vlad for conducting this interview and uploading the video:
Just wait until they mount a serious attack upon the Louvre; with dozens of attackers who overcome the guards and delay any counterattack with hostages while the foot soldiers torch the cultural heritage of the Western world…
This was just a probing attack; kind of like the bombing of the WTC in the 90s. The real attack is yet to come.
It is the purpose of some moslems. Islam cannot destroy art. People, human can.
You missed the point.
The destruction of art, the suppression of art, and the specific destruction of all evidence of civilization before Muhammad is a mandate of Islam. Muslims who destroy are are simply being obedient Muslims.
Yes, and Bill Warner makes an important point: Muslims are generally quite rational — they just have very different logical premises than we do.
They don’t commit acts for no reason. They do so for quite precise reasons, which can be determined from reading their source texts (plus tafsirs, or authenticated exegeses) closely. You begin with bizarre, inhuman premises, then follow the rules carefully based on them, and PRESTO! You’re a Muslim.
Every time someone refers to a jihad massacre as a “senseless tragedy”, he shows that he has not done due diligence with respect to Islamic law. Those acts are not senseless, not in the slightest.
And they are not “tragedies”, they are atrocities.
Excellent points Baron.
In your points, you’ve also highlighted why the authorities in the West seem so addled when dealing with the Ummah.
This is because Western authorities seem to believe that their values are some universalist creed also held by the Ummah.
It is impossible for the authorities, and the other Leftists to fathom that the Ummah’s actions do not stem from their universalist creed.
This is also why the Left can no longer seem to have any type of constructive dialog with the Right. Despite all their commentary otherwise, the Left cannot fathom that the Right is operating from equally valid, equally real premises that are totally different from what the Left believes.
Isn’t Ummah = Muslim?
Finding what words mean is one reason for using a search engine, like duckduckgo.com , which finds
ummah = the worldwide community of Muslims
“Atrocities”- very appropriate.
Which premise? That it is human that can destroy art, and not an abstract concept such as faith?
The premises contained in the Koran and the Sunna. About Allah, Mohammed, what is permitted, and what is forbidden.
Islam recognizes no premises other than those.
I don’t understand this “You begin with bizarre, inhuman premises, then follow the rules carefully based on them, and PRESTO! You’re a Muslim.” I have asked what ‘inhuman premises’ in another post. Now, the remaining ones: what ‘rules’ you mean? And I find it hard to connect your this sentence with the previous sentence. I don’t find good logic that combines them.
Islam is, by and large, a huge compendium of rules derived from the Koran and the sayings of Mohammed. Taken together these comprise the shariah, Islamic Law. They form the basis of the fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, which judges the actions of all people (not just Muslims) according to whether or not they are in accord with the shariah.
The rules are logically derived from the premises found in the Koran and the Sunna. They were worked out over the space of several hundred years after the time of Mohammed, by jurists and theologians. After that the existing rules became fixed in stone, as it were — as the saying goes, “The door to ijtihad is closed,” where ijtihad is the process of independent reasoning from which interpretations of the scripture may be devised. Any further ijtihad is considered blasphemous.
The logic I’m talking about is an Islamic type of logic: examine a thing based on premises, which are in the Koran, the Sunna, and the authoritative rulings derived from them. Then, using those premises, the Islamic jurist determines whether that thing is haram or halal. Occasionally a thing is neither haram nor halal, so it is permissible but not recommended. Those are relatively rare — almost every human action can be shaded one way or the other under the shariah.
I don’t think so. Muhammad can be mentioned, even mentioned by Bill. Bill implies that the first muslim is Muhammad. What point do I miss? You wrote ‘specific destruction of all evidence of civilization before Muhammad is a mandate of Islam’. The correct one is ‘specific destruction of all evidence of civilization before Muhammad is a mandate of Muhammad’. It is a human that give mandate, not a faith. The mandate was given by Muhammad.
Exclusion of the Dhimmis from History
On the collective level, the dhimmi syndrome is evident in the oblit¬eration of a people’s history, culture, and political existence. This obliteration is the consequence of the adoption or usurpation of the dhimmi past by the conquering group, which regards itself as the legiti¬mate heir to all civilizations created on the colonized territories. In¬deed, degradation and obliteration are dialectically connected, for the inferior group has no place in history. The silence on a dhimmi past is not accidental, but represents a deliberate eradication of the history of the dhimmi peoples. The change of status of a group from dignity to inferiority transfers to the superior group the cultural heritage—civilization, arts, and sciences—of the dominated group which, owing to its reduction in status, has forfeited its rights. This demotion of the legitimate heirs of a culture to a servile status, tolerated for reasons of economic expediency by the superior group, eliminates the only rival who could claim the rights the usurpers arrogate to themselves. Thus, the degradation of the dhimmis necessarily leads to an obliteration in terms of history and geography. Cultural imperialism justifies territo¬rial imperialism; culture monopolized by the majority group, politicized and divested of its significance, becomes a supplementary instrument of domination and alienation.
from The Dhimmi by Bat Ye’or, pp. 144, 145
Not too obvious at this point. Muslims are the result of an underlying illness. Treat the illness. The frontline is advancing across the west. Who is in charge? Do we even know.
