Lügen im Islam

1. Allgemeine Definition: Lügen bedeutet, bewusst die Unwahrheit zu sagen um sich dadurch einen Nutzen zu verschaffen. Der Nutzen kann auch ganz einfach darin bestehen, sich einen Fehler nicht eingestehen zu wollen. Somit wird das Gegenüber geschädigt, sei es wirtschaftlich, gesellschaftlich oder moralisch. Lügen kann demnach auch als Täuschung oder als Einsatz von List zur Erlangung eines Vorteils gegenüber seinem Mitmenschen verstanden werden.

(Gastbeitrag vom Propheten des Islam)

2. Lügen im Koran / Ableugnung der islamischen Heilsbotschaft: Was sagt das islamische Dogma zum Lügen? Lügen ist in der islamischen Heilsbotschaft nicht generell eine Sünde. Im Gegenteil, der Umgang mit Wahrheit/Unwahrheit wird sehr pragmatisch angegangen, es ist in der islamischen Ideologie auch bei diesem Thema das schwere Defizit einer übergeordneten Moral im Sinne der „Goldenen Regel“ erkennbar.

» Taqiyya: Krieg, Frieden und Täuschung im Islam

Wie wir sehen werden, hat die Sünde des Lügens im Koran eine ganz andere Bedeutung. Das islamischen Standardwerk „Reliance of the Traveller“ gibt unter dem Oberkapitel „Book P Enormities“ (was so viel bedeutet wie „Ungeheuerlichkeiten“ oder „schwere Sünden“) im Unterkapitel p24.0 „Der unverbesserliche Lügner“ zwei Koranverse an. (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Reliance of the Traveller, amana publications, Beltsville Maryland, USA, 1994, Seite 669)

Sure 51, Vers 10: Tod den Lügnern.
Sure 51, Vers 10: Verflucht (wörtlich: Getötet) seien alle, die immer nur Mutmaßungen anstellen (statt Sicheres zu wissen) (Übersetzung R. Paret)
Sure 51, Vers 11: Die sorglos sind in einer Flut von Unwissenheit.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn 51,10: Vernichtet diejenigen, welche Mutmaßungen anstellen; verflucht seien die Lügner, welche eine andere Meinung vertreten.

Tafsir al-Jalalayn 51,11: Sie befinden sich in einem Zustand der Stumpfheit und des Unwissens, der sie betäubt hat; achtlos sind sie und nehmen keine Notiz vom Jenseits.

Der nächste Vers macht die gleiche Aussage. Hier wird versichert, daß der „gläubige Mann“ eben deshalb kein Lügner ist, weil er die „deutlichen Zeichen von eurem Herrn“ kundtut:

Sure 40, Vers 28: Und es sprach ein gläubiger Mann von Pharaos Haus, der seinen Glauben verbarg: “Wollt ihr einen Mann töten, weil er spricht: “Mein Herr ist Allah” wo er zu euch kam mit den deutlichen Zeichen von eurem Herrn? Wenn er ein Lügner ist, so komme seine Lüge auf ihn; ist er jedoch wahrhaftig, so wird euch ein Teil von dem, was er euch androht, treffen. Siehe, Allah leitet keinen Übertreter und Lügner.”

Tafsir al-Jalalayn 40, 28: Ein im Versteckten gläubiger Verwandter des Pharao … sagte folgendes: „Würdest du einen Mann umbringen, der behauptet, daß sein Herr Allah sei, obwohl er dir ebenfalls deutliche Zeichen und offenkundige Wunder von deinem Herrn gebracht hat? Falls er lügt, wird seine Verlogenheit zu seinem Nachteil gereichen, d.h. der durch sein Lügen verursachte Schaden wird ihn selbst treffen. Falls er aber wahrhaftig ist, so wird dich bald ein Teil womit er dich bedroht, als Strafe treffen. Wahrlich, Allah leitet nicht den Verlorenen, den Götzendiener, den Lügner.

