![]()
- "GUSTAVE LE B0N 1884: ARABS CIVILISED EUROPE..."1884
![]()
MY THOUGHT(S) ON WAKING UP!
ARABIAN ISLAMIC CIVILISATION
So-called Greco-Roman Civilisation ignored all other ancient and post-Christian Civilisations, but adopted the best from them without giving much credit to them or none at all! Am I still dreaming or did I really see how some Ancient Humans still live to this very day unaffected or uncorrupted by so-called Western and other civilisations, maybe are even still eating human flesh and drinking human blood as the leading Luciferian Lodges are still doing in modern times, the Skull & Bones, the Freemasonic Lodges, including some owned or led by so-called Jews, the British and other Royals, Black Magicians, Voodoo Sorcerers, by even Catholics and Christians ritually, and so on ?
The White European ungrateful great universal Nation called Christendom pounced on Palestine, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, the Maghreb, Yemen, Jordan, North, Central and South Africa, Hindustan, China, Indo China, Indonesia and other advanced civilisations and destroyed as much as they could or needed to; stole everything and made most world advancement theirs by giving them European names as if they were the originators, and trace all to Greece, Rome and Europe. Even the lands have changed their original names. Egyptians, for example, never knew a country called Egypt before the European hordes invaded them! They gave European names to most of the lands they conquered, or keep changing their names, and plundered, stole, and forcibly occupied all those lands to this very day while preaching racism all the time.
The Arab Muhammad made God Unique, and all religions to have the same roots and common values; abolished all racism and slavery in his first community and ruling State, after claiming to have perfected all previous religions, which he indeed did, through hallucination, human genius or an Angel of God as his wife’s uncle confirmed claimed, as a Christian, was the long awaited Christian Prophet as predicted by Christ Muhammad, after fighting each other, the wealthy Arabs and others, became the very best, the bravest fighter, the kindest, and most forgiving of his people who were of all religions of the time, but also the worst enemy of the Christian ruling empires that declared war on the religion he had had written down and checked during his lifetime in front of hundreds of witnesses; and thousands of Arabs and others memorised the entire Oral and Written Revelations or Inspirations called Islam by heart – a feature unique to Islam!
All ancient civilisations like the Vedic, Assyrian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman seemed to have crumbled down and fallen into dust and oblivion, but the Arab one did not as many other civilisations found Islam mesmerising and appealing to all masses as well as to their leaders and it was never forced upon them as Christianity was after all its conquests. They became the new Muslims by millions just as they are doing today. As a people, the Arabs are still here, speaking the same magical language of old after more than 1400 years, another unique feature of Arab Islamic civilisation.
Muhammad’s most essential elements of that Islamic civilisation are still here for any honest historian or researcher to see and appreciate through its Way or religion, the magic of its language, its arts and sciences from Africa to Asia and Europe. The Arabs civilised Europe – an unbiased historical fact – although Europe has never stopped trying to destroy Islam and Muslims and hide their greatness and magical power. The War on Islam and Muslims goes unabated on all sides: decadent Christianity, materialism, Communism, and Zionism.
Conquerors came and went away, overthrew the Arabs many times and continuously, but none managed to completely destroy that great civilisation, but they rather adopted in time, and gradually, if not Islam, its core values like peace, freedom, truth, justice and morality that were embraced by the greatest Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilisations that are today still Islamic more or less, as well as much of Eastern, Central and Southern Asia, even Europe, the Balkans and Russia more and more. They have all enriched their own past heritage with Islam and the magic of its spiritual language Arabic, keeping Muhammad alive in the hearts and way of life of some 1.7 billion souls, which today sadly face total destruction with the hegemony of modern bio-technical achievements in the hands of what many call the Synagogue of Satan, and decadent Christianity that lost nearly half of its followers due to materialist and ideological onslaughts. Do not let yourselves be fooled by believing and repeating ad nauseam that Christianity has the most adherents today – some 2 billion, they say! Or that the Arabs mysteriously appeared from the uninhabited Arabian Desert in the 6th century of the Common Era.
BAFS
Wednesday 18 January 2023
Que
la frustration de Gérald Darmanin doit être grande, au lendemain de
l’épilogue de l’imbroglio politico-judiciaire dont il n’est pas ressorti
grandi… Oui, que la frustration du ministre de l’Intérieur doit être
grande, au lendemain de l’expulsion vers le Maroc de l’imam dont il
avait fait subitement l’ennemi public n° 1, mais qui avait réussi à
passer à travers les mailles du filet, lui infligeant un camouflet
cuisant au beau milieu d’un été incendiaire.
Eh oui, car le bannissement de Hassan Iquioussen
n’est pas marqué de son sceau, mais de celui de la secrétaire d’Etat
belge à l’Asile et la Migration, Nicole de Moor. En d’autres termes, ce
que la France a échoué à faire, la Belgique l’a réalisé hier, vendredi
13 janvier. Il faut dire que le Maroc a entre-temps fini par infléchir
sa position, acceptant de lui délivrer un laisser-passer.
« Cet homme est né en France, cette expulsion est un déracinement pour lui, ce n’est pas un retour et c’est un véritable exil. Sa vie privée et familiale est définitivement disloquée », a aussitôt réagi, en le déplorant vivement, l’avocate de l’imam Iquioussen, Me Lucie Simon.
« Aujourd’hui, c’est une famille entière qui est séparée et qui ne pourra certainement plus être reconstituée, nous attendons le jugement sur le fond du Tribunal administratif de Paris, si l’arrêté d’expulsion était annulé, la France devra assurer son retour», a-t-elle souligné.
Comme de bien entendu, les deux proches voisins, la Belgique et la France, s’autocongratulent, se flattent d’être enfin parvenus à bouter hors d’Europe leur nouvelle bête noire, en usant d’une langue de bois toute diplomatique.
Nicole de Moor s’est ainsi félicitée de « la bonne coopération» avec la France, martelant : « Nous ne pouvons pas permettre à un extrémiste de se promener sur notre territoire. Toute personne qui n’a pas le droit d’être ici doit être renvoyée ». De leur côté, les proches conseillers de Gérald Darmanin, qui auraient été mieux inspirés d’avoir le triomphe modeste, ont déclaré : « C’est une grande victoire contre le séparatisme».
Crieront-ils à nouveau victoire dans le prétoire, à l’issue de l’audience du 16 février prochain ? Là est la question… En l’espèce, c’est à la justice qu’il reviendra de trancher, après avoir été saisie de la plainte déposée contre Gérald Darmanin par Hassan Iquioussen pour « diffamation » à son encontre.
Rappelons qu’il est reproché au ministre de l’Intérieur d’avoir qualifié l’imam du Nord de la France – avec lequel il avait volontiers dîné en 2014, alors même qu’il convoitait la mairie de Tourcoing – sur Radio France, le 2 septembre, de « délinquant, fuyard et séparatiste », mais aussi d’avoir affirmé qu’il avait « des choses à se reprocher » et s’était « soustrait à la décision de justice ».
8 commentaires
Laissez un commentaireLaisser un commentaire
Vous devez vous connecter pour publier un commentaire.
La mosquée d’Agen, la plus grande d’Aquitaine, ouvre enfin ses portes
De très belle facture, l’implantation au coeur d’Agen de la plus grande mosquée d’Aquitaine, magnifiée par une ornementation islamique remarquable, faite d’entrelacs en stuc et de faïences incrustées sur ses murs, n’attendait plus que le ruban inaugural soit coupé pour ouvrir grand ses portes…
Mais c’était sans compter l’irruption d’un virus planétaire ravageur, qui frappa durement en 2020 à toutes les portes, s’infiltrant dans toutes les brèches, même celles de forteresses imprenables ou d’enceintes inviolables, et devant lequel elle se barricada.
Longtemps portée par l’un de ses plus fervents promoteurs, Paul Chollet, le regretté maire de la cité phare du Lot-et-Garonne, mort en pleine pandémie, sans avoir eu le bonheur de voir l’aboutissement de tous ses efforts, l’imposante et somptueuse mosquée de style mauresque aura dû attendre trois années interminables, qui parurent une éternité à la communauté musulmane locale, avant que son inauguration officielle ait lieu.
C’est désormais chose faite depuis samedi 14 janvier, un jour à marquer d’une pierre blanche pour l’imam Mohamed Nayma et les nombreux fidèles de la région.
En présence des membres de l’association des Musulmans de l’Agenais et de leur président Messaoud Settati, de la sous-préfète, du maire d’Agen, Jean Dionis, de plusieurs élus, ainsi que de hauts dignitaires religieux d’autres obédiences, la magie du coupé de ruban a pu enfin opérer : elle a, en un seul coup de ciseaux, déverrouiller les portes de la plus grande mosquée d’Aquitaine, la rendant accessible à tous, notamment aux quelque 3 000 fidèles qu’elle est en capacité d’accueillir.
A l’occasion de cette inauguration en grande pompe, si fébrilement espérée pendant trois longues années, l’imam Mohamed Nayma a rendu un vibrant hommage à Paul Chollet, le premier magistrat d’Agen, lequel, jusqu’au soir de son existence, à 94 ans, resta le « précurseur d’un grand humanisme » qui força le respect de ses administrés musulmans.
« Il a tant œuvré pour que ce lieu de prière soit digne de notre communauté. Je salue la présence de son fils, Pierre Chollet », a-t-il souligné, avant de remercier chaleureusement les fondateurs et les généreux mécènes de « ce lieu de rassemblement contre la tentation de nous diviser », proclamant avec solennité : « Nous, les héritiers, nous ne céderons jamais aux obscurantistes ».
Loin d’éluder l’épineuse question du nombre insuffisant de carrés musulmans en France, l’imam Mohamed Nayma l’a abordée sans détour, devant les autorités locales, en conclusion de son allocution, Agen n’échappant pas à la pénurie criante qui sévit ailleurs, dans la plupart des cimetières de l’Hexagone.
Laisser un commentaire
Vous devez vous connecter pour publier un commentaire.
Dieu est beau et aime la beauté
Aperçu sur l’art arabo-musulman
Dans « la Civilisation des Arabes », Gustave Le Bon, , estimait qu’il suffit d’«
un coup d’oeil sur un monument appartenant à une époque avancée de la
civilisation arabe (palais, mosquée, objet quelconque,-encrier, poignard
reliure d’un Coran) pour constater que ces oeuvres sont tellement
caractéristiques, qu’il n’y a pas jamais d’erreurs possible sur leur
origine. » Il peut y avoir une parenté avec l’art de Byzance et de
la Perse, notamment si l’œuvre date de la deuxième période du Califat de
Baghdad. Mais l’influence arabe reste très forte.
Un tiers de siècle après Gustave Le Bon, un connaisseur de l’art
arabo-musulman, Georges Marçais recommandait au lecteur de faire une «
expérience » :« Vous avez une heure à perdre ; vous feuilletez …une
collection de photos d’œuvres empruntées aux arts les plus divers. Les
statues grecques succèdent aux peintures des tombeaux égyptiens, les
paravents brodés japonais aux bas-reliefs des temples hindous. Tandis
que vous tournez les feuilles, vos regards tombent successivement sur un
panneau de plâtre sculpté pris dans l’une des salles de l’Alhambra,
puis sur une page de Coran égyptien, puis sur le décor gravé d’un bassin
de cuivre persan. Pour peu que vous ayez un rudiment de culture
artistique, vous identifiez immédiatement ces trois dernières images
comme appartenant à l’art musulman…Nous voulons y voir la preuve à la
fois de la personnalité de l’art musulman et de son unité… ».
Jusqu’aux périodes tardives l’art musulman portait la marque de l’art
arabe des débuts de l’Islam. Cela tient l’importance de l’arabité
-notion culturelle non réductible à l’arabisme politique- dans la
civilisation musulmane, qui est inhérente au Coran. Tout est parti en
effet de l’impulsion religieuse qui fit de la Révélation la référence
première de la civilisation musulmane qui incite à faire le bien, à
rechercher le vrai et à apprécier le beau.
