Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for March, 2009

Leitfaden zum Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on March 24, 2009

- damit der österreichische Weg nicht in die Sackgasse führt

 

Motto: Integration braucht Bildung

Bildung umfasst nicht nur lexikales Wissen, sondern auch humanistische Bildung.

Bildung ist Respekt vor den anderen und dem anderen. Im Gegensatz zu Ausländer- und Inländerfeindlichkeit

Hieraus ergibt sich ein Fordern und Fördern

  • Islamischer Glaubensinhalt ist den österreichischen Behörden unbekannt trotz Anerkennung des Islam als Glaubensgemeinschaft seit 1912. Es ist durch beispielsweise einen „Beirat“ im BMUKK oder BKA verbindlich und schriftlich zu klären
    • Die Vereinbarkeit des islamischen Glaubensinhalts mit österreichischen Gesetzen  (z.B. kritische Suren und islamische Menschenrechte laut Erklärung von Kairo und laut Forderungen der OIC). Denn beispielsweise: Mawlana Mawdudi, Vordenker des Dschihad, sieht im Islam keine Religion, sondern einen revolutionären Glauben, der jede von Menschen geschaffene Staatsform zerstört.
    • Mitgliederzahl der IGGÖ durch Schaffung eines „Taufscheins“ und damit die wahre Vertretungsbefugnis der IGGÖ (spricht sie zu Recht für „DEN“ Islam und für   ca. 400 000 Mitglieder, also auch für die  Aleviten, Schiiten, türkischen Sunniten etc?).
  • Rolle von ATIB ist den österreichischen Behörden unbekannt und daher zu klären
    • Augenscheinlich verfolgt ATIB als Zweigstelle der türkischen Religionsbehörde die Verdrängung der österreichischen Identität durch Förderung der islamischen und nationalen Identität der in Österreich lebenden Menschen mit türkischem Hintergrund (Erfahrungsaustausch mit BRD wegen Parallelorganisation DITIB wäre nötig)
  • Hinterfragen österreichischer Integrationsmaßnahmen
    • Förderung muslimischer Kultureinrichtungen durch Magistrat Wien
    • Mehrsprachige teure Prospekte und Übersetzerdienste in öffentlichen Einrichtungen. Sie verhindern die Integration – wozu braucht man noch Deutsch?
    • Mentoring Programme des Integrationsfonds und der WKO
    • Stellenvergabe an MigrantInnen aufgrund ihres religiösen/ethnischen Hintergrunds   (s. inoffizielles Papier der Integrationsplattform, StSekr Marek)
    • Rücksichtnahme auf  muslimische Essens- und Bekleidungswünsche verhindern die  Integration (richtiges Beispiel setzt Schule für Wirtschaftliche Berufe in Meidling)
    • Die Ergebnisse aller interkulturellen/religiösen Dialoge der vergangenen Jahre (z.B. Plattform „Christen und Muslime“) und Thematisierung dieser Ergebnisse in   parteiunabhängigen Plattformen verankern: z.B. Club Alpha

 

Rechtsgrundlagen für die vorgeschlagenen Maßnahmen:

  • § 2 (1) und (3) des Religionsunterrichtsgesetzes, Erstfassung des RelUG aus 1949 (BGBl Nr. 190); geltende Fassung BGBl Nr. 256/1993 (V) – die Grundlagen für die Rechte und Pflichten der staatlichen Schulaufsicht…
  • Islamgesetz von 1912 fordert in § 6, Absatz 2, dass auch der Islam in Einklang mit Staatsgesetzen stehen muss
  • Lehrplan für den islamischen Religionsunterricht an Pflichtschulen BGBl 167 vom   19 08 1983 sieht die Unterweisung in „Islamischer Staatsordnung“ vor. Die Ablehnung der Demokratie wird also unter den Augen der Behörde gelehrt. 
  • § 3 Abs. 3 Schulunterrichtsgesetz BGBl Nr. 472/1986 bzw. Änderung vom 09 01 2008 – betreffend das Beherrschen der Unterrichtssprache bei Schülereinschreibung
  • RAHMENBESCHLUSS 2008/913/JI DES EU-RATES vom 28. November 2008 zur strafrechtlichen Bekämpfung bestimmter Formen und Ausdrucksweisen von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Es wäre zu klären, inwieweit der Begriff „Ungläubige“ unter „…..öffentliche Aufstachelung zu Gewalt oder Hass gegen eine nach den Kriterien der Rasse, Hautfarbe, Religion, Abstammung oder nationale oder ethnische Herkunft definierte Gruppe von Personen oder gegen ein Mitglied einer solchen Gruppe“ fällt.

15.03.2009

posted by HF

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

“My Friend is a Muslim and He’s Really Nice”

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

SOMETIMES WHEN you’re talking about Islam, someone will tell you something like this: “My cousin is married to a Muslim man and he’s a really great guy.” And they will say it like that’s the end of the argument. They pronounce it as if their statement obviously cancels and disproves everything you’ve said about Islam. Here are some possible responses: 1. I can see that you are defending your friend, so let me be clear that I’m not attacking your friend or anyone who calls himself a Muslim. I’m talking about Islamic doctrine. I’m talking about what a devout Muslim is supposed to do, according to Mohammad, and what millions of Muslims in fact do. 2. Is he a practicing Muslim or a Muslim in name only? If he is a practicing Muslim, jihad is obligatory. But keep in mind, jihad means struggling toward the political goal of the dominance of Islamic law. Violence is only one of many ways to work toward that political goal. Also, if he is a practicing Muslim, he cannot be friends with you, according to the Qur’an. He can pretend to be your friend if it serves the goals of Islam, but if he actually feels affection for you and really considers you a friend, he is doomed to burn in hell according to the Qur’an. 3. That’s good (that he’s a really great guy)! But the Muslims following the doctrine still need to be stopped, and one very important thing that needs to happen in order to stop them is for non-Muslims to be educated about what is in the Qur’an and the Hadith. Our fellow non-Muslims need to be made aware of the game plan of the enemies dedicated to destroying our way of life. By trying to stop people like me from educating non-Muslims about Islam, you are actually helping Islamic supremacists with their political goals. 4. Maybe this Muslim’s apparent goodness is only taqiyya. Another possibility is that he is simply ignorant of what his religion really requires of him. I will tell you what is in the Qur’an, but only if you promise not to tell him. We don’t need any more Muslims to awaken to the requirements of their faith. Let him live in benign and peaceful ignorance. 5. He’s a Muslim and he’s really nice? Good! It’s entirely possible he does not follow the whole teachings. However, does he pay his zakat (alms)? Then he is probably contributing to Islamic supremacists who are following the whole teachings (the zakat usually goes to the local mosque, and most mosques in the U.S. are owned and run by dedicated Wahabbis). Does he pray five times a day? Does he fast for a month during Ramadan? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had to choose between Shari’a law and the U.S. Constitution, which would he choose? Do you have any idea?! Or are you simply saying your cousin is married to a Muslim with very good people skills? (Read more about the basic obligations of a Muslim.) 6. The existence of a nice Muslim does not invalidate the statement that Islamic teachings advocate intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims. The fact that you know a Muslim who knows how to get along with non-Muslims does not mean he would not also advocate imposing Shari’a law on non-Muslims, and does not mean he is not actively striving toward that goal. The fact that he is really nice does not mean he repudiates the supremacist nature of Islamic teachings. The existence of a Muslim who happens to be charming does not discredit a single thing I’ve said. 7. Is your friend an apatheist? If so, I think that’s great. But I wasn’t talking about people who call themselves Muslims but do not follow the doctrine. I’m talking about the actual Islamic doctrine — what it says in their holy books and what nearly all the Islamic authorities have decreed for the last 1400 years — and that is being followed faithfully by Muslims all over the world. Those who are following the teachings of the Qur’an and who faithfully follow Mohammad’s example are a danger to the free world and they must be stopped. 8. Muhammad Salah was a very nice man too. But he was also the leader of the worldwide military wing of Hamas, a brutal terrorist organization! (Read more about this here.) Give some of these responses a try, and come back here to let us know what happened. Also, please let us know what other questions or statements people make that leave you temporarily tongue-tied.

