Artheism The two legacies

'Search' Computer Designed & Generated by Karim Chaibi

Introduction©Karim chaibi

Writings©Karim Chaibi

Paintings©Karim Chaibi

Drawings©Karim Chaibi

Artheism©Karim Chaibi

Events©Karim Chaibi

Dedication©Karim Chaibi




The Artheist will try to redistribute the legacy of Middle Eastern monotheism so that the Judeo-Islamic tradition can be distinguished from the Greco-Christian. In fact attempts by any tradition to rectify or correct the trend of the other are only doomed to failure. Jesus had to die, then rise again, in order for the myth to function, while neither Moses nor Mohammed were under any obligation to survive their death; for their existence was irrelevant to the validity of their manuscript. 

So it’s unconceivable to write the death of the text, as it is unconceivable to sing the moratorium of music. It’s like drowning a fish, for the text regardless of its content is a being, or ‘The Being’; for “is”, as understood by the Judeo-Islamic tradition, follows from do/write/utter, and in turn itself becomes the done/written/uttered.

While creating the concepts of author and manuscript, the Judeo-Islamic tradition initiated an inward dialectic. It’s a dialectic wherein the scribe invents an A that creates a B, which assumes by the end the position of A: a process that erases both the real and the fictional author. The scribe assigns attributes to a fictional being, then defines the being as no more than the attributes. The messenger announces the death of his master while shooting himself in the head, in order for the message to survive both of them.

The Greco-Christian tradition tried but failed thrice, for it had no text to begin with, nor did it want any. The failures were Mark 13:32[1] and John’s third letter[2], followed by Marcion[3] breakup with the Old Testament and Judaism altogether; for it was inconceivable to him that the angry author of the OT was the same as the one preaching love and peace. Baruch Spinoza was too much for him: “….strictly speaking God does not love anyone.”[4] The outcome was to silence an already non-existent text and enable the clerical body to assume the position of the author. Lay people didn’t even have to read the bible, for the pope and the priests read it for them.[5] It was also the Greco-Christian tradition that saw fit to transgress the second commandment; Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. The graven word was overpowered by the spoken word of Jesus. The western renaissance owes a lot to printing machines.

Despite the invention of the author within the Judeo-Islamic tradition, the father was murdered thrice and with fanfare during the last century, at the hands of Nietzsche, Freud and Derrida. They axed him while contributing indirectly to his reformation, by religiously preserving the concept of the manuscript. Nietzsche’s “Overman” was nothing but an enlightened Golem that owed more to the book of revelations than to scriptural Jewish tradition. As for Freud, while he maintained that the physical murder of the father took place transferred consciously the powers of the defunct to the therapist, a catholic priest wearing a khipah. Derrida, conscious of the attempts of Heidegger to renew interest in the spoken word, hastened the disappearance of the author in order to maintain the supremacy of the manuscript.

Their ethnic background led them to repeatedly knife the corpse of their history, hoping to deal a final blow to Moses’ sacrosanct authorship. The Simha Torah and the noble Quran were the notes that they couldn’t read, for the manuscript had been freed from its author long ago.

“It is because it is” paraphrases Moses’ god revealing himself as “I am who I am.”[6] The Cartesian ego that is in the “I” and not in the “I think” is rejected, in favor of the esoteric being of “I am the utterance of my name.”[7]  Once uttered, he became immune to death as an author.

The scribe’s death is also insignificant. Freud insinuated the murder of Moses, while a number of historians ascribed the death of Mohammed to poison; yet their murder was not to enhance or to debase the value of the text.

The manuscript is that which the Artheist attempts to overwrite instead. By overwriting I mean writing over, for the theistic legacy inherent in the text is still part of the human experience, and should thus not be obliterated but rather enhanced. Overwriting is what transpires from the Judeo-Islamic tradition, in the sense that it injects its self into the object, in order to become the object itself.


[1] But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the father.

[2] “I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.”

[3] 70 to 150ad Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. He completely rejected the Old Testament and compiled his own without reference to the OT.

[4] Ethics

[5] Eleven hundred years later the council of Toulouse (1229) set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, known as the Inquisition, and ruled in Canon 14: We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

[6] God said to Moses “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” Ex 3:14

[7] Nag Hammadi codex “Thunder, Perfect mind”

  Artheism: Antecedence

































Design by Karim Chaibi