In diesen Versen aus der mekkanischen Zeit wird von der Zurückweisung – oder eben Leugnung – von Allahs Versicherung Seiner eigenen Existenz und des Jüngsten Gerichtes gesprochen.

Die Enzyklopädie des Koran schreibt zum Thema des Lügens:

„Die streitbare Art der koranischen Offenbarung und ihre weitschweifige Natur erwähnen als eine der häufigsten Sünden die Lüge. Darüber hinaus beschreibt sich der Koran oft als „die Wahrheit“ und stellt fest, dass Allah die Welt „in Wahrheit“ erschaffen hat.

Sure 46, Vers 3: Wir erschufen die Himmel und die Erde und was zwischen beiden allein in Wahrheit und zu einem bestimmten Termin; aber die Ungläubigen wenden sich von der Wahrheit, die ihnen wird, ab.

» Verse, die den Koran interpretieren und rühmen

Damit wird Unehrlichkeit (Ableugnung des Islam und Beigesellung anderer Götter) ein zentrales Charakteristikum von Unglauben (kufr) und Polytheismus (schirk)“

Sure 16, Vers 39: Auf dass er ihnen klarmacht, worüber sie uneins sind, und damit die Ungläubigen wissen, dass sie Lügner waren.

Sure 29, Vers 17: Ihr dienet außer Allah nur Götzenbildern und schufet eine Lüge. Siehe, diejenigen, denen ihr außer Allah dienet, vermögen euch nicht zu versorgen. Drum begehret von Allah die Versorgung und dienet Ihm und danket Ihm; zu Ihm kehrt ihr zurück.

Die Schwere des Sakrilegs der Lüge kommt in der wiederholten Frage:

„Wer ist sündiger, als wer wider Allah eine Sünde ersinnt und Seine Zeichen der Lüge bezichtigt?”

zum Ausdruck. Sie wird an neun Stellen gestellt: 6.21; 6,93; 6,144; 7,37; 10,17; 11,18; 18,15; 29,68; 61,7“ (Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Brill, Leiden + Boston, 2006, Seite 181).

Die Forderung, nicht falsches Zeugnis abzulegen, bedeutet demnach, keine Lügen gegen Allah auszusprechen und Ihm keine Götter zur Seite zu stellen. „Aus dem Munde von Ungläubigen wird solche Falschheit als eine der schlimmsten Sünde angesehen.“ (Ebenda):

Sure 4, Vers 50: Schau wie sie Lüge gegen Allah ersinnen; und dies genügt als offenkundige Sünde.

Sure 6, Vers 21: Und wer ist sündiger, als wer wider Allah eine Lüge ersinnt und Seine Zeichen der Lüge bezichtigt? Siehe, den Sündern geht es nicht wohl.

Sure 7, Vers 37: Und wer ist sündiger, als wer wider Allah eine Lüge ersinnt oder Unsere Zeichen der Lüge bezichtigt? …

Die Sünde des Lügens wird im Koran also als Zurückweisung und Infragestellung – oder eben Verleugnung – der Heilsbotschaft Allahs definiert, was die Beigesellung “Schirk” einschließt. Der Islam erkennt in der Lüge demnach die schwere Sünde des Unglaubens.

Die Zurückweisung des Islam macht sich bei Ungläubigen logischerweise durch einen Lebensvollzug bemerkbar, der sich in religiöser, gesellschaftlicher und politischer Hinsicht vom islamischen unterscheidet. Das müssen nun die Rechtgeleiteten nicht einfach hinnehmen. Im Kapitel

» Ungläubige machen von Allahs Weg abwendig

behandeln wir einen Vers, welcher darauf hinweist, daß sich Ungläubige mit ihrem Unglauben nicht nur Allah gegenüber schuldig machen – nein, durch ihre schiere Existenz hindern sie Muslime daran, gottgefällig leben zu können. Ungläubige sind demnach allein schon durch ihren Unglauben schuldig. Es droht für die Rechtgeleiteten Versuchung.