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/01/my-friend-is-muslim-and-hes-really-nice.html

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“But it is Just a Small Minority of Extremists”

THIS ARTICLE is the first of a series called “Answers to Objections,” where we will be exploring the responses you get when you start talking to people about Islamic supremacism and the third jihad. This is kind of like sales training.

When you get a job as a saleperson, the trainer will usually teach you about the most common objections customers have, and hopefully will teach you how to handle them. Then when a potential customer gives you one of those objections, you won’t be thrown off; you’ll have a competent and well-thought-out answer — an answer that will satisfy the person making it.

But maybe even more important, you’ll give an answer that will satisfy the person your customer will talk to later. In fact, the objection may only be what your customer thinks others will ask later about his purchase.

People often make a response that they think other people might make. This is true in sales, and it’s true when you’re talking about Islam’s relentless encroachment.

If your listener accepts what you’re saying about Islam, and then they go share what they’ve learned with a friend of theirs, what objection might that friend come up with? Your listener will probably wonder about that, and might bring up that objection to see if you have a good answer for it — a persuasive answer, a satisfying answer, an answer that would even convince their skeptical friend.

If you have a good enough answer, you can go further into the conversation with a willing listener. If you don’t have a good enough answer, the conversation will stall and maybe stop, and your listener’s mind will close, maybe for now, and maybe forever.

Not many people really want to hear about Islamic supremacism, at least at first. It’s ugly and it’s scary. But if you do well enough in your conversation, you can get some good information into the other person’s brain, and we will all be better off. This is the most important thing that needs to be done right now: SUCCESSFUL one-on-one conversations between people who know about Islam and people who don’t.

But, as you have undoubtedly discovered, when you initiate these conversations, people will often respond negatively. The good news is that the number of possible negative responses you get is limited. There aren’t an unlimited number of things people will say to you. There are only six that are very common. My complete list is only eighteen objections, and the list covers, by my estimate, 98 percent of all the responses you can possibly get.

People will present their responses as if that’s the end of the argument. Case closed. As far as they are concerned, they just gave the final word on the subject. But if you have a good answer, the conversation can go on, and can go deeper, and your listener will walk away more informed about the third jihad. That’s one less potential dhimmi in the world; one more recruit to our side.

So let’s begin. The first response on our list is: “You seem to be indicting the whole religion. It is really just a small minority of extremists who have hijacked the religion.” Have you ever heard this?

In other words, you’ll be talking about Islam and what it says in the Qur’an, and they’ll come back with, “You’re talking about a minority within Islam.”

This is the biggest misconception people have — that Islamic supremacists are terrorists and they’re small in number and a fringe group, and that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding, kind-hearted, religiously-tolerant believers in humans rights.

How can you respond? Here are a five different ways to answer:
That is our list of good responses — responses that will satisfy most listeners, and allow your conversation to continue productively. Feel free to write in with other possible responses in “comments” below. Let us share our discoveries with each other. Let’s find the best ways to get through to people and prevent our conversations from being stopped by seemingly-sound arguments simply because we were not prepared.

Read over these responses again and pick the one you would most want to use, and remind yourself of it every day until it comes to mind naturally. I recommend using the reminder service, Resnooz. Or read it onto an audio file and listen to it in your car while you drive. Let’s prepare ourselves for these conversations so they can go well. People who don’t know MUST BE REACHED! It is up to us. Let’s get it done.

1. Even a small minority of 1.3 billion people is still a lot of people. And the minority is not nearly as small as people like to think. Yes, the number of Muslims following Mohammad’s command to “kill unbelievers wherever you find them” may be small, but a much much larger percentage believes in the political purpose of Islam and is working toward that goal in other ways besides terrorism. There are many ways to wage jihad. Violence is only one. Demographics is another (that is, immigrate to a new country, maybe even let them support you with welfare, but definitely out-breed the original inhabitants, build up a politically-active and powerful voting block of Muslims in that country, and then start pressing for concessions). Many forms of jihad are possible — litigation jihad, forest fire jihad, falsify textbooks jihad, and the list goes on and on. Violent Islamic supremacists may, in fact, be the least of our problems.

2. You mean the ones who are blowing themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims? Or flying planes into buildings? Or trying to get their hands on a nuclear bomb so they can set it off in downtown New York City? Those are worthy of concern, but in the longer term, the Muslims waging jihad by other means may be more dangerous. (Of course, at this point, they’ll probably say, “What other means?” and you have opened up another opportunity to educate them further.)