We have to distinguish between mental illness and sociopathy. A mentally ill person, by definition, is not fully operational. He may perceive things not there, remember things not there, or be physiologically incapable of a logical thought. We can protect ourselves from these people, but it’s difficult to judge them as being morally deficient.
Sociopaths, on the other hand, are completely in control of their sensory and rational capabilities. They do not have the same values as normal people. Normal people are horrified at the torture of people and animals, but a sociopath may enjoy it.
Ultimately, dangerous mental defectives and sociopaths may need to be treated in the same way, for the protection of the rest of us. But, there is a profound difference.
What you may mean is that the presence of Muslims in western society is an avoidable phenomenon, and entirely the result of the illness of western society, which is physically perfectly capable of keeping them bottled up in their own countries. In that, I agree.
Bastille Day in the Caliphate
“So what’s really going on in Europe?” I asked him. “Ireland was as close as I’ve gotten in a few years, and I don’t know how to judge what I hear on the radio. It’s almost all propaganda or fantasy, as far as I can tell.”
“The radio? Yes, it mostly is. Hmmm…let’s see… I assume that you know about the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower?”
“Sure, of course: seven-ten was the French nine-eleven. That was two years ago, at the beginning of the French Civil War. They were both blown up at the same time, on July tenth.”
“Not quite the same time,” said the colonel. “The Louvre was first. A lorry delivered four tons of Semtex. A team of jihadis hijacked an art shipment and made the switch out in the countryside. Drove the lorry into an underground garage and straight up to the receiving dock. The blast killed a thousand tourists and cratered the place.”
“So the Louvre attack was a diversion.”
“Right. It pulled away all the security forces, and then the Eiffel Tower was attacked by terrorists. About twenty of them held a hundred tourists on the observation deck and threatened to kill them all and destroy the tower. After what had just happened at the Louvre, the French had no doubt of their sincerity. The terrorists burned the big French tricolor on top and raised a gigantic black flag of jihad. They declared the Eiffel Tower to be the minaret of the new grand mosque of Muslim Europe. Paris was the capital of the European Caliphate. It was a very sophisticated operation, blowing up the Louvre and then capturing the Eiffel Tower.
“They brought their own television and radio broadcasting equipment with them. Loudspeakers, generators, the lot. Then they made the usual demands: free all the Muslims held in European jails and remove all European forces from Muslim lands. And then on Bastille Day, when none of that had happened, they began pitching the hostages off the tower one by one, starting with an elderly Jew. Goes without saying they raped all the women and children. The Caliphate declared it a major victory for global Islam. The terrorists held out for a week, leading the call to prayer from on top of the tower, black flag and all. And after each call to prayer, another hostage was thrown down. Finally, after nine days, French commandos tried a helicopter assault behind a smoke screen. It was a bloodbath — the terrorists were ready for them. But the terrorists didn’t have enough Semtex to completely destroy the tower. They only had enough to demolish the top third of it. French sappers had dismantled the charges they’d planted lower on the legs.
“Attacking the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower were taken by the French as a declaration of war on France itself. After those twin disasters, nobody spoke of radical Islam anymore, just Islam. Islam was declared to be the enemy of France. The French passed new anti-Islam laws almost overnight. Loyalty oaths were demanded for all Muslims in France. The Sharia no-go zones had to be opened up for inspection and completely disarmed. Military-age Muslim men had to be registered, photographed, and fingerprinted. This was all refused out of hand, of course. Instead, the no-go zones were barricaded, and then the French had car bombs going off in front of schools and police stations. Oh, and rocket attacks, and random mortars. And snipers, of course, the snipers… That lasted until August, when the French Army went full-out medieval. The Muslim no-go Sharia zones were attacked and then destroyed, one after the other. Like I said, they went medieval.”
You think the French Army will go “full-out medieval?” I don’t. Ever.
That’s Islam’s hole card. That The West will never go full-out medieval NO MATTER WHAT.
Well it certainly seems extremely unlikely; we have now seen decades of islamic atrocities throughout Europe, and not a single, solitary European country is making any effort whatsoever to defend themselves against our enemy of 1400 years.