La dimension esthétique est souvent soulignée dans le Coran :“Lors
de chaque office, prenez votre parure avant d’aller à la mosquée”(VII,
31 ; traduction de Hamidullah); ” Oui, Nous avons assigné à embellir la
terre tout ce qui s’y trouve, afin d’éprouver qui d’entre eux est le
meilleur à l’oeuvre” (18, 7).
Nombreux sont les versets qui exhortent le musulman à se pénétrer du
spectacle de la beauté dans le monde vivant qui l’entoure. « Il y a en
lui (le bétail) de la beauté pour vous quand vous les ramenez le soir,
et quand le matin vous le conduisez au pâturage » (XVI, 6) ;« Et ce
qu’Il a produit pour vous sur la terre , varié en couleurs, en vérité,
en cela, il y a un signe pour ceux qui sont capables de le remarquer » (III, 13) ;“Nous avons embelli de lampes le ciel le plus proche” (LXVII, 5).
Un des hadiths du Prophète (qui sont les premiers commentaires du Coran)
souligne l’importance de la dimension esthétique dans la nouvelle
culture: « Dieu est beau et aime la beauté… La vie religieuse elle-même
alliait le spirituel à l’esthétique. Le premier minbar (chaire) de la
rustique mosquée de Médine était embelli par deux boules. Les soins
apportés pour l’embellissement des chaires donnèrent le coup d’envoi à
la sculpture sur bois.
La reliure et l’enluminure du Coran firent l’objet de tous les soins.
L’écriture arabe s’est muée en calligraphie, art suprême qui en
s’épanouissant dans les manuscrits, les inscriptions, les monuments est
vite devenu une spécialité musulmane. On l’emploie pour l’écriture ou
comme tableau, sur les peintures ou sculptures murales, dans les
tissages. Le développement de cet art, qui est né des soins apportés à
bien écrire le Coran, à conduit à l’émergence de grands artistes comme
Ibn Muqla, qui vécut à Baghdad entre 885-940. Son talent était tel qu’il
était considéré comme « un prophète, à l’art consommé, comparable à
celui qui a été révélé aux abeilles pour faire leurs rayons de miel aux
cellules hexagonales ».
L’écriture arabe joue un grand rôle dans l’ornementation et s’harmonise
merveilleusement avec les arabesques. Jusqu’au IX° siècle, on ne fit
usage que de caractères koufiques, ou de leurs dérivés, tels le
karmatique et le koufique rectangulaire pour des inscriptions tirées du
Coran.
L’écriture arabe est tellement ornementale que les architectes chrétiens
du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance ont souvent reproduit sur leurs
monuments des fragments d’inscriptions arabes tombés par hasard entre
leurs mains, et qu’ils prenaient pour de simples caprices de
dessinateurs. C’est ainsi que des versets du Coran bien calligraphiés
firent leur entrée dans la sacristie de la cathédrale de Milan, sans que
leur sens soit connu, ni leur origine. Le portail de la cathédrale du
Puy-en Velay est orné de motifs arabes que Jean Marie Le Pen fut étonné
de découvrir un 15 août, où il cherchait à fuir les Arabes des
banlieues… L’influence arabe est perceptible même au nord de la Loire
dans l’architecture d’une petite église de la vallée de Chevreuse
étudiée par Louis Massignon.
L’art arabe fit aussi une bonne place à la couleur, « généreux élément de séduction ». Selon un philosophe arabe, cité par Marc Bergé, «
l’âme portée vers ce qui convient à sa nature, s’attache, en raison de
son illumination, aux couleurs éclatantes…Elles l’amènent à la sérénité.
Elles réjouissent le cœur, satisfont la raison, avivent la pensée,
dilatent l’esprit et développent les facultés ».
L’originalité de l’art arabo-musulman et son caractère abstrait sont
manifestés dans le dessin arabesque., dont Baudelaire a pu dire qu’il«
est le plus idéal de tous ».
A ses débuts, l’art arabe reproduit des motifs végétaux, fleurs et
feuilles. Puis la stylisation s’accentue, l’interprétation se fait plus
libre. A côté des motifs où la nature est une source d’inspiration
(sinon un modèle), apparaissent peu à peu les formes purement
géométriques. Ce style géométrique, joint à l’utilisation décorative des
formes de l’alphabet arabe, devient l’élément essentiel de
l’ornementation musulmane et parvient à son apogée au XIV° siècle.
Il consiste en« des entrelacs de courbes sinueuses qui se croisent,
se dénouent et se poursuivent sans fin, assemblages de droites au tracé
pur, horizontales sereines ou verticales élancées, pourraient sembler
rêvés par des imaginations capricieuses. Mais toutes les lignes, toutes
les intersections sont mathématiquement calculées et font l’objet de
traités de géométrie ». Du fait des progrès en mathématiques«
les artistes savent les formules précises qui leur permettront
d’entraîner les âmes dans leurs douces rêveries, des contemplations
apaisées ou des élans extatiques… ». Le dessin se réduit à l’essentiel, «
à sa forme la plus raffinée, la plus intellectuelle, un pur jeu de
rythmes linéaires plus proche des mathématiques ou de la musique que des
arts plastiques. En sa période d’apogée, le dessin arabesque fait
penser à un contrepoint de J-S Bach, transposé dans le dessin ou la
sculpture ».
Nedjmeddine Bammate, qui rédigea le chapitre sur l’art du livre de son
père Haïdar, « Visages de l’Islam » (Payot en 1946), estime que«
par la simplicité de ses lois qui commandent à l’exubérance des formes
décoratives, c’est aussi l’une des formes d’art qui expriment le mieux
la pensée musulmane. Celle-ci s’attache toujours à percevoir, au-delà
des apparences complexes et fugitives du monde vivant, l’ordre divin,
absolu, immuable et, sous l’enchevêtrement des sensations et des
pensées, l’unité de l’esprit ».
Ces formes géométriques ne s’adressent pas seulement à l’intelligence ; elles peuvent aussi émouvoir la sensibilité. «
C’est la répétition des motifs qui donne son intensité à la décoration
par le dessin arabesque…répétition contribue à donner une unité à
l’ensemble décoratif, en proposant au regard des points de repère et une
certaine symétrie, mais encore elle favorise l’éclosion des sentiments
mystiques. On sait en effet que, dans les arts plastiques comme dans la
musique ou la poésie d’inspiration mystique, l’un des procédés les plus
fréquents est la répétition insistante, le retour, obsédant jusqu’à
l’envoûtement, d’une formule ou d’un motif qui ne vise pas à convaincre
la raison mais à exalter l’âme. Quel n’est pas l’effet, sur le croyant,
de l’affirmation impérieuse, catégorique, des articles de foi tirés du
Livre saint, lorsqu’il les voit se déployer à ses yeux en une frise
infinie ? »
Très tôt, les Arabes « plièrent la sculpture, la peinture, la
mosaïque à leurs propres tendances, caractérisées par la discrétion du
relief et le goût du « décor continu » mais « compartimenté » ».
Dans cette affirmation d’un art très marqué par l’Islam, les Arabes «
n’avaient rejeté aucune des techniques antérieures du décor, tout comme
ils n’avaient rien écarté de tous les trésors intellectuels, ou
religieux, qui ne s’opposaient pas directement au message de Mohamed ».
Ils « intégrèrent et utilisèrent ces techniques conformément à leurs
propres tendances qui, d’année en année, de siècle en siècle, et de
contrée en contrée, contribuèrent à dessiner progressivement les
contours originaux de leur civilisation arabo-islamique ».
Ce qui fait que dès le premier siècle de l’hégire, la physionomie des
villes arabes portait la marque du nouvel art. Les voyageurs et
chroniqueurs Muqaddassi et Ibn Jobaïr en font des descriptions très
révélatrices. Le premier, dans son récit sur Fustat (Le Caire) au X°
siècle, fait une description de « …la mosquée d’en bas », construite par
Amr Ibn al Ass (compagnon du prophète nommé gouverneur d’Egypte) on y
voit son minbar d’une belle facture ; sur ses murs il y a quelques
mosaïques. Elle repose sur des colonnes de marbre; elle est plus grande
que la mosquée de Damas… »
« La mosquée d’en haut, construite par les Tulunides, est plus vaste
et plus magnifique que celle d’en bas, avec de gros piliers portant des
arcs et des plafonds élevés ; elle est en briques recouvertes d’enduit ;
en son centre est une coupole construite sur le modèle de celle de
Zemzem, et sous laquelle est un bassin d’eau…son minaret est en pierres ,
de peu d’élévation et a son escalier à l’extérieur. C’est un endroit
plaisant à voir. La limite entre le quartier d’en bas et celui d’en haut
est marquée par la mosquée d’Abdallah, qui a reçu la même ordonnance
que la Ka’aba ».
L’auteur compare avec la mosquée de Damas dont la renommée était telle que lorsque le calife Mamoun demanda : «
choisis moi un joli nom pour cette fille » son conseiller répondit : «
appelle la la mosquée de Damas, car c’est la plus belle chose ».
Les progrès de l’art en Egypte depuis l’arrivée des Arabes avec Amr Ibn
al Ass furent permis par l’accroissement du nombre d’artistes dont
Maqrisi publie les biographie qui montrent la transmission des « capacités des Arabes en dessin, et en peinture » (Gustave Le Bon).
Quant à Ibn Jobaïr, il donne une description précise de la ville d’Alep
qui montre l’originalité de l’art et de l’architecture du temps du «
Califat arabe » : « Nous arrivons à Alep dans la matinée du
dimanche 24 juin 1184. Ville d’une importance considérable, dont le
renom, en tous les siècles, a pris son envol. Bien des rois ont brigué
sa main…Combien de passion ont bouillonné, combien de blanches lames ont
été tirées contre elles. Sa citadelle est célèbre pour la puissance de
ses défenses, remarquable par sa hauteur, sns égale, ni rivale parmi les
forteresses…En une vaste assise, c’est comme une table circulaire,
posée sur le sol. Ses flancs sont en pierre de taille ; ses proportions
sont d’équilibre et d’harmonie…Voici le seuil de sa Majesté Royale ;
mais où sont les émirs hamdanides et leurs poètes ? ils ont tous péri,
mais sa fin à elle, n’est point encore venue… »
Le grand voyageur (qui écrivait sa chronique un siècle avant Ibn
Battouta) décrit la mosquée, puis la Madrassa hanéfite accolée à la
mosquée. la plus considérable par sa construction et la rareté de son
architecture…sa muraille méridionale s’ouvre toute entière sur des
cellules et des chambres hautes, dont les fenêtres sont voisines les
unes des autres. Tout au long du mur s’étend une treille de vigne qui
porte des raisins ; chacune de ces fenêtres a sa part de ces raisins,
dont les grappes viennent pendre devant elle ; celui qui y habite n’a
qu’à tendre la main et les cueillir, accoudé, sans effort et sans peine.
La ville a quatre ou cinq autres madrassa et un hôpital… »
De la ville d’Alep, l’historien arabisant Jean Sauvaget dira:« il
n’est nullement exagéré de prétendre qu’on est là devant une des plus
anciennes villes du monde (XX° s av JC) et qu’aucune autre localité
encore habitée et florissante ne peut s’enorgueillir d’un passé
historique aussi ancien que le sien ». Cela montre comment l’art
arabe s’est inséré harmonieusement dans cette cité antique au
prestigieux passé. Le même, Sauvaget recensait, en compulsant, en 1932,
la volumineuse « Histoire de Damas » d’Ibn Asakir, plus de 100 monuments
évoquant encore le passé artistique de la capitale omeyade entre le
VII° et le XV°siècle.
L’art arabe des débuts de l’islam a été développé par les Omeyades
réfugiés en Andalousie où « un palais arabe, comme l’Alhambra, avec son
extérieur sans décoration, son intérieur brillant mais fragile, nous dit
l’existence d’un peuple galant, ingénieux, superficiel, aimant la vie
intérieure, ne songeant qu’à l’heure présente et abandonnant l’avenir à
Dieu. …rien n’est plus clairement écrit que ce qui est écrit en pierre
».