3. Jihad is obligatory for all Muslims. Jihad doesn’t mean only violence. Jihad means to struggle, in whatever way you can, to achieve Islam’s single political goal: The subjugation of all non-Muslims to Islamic law. That political goal is a Muslim’s religious duty. Mohammad didn’t approve of meditation or navel-gazing. He said the way you can prove your devotion to Allah is by action. So even mainstream “moderate” Muslims are active, constantly working toward the end-goal of worldwide Islamic dominance. They do it by paying their zakat, which goes to the mosque, which goes to supporting Muslim causes (which are almost entirely political causes). And they do it by having lots of children, to give Muslims a demographic advantage in democratic countries. They do it by making every non-Muslim they meet think that Muslims are harmless and well-meaning. They do it by crying “racism” every time someone criticizes Islam, even though they know full well Islam is not a race (they say it because it gets the desired response: It shuts people up). They do it by writing to every television or radio program that portrays Islam in an unflattering light. It is all jihad. Bamboozling the non-Muslims is jihad. As Mohammad said, “War is deceit.” And as you can see, they have been winning the war. You, like most other non-Muslims, know almost nothing about Islam and yet have a feeling that it must be all right.

4. We get that impression (that it is a small number of extremists) because almost none of the constant attacks by Jihadis are covered in the media. Go to thereligionofpeace.com and you can see every verifiable attack in the world made in the name of Islam. There are about five attacks a day. Some big, some small. But it adds up to a constant war being waged against all non-Muslims everywhere in the world simultaneously. More people are being killed in the name of Islam per year than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition. And each one of the Jihadis doing the killing is supported by a network of Muslims that, while they are not killers themselves, help to make it happen, help to finance it, help to hide them, feed them, encourage them, and protect them. And the ones committing violent jihad are only the tip of the iceberg. In many other ways, many more Muslims are following Mohammad’s example and waging jihad on many fronts and at many levels at once.

5. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Islamic organization in the world. That makes it mainstream. Not fringe. The Brotherhood’s goal is to make the whole world submit to Islamic law. And they are actively (and in many ways successfully) accomplishing their goal. Most of them do not advocate random bombings, which are strategically ineffective in most places and counterproductive to the goal of world domination. They have a long-range plan and they’ve been putting it into effect for over twenty years. This is not guesswork. Their documents have been seized in FBI raids. One such raid recently led to the prosecution of members of the Holy Land Foundation. The Muslim Brotherhood has established lots of “legitimate” organizations in the United States, which work toward the goal of destroying our government from within (this is their stated goal) — CAIR, MSA, ISNA, NAIT, etc. They raise money to promote jihad (while fooling people as to the real purpose of the money), they sue on behalf of Islam, they recruit on campuses and turn non-Muslim students against America, they influence how textbooks in American schools portray Islam, they influence how the FBI deals with Muslims, they fund and control madrassas and mosques all over America and make sure they teach hatred, intolerance, and non-integration. And more. And they do it all under our noses because our attention is focused out on the hot-headed Jihadis who are blowing things up. Read more about the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals here.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“What You’re Saying Is Racist”

THIS IS ANOTHER installment in our series, “Answers to Objections.” I’ve already written several posts to help in answering this objection, since it is one of the most common.

The main problem with this one is that usually people will not say it outright. It is too offensive. To openly call someone a racist, at least in America, is a repugnant insult.

But you can usually read between the lines and realize the person you’re talking to can only hear what you’re saying in terms of racism — because they know so little about Islamic supremacism, they don’t know how else to interpret what you’re saying.

If you suspect this to be the case, you should bring it up first. It is best to handle this particular objection sooner rather than later. Here are some ideas to help you out:

1. Here’s how to handle the racism objection before is even mentioned.

2. If it is a misnomer to call this kind of conversation “racist,” what is it then? It is “criticizing a religious doctrine” and it is also “political criticism” — two perfectly legitimate activities in a free country.

3. Here is specifically why it is not racist to criticize Islam.

4. Here’s how to make it perfectly clear you are not a racist.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections Part 4

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“Aren’t You Being Religiously Intolerant?”

ALMOST EVERYONE in the free world firmly believes in the principle that people have a right to worship as they wish. Even people who are avowed atheists will defend this principle. So to hear anyone (you, for example) criticize any religion offends the sensibilities of people who know nothing about Islam (but assume it is one of many similar religions).

The negative reaction to your criticism of Islam is even more pronounced if they are a believer in another religion because they hear your criticism of Islamic supremacism as a threat to the freedom of religion, and they will often defend Islam on that basis alone.

So how can you respond to this objection? Here are some ideas:

1. I am actually defending religious tolerance. What should you do with a religiously intolerant religion? What can you do with a religion that will try to stop, defeat, undermine, and even abolish all other religions? If you want to preserve religious freedom, you had better keep the aggressive, intolerant religion on a tight leash. You had better be aware of what they’re doing, and you’d better prevent them from getting their hands on the reins of power or it will be the end of religious tolerance.

2. There are two aspects of Islam. One is religious and the other is political. The religious part has to do with fasting and prayer. The political part has to do with subjugating non-Muslims, working to establish Shari’a law in places where it isn’t already established, and repressing the rights of women. Islamic supremacists do not believe the religious part is separate from the political part because according to the Qur’an and the example of Mohammad, they are not separate, and it says in the Qur’an over seventy times that a good Muslim must follow Mohammad’s example.

But some people who call themselves Muslim are perfectly willing to violate the tenets of Islam and separate the two. They only want to practice the religious aspects of Islam, which is private, and I have nothing against that at all. I think they have every right to do that.

But it behooves those of us who might be on the receiving end of their political action to be aware of the political aspects of Islamic teachings. Those teachings impact non-Muslims and restrict human rights for Muslim women, and that isn’t right.

In many places in the free world right now, Muslim women do not enjoy the full rights of freedom because those areas are politically controlled by Islamic supremacists, who never let up on their relentless push for political and legal control. There are areas in Britain, Germany, and France where Shari’a law is legally practiced (examples here and here). The governments have conceded to Islamic pressure. This must be stopped because the pressure for more concessions will never stop. It is a true Muslim’s religious duty to bring the whole world under the rule of Islamic law.

In the USA, Islamic supremacists are influencing American textbooks, misleading students as to the nature of Islam and the history of violent and aggressive Islamic expansion. This is a breach of the separation of church and state, it is an example of Islamic supremacists tireless political aggression, and we must not concede to it. This is not a suppression of religious freedom. It is a repression of unfair, one-sided, freedom-denying political practices (carried out as a religious duty).

3. After the Protestant Reformation, and after many years of persecutions and wars, Britain established a new policy which is the root of our model of religious tolerance today. Any religion or sect could worship as they choose without fear of persecution by the government or anybody else.