» Fitna

Folgerichtig wird im ersten (10;51) der hier zitierten Verse der Tod der Ungläubigen gefordert: „Tod den Lügnern”. Einmal mehr kann man feststellen, daß Allah das Gewaltkonzept des Islam schon in Mekka anlegte. In Medina ließ Er es von Seinem Gesandten dann in die Tat umsetzen.

Auch in einem Hadith-Beleg wird der große Wert von Wahrhaftigkeit hervorgehoben. Es geht hier ebenfalls um die Annahme bzw. Zurückweisung der koranischen Botschaft, denn die Formulierung „ein Mensch mag solange lügen bis ihn Allah als Lügner deklariert“ besagt, daß spätestens am Tage des Gerichts die Wahrheit offenkundig wird:

Bukhari V8 B73 N116 berichtet von Abdullah: Der Prophet sagte: „Wahrhaftigkeit führt zu Rechtschaffenheit, Rechtschaffenheit zum Paradies. Ein Mensch muß unaufhörlich die Wahrheit sprechen, bevor er wahrhaftig werden kann. Unwahrheit führt zu Verruchtheit (Al-Fajur), Verruchtheit zum Höllenfeuer. Ein Mensch mag solange lügen bis ihn Allah als Lügner deklariert.

Verse, welche die Ableugnung von Allahs Offenbarungen beinhalten sind im Koran extrem redundant. Der Allmächtige hat bei jeder Auseinandersetzung Seines Gesandten mit den mekkanischen Polytheisten wie auch mit Christen und Juden eine Offenbarung ähnlichen Inhalts herniedergesendet. Zu jeder Offenbarung gehört ein Offenbarungsereignis.

» Wiederholungen im Koran

Die Enzyklopädie des Koran schreibt dazu:

„Im Koran werden verschiedene Formen des Verbs „kadhaba“ (lügen) zweiundachzig mal verwendet, „iftara“ (Lüge ersinnen) sechzig mal und „ifk“ im Sinne von „Lüge“ dreizehn mal.“ (Encyclopaedia of the Qur’an, Brill, Leiden + Boston, 2006, Seite 181)

Das Themenregister des Koran „Lan Tabur“ führt unter dem Stichwort „Lüge“ zweiundvierzig Verse auf, unter dem Stichwort „lügen“ zwei und unter dem Stichwort „Lügner“ vierzehn (Lan Tabur, Verlag Islamische Bibliothek, Köln, 1993, Seiten 623 f). Die unterschiedliche Zählart hat mit den unterschiedlichen Übersetzungen zu tun.

Wie die untenstehende Zusammenstellung belegt, sind in der Tat die meisten Verse über die schwere Sünde der Ableugnung der koranischen Heilsbotschaft in Mekka und nicht in Medina offenbart worden. Das entspricht auch der gängigen Erkenntnis: es hat sich aufgrund der Verfügbarkeit weltlicher Macht in Medina für Mohammed (bzw. Allah) weitgehend erübrigt, die Ungläubigen nur zu belehren und ihnen jenseitige Strafe anzudrohen. Jetzt werden sie mit dem Schwert bekämpft:

3;61, 3;71, 3;78, 3;94, 4;48, 4;50, 5;103, 6;5, 6;21, 6;24, 6;28, 6;34, 6;57, 6;66, 6;93, 6;140, 6;144, 6;150, 7;37, 7;89, 9;107, 10;17, 10;41, 10;59, 10;60, 10;69, 11;18, 11;50, 15;91, 16;39, 16;62, 16;86, 16;105, 16;116, 18;15, 20;61, 21;18, 22;30, 22;44, 22;62, 23;44, 24;11, 25;4, 29;3, 29;13, 29;17, 29;68, 34;8, 34;43, 35;4, 35;25, 37;86, 37;151, 38;12, 39;3, 39;32, 39;60, 40;28, 42;24, 45;7, 45;27, 46;11, 46;28, 50;12, 51;10, 61;7, 72;5

http://www.pi-news.net/2010/01/luegen-im-islam/#more-115621

More Speech, More Freedom

by Baron Bodissey

Our Austrian correspondent AMT, moved by such recent events as the legal actions against Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, has written an essay about the parlous state of free speech in Europe.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

by AMT

As many of us are aware — some more than others — freedom of speech has been changing. Those of us who believe in and fight to protect the concept of democracy can clearly recognize the gradual erosion of this noble and important freedom. There is growing concern that freedom of speech and its provisions in the law are being used more and more to do stifle opinions, and — even more worrying — truths.