Mais dans les oeuvres d’art, il n’y pas que la pierre qui parle: toute
oeuvre plastique parle également à qui sait l’entendre. Les oeuvres
d’art de détail aussi humbles soient-elles : vase à puiser de l’eau,
poignard, meuble et tous ces mille objets où l’art se mélange à
l’industrie peuvent figurer parmi les plus sûrs documents que puissent
utiliser les historiens qui ne se contentent pas d’une banale
énumération de batailles, de généalogies et d’intrigues diplomatiques.
Au Maghreb, le développement de l’art sous les dynasties berbères
confirme les conclusions fournies par l’étude des mosquées, madrassa et
citadelles en orient. A priori les Almoravides, nomades berbères,
rustres, dans l’évolution de l’art musulman d’Occident n’était pas
disposés à laisser des traces durables dans la pierre. Et pourtant il y a
un art typiquement almoravide qui a commencé à se développer dès leur
arrivée au pouvoir au XI° siècle.
A cette période, l’art andalou se résumait à l’Aljaféria de Saragosse.
Les recherches à Murcie et à Malaga permettent de saisir la beauté de
cet art et d’en soupçonner la profonde unité.En Afrique du Nord, l’art
almoravide n’était connu que par la grande mosquée de Tlemcen, et celle
d’Alger. Il y eut par la suite la découverte à Marrakech de la koubba
d’Ali b. Youssef, et l’étude de forteresses inédites ou mal connues, et
l’attribution du minbar de la Koutoubiya aux émirs almoravide. La
révélation de tous les trésors décoratifs de la mosquée d’Al Qaraouiyn
de Fès permettent de juger de l’art des Almoravides d’après des œuvres
égales et parfois supérieures, en quantité comme en qualité, à celles
qui avaient été révélées sur l’art des califes almohades qui leur
succédèrent au XII° siècle .
Les Sanhaja au voile (Lemtouna, Goddala, Messoufa) héritaient des
traditions artistiques des Berbères sahariens, restées à l’écart de
toute influence arabe après l’islamisation des berbères. Selon Henri
Terrasse, « les architectures sommaires (pisé et pierre sèche) étaient
fort inférieures à celles du Maghreb et a fortiori de l’Espagne. Leur
décor consistait en un ornement géométrique rectiligne des arts
familiaux berbères. Le décor monumental de l’Islam n’avait pas dû les
toucher. C’est d’Espagne qu’on fit venir toutes sculptées les stèles
destinées à marquer, au Sénégal, la tombe des grands chefs, faute
d’ateliers locaux capables de tailler et de décorer la pierre. Les
Almoravides n’apportèrent avec eux que leurs goûts et leurs aptitudes
artistiques, sans traditions architecturales et décoratives capables de
former le fond premier de leur art dynastique et impérial ».
Ces réformateurs religieux sont arrivés du sud en champions de
l’orthodoxie malékite, dans un Maghreb où le sunnisme malékite
triomphaient, puis dans une Espagne qui avait depuis longtemps rejeté
toute hérésie et qui ne comprenait guère que des Malékites. Aucune
raison spirituelle, aucun scrupule religieux ne pouvaient les empêcher
d’adopter les formes de vie et la civilisation musulmane que leurs
conquêtes allaient leur faire découvrir.
Les forteresses et mosquées des Almoravides mêlent des formes et des
techniques venues d’Andalousie à des traditions proprement africaines,
souvent venues de l’Ifriqiya des Zirides et des Hammadides… Dès que
l’Espagne musulmane sera incorporée à l’empire almoravide, l’art de la
Péninsule va se répandre au Maghreb, dans les architectures civile et
militaire.
Ainsi, la naissance d’un art almoravide où un fond berbère et saharien
accueillit les apports andalous ressemble à ce qui s’était passé dans
les premières périodes de la civilisation musulmane, quand les monuments
arabes (palais d’Espagne, mosquées du Caire), les éléments primitifs se
sont transformés en combinaisons nouvelles, qu’il est impossible de
dire d’où ils dérivent. C’est ce qui a fait dire à G. Le Bon que “…la
véritable originalité d’un peuple se révèle dans la rapidité avec
laquelle il sait transformer les matériaux qu’il a entre les mains, pour
les adapter à ses besoins et créer ainsi un art nouveau. Aucun peuple
n’a dépassé, à ce point de vue, les Arabes.”
Dans toute civilisation la vocation de l’homme est de participer à la
création, notamment dans le domaine de l’art, grâce à son imagination
créatrice, qualifiée de faculté de « surhumanité ». A cet égard,
l’homme se définit par l’ensemble des tendances qui le poussent à
dépasser l’humaine condition. On dit que « l’homme est homme dans la
proportion où il est surhomme ».
Cela est valable pour l’art arabo-musulman où la dimension religieuse
est prégnante. Selon l’esthète égyptien Bichr Farès (auteur d’une thèse
sur « l’Honneur chez les Arabes », soutenue à Paris en 1932), «
l’artiste musulman, en façonnant l’insoupçonné, fait éclater la
frontière du pouvoir humain pour célébrer, inconsciemment sans doute,
l’extraordinaire maîtrise d’Allah qui crée selon Son plaisir, étant Tout
Puissant, et qui ajoute à la création ce qu’Il veut ».
L’artiste et l’écrivain ne font que traduire sous une forme visible les
goûts, les moeurs, les sentiments et les besoins de la société où ils
évoluent. Aussi libres soient-ils, leur création n’en est pas déterminée
par un ensemble d’influences, de croyances, d’idées, de traditions dont
la somme « l’âme d’une époque ». La mosquée à la fois temple, école,
hôtellerie et hôpital révèle l’originalité de l’art arabe où s’exprime
la fusion complète de la vie civile et religieuse. Tout en symbolisant
la liberté de l’artiste œuvre, et sa capacité de création, l’oeuvre
d’art est l’expression matérielle de l’idéal de le société et de
l’époque où elle a pris naissance. La part du religieux dans ces
influences contribua à donner à l’art musulman un caractère fortement
spiritualiste et abstrait. Les goûts communs à tous les peuples
orientaux les portèrent ensuite à la profusion de l’ornementation, à
l’amour des formes élégantes et des matières précieuses.
N. Bammate souligne la forte imprégnation religieuse de l’art arabo-musulman :« épris d’absolu, l’Arabe est avant tout un homo religiosus. Son
sentiment religieux et moral domine ses conceptions esthétiques… » Sur
ces spécificités de l’art arabo-musulman, le dernier mot doit être
donné à ce grand intellectuel musulman de Paris, où il naquit en 1922,
après la fin de la résistance des musulmans du Caucase au communisme,
qu’avait dirigée son père Haïdar :« C’est dans l’abstraction
spiritualiste, dans la volonté constante d’exprimer dans un langage
purement architectural ou décoratif les replis de la sensibilité, la
contemplation, l’extase, que se trouvent la signification esthétique de
cet art et sa valeur humaine, non dans un pittoresque brillant, parfois
facile, que le romantisme et le naturalisme ont trop souvent fait passer
pour l’âme de l’art oriental. »
L’insistance sur l’originalité de l’art arabe ne lui fait pas oublier la part des musulmans non-arabes :« les peuples à l’imagination moins abstraite que celle des Arabes, au
sens plastique plus vif, comme les Perses ou les Turcs, permirent le
développement de la miniature… ». Bammate a pu donner la mesure de
ses capacités à faire “parler la pierre” dans la série d’une dizaine de
documentaires, intitulée “l’Espace de l’Islam” qui lui fut commandée pà
la fin des années 70 par une télévision américaine. La qualité était
telle que le président d’une chaîne française, plus ouvert aux apports
de la “diversité” (comme on dit maintenant) acheta les droits pour faire
découvrir toutes ces richesses artistiques au public français.
Plus modestement, bon nombre d’Arabes éloignés des foyers traditionnels
de l’Islam exercent leur art en s’inspirant à des degrés divers de cette
grande tradition artistique arabo-musulmane. On peut citer le sculpteur
algérien Rachid Koréichi qui fit travailler des artistes d’Alep pour
sauver de l’oubli les 25 tombes du château d’Amboise, où vécut l’émir
Abdelkader en compagnie de près de 80 autres personnes, entre 1848 et
1852; Naamane Zékri, alépin installé depuis les années 50 à Paris où il
s’est fait connaître par son savoir-faire en calligraphie koufique
carrée; les irakiens Hassan Massoudi et Ghani Alani se sont fait
connaître pour leur talent de calligraphe; le peintre de Fallouga Sabbah
Mustafa qui expose en ce moment dans l’arrière salle d’un café de
Saint-Germain-des-Près…
Sadek SELLAM
Laisser un commentaire
Vous devez vous connecter pour publier un commentaire.
New York : le Halal au menu des cantines scolaires, une décision politique qui fait l’unanimité
Si, en France, la seule perspective d’afficher le Halal aux menus scolaires de nos chères têtes blondes déclenche immanquablement des croisades islamophobes fiévreuses, de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, il en va tout autrement… Vu d’Amérique, c’est la laïcité dogmatique et liberticide à la française qui paraît indigeste.
Ainsi, à New York, la décision du maire Eric Adams d’étendre l’option Halal à toutes les cafétérias des écoles publiques n’est-elle restée sur l’estomac de personne, n’a-t-elle fait enrager jusqu’à la déraison aucun administré ou politicien, n’a-t-elle été instrumentalisée par aucune démagogie de caniveau. Bien au contraire, elle a été accueillie sous les applaudissements de tous.
Concernée au premier chef par cette mesure en faveur du vivre-ensemble, prise dans le cadre du programme “Cafeteria Enhancement Experience” élaboré par le Bureau du maire et le Conseil de New York, la communauté musulmane n’a pas caché sa joie de voir le halal s’inviter prochainement dans toutes les assiettes de ses enfants, lors du moment de partage et de convivialité que représente le repas à la cantine.
Une volonté politique qui en réjouit plus d’un à Big Apple, dont Afaf Nasher, la directrice new-yorkaise du CAIR, l’organisation phare de défense des droits civiques des musulmans américains et de la lutte contre l’islamophobie Outre-Atlantique.
« Chaque élève, quelle que soit sa religion, mérite un déjeuner respectant ses préceptes religieux. Pendant trop longtemps, les écoliers et lycéens musulmans ont été contraints de sauter le déjeuner ou de manger un déjeuner non autorisé par la religion », a-t-elle déploré, avant de souligner : « Etant moi-même un pur produit des écoles publiques de New York, je n’ai jamais pu manger halal à la cantine. Aussi, je suis heureuse que les formidables efforts déployés par notre communauté musulmane pour exiger un accès égal aux besoins de base, comme la nourriture pour nos écoliers, soient récompensés, et je félicite d’autant plus chaleureusement le maire et son équipe d’avoir accédé à notre requête ».
Extraordinairement fédératrice, la décision du maire de New York d’« halaliser» les menus scolaires fait à ce point l’unanimité que les cris d’orfraie stridents, qu’une telle mesure aurait inévitablement provoqués au pays de Voltaire, semblent s’être perdus dans l’immensité de l’océan…
3 commentaires
Laissez un commentaireLaisser un commentaire
Vous devez vous connecter pour publier un commentaire.
Research articles
On The Origin of Species: The story of Darwin's title
Abstract
The genesis of Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) is well known, and the changes that it underwent in subsequent editions are well documented. However, less is known or has been published about the genesis of its original title and about the seven modifications that it subsequently underwent. That original title was much longer than the title of the unfinished big ‘Species Book’ that preceded and inspired The Origin: Natural Selection. Why did Darwin use an extended version of this elegant, short title for The Origin? And what was the rationale behind the later modifications? Contrary to what is often claimed or implied, the criticism of his publisher, John Murray, does not offer the only and certainly not the full answer to the latter question.
Anyhow, you have a capital title, and some think this the most difficult part of a book.