Churches that had once enjoyed a monopoly resisted this new policy. They were intolerant of other religions. So Britain told them: You will be tolerant of other religions or you will not be allowed in this country. And if you think about it, this is the only way religious tolerance can work. You can’t allow an aggressive, intolerant religion free reign.

Right now 75 percent of the mosques in America are preaching hatred toward non-Muslims. This is a dangerous religious intolerance. You can’t have everyone allowing everyone else to worship as they wish except one group who will only tolerate their own religion. That’s the definition of supremacism and it is a threat to the freedom of religion. Everyone has to abide by the principle or it doesn’t work. So being critical of Islamic supremacism and stopping its relentless aggressive encroachment is, in fact, an essential goal if the freedom of religion is to survive.

Those are three answers to the accusation that you are being religiously intolerant. I invite you — no, I urge you, I challenge you — to come up with an even better answer and add it to the comments below. Let us continually outdo one another with better and better responses.

I also encourage you to add your two cents about which answer we come up with is the best. Add your vote as a comment below.

Minds need to be changed, and it is right here that we can make it happen. Let us arm ourselves with effective weapons in this war of ideas. Let us forge the weapons here that will help us win the war against Islam’s relentless encroachment and protect our freedom.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections Part 5

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“Christianity Is Just As Bad”

THIS IS ANOTHER installment in our series, “Answers to Objections.” When you criticize Islamic supremacism, a very common response you’ll get is something like this: “Christians do the same thing. Look at the Inquisition. Look at the Crusades. More people have been killed in the name of Christianity than all other religions combined.”

You can find an answer to the Crusades part here: What About The Crusades?

A simple way to answer the objection is: “Today, more people are killed in the name of Islam every year than were killed in the entire 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.” Direct your listener to see how many people are being killed daily in the name of Islam at TheReligionOfPeace.com. Memorize that URL so you can recommend it. Write it down for them. It is a site that documents every verifiable act of jihad in the world where at least one person is killed.

Another answer is: “In the 1400-year history of Islam, 270 million people have been killed in the name of Islam. No other religion even comes close. Communism doesn’t even come close. Naziism doesn’t either. The reason we don’t know this is that Islamic supremacists have infiltrated the textbook publishing business in America and have massively edited the history of Islam. They also heavily influence Western media.”

And lastly, you can find a thorough answer to this objection here: Why I’m Worried About Islam But Not Christianity.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections Part 6

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“Not All Muslims Are Terrorists”

THIS IS another in our series called “Answers to Objections.” When you talk about Islamic supremacism, people often respond as if you’ve made some sort of mistake, as if you are equating a few crazy terrorists with all 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, when “everybody knows” most of them are peace-loving people.

This is an easy objection to answer, but it is also an opportunity to give your listener a deeper education on the subject. Here are a few ideas of how to answer this objection:

1. Terrorism is only one of many ways to wage jihad. There are at least ten types of jihad (I recommend you memorize this list). In Islamic teachings, there are five pillars of Islam, five things every Muslim should do. But according to Mohammad, jihad is more important than any of them. It is a religious duty for each Muslim to struggle for the establishment of Sharia law everywhere in the world. Some do it with bombs. Some do it with immigration and fecundity. Some do it with relentless political actions (waging jihad by gaining concessions). Some do it with “mainstream, moderate” Muslim organizations that try to undermine Western governments. So in other words, I agree with you completely that not all Muslims are terrorists, but I disagree with you that this somehow implies Islamic supremacism is something we can safely ignore. We need to know about it or we will have no ability to protect ourselves from it.

2. That’s true: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, and they kill in the name of Islam. Do you know why? Do you know what they’re after? (When they say something like, “Yes, they want the West to stop interfering with Islamic affairs,” you can answer with a lesson on Islam 101.) Since the beginning, Muslims have waged a war of expansion, and they have tried to justify their violence as a response to a grievance (read more about that here). That’s the way Mohammad did it, and he’s the example all Muslims forever after are supposed to follow. They want only one thing: For everybody on earth to submit to Islamic law. Fighting toward this goal is a religious duty for Muslims. And terrorism is only one of many ways to wage jihad.

3. That’s true, but most Muslims believe Mohammad is a good example to follow. They believe this because it says over seventy times in the Qur’an that every Muslim must follow Mohammad’s example. Do you know anything about Mohammad? Knowing about Mohammad explains a lot of what otherwise is incomprehensible about what is going on in the world. (Here you can tell the story of Mohammad’s rise to power and the change in the Qur’anic revelations. Talk them into reading the Qur’an. Recommend a readable version like this one: An Abridged Koran.)

4. The Muslims who are terrorists are able to do what they do because of a tremendous amount of support from their community, and that support is motivated by Islamic teachings. It is also motivated by the hope that the supporters will gain entry to Paradise. The martyr can plea to Allah (once he arrives in Paradise) on behalf of up to seventy of his relatives to get them a ticket to Paradise. For those who believe this, it is a tremendous incentive to help any of their relatives who plan on killing non-Muslims. In other words, that “small percentage” of Muslims who are active terrorists are only the tip of the iceberg of a tremendous amount of popular support for the killing of non-Muslims. Remember the jubilation throughout the Muslim world when thousands of non-Muslims were killed on 9/11? Only 19 hijackers did it, but clearly millions supported it. Millions. Maybe hundreds of millions. Why? Because that’s the kind of thing Muslims are supposed to do according to the Qur’an and the “perfect” example of Mohammad (read more about that here).

Make your arguments as cleanly and as calmly as you can. Try to be almost casual about it. Never be intense if you can help it. Understate rather than overstate your case. Speak accurately. Never exaggerate.

We must successfully persuade people. We cannot afford to fail. Make your conversations count.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Answers to Objections Part 7

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“We Can’t Go to War With 1.3 Billion Muslims!”

HERE IS another addition to our series, Answers to Objections. This objection is not usually spoken out loud, but it’s a central fear lurking behind much of the resistance you get when you talk about Islam.

When you’re talking to people, you want them to accept the simple fact that Islamic teachings are very straightforward, and they call for intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims and an unrelenting effort to make us all submit to Shari’a law.

They will put up every objection they can think of because they don’t want to accept this premise.

If they articulated their fear, it would sound something like this: “For God’s sake, that CAN’T be true, because it would mean we would have to go to war with 1.3 billion Muslims, and we can’t do that!” Some people actually say it out loud.