Wikipedia informs us that

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech.”

Yes, the dreaded hate speech. The “killer phrase” of political correctness, which is threatening the physical freedom of freedom lovers and defenders like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. All three use their right to free speech to speak about Islam. All three have been summoned — and Geert Wilders even prosecuted — by the state.

The main problem with the charge of hate speech is that it includes nearly everything under the sun:

Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

Now take this concept in conjunction with what the elites of the European Union impose on their population:

Council Framework Decision 2008/913/Jha
of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
Has Adopted This Framework Decision:
		Article 1
		Offences concerning racism and xenophobia
		1.		Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:
				(a)		publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;

The careful reader and defender of democracy immediately asks: What is the definition of racism? What is the definition of xenophobia? None is given. However, one concept is clearly defined: Islam is considered not only a religion, but also a race, which transforms any criticism of Islam into racism, the worst charge of all.

What is more, racism and xenophobia can also be applied to “a group of people” who define themselves as members of a religion. One must thus come to the conclusion that statements criticizing the teachings of a religion can be considered racist and xenophobic.

Already back in 2005, the Council of Europe pleaded insanity by equating Islamophobia with anti-Semitism. Ali Sina sums it up:
– – – – – – – – –

The Council has reached the following decisions regarding the issue: Condemnation of any kind of intolerance and discrimination based on gender, race and religious beliefs in particular, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the fight against these within the framework of the Council of Europe and the use of effective mechanisms and rules to combat these problems.

Thus, anti-Islamism as well as anti-Semitism will be dealt with within the framework of legal proceedings. The Council reports will include anti-Islamist movements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) will closely monitor these movements. The Commission will record in which country anti-Islamism increases or how it is reflected.”

This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Apart from the fact that no race is better or worse than other races, unless one is Michael Jackson, one can’t change his race. Instigating hate against a race is instigating hate against mankind. Doctrines that instigate racial hate must be condemned and those who engage in racial slurs must be brought to justice.

Prohibiting criticism of Islam is like prohibiting criticism of Judaism or Christianity. No one in his right mind would suggest criticism of these religions should be banned. The very fact that these religions have reformed and have adapted to modern times is because they were criticized. Only during the inquisition, criticism of Christianity was against the law. Are we trying to introduce Islamic inquisition to appease Muslims? Are we trying to institute the blasphemy law that is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran to make Muslims happy? This is insane!

One wonders who exactly is fomenting extremism. Consider Turkish prime minister Erdogan who is on the record reacting to the Swiss minaret ban:

“[This is a] sign of an increasing racist and fascist stance in Europe,” Turkish television Channel 7 reported on Tuesday. Islamophobia was a “crime against humanity,” just like anti-Semitism.

Turkish president Abdullah Gül said the vote was a “disgrace” for the people of Switzerland and showed how far Islamophobia had advanced in the Western world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
If a “citizen” of the EU may timidly make a suggestion to those in charge — whoever that might be — it would be the following:

1.		Prosecute racism by Muslims against non-Muslims;
2.		Define freedom of religion as an individual right and not a collective one.

Islam considers freedom of religion as a collective right of the Muslim community to live according to Islamic rules, even if these rules contradict secular laws. Non-Muslims consider it an individual right to live according to their beliefs within the private sphere, but in accordance with secular laws.

In light of the EU Framework Decision, the Austrian government is in the process of introducing a new law, which according to Andreas Unterberger, “will mimic China’s approach to freedom of speech.”