—Charles Darwin, Letter of 5 November 1860.1A lacuna in the Darwin literature
Since the emergence of a Darwin industry, in the wake of the 1959 commemoration of the centennial of the publication of On the Origin of Species, analyses and reviews of this flourishing field of study have been published on a regular basis.2 However, whereas there exist excellent online resources about Darwin's work, an encyclopaedic and systematic online overview of the huge literature that the Darwin industry has produced and still is producing on Darwin's life, background, work and influence is sorely lacking.3 Such an overview could not only greatly help scholars in their research of classic topics in the study of Darwin, but might also allow them to identify topics that have not yet received much systematic attention, such as the ‘Historical sketch’ that was added to the third English edition of The Origin (1861).4 As Johnson points out, ‘Somewhat surprisingly, little systematic attention has been paid to the Historical Sketch in the literature, as far as I can tell.’5 Even the most careful biographies ‘say little about the genesis and various transformations of and motivations for the [Historical] Sketch’.6
Much the same can be said about the title of The Origin: even the most careful biographies do not give a complete account of its convoluted genesis. Desmond and Moore merely point out that Darwin's publisher, John Murray, being a practical man, was ‘more concerned with the title’ (than with the orthodoxy of Darwin's theory).7 One page later, they add that Darwin's title ‘continued to evolve under Murray's selective pressure. It had slimmed down to On the Origin of Species and Varieties by Means of Natural Selection, when Darwin improved matters more by docking “and Varieties”’.8 Janet Browne's account is longer but, as will be explained below, inaccurate:
At the last minute [Darwin] adjusted the title according to Murray's recommendation. Darwin's first suggestion was rather too complicated: ‘An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through Natural Selection.’ Common sense surely suggested to Murray that the words ‘abstract,’ ‘essay,’ and ‘varieties’ should go, and that ‘natural selection,’ a term with which Murray thought the public would not be familiar, ought to be explained. The agreed-upon title was, however, hardly less cumbersome—On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.9
Both accounts overestimate the role of Murray in the long genesis of the title of Darwin's book and leave much undiscussed. I will start my own analysis with the title of the never-finished manuscript that Darwin wrote before he started writing The Origin: Natural Selection.10
Natural selection
Francis Darwin called the two sketches of his father's theory of evolution of the early 1840s (1842 and 1844) ‘essays’.11 However, that is not how Darwin himself referred to them. The first manuscript was a rough pencil sketch, but even the second, much longer version was still characterized as a ‘written sketch of species theory’.12 Likewise, in a letter to his wife, Emma, he referred to ‘my sketch of my species theory’.13 Interestingly, a letter from 9 April 1843 from Charles Lyell was, on the other hand, already annotated with the remark ‘Species Book’.14
As is well known, Lyell was later instrumental in the publication of that Species Book (i.e. The Origin). On 1 May 1856, he suggested that Darwin should ‘publish some small fragment of [his] data pigeons if you please & so out with the theory & let it take date—& be cited—& understood’.15 For he feared that Darwin might be forestalled.16 The ever-vacillating Darwin half-heartedly agreed―he had been sorting his species notes since September 1854―but hesitated about the format in which to publish his theory.17 He was ‘fixed against any periodical or Journal, as I positively will not expose myself to an Editor or Council allowing a publication for which they might be abused’.18 He initially rather thought of ‘a very thin & little volume, giving a sketch of my views & difficulties’, although it was ‘really dreadfully unphilosophical to give a resumé, without exact references, of an unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this …’.19 He was ‘extremely glad’ that his good friend Joseph Hooker gave his blessing to such a separate ‘Preliminary Essay … for Lyell seemed rather to doubt on this head’.20 On 14 May 1856 he began working on this new ‘species sketch’, although he was initially not even sure that he would publish it.21
Five months later, Darwin wrote to his second cousin W. D. Fox that when he began writing this sketch or essay, he had found it such unsatisfactory work that he had desisted and instead was ‘now drawing up [his] work as perfect as [his] materials of 19 years collecting suffice’, adding that, to his sorrow, ‘it will run to quite a big Book’.22 We do not know when exactly he chose a title for that ‘big Book’, nor, with certainty, why he chose the phrase ‘natural selection’. In a letter to Charles Lyell from 10 November 1856, he still called it his ‘big Book’.23 Ten months later, he articulated its title in an abstract of his ideas, enclosed in a letter to Asa Gray: Natural Selection.24
The essays or sketches from 1842 and 1844 were both formally divided into two parts, which differed both in subject and in length.25 The first and shorter part (three chapters) consisted of an elaboration of the analogy between artificial and natural selection. In the second and by far the longer part (seven chapters, conclusion included), Darwin mustered the evidence for his doctrine of common descent by reinterpreting various biological disciplines (palaeontology, geographical distribution, classification, morphology and embryology) in evolutionary terms. This binary structure of his argumentation reflected, on the one hand, the importance he attached to this reinterpretation and, on the other hand, the relative unimportance of his theory of natural selection for his ‘one long argument’ (in favour of transmutation). As he declared in a letter to Asa Gray from 11 May 1863: ‘Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant compared to question of Creation or Modification’.26 In a letter from 20 September 1859, he even begged Charles Lyell to keep his mind open about his theory ‘till you receive (in perhaps a fortnight's time) my latter chapters which are the most important of all on the favourable side’.27
This unequal division of his almost fully developed theory of evolution was also a logical reflection of its gestation: Darwin had first become an evolutionist and had only later developed his theory of natural selection. It was, of course, also the all-important second part of his theory that would, in the nineteenth century, prove most influential: it was largely thanks to this part that Darwin converted a majority of his learned contemporaries to evolution. Natural selection, by contrast, was, in the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, not generally accepted as an important evolutionary mechanism or process.
The binary division of the Sketch and the Essay was implicitly preserved in the ‘big Book’ that he began writing in May 1856 and, later, in The Origin.28 It is somewhat puzzling, therefore, that the former manuscript was entitled Natural Selection. Why did Darwin call it after its least important part (i.e. the part about natural selection)? It seems that it had gained somewhat in importance, since Darwin's notes for Natural Selection suggest that the second part would only have been as long as the first part.29 Still, his later remarks indicate that his transmutational reinterpretation of mid-nineteenth-century static natural history or ‘biology’ remained the main part of his argument. The question therefore remains: why did he call his big ‘Species Book’ after the least important part of his argument? Part of the answer undoubtedly is that ‘he care[d] much about Natural Selection’. Also, since 1839, natural selection had been ‘the enduring core element’ of his evolutionary theorizing.30 Lyell may also have been a motivating factor behind Darwin's choice. After Darwin had explained to Lyell his theory of evolution and had shown him his pigeon breeds, during a visit in April 1856, Lyell noted in his scientific journal: ‘With Darwin: On the Formation of Species by Natural Selection’.31 He realized that what he called the natural selection theory explained the pattern, observed by Alfred Russel Wallace, that new species are most allied to those immediately preceding in time, and used ‘natural selection as a shorthand for Darwin's theory of evolution’.32
When the writing of Natural Selection was interrupted, in June 1858, by the arrival of a package from Ternate that contained Alfred Russel Wallace's rudimentary version of his own theory, Darwin panicked. Lyell and Hooker hastily arranged a presentation of the Darwin–Wallace theory at a meeting of the Linnean Society. The paper was published in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society on 20 August 1858.33 By then, Darwin was already hard at work at an abstract of his big ‘Species Book’. Hooker had suggested a new article, of 30 pages or so, for the Linnean Society Journal. In a letter to T. C. Eyton from 4 August 1858, Darwin spoke of ‘a long abstract on my notions about Species & Varieties, to be read in parts before Linnean Socy’ that would be published ‘late in the autumn’.34 History repeated itself though: the journal article became a book, in the same way that, in 1856, his ‘preliminary Essay’ had soon turned into ‘quite a big Book’. On 12 October 1858, Darwin already expected that his abstract would ‘run into a small volume, which will have to be published separately’.35 Its full title was enclosed in a letter that he sent to Charles Lyell on 28 March 1859: ‘An Abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through Natural Selection’ (figure 1).36
Figure 1. The original title of On the Origin of Species. This proposed title page for what eventually became The Origin of Species was enclosed in a letter that Darwin sent to Charles Lyell on 28 March 1859. The text reads: ‘An abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through Natural Selection by Charles Darwin M. A Fellow of the Royal, Geological & Linn. Socy. London & & & & 1859’. (From John van Wyhe (ed.), The complete work of Charles Darwin online, 2002, http://darwin-online.org.uk.)
The original title
One striking and paradoxical characteristic of this original title is that it was much longer than the title of the longer but unfinished manuscript that preceded The Origin. It included two new phrases: ‘abstract of an essay’ and ‘on the origin of species and varieties’. Darwin clearly wanted to present explicitly The Origin as an abstract.37 Indeed, for a surprisingly long time after the publication of the first edition of The Origin, he harboured the intention of publishing a longer version of his ‘abstract of an essay’. It would
have hardly a page in common, & might bear a quite distinct title; & I shd like to produce that volume by volume (perhaps 3 thinnish octavos) as I have it ready.— Much of the M.S is roughly ready, but I daresay it would take me two years to prepare 1st vol.—.38
On 25 December 1859, he wrote about this project to W. D. Fox: ‘I am going soon to begin my bigger book, which I shall publish as 3 separate volumes, with distinct titles, but with a general title in addition’.39 This tripartite scheme represented, as Hodge puts it, ‘a convenient division of Darwin's personal labour, rather than a natural articulation in his public argument’.40 That articulation was, as we saw, binary.
The rationale for the term ‘abstract’ is, consequently, clear: the socially savvy Darwin wanted to emphasize that The Origin was incomplete and imperfect. The term ‘essay’, by contrast, is more problematic. It almost certainly refers to the unfinished Natural Selection manuscript, since The Origin was clearly inspired by it. This, as a matter of fact, explains why the all-important second part of his argument had, in The Origin, shrunk even further in relative size (versus Natural Selection): it now occupied only about one-third of the entire book (chapters IX–XIII). The reason is that, when the writing of Natural Selection was interrupted by the arrival of Wallace's package, Darwin had not yet begun writing the second part of his book, apart from a section on geographical distribution. His ‘Abstract of an Essay’ was, consequently, an ‘Abstract of an Unfinished Manuscript’. Put differently: ‘essay’ was a misnomer. The Origin could maybe be called an essay (i.e. a short and non-technical book); Natural Selection could not.
Another question is why Darwin did not simply choose the title ‘Abstract of an Essay on Natural Selection’. Why did he replace the phrase ‘natural selection’ with the longer phrase ‘(an essay) on the origin of species and varieties through natural selection’? This is, without a doubt, the main and most intriguing change in the trajectory betweenNatural Selection and The Origin of Species (1872). It confronts us with two questions: why did Darwin decide to refer to the question of the origin of organic beings and why did he first refer to the origin of both species and varieties?
One of the possible reasons why he chose a longer and more explanatory title is that the shorter and less scholarly The Origin targeted a broader public than Natural Selection. He may also have been inspired by the title of a previous publication that is structurally reminiscent of ‘On the Origin of Species and Varieties through Natural Selection’. As he pointed out, in a letter of 11 May 1856 to Hooker, it was not the first time that Lyell had urgently advised him to publish a preliminary sketch.41 On 31 May 1837, Darwin's coral theory was first presented at a meeting of the Geological Society of London under the title ‘On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations’ and, later that year, published in the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London.42 Lyell's influence may even have been more direct. As pointed out above, in his journal he used the phrase ‘On the Formation of Species by Natural Selection’ to refer to Darwin's theory. Lastly, the title of the aforementioned Darwin–Wallace joint paper may also have been an inspiration: ‘On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection’.
This title can maybe also help explain why Darwin referred, in the original title of his abstract, to the origin of both species and varieties.43 His theory had, of course, always been intimately connected to the question of the taxonomic difference between species and varieties. The reason is simple: varieties could only be ‘incipient species’ if there was no clear distinction between varieties and species. The fact that such a distinction could not easily be made was, from the beginning, a very important element in Darwin's argument against the fixity of species, as can be seen from a letter that he wrote to Henry Denny on 7 November 1844: ‘I am deeply interested in everything connected with geographical distribution, & the differences between species and varieties’.44 He sometimes even referred to The Origin as his ‘book on species & varieties’.45
The influence of John Murray on the modification of the original title
Darwin's original title underwent seven modifications (figure 2). One word was replaced (‘through’ became ‘by means of’) and four terms or phrases were deleted (‘an abstract of’, ‘an essay’, ‘and varieties’ and ‘on’). Lastly, Darwin added a subtitle. The first version read ‘the preservation of favoured races’, the second ‘the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’. Only three of these modifications were inspired by a (known) criticism from John Murray, although it must be added that these were the three most important modifications.