Like many of the objections, this one is a great opportunity to insert a little more information into a brain that is likely almost entirely empty of any facts about Islam. Here are some possible responses you can give:

1. Luckily, we don’t have to go to war with all of them. Most of the people who are now Muslims never chose to be so. Their ancestors were almost all forced to be Muslims. The whole country was conquered and Shari’a law was imposed. Shari’a puts pressure on everyone to be Muslim, and not just in name only. It is against the law to skip the five prayers a day or skip fasting during Ramadan or skip paying zakat (alms to the mosque). In other words, the practice of Islam is enforced by law, so after a few generations, it would be hard to think outside of being a Muslim, especially when the penalty for leaving the faith is death.

But what this means is that many of them would choose to live their lives without the constant domination of Islam if they had the option. So even if it came to war, we wouldn’t have to go to war with 1.3 billion.

2. What would you go to war to do? I mean, why would you think a war would be necessary?

3. We don’t need to go to war, we only need to change some of our own laws and some of our own foreign policies. And sometimes we wouldn’t even have to change them, we would only need to start enforcing them. For example, it is against the law to try to overthrow the government or to even plot to do so. It is sedition. It’s already against the law. And yet in three-fourths of the mosques in the U.S., jihad is being preached.

Jihad means “the struggle to make everyone on earth submit to Shari’a law.” It is an essential element of Islam. It is a core tenet. This isn’t some fringe teaching that nobody cares about. This is a central purpose of Islam. If we want the Muslims in our country to stop working to undermine and overthrow the government, we will have to make a distinction between the political aspects of Islam and the religious aspects of Islam, and we’ll have to stop people from committing sedition. We do not need to go to war. We only need to educate enough non-Muslims so that no more politicians ignorant of Islam are voted into office. The one thing that needs to happen is education.

4. The problem is not with Muslims, so we don’t have to go to war with them. The problem is not even with Islamic doctrine. Our problem is the abject ignorance of the majority of non-Muslims. Because of this ignorance, the West is conceding its freedoms. Let me give you an illustration to clarify what I mean:

On the comments on an article about sociopaths, most of the commenters are victims of sociopaths, and they tell their stories about what happened to them — they were conned out of their life savings or they were married to someone who abused their children or one of their parents deliberately drives them crazy, etc. But two of the people who comment are themselves sociopaths, and their comments illuminate an important principle.

The point of view of most of the victims is that they don’t understand how sociopaths can be so mean or cruel or heartless. The point of view of the sociopaths is that they don’t understand how normal people can be so naive as to trust everyone, so foolish as to never protect themselves from someone who has already proven to be dangerous, or so stupid as to sign over the deed to their house!

Same with non-Muslims dealing with Islam. Okay, so it is a Muslim’s duty to strive for the political goal of establishing Shari’a law throughout the world by any means necessary. That’s what they do. But we don’t have to allow it! They are only making progress toward their goal because we let them. We trust them. We make treaties with them. We allow them to immigrate. We make assumptions about them (like they must be just like us, their religion must be similar to other religions we know of, etc.). We are conceding our freedoms. We are forgoing our own self-preservation. We are voluntarily giving away our ability to defend ourselves.

The problem is not with them, it’s with us. We don’t need to go to war. We need to stop being stupid, and that can’t happen until more people know about Islam.

Most of the people commenting on that sociopath site said they were surprised to find out there was even such a thing as a sociopath. The phenomenon of “everyday sociopaths” is not very well known. People know about psychopathic serial killers, but most people don’t know there is such a thing as people walking around in ordinary lives who have no empathy for others and cannot develop it, people whose only goal in life is to win and dominate, people who feel no pity or remorse and who have no emotional conflict when they are cruel.

Some people who tell their sad tales were married to a sociopath for years without ever realizing such a person could exist, so they were totally frustrated, anguished, and confused by their spouse’s behavior, and of course, in their ignorance they made one stupid, self-defeating mistake after another.

The free world is doing the same thing with Islam’s relentless, self-serving aggression — making one stupid, self-defeating mistake after another (read more about that here). The stupidity must stop. The only thing missing is enough people who have at least a passing familiarity with basic Islamic teachings.

Okay, that’s four possible answers to the objection, “But we can’t go to war with a billion Muslims!”

I would appreciate it (and so would future readers) if you could come up with an even better answer than these, and post it in the comments to this article. We can pool our resources, pool our intelligence, and help each other do the one thing that must be done: Educate our fellow non-Muslims.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

Anwers to Objections Part 8

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

“Are You An Islamophobe?”

THIS IS another in our series, Answers to Objections. I’ve answered this objection several times in previous articles, and I’ll give you links to those in a moment. But first I’d like to hammer home something: The number one thing that needs to happen is for a far larger percentage of the population to know some basic information about Islamic supremacism.

We need your help. You have a sphere of influence. It may be forty people; it may be two hundred. But whatever your sphere of influence, we’re going to try to help you be more effective at teaching your fellow non-Muslims some basic facts about Islam.

When you mention anything that sounds critical of Islam, most people will try to defend it, even if they know nothing about it. If you are unprepared for the hostile response you get, you will not make any gains toward the goal.

The purpose of this series is to help you deal with those responses successfully. We have a list of the 18 objections people make and this series will show you how to respond to them in a way that will open your listeners’ minds. We’ll publish the entire list at the end, with each objection linked to an article that answers it. This is number 8.

Now, here is some help in answering this objection (or accusation):

1. Robert Spencer’s definition of Islamophobia.

2. This is an article that will help you clarify what you’re doing when you criticize Islam. It articulates what is wrong with the term “Islamophobia.”

3. This is an article written by Ali Sina, the famous ex-Muslim, writing about the term “Islamophobia” and what, specifically makes the term meaningless.

4. This is a video: Robert Spencer’s simple plan to end Islamophobia. It’s kind of tongue-in-cheek, but he makes some good points, and you might want to send it to anyone who accuses you of being an Islamophobe.

5. And this is an article I wrote to peaceful Muslims who often write to me and tell me I shouldn’t criticize Islam. I talk a bit about “Islamophobia” in the article.

I recommend you study this material. Maybe even make an audio recording of the articles and listen to it in your car. When you’re trying to educate someone and he brings up an objection like this, you should be overly prepared — so prepared that the objection doesn’t bother you even a little bit. I want you to be so prepared that you are actually glad they gave you an objection you know how to answer so masterfully.

Citizen warriors are committed to perpetual training, just like every other kind of warrior. These conversations are where the battle is happening. Let’s be prepared.

Posted in Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun? | Leave a Comment »

What is Eurabian Culture?