“Whoever publicly incites to hate against a group [detailed in a long list], shall be punished with a maximum of two years of imprisonment.” The same is valid for those who “insult or disparage” a group. This is what it says in a new law which is about to be passed without any public outcry.

All this in the name of “combating terror”. Unterberger adds,

Do not misunderstand me: I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who hate or insult. But terms that are not precisely defined may be used extensively by the judiciary to restrict freedom of speech. These terms [hate and insulting] belong to good upbringing, to religious education, but not in the claws of a government which, if need be, may use brutal force. […] In the future, one just has to say or write, with a slightly critical undertone, that nationals of X are involved in a significantly higher degree in the drug trade or that national of Y dominate the burglary “business”, or that members of sexual orientation Z are prone to certain transmittable diseases. […] And right away one is confronted with criminal proceedings.

[…]

It is unbelievable that no one in this country rises to the defense of freedom of expression protesting against this attack on the most important principle of the Enlightenment, namely freedom of opinion.

Similarly, but not surprisingly, the lack of interest in these measures appears generally manifested in American and European public opinion. Writes Paul Belien:

“… [This] is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” […] Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an ‘offensive environment.’“

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Lesson Plans for Teaching the First Amendment tells us the following:

In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject.

The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but more speech.

Geert Wilders will not stop criticizing Islam, neither will Sabaditsch-Wolff or others. One may assume there will be more speech, rather than less.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-speech-more-freedom.html#readfurther

Cracks in the Islamist Curtain

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is None Darwish, the co-founder of FormerMuslimsUnited.com and the author of Cruel and Usual Punishment.

FP: Nonie Darwish, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

I would like to talk to you today a bit about the Muslim voices for change that are increasing through the Islamic world. There is an unprecedented defiance taking place behind the Islamic Curtain.

Can you tell us what is transpiring?

Darwish: As you know, Jamie, I lived for 30 years in the cocoon of the Muslim world and I can see a huge change going on inside the Muslim world. More and more people are challenging the status quo.

After 9/11 and with constant recurring explosive Islamic terrorism, it has become harder for the Muslim establishment to keep the lid on Muslims questioning their system, religion and holy wars. Criticism of Islam is coming at them from every direction, putting Muslim clerics in a quagmire unable to honestly answer questions. Muslim scholars were never trained to answer questions critical of Islam or engage in hostile debate. But now, suddenly, they are challenged to the core like never before, not by Western critics, but by brave hosts of Arabic language shows from unidentified locations in the West and hosted by former Muslims and/or Egyptian Christian Copts.

Father Zakareya Botros rocks the Arab world with his show “Howard Al Hak” or “Honest Debate” when callers from various parts of the Muslim world call in renouncing Islam. Former Muslim turned Christian, Rachid Hmami, originally from Morocco, has a popular show “Fil Samim”, or “from the core”. Hmami, who is the son of a Muslim cleric, is eloquent, respectful with a calm and peaceful demeanor — a characteristic in sharp contrast to the angry loud and cursing image of many Muslim clerics.

The Muslim leadership is suddenly under a lot of pressure to answer taboo questions rarely ever asked before; taboo topics such as questioning the validity of the Qur’an, the life and marriage of Mohammad, his violent wars and assassinations, the fact that there is no minimum age for marriage of women in Islam and about ridiculous Fatwas regarding breast feeding of adult males by Muslim women and Muhammad’s urine as a cure. Muslim callers to these Arabic shows have proved beyond doubt how many Muslims have no clue as to what is written in their scriptures and religious laws.

Many Muslims are demanding answers from their religious leaders and for them to vigorously defend such criticism of Islam. However, not one Muslim cleric has answered the questions on people’s minds. Their response is more yelling, threatening, hate speech, paranoid accusations and propaganda of misinformation. This led Hmami and Father Zakaria, for instance, to personally challenge Muslim leaders to a debate. A well-known Muslim cleric was exposed to have lied when he accepted the challenge to debate on TV, but privately, on recorded phone call with Hmami, the Muslim cleric was evasive, lied and declined the invitation to the debate, giving ridiculous excuses.