Figure 2. The seven modifications of the original title of On the Origin of Species, with the earliest known date of the modification and the source. Additions are in bold, deletions are struck through, replacements are underlined. The words and phrases between brackets were added or deleted, or replaced other words, at some unknown point between the end of March 1859 and 24 November 1859 (the publication date of the book). There are, to the best of my knowledge, no known sources for the reason(s) why Darwin made modifications 4, 5, 6 and 7.
At the beginning of March 1859, Darwin had asked Lyell whether John Murray might be interested in publishing his abstract. Murray had not only published Lyell's books but had also issued the second edition of Darwin's successful Journal of Researches.46 Lyell thought this ‘an excellent idea’ and payed Murray ‘one of his most persuasive social calls’.47 In a subsequent letter to Lyell (28 March), Darwin asked his friend whether he had already spoken to Murray (he fancied that he had done so from an ‘expression in Lady Lyell's note’).48 He apparently soon received an affirmative answer, for in two letters—one to Lyell (30 March) and one to Murray (31 March)—he expressed his delight that Murray had agreed to publish his ‘work on the Origin of Species’, without even having read the manuscript.49 However, Murray was less enthusiastic about Darwin's title.
The letter that Darwin sent to Lyell on 30 March shows that Murray did indeed object to the term ‘abstract’, as pointed out by Browne, but he did not object to the words ‘essay’ and ‘varieties’.50 Also, his objection to the phrase ‘natural selection’ was, in contrast with what Browne suggests, not constructive: he did not suggest that Darwin explained the term but simply objected to it. That may be the reason why Darwin, at a certain point in time, toyed with the idea of a completely different title, ‘On the Mutability of Species’, as suggested by a tentative title-page sketch (figure 3).51
Figure 3. A tentative sketch of the title page of On the Origin of Species, with an alternative title and additional notes. The text reads: ‘On The Mutability of Species “Whewell” by C. Darwin, M. A, F.R.S. John Murray. 1860!!’ It is not clear why Darwin emphasized the year 1860 (see, in this respect, note 51). (From John van Wyhe (ed.), The complete work of Charles Darwin online, 2002, http://darwin-online.org.uk.)
Darwin agreed to delete the term ‘abstract’ but he hoped to retain the phrase ‘natural selection’, ‘with Explanation, somewhat as thus,—Through Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured Races’.52 The reason why he thought that the phrase ‘natural selection’ was not problematic is that it was ‘constantly used in all works on Breeding, & I am surprised that it is not familiar to Murray’.53 Both statements make it clear that his full subtitle, ‘the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, was not conceived and intended as an alternative for the main title ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection’, as Richard Dawkins claims, but as an explanation of the, at the time, relatively novel phrase ‘natural selection’ (although it did have implications for the meaning of the phrase ‘origin of species’, as will become clear below).54 The explanation, through a subtitle, of the phrase ‘natural selection’ was also, without a doubt, the most important and most remarkable modification of the original title of Darwin's abstract. I will first concentrate upon the specific words of which it is composed and subsequently discuss the possible reason why Darwin chose this particular definition of natural selection.
‘Preservation’ was Darwin's standard term: he used it at least 20 times in the first edition of The Origin, whereas the term ‘survival’ was used only once (likewise, the term ‘preserved’ appears more than 10 times more often than the term ‘survived’).55 The term ‘favoured’ was a synonym of—and sometimes used in combination with—‘selected’. In his chapter on natural selection, for example, Darwin spoke of plants that ‘would be continually favoured or selected’.56 In his chapter on ‘difficulties on theory’, he wrote:
On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties.—As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition.57
The term ‘race’ was a synonym for ‘variety’, ‘breed’ or ‘form’. Surprisingly, it (or the plural ‘races’) was used much less frequently in the text of The Origin (in this particular meaning) than ‘variety’ (or ‘varieties’), ‘breed(s)’ or ‘form(s)’. Furthermore, ‘race’ had anthropological connotations, whereas Darwin avoided, in The Origin, the subject of humans, ‘as so surrounded with prejudices’.58 The question of human races was even ‘blowing up as an emotive issue in the 1850s’.59 So why did Darwin choose this particular, not unproblematic word for his subtitle instead of a more neutral and, in the text of The Origin, more common alternative such as ‘variety’?60 One possible explanation is that he wanted to make the link with the artificial selection of races of domesticated plants and animals (for a second possible explanation, see below). Indeed, in the text of The Origin, he often used the phrase ‘domestic race’. Also, the second part of his Essay of 1844 was headed ‘On the evidence favourable and opposed to the view that species are naturally formed races, descended from common stocks’ (my italics). Likewise, in his Sketch of 1842, he promised that a discussion of ‘whether the characters and relations of animated beings are such as favour the idea of wild species being races descended from a common stock’ would form ‘the second part of this sketch’.61
It is not known when exactly Darwin added the phrase ‘in the Struggle for Life’ to his subtitle. It was may be already inserted in the title that he sent to Murray, ‘(with some remarks on separate page)’, enclosed in a letter from 5 April 1859 (unfortunately, neither the title nor the remarks seem to have been preserved).62 It is quite clear, though, why he added it: it was through the struggle for life of, and within, geometrically increasing populations that the selective actions of breeders or ‘the preservation of their favoured races’ was mimicked by nature:
In the preservation of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see the most powerful and ever-acting means of selection. The struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of increase which is common to all organic beings.63
Let us now proceed to the more important and intriguing question as to why Darwin chose, in his subtitle, this specific definition of natural selection: ‘the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. The natural process that he tried to convey through his analogy with artificial selection is quite complex and multifaceted and can be described in various ways. Bock points out, in this respect, that ‘Darwin used natural selection in two distinct meanings’.64 He emphasized either the causes of natural selection or its consequences. Paradoxically, he generally used the phrase ‘natural selection’ in its causative meaning, but he focused on the consequences of natural selection in his most precise definitions.65 These, however, are certainly not the only two meanings or ways in which the phrase is (implicitly) used in The Origin.66 For example, Darwin sometimes referred to the selection of individual organisms, elsewhere to the selection of a clearly distinguished collection of individuals (i.e. a breed, form, variety or race) and, in a few cases, to the selection ‘of favoured individuals and races’.67 He also realized that natural selection could cause the transmutation of an entire species (what we call anagenesis or vertical evolution) or the transmutation of a separate variety or race (cladogenesis or horizontal evolution) (see, in this respect, figure 4). The process of cladogenesis (or, as Darwin called it, divergence) starts out with the selection of individual organisms that are only slightly different from other members of a species but leads, after a number of generations, to the creation of a distinct, ‘favoured’ variety or race.
Figure 4. Darwin's diagram of divergence of taxa. The only figure in On the Origin of Species, it shows the divergent evolution, the non-divergent evolution or the extinction of various species (A–L) of a large genus. Each horizontal line (I–XIV) represents a thousand or more generations. Species A and I produce, after thousands or millions of generations, through divergent selection, 14 new species (a14–m14 and n14–z14). The six new species descended from I, and the eight descended from A, form distinct genera or even distinct sub-families. All the other species, except F (non-divergent evolution), become extinct without leaving descendant species. (From Wikimedia Commons.)
This is, of course, also the specific kind of natural selection that formed the subject of Darwin's subtitle: it referred to the preservation or selection of a group of organisms that was already clearly distinguished (i.e. a race). Indeed, in 1860, Louis Agassiz argued that Darwin did not substantiate the specific assertion that his subtitle implied:
The assertion of Darwin, which has crept into the title of his work, is, that favoured races are preserved, while all his facts go only to substantiate the assertion that favoured individuals have a better chance in the struggle for life than others.68
Darwin did not show that these favoured individuals of a specific race diverged ‘from their specific type; and neither [he] nor anybody else has furnished a single fact to show that they go on diverging’.69
The reason why Darwin chose this specific definition of natural selection is obvious: divergence of character was, as he put in The Origin, ‘of high importance on my theory, and explains, as I believe, several important facts’.70 The idea was that, when organisms compete for scarce resources, natural selection should favour the individuals that most differ from their competitors since those individuals could occupy a new ‘station’ in ‘the economy of nature’ and thus escape the severe competition in the old ‘station’. Consequently, individuals that compete should, over time, diverge or become more dissimilar and develop into ‘favoured races’. Darwin's often-ridiculed race of black bears that was transformed into a giant, insect-eating whale offers a good example of such a ‘favoured race’:
In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.71
In a letter of 5 September 1857 to Asa Gray, he presented divergence as ‘one other principle’ (next to the principle of selection) and the ‘means by which nature makes her species’:
One other principle, which may be called the principle of divergence plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms: we see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf (I have counted 20 species belonging to 18 genera),—or in the plants and insects, on any little uniform islet, belonging almost to as many genera and families as to species. … This, I believe, to be the origin of the classification or arrangement of all organic beings at all times.72
In a letter to Hooker of 8 June 1858 (written while he was still working on his big ‘Species Book’), Darwin remarked: ‘I will try to leave out all allusion to genera coming in & out in this part, till when I discuss the “principle of Divergence”, which with “Natural Selection” is the keystone of my Book & I have very great confidence it is sound’.73 He also described divergence in great detail in The Origin.74 It is significant that it was discussed, in both The Origin and Natural Selection, in the chapter dedicated to natural selection (respectively chapter 4, titled ‘Natural selection’, and chapter 6, titled ‘On natural selection’): divergent selection was a crucial part of the principle of divergence (see also note 70). The principle of divergence is also clearly illustrated in the only diagram included in his book (figure 4).
It should therefore not surprise us that Darwin's subtitle defined ‘natural selection’ in terms of the selection of a clearly diverging group of organisms. This is maybe also another reason why he used the term ‘race’, for this was, in 1859, undoubtedly one of the best terms to refer to such a group of organisms. This, in turn, implies that the most common criticism of the title of The Origin—that Darwin failed to solve the problem ‘indicated by the title of his work’ (i.e. the origin of species) or that he remained largely silent about this problem—is not entirely correct.75 It is, as so often, a question of semantics. Through his subtitle, the phrase ‘origin of species’ acquired the very specific meaning of ‘origin of species through divergent selection’ and this process was, as just pointed out, central to The Origin. Consequently, Darwin did not fail to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work. However, he did indeed not offer a complete solution for the problem of the origin of new species through cladogenesis or horizontal evolution. Nor did he ‘prove that the principle of divergence plays a primary role in speciation’.76 However, it should immediately be added that modern research suggests that the importance of Darwinian character displacement should not be underestimated in a general theory on species diversification.77
Four other modifications
I can be brief about the four other modifications of the original title of The Origin. After comments from two friends about the position of the word ‘varieties’—that it ought to stand before ‘species’—and the absence of ‘genera & orders’ in the title, Darwin asked, in a letter of 10 September 1859, permission from Murray to delete the term ‘varieties’, because ‘The case of Species is the real important point; & the title, as now, is rather too long’.78 We do not know why and when he deleted the term ‘essay’. It may have been to further shorten the title but why did he then replace ‘through’ with the longer phrase ‘by means of’? Was he, once again, inspired by the Darwin–Wallace paper and, more particularly, by the last words of the title of this paper, ‘by natural means of selection’?79 Finally, in February 1872, Darwin dropped the last remnant of the introductory part of his original title: the preposition ‘On’. This last, subtle modification signals, or can be interpreted as signalling, the maturation or emancipation of a book that started out as a mere abstract of an ‘essay’.