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2009

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-eurabian-culture.html#readfurther

Friday, March 20, 2009

by Baron Bodissey

 

OIC FlagI’ve written so many times in this space about the OIC (the Organization of the Islamic Conference) that it sometimes feels like I do nothing but fisk Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (see the bottom of this post for a list of previous articles on Prof. Ihsanoglu and the OIC).

Since the UN Human Rights Council is simply a mouthpiece for the OIC, the “human rights” working papers and resolutions that come out of Turtle Bay are, for practical purposes, OIC productions, indistinguishable in style and substance from the pronouncements that emerge from OIC conclaves.

The recent “Defamation of Religions” resolution was a case in point. It’s much the same as the version I blogged about late last year, so I won’t cover it in any detail. Like all the other UNHRC effluvia, it’s straight out of the OIC playbook. Everything starts out in OIC symposia, but it ends up on the floor of the UN General Assembly.

That’s why it’s a good idea to keep an eye on the OIC. It’s an early warning system that helps predict the next round of abominations that will appear at Turtle Bay.

For that reason the forecast is gloomy. The latest output from Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu shows the shape of things to come, and does not bode well for the future of Europe.

His speech was given in November of 2008 in Istanbul, but for some reason it wasn’t posted on the OIC website until last week. The symposium he keynoted was called “What is European Culture”. I’ve included some major excerpts below, interspersed with my own comments:

Numerous attempts to reduce tension and to find a remedy to the misunderstanding between Islam and the West have, unfortunately, proven futile for years. These attempts have given rise to resolutions, declarations, and even programmes. They carried different names and variable emphasis: Dialogue among Civilizations launched by the OIC in 1998, inter-cultural dialogue, inter-faith dialogue, Alliance of Civilizations and the like. If the end result of all these tenacious efforts remains, to say the least, meager, it is because we are facing seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

Ekmeleddin IhsanogluRegrettably, it seems that although the prophesies [sic] of the so-called clash of civilizations did not materialize in the real world, the essence of this thesis has, effectively, taken strong hold in the political discourse and popular consciousness against Islam and Muslims. It also has profoundly influenced the dominant trend which depicts Islam as the enemy of the West and as a danger which needs to be rebuffed and defeated.

Notice here the familiar theme: the Western prophecies of a clash of civilizations cause a trend in which Islam is depicted as the enemy of the West. The doctrines of Islam don’t cause this trend. Nor does the behavior of Muslims. It has nothing to do with rape, murder, beheadings, and terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims in the name of Allah.

The fault does not lie with Islam. It lies outside of Islam.

Like everything that’s wrong with the Muslim world, someone else is to blame.

Prof. Ihsanoglu continues:
- – – - – – – – -

Over the last two decades, and since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the focus of world politics has shifted from global political and ideological conflicts between the superpowers or between the capitalist West and the socialist East to the realm of the so-called clash of civilizations, cultures and religions; on a global scale.

Special emphasis is presently placed on the tension between the Christian and Muslim worlds; a tension based on the false assumption that there exists a primordial and intrinsic discord or enmity between the two civilizations. One of the major battle fields of this conflict is in Europe where Muslim presence has increased tremendously in the last few decades, and where Muslims have become an inextricable component of the fabric of many European societies.

The idea of a “primordial and intrinsic discord or enmity between the two civilizations” is false? Why??

From the moment of its inception until the organizational and technological superiority of Europe forced its retreat, Islam almost continuously attacked non-Muslim peoples in a series of horrific and pitiless wars to force the conversion of Christians, Jews, and Hindus to Islam. In only a couple of generations the centuries-old Christian communities of the Near East and North Africa were bathed in blood and destroyed.

Except for the initial 7th-century group of Mohammed’s immediate associates, no major conversions to Islam took place except by fire and sword.

And yet Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu would have us believe that there is no “intrinsic discord” between Christians and Muslims in Europe!

Alongside the growth of Muslim immigrants in Europe since the seventies of the last century, growing anxiety and unease emerged among the Europeans who became annoyed by the presence in their midst of foreigners, mainly from the Muslim world.

From the 1960s through the 1970s Muslim migrant populations to Europe were limited to temporary single male migrants who landed in Europe at the solicitation of European governments to take on small and minor jobs. Those early immigrants were met with tolerance and respect for their essential human rights in terms of representation, participation, freedom of congregation etc. These comfortable conditions deteriorated when the numbers of those migrants grew, after the seventies and mainly when they were granted long-term resident status in host countries, and the possibility of bringing their immediate family members under the 1970’s family reunification strategy.

The rapid influx of migrants, mainly Muslims, from Europe’s immediate periphery was met with mounting inquietude and apprehension by the receiving European societies. The fact that most of these immigrants hail mainly from rural areas of their countries of origin, or from lower classes of their societies, accentuated the sense of unease and concern among the populations of the host countries. With the passage of time, the level of immigrants had witnessed substantive amelioration, the rift between the immigrants and the autochthon populations grew wider and wider, and seems to have posed difficult problems to the governments and the societies in many European countries.

Now this is a fairly accurate description of the migrations of Muslims into Europe during the last part of the 20th century. That’s how it happened.

This situation became more complex and took different turns with the implementation of the process of the “EU integration and expansion”.

Politically, Europe is divided into numerous states, each with a different cultural background, a varied history, language or languages, traditions. This amalgam of states was called upon to join hands to create political and economic union under the framework of the European Union.

Parallel to the accelerated drive toward creating the European Union, integration and expansion, efforts were deployed to construct and promote a concept of “common European identity” and culture.

We’re getting into dangerous waters here. Most of the readers of this blog are EU-skeptics and look askance at the idea of a “common European identity”. But Prof. Ihsanoglu is right: that’s the official ideology of the European Union.

As it so often does, the OIC is about to use the high-minded principles of the West as a weapon against it. Europe will be hoist with its own petard.

It has been assumed that European national cultures share a common essence or value set that can allow the continent’s national communities to collaborate within a coherent European civilizational constellation. The fundamental foundation can be synopsized by a “Charter of European Identity”. This Charter stipulates that Europe is above all a community of values. The aim of unification is to realize, test, develop and safeguard these values which are rooted in common legal principles, acknowledging the freedom of the individual and his or her social responsibilities. They are based on tolerance, humanity and fraternity anchored in classical antiquity traditions and Christianity.

Oh-oh. Is the Good Professor really going acknowledge the essential Christian identity of Europe?

No, he’s not. He has other plans for us:

Since the 8th Century, Islam and Christianity were the two universal religions of the world, in the sense that they have proven historically to be universal and that their respective messages have been received by people of varied ethnic, linguistic and social backgrounds over a long period of time and on a large scale. Moreover, Islam and Christianity are the only two civilizations that had interacted so intensively.