FP: Where do we stand with the apostate issue?

Darwish: For the first time in Egyptian Islamic history, a number of apostates have come out publicly demanding their right choose to leave Islam and practice Christianity. Their demand was legally rejected and fatwas of death issued against them. Maher al-Gohari, Mohammed Higazi, and prominent feminist attorney Naglaa Al Imam, are among a few courageous ones. From the number of callers to the shows who claim they left Islam, I believe the number of apostates inside the Muslim world to be significant but are mostly silent. The main power of Islam and its clerics lie in the Muslim death sentence for apostasy and blasphemy. A number of apostates living in the West have greatly impacted the Muslim world. Among those are Wafa Sultan, the Italian/Egyptian Magdi Allam who was baptized by the Pope, Ibn Warraq and myself, and many others such as several former graduates of the Islamic Al Azhar University living today in the West.

I have received a recently released Arabic poem claimed to have been written by Taha Hussein, the prominent Egyptian father of Arabic literature 1889-1973. The highly intellectual and well written poem is extremely critical of the God of Islam and admits the apostasy of its writer. Hussein was once prosecuted with the accusation of insulting Islam. Challenges to Islam are coming from intellectuals, artists and journalists across the Muslim world, such as the Egyptian Sayed El Qemany; they must walk a fine line lest they get accused of apostasy or blasphemy.

While this trend challenging Islam is significant when compared to recent history, we must caution from being over optimistic for a reformation in Islam since the new trend is still in its infancy and has not yet established itself legitimately to become part of the mainstream. The reaction to such a challenge is intense and often violently lashing out in the form of acts of threat and terror. Some Muslim people of influence have admitted recently that terrorism is a Muslim commandment. On January of 2006, a member of Egyptian Parliament, “Ragab Hilal Hamida’, said from the floor of the Egyptian Parliament that “the Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism, so why are we afraid of it?”

What is without denial is that Islam today is in turmoil and going through growing pains, tearing Muslim society apart. My fear is that while Islam is in the process of finding itself it might bring down others with it.

FP: While you caution over-optimism, what effects do you think this defiance might have? What are the possibilities?

Darwish: Such defiance to bring about much needed change in the Muslim world will, hopefully, bring its intended goals of respect for human rights, women’s rights, democracy and the end of Islamic violent jihad and the hate-filled educational system against non-Muslims. But before we celebrate the beginning of the trend towards Islamic reformation, we must realize how huge the magnitude of such change will be. It will take decades if not more. The outcome is not guaranteed, and it will come at a heavy price in violence, civil unrest, oil embargoes, and sadly with lots of innocent victims both inside the Muslim world and also in the West. And I mean this in the context of terror attacks.

Some view Islamic terrorism as a sign of power, which in many aspects it is, but it is also a sign of a desperate culture trying to shut off the shining light of freedom in the world surrounding it.

The reason for such a grim process is because 1.2 billion Muslims  around the world are starting to wake up bit by bit to realize that they have been spoonfed total lies and fabrications for centuries about their own religion as well as the world outside of Islam. The greatest taqiyya (holy lie), and perhaps one of the greatest in history, is the one perpetrated on the average Muslim man and woman by their religious leaders, the men of Allah they are supposed to trust. Such an awakening will result in gradual but steady violence – which is already starting to bubble up in many Muslim countries.

The nations affected by the Islamic crisis will not only be Muslim, but also Western nations which took huge numbers of Muslim immigrants. Israel and the West, as usual, will be blamed for Muslim internal civil unrest and thus will suffer from terror attempts and shooting at them as a means to end Muslim internal civil unrest.  Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the two nations that produced the 9/11 terrorist, are already under internal threat and violence coming from terror groups such as ‘Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’ and ‘the Muslim Brotherhood’ who cannot wait to destroy the regimes in both nations.