Conclusion
On the Origin of Species is, without a doubt, one of the most famous and best-known book titles in history. Thanks to the long and complex history of Darwin's magnum opus and his tendency to vacillate, it is probably also a title with one of the longest gestation periods in the history of science book publishing. Thanks to the wealth of documents that Darwin left us, it is possible to reconstruct not only that gestation but also the reasoning behind it. Darwin certainly had good reasons to call his big ‘Species Book’ Natural Selection. Natural selection may not have been the most important component of his one ‘long argument’ but it was definitely its most brilliant component. It was also the common thread in his evolutionary theorizing. When he was forced to write swiftly an ‘Abstract of an Essay on Natural Selection’, instead of Natural Selection he made the historically crucial choice of inserting the phrase ‘the origin of species and varieties’ in his title. There are several non-exclusive factors that may have inspired this insertion: didactic reasons, the title of the article in which he elaborated his highly successful coral theory, the title of the Darwin–Wallace paper and/or Lyell's qualification, in 1856, of his theory as ‘On the Formation of Species by Natural Selection’. The main influence of John Murray was the addition of a subtitle to this title: ‘or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’. This referred to the kind of preservation or selection that was associated with the second keystone of Darwin's book: the principle of divergence. Other modifications were less crucial. Most enigmatic, maybe, was the replacement of ‘through’ with the longer phrase ‘by means of’.
One might wonder whether this convoluted gestation process resulted in the best possible title for Darwin's book.80 Should he not, for example, have referred to the crucial second part of his book: his evolutionary reinterpretation of large parts of the contemporary knowledge about life and its history? However, that is not what this article was about. I have, through a detailed description of the trajectory between Natural Selection and The Origin and a tentative reconstruction of the reasoning behind this long and convoluted transmutation, merely tried to fill a small but not insignificant gap in the historiographical Darwin literature.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and recommendations.
Footnotes
1 Darwin to J. M. Rodwell, 5 November 1860, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2976', http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2976 (accessed 4 July 2018).
2 C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (John Murray, London, 1859). The study of Darwin, his work and his influence did not, of course, start in 1959. See, in this respect, J. C. Greene, ‘Reflections on the progress of Darwin studies’, Hist. Biol. 8(2), 243–273 (1975), at p. 243. He refers to the Isis Cumulative Bibliography: ‘for the years 1912–1919 the Bibliography lists 8 books and articles on Darwin and related subjects; 28 for the 1920's; 38 for the 1930's; 29 for the 1940's and 24 in the years 1950–1957’. However, these studies were not produced by a community of Darwin scholars but rather by isolated scholars and constituted a mere trickle in comparison to the torrent of the post-1959 Darwin industry. The 1959 centennial was not the only catalyst of the emergence of a Darwin industry. Greene refers in this respect to the crystallization of the modern evolutionary synthesis—which of course constituted a vindication of Darwin's ideas—and to the professionalization of the history and philosophy of science as an academic discipline. (Greene, op. cit. (this note), p. 248.) For analyses of the Darwin industry, see B. J. Loewenberg, ‘Darwin and Darwin studies, 1959–63’, Hist. Sci.4(1), 15–54 (1965); M. Ruse, ‘The Darwin industry: a critical evaluation’, Hist. Sci.12(1), 43–58 (1974); Greene, op. cit. (this note); T. Lenoir, ‘Essay review: the Darwin industry’, J. Hist. Biol. 20(1), 115–130 (1987); M. Ruse, ‘The Darwin industry: a guide’, Vic. Stud.39(2), 217–235 (1996); M. C. Flannery, ‘The Darwin industry’, Am. Biol. Teach. 68(3), 163–166 (2006); D. Oldroyd, M. Ruse, P. Pearson and S. Herbert, ‘Review symposium: Darwin's geology: the end of the Darwin industry?’, Metascience16(1), 25–50 (2007); J. van Wyhe, ‘Darwin online and the evolution of the Darwin industry’, Hist. Sci.47(4), 459–473 (2009).
3 The main categorization of this literature could be non-hierarchical (i.e. based on a non-hierarchical list of subject matters) or hierarchical (i.e. based on the importance of the subject matter). In the latter case, Darwin biographies would undoubtedly figure among the most important subject matters. The timing of publication (i.e. possible delay) of The Origin and the differences between various editions are examples of subject matters of secondary importance. A third category, of least important topics, could encompass subjects such as Darwin's writing style and his much discussed, mysterious illness.
4 The ‘Historical sketch’ was prepared for the first authorized American edition of The Origin, published in May 1860, but it had already appeared in April 1860 as a preface to the first German edition. See C. N. Johnson, ‘The preface to Darwin's Origin of Species: the curious history of the “Historical sketch”’, J. Hist. Biol. 40(3), 529–556 (2007), at p. 530, n. 1.
5 Ibid., p. 531, n. 3.
6 Ibid.
7 A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin (Penguin, London, 1992), p. 474.
8 Ibid., p. 475.
9 J. Browne, Charles Darwin: the power of place (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2002), p. 81.
10 R. C. Stauffer, (ed.) Charles Darwin's Natural Selection: being the second part of his big Species Book written from 1856 to 1858 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975). The first part of Natural Selection (two chapters) was cannibalized when Darwin wrote The Variation. C. Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2 vols (John Murray, London, 1868). Consequently, Stauffer's edition begins with chapter III, ‘Possibility of all organic beings crossing’. It comprises eight full chapters and one incomplete chapter on geographical distribution. Stauffer's division of Natural Selection into two parts is not to be confused with the bipartite structure of Darwin's argumentation (see note 25). A better title for the book that Stauffer edited might have been: The second part of Darwin's Natural Selection: chapters 3–11.
11 F. Darwin, (ed.) The foundations of The Origin of Species: two essays written in 1842 and 1844 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1909).
12 In his personal journal, he wrote: ‘July 5th. Sent a written sketch of species theory (seven years after commencement[)] in about 230 pages to Mr. Fletcher to be copied’. Cambridge University Library, Darwin Online, DAR158.1–76, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=42&itemID=CUL-DAR158.1-76&viewtype=side (accessed 29 May 2018).
13 C. Darwin to E. Darwin, 5 July 1844, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 761’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-761 (accessed 12 March 2018).
14 C. Lyell to Darwin, 9 April 1843, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 670’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-670 (accessed 13 March 2018).
15 Lyell to Darwin, 1–2 May 1856, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1862’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1862 (accessed 16 March 2018).
16 It has long been believed that Lyell feared that Darwin would be scooped after reading Alfred Russel Wallace's essay on the introduction of new species: A. R. Wallace, ‘On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species’, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 2nd Ser. 16, 184–196 (1855). However, this seems to be a myth. See, in this respect, J. van Wyhe, ‘The impact of A. R. Wallace's Sarawak Law paper reassessed’, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. C60, 56–66 (2016).
17 D. Kohn, ‘Darwin's ambiguity: the secularization of biological meaning’, Br. J. Hist. Sci. 22, 215–239 (1989).
18 Darwin to J. D. Hooker, 9 May 1856, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1870’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1870 (accessed 16 March 2018).
19 Ibid.
20 Darwin to Hooker, 11 May 1856, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1874’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1874 (accessed 16 March 2018).
21 In his personal journal, he wrote: ‘May 14th Began by Lyells [sic] advice writing species sketch’. Cambridge University Library, Darwin Online, DAR158.1–76, http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=66&itemID=CUL-DAR158.1-76&viewtype=text (accessed 29 May 2018).
22 Darwin to W. D. Fox, 3 October 1856, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1967’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1967 (accessed 16 March 2018).
23 Darwin to Lyell, 10 November 1856, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1984’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1984 (accessed 13 March 2018).
24 Darwin to A. Gray, 5 September 1857, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2136’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2136 (accessed 13 March 2018).
25 The Sketch (1842) seems to have had a tripartite plan (part 1 on variation under domestication, part 2 on variation under nature and part 3 on the reasons for and against believing that wild races ‘really have been produced, forming what are called species’), but, as editor, Francis Darwin ‘was being reasonable enough in dividing the Sketch not according to this tripartite plan … but according to the more fundamental bipartite structure of its argumentation’. M. J. S. Hodge, ‘Review: the structure and strategy of Darwin's “long argument”’, Br. J. Hist. Sci. 10(3), 237–246 (1977), at pp. 241–242. See also note 39. The ‘bigger work’ that Darwin intended to publish after the publication of On the Origin (1859) had a similar, tripartite structure.
26 Darwin to Gray, 11 May 1863, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 4153’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-4153 (accessed 18 December 2017). It was a reiteration of a letter that he had sent, a few days before, to the Athenæum, as a reaction to an anonymously published letter by Richard Owen: ‘Whether the naturalist believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St.-Hilaire, by the author of the “Vestiges”, by Mr. Wallace and myself, or in any other such view, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species and have not been created immutable; for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field opened to him for further inquiry. I believe, however, from what I see of the progress of opinion on the Continent, and in this country, that the theory of Natural Selection will ultimately be adopted, with, no doubt, many subordinate modifications and improvements’. Darwin to Athenæum, 5 May 1863, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 4142’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-4142 (accessed 19 December 2017).
27 Darwin to Lyell, 20 September 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2492’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2492 (accessed 17 January 2018).
28 The Origin is indeed not explicitly divided into two parts, but chapters I–VIII correspond to Part I of the Sketch and the Essay and chapters IX–XIII (first edition) to Part II. It is often said that The Origin has a tripartite structure (see, e.g., R. Moore, ‘The persuasive Mr. Darwin’, Bioscience47(2), 107–114 (1997)). Chapters VI–VIII, which deal with difficulties for Darwin's theory of natural selection (or even chapters VI–IX) are then considered as Part II. However, chapters VI–VIII belong to Part I of his argumentative structure, whereas chapter IX, on the imperfection of the geological record, opens Part II. It is correct, though, that Darwin, from the moment that he had been urged to publish something, had decided to give special attention to the difficulties in his theory: ‘If I publish anything it must be a very thin& little volume, giving a sketch of my views & difficulties; but it is really dreadfully unphilosophical to give a resumé, without exact references, of an unpublished work. But Lyell seemed to think I might do this, at the suggestion of friends, & on the ground which I might state that I had been at work for 18 years, & yet could not publish for several years, & especially as I could point out difficulties which seemed to me to require especial investigation’. Darwin to Hooker, 9 May 1856 (note 18).
29 D. Ospovat, The development of Darwin's theory: natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838–1859 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), p. 88.
30 D. Partridge, ‘When did Darwin “clearly conceive” his theory of evolution?’ J. Nat. Hist.52(1–2), 73–86 (2018), at p. 73.
31 L. G. Wilson, (ed.), Sir Charles Lyell's scientific journals on the species question (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1970), p. 121.
32 Wallace, op. cit. (note 16); van Wyhe, op. cit. (note 16), p. 63.
33 C. Darwin, ‘On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. I. Extract from an unpublished work on species, II. Abstract of a letter from C. Darwin, Esq., to Prof. Asa Gray’, J. Proc. Linn. Soc. 3, 45–53 (1858); A. R. Wallace, ‘On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. III. On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type’, J. Proc. Linn. Soc. 3, 53–62 (1858).
34 Darwin to T. C. Eyton, 4 August 1858, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2319’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2319 (accessed 21 March 2018).
35 Darwin to Hooker, 12 October 1858, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2339’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2339 (accessed 20 March 2018). On 4 October 1858, he had already called it ‘an abstract of all my conclusions to be published as small book or read before Linn: Society’: Darwin to Eyton, 4 October 1858, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2333’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2333 (accessed 21 March 2018).
36 Darwin to Lyell, 28 March 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2437’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2437 (accessed 24 March 2018).
37 As he declared in the introduction to The Origin: ‘No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this’. Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 2.
38 Darwin to J. Murray, 2 December 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2566’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2566 (accessed 19 December 2017).
39 Darwin to Fox, 25 December 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2604’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2604 (accessed 19 December 2017). See also Darwin to Murray, 22 December 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2594’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2594 (accessed 19 December 2017). In The Variation, he called this book the first volume of that bigger work that he had announced in the introduction of The Origin and apologized for ‘the great delay in publishing this first work’, adding that it had ‘been caused by continued ill-health’ (Darwin, op. cit. (note 10), p. 2, n. 1). He also announced the two other, never-published volumes, one about ‘the Variation of organisms in a state of nature’ (p. 8) and one about ‘the several classes of facts’ (p. 9) that could be explained by the principle of natural selection. Stauffer points out, in this respect, that Darwin ‘did not abandon his long manuscript, nor write on the unused backs of the sheets for drafting other new publications as he so often did with other manuscripts’. Stauffer, op. cit. (note 10), p. 1. Indeed, he kept assembling notes for a big ‘Species Book’ until the 1870s (see Ospovat, op. cit. (note 29), p. 89). As Ospovat points out, the third volume (part 2 in his argument) would probably have been a very large one because his notes on geological succession, geographical distribution, morphology, and so forth were very extensive (see Darwin Manuscripts Project, DAR 205, https://tinyurl.com/y7ge5bux (accessed 29 May 2018)). Murray seems not to have been very enthusiastic about this project, which may help explain why it was never completed. See, in this respect, Browne, op. cit. (note 9), p. 97.