Having said that, with Swedes (of all people) now demanding their police (and military?) start to mobilize against the threat of an attack by Russia, could the thinking possibly be to–at the last minute–set their forces against the real aggressor in their own country–islam?
Just a thought.
You forgot about Hungary. Under Viktor Orbán, the Hungarians have shut off the flow of migrants and saved their country from the ravages that Western Europe is undergoing.
You’re right Baron, I should have said western Europe.
Though, as I understand it Hungary does have some of the ‘culture enrichers’, and any is too many.
Yes, some have got through. But it’s a relatively small number. Bulgaria’s problem is far worse than Hungary’s.
Aside from Vlad Tepes report, I found
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/world/article130506804.html which also mentioned the paint bomb. From what I’ve seen no news media have reported the existence of the ‘cans of paint’ described by the French prosecutor Francois Molins. It is important to give the sources for this kind of information else it’s without validity.
We sourced it here earlier yesterday — translated from Le Parisien.
Bill Warner is brilliant. Why do we choose to ignore the history of Islamic conquest? Because the only enemies we have been indoctrinated to hate are the historical targets of Marx – the bourgeoisie and the anti-Communist manifestation of Nazism.
The PC elites are still in the 19th and early 20th centuries, tilting at Marx’s windmills!
This is a very good piece, and packs a lot into a little. I always click on Bill Warner videos.
The intent is so ideologically focused and murderous. It’s baffling, and lamentably predictable, that those paid to understand these threats, and protect us from them, show no interest.
Islam is the HIV of human civilization. It infects its host and commandeers its resources to reproduce more Muslims, until the host itself is a hollowed out shell drained of all life. There is no Muslim civilization to replace the civilization it sacks. Islam itself reproduces the sterile desert environment of the nomad outlaw.
Why do the artists support Islam? Because artists, like leftists, respond emotionally and are incapable of rational analysis. I’m coming to think it’s a physiological, rather than voluntary, pattern.
Interestingly, married white women tend to be far more Republican and Trump-supporting than single white women. I make the totally unsupported-by-fact speculation that women have two circuits for cognition: one is the circuit that looks for support, which kicks in when the woman is not affiliated with a mate or strong social support network. But, once a women is in a stable,supportive environment, her circuit to buttress her husband and his endeavors kicks in, and she becomes far less susceptible to reacting emotionally to any outside issue.
I like to support my assertions with facts; I emphasize that I have no facts whatsoever to support this speculation, but believe it to be consistent with observations I’ve made.
Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I, the Lord your God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
From what YAH spoke on Mount Sinai it appears that sculpture isn’t kosher. Of course, you haven’t seen any Jews committing vandalism. They paint instead, Yah didn’t say anything about painting. 🙂
The biblical point is not to worship something you have made. It didn’t say you can’t make something. The Jews made all kinds of images that were religiously legal and even encouraged. Menorahs on coins, menorahs carved on ossuaries (burial vaults). They made human faces on coins and on and on.
When Jesus came he didn’t go full Mohammed and bust up art – he busted up the money tables.
You need a course in exegesis of the Old Testament.
Nice try though.
I was being a bit facetious. I have no doubt that some of the Pharisees worshiped their face as it was embossed upon the denarius.
You are correct, you not to worship the work of your hands or anyone else’s. However, I have toured the Getty and Norton Simon enough times to observe the almost ritual worship of the artwork that is displayed there.
For myself and my household, we worship YAH the Lord by faith and not by sight (no icons or any of that byzantine nonsense).
As for the money changers, they had no business being in the temple precincts as they turned the Lord’s house of prayer into a flea market, complete with fleas on the sheep that were to be sacrificed, and for the exchange rates, exploitive would be a polite term for it.
An odd claim that Muslims want to destroy all art. It leaves one open to the ‘all swans are white’ refutation and lessens credibility. Ceramics, tiles, carpets, calligraphy, metalwork and architecture as decorative arts are a feature of Islam, and have dedicated galleries at the British Museum, V&A museum, etc. this would be the ‘black swan’. In Shia Islam human representation is also found. It would be better to say that some (number unquantified) Muslims want to destroy art. And at least one Muslim ( the curator at Palmyra) gave his life for art.