We’re into some serious euphemisms now.

Muslims and Christians “interacted so intensively”. Uh-huh.

Like the Vikings interacted intensively with Lindisfarne. Like the Wehrmacht interacted intensively with Poland. Like Mohammed Atta interacted intensively with Manhattan.

Islam has no claim to any universality except in the sense that it has a knife at the throat of the universe.

The very premise of Islam, being laid down on the Abrahamic values as do Judaes-Christian [sic] traditions, as well as Muslim culture’s high admiration of Hellinic [sic] culture and knowledge, and its adaptation to many Islamic studies made of the presence of Islam in Europe a genuine partner to the European endeavour propagating shared values and knowledge. Islamic contribution to the renaissance of Europe is very well documented. Likewise, the fact remains that very large numbers of the Muslims in Europe are considered to be indigenous Europeans if we take into consideration the population of some European sovereign States like Albania, Bosnia, the Russian Federation and add to them Kosovo, the Caucuses as well as those who live in the periphery of Euro-Asian countries. How can one categorises these, Muslim intruders or genuine citizens of Europe. And for them is Europe a host country or a home country?

Before the 20th century, no Muslims were indigenous to Europe except as descendants of armed invaders or of the native populace that had converted to Islam under threat of death. No one already in Europe became a Muslim voluntarily until after the Islamic conquests, when one’s life and well-being depended on it.

And even then, most Christian communities in the conquered territories stubbornly resisted assimilation. They accepted dhimmitude, poverty, and abuse rather than become Muslims.

The ugly truth about Islam is that only a small proportion of Muslim converts ever joined the Ummah of their own free will.

The European Union posited three basic conditions for membership: European identity, democratic status and respect for human rights. When we see how these conditions were respected in practice in the case of the admission of new members to the Union, we see that countries which had fascist and military regimes were admitted as late as the 1970s, and they hold power in the current European Union, mainly Greece, Spain and Portugal. The excuse articulated to justify such a derogation from the European principles of admission, was that the admission of Spain, Portugal and Greece was an important obligation devised at nurturing these countries’ “true European essence”.

This can be viewed in contrast to the EU stance toward Turkey, which is still excluded in spite of its intensive campaign for membership. East Europe, on the other hand, and despite its recent past under communism, became an ideal vantage point, and members to the EU which sought to show itself as an idealized entity.

Now we’re into “It’s not fair! You’re treating Turkey differently!” territory.

But there’s an interesting implicit acknowledgement here: in some sense, Turkey’s Islamic past resembles that of fascism and communism.

Whoops.

Following the logic of the “Charter of European Identity” and its interpretation, the notion of a “multi-cultural Europe”, took center stage, and became an ideological cornerstone of European integration. Multiculturalism sets the ideological framework for inclusion and, conversely, for exclusion too. One needs to note upfront, that despite its apparent universalist claims, the European multiculturalist vision serves specific interests that limit the meaning annexable to it.

We’re getting down to the nitty-gritty. Europe: you wanted Multiculturalism. You expressed it as your highest ideal. Your ambition is to become a multicultural continent.

So now you have to take in all the poor huddled masses of the Islamic world. You’ve got no choice.

Although multiculturalism is a fundamental component in the intended identity for Europe, it remains a controversial notion, opened to many interpretations. In positive terms, it may mean coexistence of majority and minority ethnic populations, tolerance, equal treatment and respect of cultural heritage and culture. But in negative terms, it could be seen as a recipe for the destruction of national identity and social adherence.

We agree with him here. Where could he possibly be going with this…?

It is from this vantage view that according to the European multiculturalist vision, Islam has been reconstructed in the European discourse as something anti-European, a civilizational concept, diametrically opposed and potentially in conflict with that of Europe. Citing 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the rise of the Taliban etc. The West seems to have come to a conclusion that these examples represent a fundamentally different cultural dynamic and trajectory, and should therefore be rejected.

The space allocated to the notion of culture in the recent European discourse should attract our attention. Based on premises of the clash of civilizations, it is argued that Islamic cultural difference has the potential to express itself in conflict with Europe. This notion elevates culture to the status of an independent actor in political and social processes. This means that culture is behind and permeates all conflicts. This also means that the reasons driving conflict are not based on rational or calculated decisions; rather, they are inevitably the outcome of a certain cultural logic. Unfortunately, such assumptions have profoundly influenced the dominant discourse of European cultural exceptionalism.

This is a post-modern depth charge dropped into international waters. Notice the po-mo buzzwords: “reconstructed”, “dominant discourse”, etc. He’s picked up the lingo of the Western intellectuals, all right, and he’s using it against us.

Our Multiculturalism as currently practiced is the bad kind of Multiculturalism, because it damages the culture of Europe’s Muslim guests.

In the political discourse since 1980s, the alleged failure of Muslims to integrate into European daily life has been viewed in cultural terms. In the 1970s, the immigrant was considered a guest worker coming from Turkey or Morocco; today, this immigrant is labeled merely as a Muslim. This shift occurred and coincided with the advent of extremist Islamic movements. By stripping an immigrant from his nationality and linking him to a culture or civilizational matrix it becomes possible to problematize his presence without appearing to be prejudicious while positioning oneself as defending European values.

In other words, even the levels of abject multicultural surrender that are now dominant in Europe are not good enough. Europe will not have done its duty until Muslims are allowed to fully be themselves, in cultural terms.

In the Danish caricatures’ episode, for example, it was possible for the artist and publisher to demonize the Prophet of Islam and Islam itself as a religion and culture, under the convenient pretext of freedom of expression, while the true intent of this unprovoked vulgarity was to demonize Muslims, to destroy their self-esteem, to make a mockery of their values and shake their identity and showering ridicule on their core beliefs in the eyes of the world.

Did you know those silly Motoons were so powerful? That twelve little colored pictures printed in a newspaper read by a few hundred thousand people could destroy the self-esteem of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims?

How weak Islam is! What a bunch of pussies those Muslims are, that they can’t tolerate a handful of cartoons!

This “logic” is the basis for the proposed suppression of free speech throughout the Western world. We aren’t allowed to make jokes and poke fun because it “shakes the identity” of Muslims.

What a pitiful bunch of losers.

In Europe, the debate on Islam is couched in cultural terms and not invoked because of the flow of immigrants. Islam itself and Muslims are considered as a problem or as bearers of alternative values, or as a challenge to European cultural norms. It is also seen in different circumstances as a provocation of fascist and ultra-right tendencies in Europe in their hate campaign against Muslims. Other non-Muslim immigrants are not judged under this prism.