40 Hodge, op. cit. (note 25), p. 242.
41 Darwin to Hooker, 11 May 1856 (note 20).
42 C. R. Darwin, ‘On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations’, Proc. Geol. Soc. Lond. 2, 552–554 (1837) (read 31 May 1837). It was later elaborated in Darwin's first monograph: C. R. Darwin, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle, under the Command of Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. During the Years 1832 to 1836 (Smith Elder and Co., London, 1842).
43 In a letter that he sent on 18 May 1858 to Syms Covington, he declared that Natural Selection was his biggest work: ‘it treats on the origin of varieties of our domestic animals and plants, and on the origin of species in a state of nature’. However, this cannot have been the inspiration (and meaning) of the original title of his abstract, since domestic varieties are not produced through natural selection. Darwin to S. Covington, 18 May 1858, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2276’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2276 (accessed 13 March 2018).
44 Darwin to H. Denny, 7 November 1844, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 787’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-787 (accessed 21 March 2018). See also, in this respect, D. N. Stamos, Darwin and the nature of species (State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 2007).
45 Darwin to F. Mackintosh Wedgwood, 18 [August 1856–January 1858], Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 1810’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-1810 (accessed 21 March 2018).
46 C. Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle Round the World, under the Command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N., 2nd edn (John Murray, London, 1845).
47 Browne, op. cit. (note 9), p. 73.
48 Darwin to Lyell, op. cit. (note 36).
49 Darwin to Lyell, 30 March 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2439’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2439 (accessed 8 December 2017). Darwin to Murray, 31 March 1859. Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2441’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2441 (accessed 19 December 2017).
50 This certainly seems to be implied by what Darwin wrote to Lyell: he was ‘sorry about Murray objecting to term abstract as I look at it as only possible apology for not giving References & facts in full.—but I will defer to him & you’. Darwin to Lyell, 30 March 1859 (note 49). In note 2 to another letter by Darwin, addressed to Murray, the editor writes that Darwin had been advised ‘to drop the expression “Abstract of an essay” (letter to Charles Lyell, 30 March [1859])’. Darwin to Murray, 10 September 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2488’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2488 (accessed 8 December 2017). That is not correct. In his letter to Lyell (30 March), Darwin only refers to the term ‘abstract’.
51 This interpretation of this draft title page is suggested by D. Ospovat, ‘God and natural selection: the Darwinian idea of design’, J. Hist. Biol. 13(2), 169–194 (1980), at p. 172, n. 10. The reference to Murray and to Whewell suggests that it is the correct interpretation. Although the verso of the half-title leaf of The Origin as published carries two quotations—one by Whewell and one by Bacon—whereas this draft title page only carries a quotation by Whewell. Also, this quotation was intended to be placed beneath the title. The emphasis on the year of publication as 1860 may even be incompatible with Ospovat's interpretation, since Darwin, to the best of my knowledge, never intended to publish The Origin in 1860 (the manuscript was finished in May 1859). Could it be that this was not an alternative title for The Origin but the ‘general title’ of the ‘bigger book’ that Darwin, in 1859, intended to ‘publish as 3 separate volumes, with distinct titles, but with a general title in addition’?
52 Darwin to Lyell, op. cit. (note 49).
53 Ibid.
54 R. Dawkins, Science in the soul: selected writings of a passionate rationalist (Bantam Press, London, 2017), p. 112.
55 The frequency with which (non-split) terms appear in The Origin can be determined through the search function of John van Wyhe's darwin-online.org.uk site. One should keep in mind, though, that terms are often used in different ways.
56 Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 94.
57 Ibid., p. 172.
58 Darwin to A. R. Wallace, 22 December 1857, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2192’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2192 (accessed 27 March 2018). Darwin used the word ‘race’ mainly to refer to domestic or natural plants or animals. There are only three instances in The Origin where the term refers to ‘races of humans’. In one of these passages, Darwin foreshadowed his later book, The Descent of Man: ‘I might have adduced for this same purpose the differences between the races of man, which are so strongly marked; I may add that some little light can apparently be thrown on the origin of these differences, chiefly through sexual selection of a particular kind, but without here entering on copious details my reasoning would appear frivolous’. Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 199. C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London, 1871).
59 Desmond and Moore, op. cit. (note 7), p. 442. See also A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin's sacred cause: race, slavery and the quest for human origins (Penguin Books, London, 2009).
60 With the benefit of hindsight, Darwin's choice was even less lucky or opportune. G. Himmelfarb, for example, points out that Darwin's subtitle ‘made a convenient motto for racists’ and that Darwin himself was ‘not averse to the idea that some races were more fit than others, and that this fitness was demonstrated in human history’. G. Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian revolution (Chatto & Windus, London, 1959), p. 416. M. Russell even claims that ‘favoured races’, translated, ‘meant his race, the Caucasians’. M. Russell, Beyond ramps: disability at the end of the social contract: a warning from an uppity crip (Common Courage Press, Monroe, ME, 1998), p. 19. Likewise, Dawkins writes that the word ‘race’ in the subtitle of The Origin‘is sometimes misread in support of racialism’. Dawkins, op. cit. (note 54), p. 112.
61 Quoted in Hodge, op. cit., p. 242 (note 25), my italics.
62 Darwin to Murray, 5 April 1859, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2447’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2447 (accessed 19 December 2017). See also the letter that he sent to Murray on 2 April: Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2445’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2445 (accessed 19 December 2017).
63 Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 467.
64 J. W. Bock, ‘The Darwin–Wallace myth of 1858’, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 62(1), 1–12 (2009), at p. 3.
65 For example, when he wrote that natural selection ‘is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good’, he emphasized the causative or scrutinizing side of natural selection. Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 84. In his most elaborate definition, however, he focused on the consequential or resultative dimension of natural selection: ‘Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art’. Ibid., p. 61; see also Stauffer, op. cit. (note 10), p. 175.
66 Darwin had also already realized that selection can be endogenic (i.e. selection due to characteristics of the selected organism) or exogenic (i.e. selection of an organism due to the behaviour or characteristics of other organisms). That is how he explained the existence of castes of neuter insects with a profitable modification (i.e. profitable for the community to which they belonged). They evolved through the (exogenic) selection of their parents: ‘by the long-continued selection of the fertile parents which produced most neuters with the profitable modification, all the neuters ultimately came to have the desired character’. Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 239.
67 Ibid., p. 467.
68 J. L. R. Agassiz, ‘Review of On the Origin of Species’, Am. J. Sci. Arts30, 142–154 (1860), at p. 149, (my italics).
69 Ibid., p. 149.
70 Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 111. The principle of divergence ‘grew out of work on classification’ (Ospovat, op. cit. (note 29), p. 171). The question that he initially posed ‘was not how one parent species gives rise to two descendant species, but rather “why the species of a large genus, will hereafter probably be a Family with several genera”’ (ibid.). It has been interpreted in various ways in the literature. D. Kohn argues that the principle of divergence was simply a special case or type of natural selection which he calls ‘divergent selection’. D. Kohn, ‘Darwin's keystone: the principle of divergence’, in The Cambridge companion to the Origin of Species (eds D. Kohn and M. Ruse), pp. 87–108 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009). It certainly encompassed, or resulted in, that kind of selection. Put differently: Darwin's ‘principle of divergence’ encompassed the notion of divergent selection (i.e. the selection of the most divergent members of a population) and an explanation for divergent selection (i.e. organisms that differ from other members of the species can invade and occupy a new niche). For more literature on this principle, see J. Browne, ‘Darwin's botanical arithmetic and the principle of divergence, 1854–1858’, J. Hist. Biol. 13, 53–89 (1980); D. Kohn, ‘Darwin's principle of divergence as internal dialogue’, in The Darwinian heritage (ed. D. Kohn), pp. 245–258 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1985); E. Mayr, ‘Darwin's principle of divergence’, J. Hist. Biol. 25(3), 343–359 (1992); W. Tammone, ‘Competition, the division of labor, and Darwin's principle of divergence’, J. Hist. Biol. 28, 109–131 (1995); D. W. Pfennig and K. S. Pfennig, ‘Character displacement and the origins of diversity’, Am. Nat. 176(1), S26–S44 (2010); R. J. Richards, ‘Darwin's principles of divergence and natural selection: why Fodor was almost right’, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. C43(1), 256–268 (2012).
71 Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), p. 184.
72 Darwin to op. cit. (note 24).
73 Darwin to Hooker, 8 June 1858, Darwin Correspondence Project, ‘Letter no. 2282’, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/DCP-LETT-2282 (accessed 19 December 2017).
74 Darwin, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 111–126. See also Stauffer, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 227–250.
75 ‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work. Although he demonstrated the modification of species in the time dimension, he never seriously attempted a rigorous analysis of the problem of the multiplication of species, the splitting of one species into two’. E. Mayr, Animal species and evolution (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963), p. 12. In a similar vein, J. A. Coyne and H. A. Orr point out that ‘The Origin of Species, whose title and first paragraph imply that Darwin will have much to say about speciation … remains largely silent on the “mystery of mysteries”, and the little it does say about this mystery is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled or wrong’. J. A. Coyne and H. A. Orr, Speciation (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, 2004), p. 9. They believe that ‘for Darwin, the origin of species was identical to the origin of adaptations within species’ (ibid., p. 11). Coyne has even argued that The Origin of Species should have been called The Origin of Adaptations because Darwin ‘confused adaptation within lineages with the origin of new lineages’. J. A. Coyne, ‘Ernst Mayr and the Origin of Species’, Evolution48(1), 19–30 (1994), at p. 19.
76 Mayr, op. cit. (note 70), p. 357.
77 Pfennig and Pfennig, op. cit. (note 70).
78 Darwin to Murray, op. cit. (note 50).
79 This was also the way in which he, in the Sketch, first formulated the idea of natural selection.
80 Another, historiographical question is whether or not Darwin later regretted having ended up with this specific title. He developed mixed feelings about the phrase ‘natural selection’ and sometimes used Herbert Spencer's phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’ but, as far as I know, never criticized the title of his magnum opus and he also never coined an alternative title for The Origin. The fact that the title of foreign editions of The Origin (e.g., Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung, oder, Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe um's Daseyn, 1860) was, generally, very similar to the English title maybe also indicates that Darwin was not unhappy with his choice as foreign editions of books offer a good opportunity to launch a new, improved title. The Origin was translated in twenty-nine languages, a number that is higher than that of any other science book, except for the first books of Euclid (see http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html).
THE DEVIL IS NEVER SHAMED WHEN TRUTH IS TOLD!!! FRANCE IS AN OPEN ZIONIST-ISRAEL STATE!!! BAFS
Not Israeli Independence but Palestinian Nakba!!!
ORIGINAL TITLE:
Israeli Independence or Palestinian Nakba?
VT's Dr. Elias Akleh shames EU Leadership, Relives Human Catastrophe that is Al-Nakba
By Dr. Elias Akleh
Last Wednesday, April 26th, the German national Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, serving as the president of the European Commission, shamelessly tweeted the following congratulation to the religiously racist genocidal colonial Israeli terrorist state for its 75th illegitimate founding anniversary on stolen Palestinian land:
“75 years ago, a dream was realized with Israel’s independent state. After the greatest tragedy of human history, the Jewish people could finally build a home in the promised land. Today we celebrate 75 years of a vibrant democracy in the heart of the Middle East, 75 years of dynamism, ingenuity, and ground-breaking innovations. You have literally made the desert bloom, as I could see during my visit to Negev last year. Today we also celebrate 75 years of friendship between Israel and Europe. We have more in common than geography would suggest. Our shared culture, our values, and hundreds of thousands of dual Israeli European citizens have created a deep connection between us. Europe and Israel are bound to be friends and allies. Your freedom is our freedom. Happy birthday to all the people of Israel.”
