by Theodore Dalrymple
An article in Le Monde draws attention to the intellectual nullity of the ideas behind the terrorist attacks in France. It is now as if a whole society is being held to ransom or dominated by its worst and most stupid members. This is in stark contrast to the intelligence that is expended on trying to understand the stupid. To put it another way, the stupid are the stoat and the intelligent are the rabbit.
By now I must have read scores of articles on the subject and none of them has led me to a Eureka! moment, such that after it I understood what had previously puzzled me. I am not even sure any longer what to understand it would be like: how would I know that my understanding was true rather than illusory? What rings true is often, in fact, false.
Recently, though, I read in Le Figaro an article by the famous historian of mediaeval philosophy, including Islamic philosophy, Rémy Brague, which proposed a theory which at least seemed to me plausible. He had noticed, as had many others, that a number of the terrorists had indulged in somewhat crude debauchery before suddenly turning puritanically pious and killing others in the certainty that they themselves would be killed.
According to Brague’s theory, they would still have had some attachment to Islam even in their debauched phase, rather as a lapsed Catholic retains something of his Catholicism even when he has ceased to believe. In other words, the debauched Moslems still feel subliminally that what they are doing is wrong from the Islamic standpoint; and some of them are suddenly overwhelmed by guilt at his backsliding.
However, a slow process of repentance is not for them: it would involve a life without the pleasures that are now so important to them. By killing others and being killed themselves in the process, they are getting their repentance over in one fell swoop. They will not have to face a long life of self-denial, but accede at once to the heavenly virgins; heaven is debauchery without the guilt. (I have put the whole case in rather more vulgar a way that in which Professor Brague put it.)
I don’t know whether the theory is true, or how one could prove to be so. One could ask failed suicide bombers, I suppose, but I would not count on them as altogether reliable witnesses to their own state of mind, even if they wanted to be truthful, which would be doubtful. So I shall continue reading the articles.
First published in Salisbury Review.
- Love This
- Yahoo Mail
- Facebook Messenger
- Copy Link
A reading of the Hadith, Sira and Koran would lead you to the correct concluion. I'll help you so in the futurer you don't make the same mistake.
Muslims get to paradise by doing more good deeds than bad. That leads to uncertainty and that leads to findng something in the texts thart guarantees paradise. There are two well know paths.
1) Fight and die in Jihad
2) Emigrate to new lands in Dar al-Harb in the way of Allah to convert the infidel – Hijrah.
Since the Muslim knows with certainty that paradise awaits both ways above, letting loose in a strip club or bar does not lessen your chances of paradise.
This has been explained by many observers of Islam especially Robert Spencer, banned from entering Great Britain for simply pointing out the truth. As Mr Dalrymple is English it is no surprise he does't know about this. Might as well keep the Brits in the dark by banning truth tellers and keep throwing Tommy Robinsonin prison.
In the end the Brits will be sorry just as we will e should we elect "Crooked Hilary" who nevr met a Muslim she didn't like.
I think the conclusion of this article is right. The cowards take shortcuts to heaven. Muslims are afraid of Allah, in contrast to Christians who are loved by God. Muslims have never their certainty to enter Allah's heaven (which is by the way hell), no matter how many good deeds (good according to Islam) they do