Posted the following on Vlad’s blog – thought it may be pertinent…
Here’s a comment left on Jihadwatch once, by an archaeologist who visited excavations in Pakistan… the comments seem to have gone now, but luckily I saved this one earlier, as it seemed to be a perfect example of how Islam tries to physically “rewrite history” …
nessitasnonhabetlegem | February 11, 2007 12:51 AM
…A couple of years ago I was privileged to be allowed to join a study team looking into the rock carvings (petroglyphs) and inscriptions along the Karakorum Highway – part of the old ‘Silk Road’ network – which are, or, rather, were, some of the most historically important artifacts in Pakistan. I had read, naturally, the opinions of Professors Jettmar and Hauptmann (Heidelberg University) and also Professor A.H. Dani (Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan) a most civilised moslem of the ‘old school’ so to speak) and I looked forward to a very civilised and enjoyable two months pottering about amongst some very interesting carvings.
Well, I was never more mistaken in my life! The rock carvings are mainly, but not exclusively, in the area around the village of Chilas in the Diamir District and it cost the whole team almost two thousand pounds (three thousand US dollars) in bribes, and three weeks of time in Islamabad, to have our travel documents made good for the journey to Chilas. It cost us an additional one thousand five hundred pounds for the ‘arrangement’ of a military escort – an escort, incidentally, which was never provided; we were, instead, escorted, if that could be construed to be the correct word, by a group of what I can only describe as barbarian, gun-toting ruffians who had to be paid off in US dollars on a daily basis.
When we finally got to Chilas – a nightmare journey which took three days – we had the added financial burden of having to pay a ‘tax’ to each and every mosk in the area in order to be allowed to stay there (this eventually came to over one-and-a-half thousand pounds) and various moslem clerics routinely searched our baggage for what they called ‘illegal works’ and ‘the devil’s machines’ and which we came to realise meant Christian writings and anything that looked like having a purpose more than that of a simple camera.
We had been told that there were some 45 sites on a stretch of the Indus of about 80 miles in length, and on both banks, with about 40,000 petroglyphs and 10,000 inscriptions in more than 15 writing systems and that the carvings were scraped, or chiseled in some cases, into the larger stones scattered about on the river banks and the lower flood banks of the river valley. Certainly there are at least that number of sites but at almost every site we visited systematic destruction of the carvings had obviously taken place.
At one site, a mere ten miles from Chilas, we witnessed for ourselves a group of locals, obviously under the directions of several clerics, systematically destroying the stones with large hammers, steel rods and sundry other tools. When we attempted to remonstrate with these people we were physically attacked and our interpreter – a young man from Islamabad – told us that our attackers were telling us that they were deliberately destroying the works of the ungodly that the British put there so that they could come back and claim the place as their own again!
No amount of reasoning and explanation seemed to get through to these people. Some three days later we did manage to convince one imam that these rocks were much older than the British colonial era and he turned to us and said, according to our translator, that if they (the rock inscriptions) were indeed as old as we claimed then they didn’t matter and should be destroyed anyway for they obviously came from the mythical (his word) era before the coming of the prophet and so had no validity. He added that because we were interested in them then they all had to be destroyed to save his people from the evil ways which we infidels brought with us. All of this, you understand, from a man who was counted amongst the folk of that area to be educated and knowledgeable!
I’m not ashamed to admit that on the aeroplane home to London I wept – yes, really, I cried. Why? Because these damned barbarian moslems don’t just want to rewrite the past, they want to destroy it also – they want to remove any evidence that anything is any different from that which they claim. They are doing it everywhere and all the time – robbing all of us of our past, cutting us off from our various identities, systematically destroying our sense of us. Even here, in civilised old Britain, I have encountered moslem youths who disrupt archaeological conferences, attempt to destroy archaeological sites, attack archaeologists and pervert knowledge in a desparate attempt to deny that the past ever contained anything other that islam.
And what do we do? Well, we give in as far as I can see. Some days it just all seems so hopeless.
The muslim equivalent of peeing in the corner and marking territory.
Some things that explicitly mention muslim. “Understanding Muhammad and Muslims”, a book published in 2011. (https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Muhammad-Muslims-Ali-Sina/dp/1926800052/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486250294&sr=1-1&keywords=ali+sina). Articles from website alisina.org : “The Permanently Misunderstood Muslims”, “Letter From the Western Wife of a Jihadi Muslim”. These go back as early as 2011. Articles quoted are just few from several in http://www.alisina.org and others. Muslim, not Islam.
I do not condone using the word ‘muslim’ unneccesarily. I applaud President Trump’s executive order that uses no ‘muslim’ word. But when we encourage good logic and good way of writing, please act accordingly. It is human that can destroy art, that can terrorize other humans. I think ‘radical muslim’ is acceptable compromise, even people in muslim majority countries can deal with that, albeit grudgingly.
For this humanist unbeliever, appreciating art in all its forms is a kind of worship, of the greatest achievements of the human spirit. I don’t have to be a Christian to marvel at the many fine churches and cathedrals here in England and elsewhere, or to despise those who would destroy them.