75 years ago, the illusory “dream” of the alleged “Israel’s independent state”, Ursula mentioned was accomplished by the Zionist militia terrorist gangs of Irgun and the Haganah through multiple brutal genocides of Palestinian civilians, erasure of more than 520 Palestinian towns and villages, the eviction and ethnic cleansing of 800,000 Palestinians and a massive land theft.
This Israeli dream has never been an “independent state”. It is a
frontal military base for the Western colonial power as expressed by
many American military leaders. This state/base could not function on
its own. It depends on Western military and financial support mainly
from the United States, whose successive presidents ignore the
ever-growing homeless population, the economic and unemployment crisis,
the messed-up educational system, the unaffordable prices of medical
care, the deteriorating basic
infrastructures, and many other racial and social-cultural issues, but
give Israel almost $4 billion annually, plus all the military weapon
systems.
Ursula also mentioned “the greatest tragedy of human history”, hinting to the alleged Holocaust although not mention it by name due to her German upbringing. German youths are intensely brainwashed with the holocaust myth since elementary school to instill guilt feelings in their psyche, thus making them vulnerable and easier to manipulate. This alleged holocaust is not the greatest tragedy in human history.
Ursula should be reminded of the hundred million Native American genocides, almost the same number of black African natives kidnapped from their homeland and shipped to be sold as slaves in America – the so-called new promised land- hundreds of thousands of them died while being shipped across the ocean, hundreds of millions of Christian Russians in the Gulag, the Ukrainian Holodomor, the Armenian genocide, and the on-going genocides of tens of millions of Arabs in the Middle Eastern region among many other tragedies perpetrated mainly by France, Britain, and the US.
Ursula has repeated the Judaic pagan religious myth of “the promised land” indicating the central Judaic belief of a racist god, who loves only the Jews but not the rest of his created human races. I wonder how this concept fit in Ursula’s Christian Democratic Union political party and in her Christian upbringing. Does she believe she is loved by God?
Ursula celebrates Israel’s “vibrant democracy in the heart of the
Middle East” hinting that election is real democracy and the myth that
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. We do have democratic
elections in Arab countries in the region such as Egypt, Lebanon, and
Syria; democracies that Israel and the USA are trying hard to sabotage
and destroy. Besides, the belief that election means democracy is a
misleading idea. We witness the dictatorship of elected democracy in
many so-called democratic countries, where one party would control the
government according to their own whims while ignoring the needs of
other parties as we see in Israel and
in the USA.
Ursula may ignore that the Palestinians as no-class citizens in this Israeli vibrant democracy, yet it is not as easy to ignore the class and race inequality and struggle in the skewed Israeli society. Israelis come in different and usually contradictory flavors. We have the Zionist colonial Ashkenazim (Khazars) of east European descent, the eastern Mizrahim or Sephardim Jews from Arabic countries and from Iran, the separatist Russian Jews, the non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox god-fearing Haredim Jews, and the fascist national religious Zionists settlers. Let us also not forget here the discriminated against, oppressed, and persecuted black Ethiopian Jews (the Israeli Niggers).
Each has its own religious and conflicting political agenda that conflicts with the so-called vibrant democracy. What keeps them together is their “dynamism”/infiltration, their “ingenuity”/debt usury Federal Reserve banking system, their “ground-braking innovations”/ spying technologies, sexually deviant propaganda, and media manipulation, summed together in their religious hatred for all goyim.
Ursula, again, repeats the Zionist myth of Israelis “have literally made the desert bloom”. The fact is that Palestine is a very fertile land part of the famous Fertile Crescent of the region. Palestinians had made Palestine a green agricultural heaven for the last thousands of years. Palestinians were major exporters of major foodstuffs to European countries. Palestinian sea ports have been major trade hubs between East and West. Palestine was a major trade and cultural center for the Old World. Palestine exported culture, scientific achievements, major philosophy, and the three major religions to the whole world and particularly to pagan old Europe.
Israelis have damaged this Palestinian blooming heaven. Colonial Zionist Israelis had damaged Palestinian fertile agricultural fields using bulldozers to uproot hundreds of thousands of ancient fruit and olive trees in order to build their illegal colonies. They use planes to spray poisonous chemicals on vine and vegetable fields, they poison water wells to kill farm animals, and extremist settlers routinely conduct day and night raids against Palestinian fields to steal crops and burn trees under the protection of the Israeli army. For the last 75 years, Palestinian land had been irrigated with the blood of Palestinian victims, particularly the blood of women and children massacred by Israeli terrorists.
Ursula claims to celebrate “friendship between Israel and Europe”… due to “shared culture and values.” I wonder what friendship, shared cultures, and values she is talking about. History shows that Jews had been persecuted and evicted from every European country because of their elitist unique culture and anti-goyim values. Such persecutions and evictions were motivated by Christian religious hatred against the Ashkenazi anti-Christian Talmudic beliefs. If Ursula really believes that Israel and Europe are friends due to shared culture and values, why then wouldn’t Europe allow those Israelis to make Europe bloom instead of persecuting them and evicting them from every European country?
Contrary to what pro-Zionist politicians want you to believe, authentic Jews – Mizrahim and Haredim- were welcomed in the Muslim Arab countries as well as in Iran, where they had enjoyed safe and prosperous life and had even occupied political offices. The reasons for this are that Islam commands followers to respect and accept “the people of the Book” – Jews and Christians -, and that there is no difference between a Muslim and a foreigner except in belief in God.
As a president of a globally important position the president of the European Commission, and as a graduate of famous German and British universities, Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen is expected to be more informed of world history and political issues, to possess compassion and understanding of peoples’ sufferings, and to express integrity, responsibility, and neutrality rather than regurgitating and encouraging Zionist terrorist racist myths of anti-Palestinian tropes, that whitewash and encourage the on-going Israeli genocide of Palestinians – one Nakba (catastrophe) after another.
Ursula’s narrative perpetuates the continued and racist denial of the Palestinian Nakba and their right to return to their homeland. It whitewashes and justifies Zionist Israel’s 75 years of illegal occupation, apartheid regime, ethnic cleansing, land theft, and war crimes.
Ursula’s narrative can be paraphrased in the following words:
“Today we celebrate the 75 years of Israel’s continued violent occupation of the Palestinian homeland, the Israeli brutality with which Palestinians were ethnically cleansed out of their homes and rendered refugees, the successful Israeli violations of all international laws and all human rights, the preservation of Israel’s apartheid regime, Israel’s anti-religious anti-goyim hatred, and the inability and unwillingness of the international community to curtail Israeli terror.”
One day, many like Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen will lower their haughty heads and sights to the ground in shame, when they realize the evil they had defended and the heroes they had ridiculed.
Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab-American from Palestinian descent. His family was evicted from Haifa, Palestine after the 1948 Nakba when Zionists stole his family’s property. Then the family was evicted again from the West Bank during the 1967 Naksah, after Zionists again, occupied the rest of Palestine.
| ||||||
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Copyright © 2023 VT, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in on our website. Thank you for following and supporting us!
Our mailing address is:
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.
Je sais pas vraiment ce que c’est imam a dit pour enfreindre la loi sur le séparatisme mais il devrait assister à son procès et ne pas s’enfuir comme un vulgaire délinquant. Même Socrate jugé pour pervertir la jeunesse grecque a assisté à son jugement car il avait raison mais il voulait se conformer a la loi de sa cité.
Allons Ak83000, on peut philosopher hors du réel. Comment reviendrait-il alors que la France l’a expulsée, comment faire comme si le jugement n’était pas écrit d’avance? Parce que tu imagines vraiment qu’en février, un jugement lui sera favorable contre le gouvernement? Ce qu’il a fait, eh bien il n’a rien fait de oparticulier. Ses vidéos sont moralisantes, mais pas très fortes, allons, ce n’est pas une insulte, c’est un constat, mettons qu’il s’adressait bien aux jeunes qu’il savait calmer, contenir. Sur le plan du droit, je ne vois pas ce qu’on lui reproche. Ah si, il y a le troll Zemmourien ici, le fameux Leroy, qui lui reproche de n’avoir pas demandé la nationalité Française, bien que né en France. Il pouvait, d’ailleurs c’eut été cohérent avec ses encouragements au votte et aux participations citoyennes. Probablement un oubli, mais ce n’est écrit nulle part qu’un iman ou autre soit expulsé s’il ne demande pas la nationalité Française que je sache.
Croissant de lune.
Si j’ai bien compris ,on accuse cet homme, parcequ’un politique, le ministre de l’Intérieur a annoncé sur Twitter, jeudi 28 juillet :
« Ce prédicateur tient depuis des années un discours haineux à l’encontre des valeurs de la France, contraire à nos principes de laïcité et d’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes. Il sera expulsé du territoire français »,
Donc, depuis des années, cet homme est dans l’erreur selon ce ministre, et sans que personne ne le mette à l’ordre, ni meme lui faire la remarque.
Quand on veut se debarasser d’une personne, on la pousse dans l’erreur, et en lui montrant un terrain ami, à la limite neutre, ce qui permet de constituer un dossier d’accusation, avec des chefs d’accusation flous, atteinte à la sureté de l’etat, propos opposées aux valeurs de la laicité.
Ce dossier servira dans un possible chantage, sinon c’est l’expulsion.
Dans mon passé en France, le pouvoir, pour controler les discours dans les mosquées, n’envoit pas des hommes, ce n’etait pas sage d’un point de vue securitaire, et ça finit par une bagarre, alors on envoyait plutot des femmes.
En sortant des mosquées , les fideles voyaient ces femmes, et comprenaient bien la presence de ces femmes, mais ils laissent faire.
Sacré Darmanin ! Pour se faire mousser, il est de bon ton de pratiquer l’agitation médiatique, histoire de dire qu’il défend bec et ongles la republique et qu’il est actif pour nous protéger des vilains imams. Exit la violence, le chômage, le pouvoir d’achat, la réforme des retraites…
Il faut par ailleurs se rendre hélas à l’évidence quant à la liberté d’expression dans notre pays, qui est à géométrie ultravariable. Un petit tour sur CNews vous permettra de voir que les riouffoleries agrémentées de la sauce Praud ont encore un bel avenir. Il est possible de traîner les citoyens de confession musulmane dans la boue, sans que les laicards de cours de recreation ne pipent mot. Quant à Hassan Iquioussen, on déterre une vidéo vieille de 15 ou 20 ans pour laquelle il s’est expliqué. Mais quand un politicard galvanisé par les médias a quelqu’un dans le viseur, il est difficile d’y échapper, c’est une question d’honneur politique. Les recours de l’avocate de l’imam devraient encore alimenter les plateaux d’experts, experts en tout…
N’oublions pas sur Cnews, Morandini condamné pour « corruption de mineurs » mais qui continue tranquillement à faire la morale aux autres lors de ses émissions…
C’est sûr qu’il ne sera pas expulsé lui.
Venergrave, cet islamiste n’est pas un citoyen français puisqu’il n’a jamais demandé la nationalité du pays dans lequel il est né et qu’il ne semble pas beaucoup aimer.
Il n’est donc que marocain et indésirable en France.
Vous écrivez qu’il y a une suite judiciaire en France le 16 février prochain ?
Et bien laissons donc se dérouler le cours de la justice française ! Vous défieriez-vous d’elle ? Pourquoi ? Son avocate est libre de le défendre au mieux qu’elle peut.
S’il y avait une condamnation prononcée, croyez-vous qu’Iquioussen reviendrait en France pour s’y soumettre ?
@ PIM06, oui mais voyons, comme si la justice fonctionnait toujours en France, comme si l’affaire n’était pas déjçà tranchée. Ne viens pas nous raconter que la décision en février pourrait lui être favorable et annuler tout ce qui s’est passé? Il a fui la France espérant n’être pas reconduit au Maroc où il est opposant. Il y en a certains qui ne comprennent ou feignent l’incompréhension.
Croissant de lune.