Other non-Muslim immigrants are not judged under this prism because they are overwhelmingly different from Muslims in their behavior. They don’t take to the streets and burn flags and cars and hunt down Jews whenever they’re offended. They don’t gang-rape the women of other groups for sport. They don’t insist that the host country adapt to their ways and adopt their practices. They don’t murder people for making cartoons and films.

In practice, the “alternative values” that “challenge cultural norms” degrade women, abuse animals, sodomize children, mutilate the genitals of little girls, and insist that daughters who refuse arranged marriages be killed.

These aren’t arguments about Easter baskets and yarmulkes. These are about life and death.

They’re about the total degradation of our culture and the destruction of our system of values.

Eager to demonise Islam as a religion and a culture, some European circles are keen to stand by and assist any Muslim, who chose to attack Islamic values or norms. Such a person becomes an authority in Islamic study, although his knowledge of Islam is in many cases nil. His negative thoughts or ideas became the true essence of Islamic thought, and he will be a respected Islamic scholar, fit to be prominent figure in the European think-tanks dealing with Islam. These deceitful methods of falsehood, reflect a mentality bent on vilifying Islam at any price, away from any objective or scientific standards or norms of research and study.

“Some European circles”? Like who? Vlaams Belang? Geert Wilders? Fjordman?

These circles certainly don’t include Europe’s elected governments, permanent bureaucracies, academic elites, or the major media outlets. All of them worship at the altar of Tariq Ramadan as the spokesman for European Islam.

A major bone of contention is the problematic nature of integration. Integration is too often taken for granted and considered easy to grasp. But in reality, integration, let alone assimilation, is a highly subjective concept.

Aha! Assimilation is subjective!

We all define our own reality. So we can all decide when we’re fully assimilated. Assimilation must occur on the terms of the assimilatee.

It is assumed that Muslim communities in Europe should integrate into the multi-cultural reality emanating from European identity, and if they do not succeed, then this has something to do with their culture.

Moreover, it is noticed in the domain of assimilation and integration that even a minor difference in behavior or style is often elevated to crucial ideological distinction, and Muslims are seen as the offenders.

Dwelling on the above, one can clearly see that the debate around immigrants is structured around the key concept of Islam, much more than around Muslims. Islam becomes the actor in this line of thinking.

It is strange that this exaggerated weight attributed to Islam, stands in sharp contradiction with their idealistic European notion of ‘indiscrimination’.

Do you see the logic here?

If Europe doesn’t allow Muslims to construct their own version of cultural assimilation in Europe, entirely on their own terms, then Europe is acting counter to its avowed ideals.

In order to honor their own stated principles, Europeans must allow the Muslims in their midst to do whatever they want.

It is alleged that the visibility of Islam in Europe and its introduction into the public sphere started to pose a threat to European societies. This anxiety is gaining momentum since the rise of the European cultural paradigm. Building a minaret or a mosque, eating halal food or celebrating a religious holiday, started to be seen as a threat to European civilization or a danger for secular democracy.

This is conflating the smoke with the fire. Wherever the minarets and the halal food appear, the genital mutilation and honor killings will also be found.

Islam is of a piece. You can’t have the headscarf and the muezzin without all the abominations as well.

But Prof. Ihsanoglu already knows that. He just doesn’t admit it.

It is also fair to stress that despite the aforementioned remarks, prejudice, is met with criticism inside Europe by objective writers and thinkers who argue that while the concept of European identity is increasingly accepted, except by the far-right, immigrants are excluded from full inclusion in the Union they are helping to build. Others believe that the construction of a European identity neglects the cultural demands of the minority and fails to produce a pluralist reading of identity.

On the other hand, while the ultra-right is trying to get rid of Islam in Europe, others are trying to control it through establishing their own Islam. Many NGOs and intellectuals advocate an agenda that tries to shape Islam and Muslims the way they want them to be.

Notice the repeated references to the far right, the ultra-right, etc. The Secretary General knows very well that the Right is demonized all across Europe, and that European intellectuals live in abject fear of being tarred as fascists or neo-Nazis, especially if the are slightly conservative in their tendencies.

The Professor is playing on those fears here, delivering the subliminal message to any European critics of Islam that they risk becoming just like those evil right-wingers.

Muslim voices are hardly heard in this debate, despite the fact that a growing Muslim elite is steadily emerging and engaging in intellectual work. They and other immigrants constitute a palpable component of European societies. Their social position and access to civil participation must not be held hostage to a methodical double-standard approach, or leave them living in a communitarian cage. Although European states, being respectful of democracy and human rights, can not enact laws on forceful integration, the fact remains that Muslim immigrants are living in parallel societies and in an environment where their culture and values are subject to daily attacks, mockery and contempt.

“Muslim voices are hardly heard in this debate”?? Since when?

You can’t tune in a European news program without a Muslim in full regalia holding forth about the injustices inflicted on his people by the racism and Islamophobia running rampant in Europe. The complaints of Muslims are heard regularly in parliaments. Official commissions for their welfare, staffed by Muslims, are funded and promoted by European governments.

But he’s not joking. He really believes Muslims are neglected in Europe.

Actually, he’s right about one thing. Muslim immigrants are living in parallel societies. But he forgets to tell us that this is what Muslims prefer, at least until they are in the majority and establish the Caliphate.

The notion of a multicultural Europe needs to be re-examined to address the double standards that it sets, and the discriminatory practices and standards that it established under the facade of a ‘noble project’.

This could be done by reconsidering the wrong perception of Islam in Europe. Throughout centuries, Islam has proven to be a concept of peace, tolerance and recognition of the other. The history of Islam in Europe, in Spain, and in the Balkan is a glaring testimony to the noble and enlightened values of Islam and its humane and universal nature.

This is a shot across the bow for secular European democracy.

The OIC insists that Islam be taken on its own terms throughout Europe. It will not rest until all aspects of Islamic culture are fully respected and officially condoned in European countries.

In other words: in order to honor its own stated principles of Multiculturalism, Europe must allow the establishment of sharia law in its Muslim enclaves.

It will have no other choice.

Watch for the worldwide version of all this to pop up at the UN in the near future. Europe is just the test market.

If Durban II racks up any successes in Geneva next month, the skids will be greased for the next assault on the infidels via the UN.

I can’t wait for Durban III.

Posted in Islam, Islamophobia, Must Read | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.