I am worried about what will happen in the coming decades to the world while Islam is undergoing possible reform and change. The Muslim world right now is a disaster waiting to happen. They are living above a volcano that can explode any time. The status quo in Muslim countries cannot continue and Muslims are discovering they have been in massive tyranny and terror for 1400 years. Muslims are leaving Islam in large numbers and more will leave if the apostasy death penalty is lifted. Tyranny cannot last for ever, not even under Sharia Law.

Where this trend will take Islam is unpredictable, but change is certain. It can take the Muslim world to a great reformation but it can also take them and the rest of the world to a horrible confrontation and a period of decline and downfall. Islam, like communism, will probably never disappear, but eventually if Islam does not reform, it will be discredited as a religion.

FP: What can Westerners do to help inflict cracks into the Islamic Curtain?

Darwish: The first thing is get out of the way when Islam is about to explode, and it will. Muslim countries need not be rescued and they need to fall on their own and grow on their own. Do not try to help or hurt if a civil war happens in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. If we cannot have oil for a while, then let it be. When we try to help a Muslim country from self -destruction, due to Muslim on Muslim atrocities, like what happened to Kuwait by Iraq, we take away their ability to recognize their internal issues, see their true enemies and why they are in trouble.

The West must realize that it is not doing itself or the Muslim world a favor by political correctness — which actually has a negative effect on Muslims trying to reform their system. Western PC is telling them we just love you the way you are, terrorism, hate speech, good and bad, we still love you. The West must demand reciprocity and equal treatment from Muslim countries. If they build mosques in the US then we must have the right to build a Church in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. By accepting a one way cultural impact from Islam, we are welcoming a disaster waiting to happen.

Western governments so far have been ignoring Muslim critics and reformers who fully understand the problem and have been only strictly dealing with Muslim groups, such as CAIR and others whose goals are in fact as Islamist as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It is time for Western officials to give respect to Muslim critics, reformists and former Muslims.

And finally, Western victims of Islamic terror need to file a huge class action suit against Saudi Arabia and all countries that produced terrorists who are the product of their hateful jihadist educational system. They cannot claim innocence.

FP: What are your primary concerns today? What is on your mind and what worries you the most in terms of the topic we are discussing here today?

Darwish: My fear concerns the safety and security of America and Western democracy. This threat is real and we must never underestimate it. While Muslim/Arab countries are undergoing major change, internal civil unrest and violence, there will be horrific acts of violence against Israel and Western nations in the near future. Remember in the Gulf war when Saddam was desperate, he started shooting at Israel. The same thing happened in Gaza when Hamas and Fatah were fighting; they also started shooting at Israel. When Israel shoots back for self protection, that is when Muslims end their massacres between themselves

I am also concerned about the many innocent beautiful people of the Middle East — who are after all my people. The violence has already started there and I fear for the Christian minorities as well.

FP: Nonie Darwish, thank you for joining us. Thank you for being such a courageous and noble freedom fighter.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/29/cracks-in-the-islamist-curtain/print/

Why Islam must be criticized

What the West Needs to Understand About Islam
by Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with an axe and knife, entered Westergaard’s house and tried to kill him.

This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here.

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

1. Firstly: Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly: A great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

a. Al-Quran:

This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

– O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

– Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

b. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

– He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

WHY CRITICIZE ISLAM WHEN ISLAMISTS WILL REACT VIOLENTLY:

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?

Secondly: It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly: One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma. The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

WHAT GOOD WILL COME OUT OF CRITICIZING ISLAM?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a minor yet subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, formerly the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law.”

Islam4UK; the caption in itself explains the agenda. The UK government recently banned the organization for its vitriolic rhetoric. This is indeed a ‘great set back’ for Anjem (pun intended). All he has to do is change the name of Islam 4 UK and come back to the forefront of Islamist propaganda machine to forward its message.

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).” In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was “a matter of time”; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population; that will amount to ~ 20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So how can we meet this challenge?

Well, one strategy to confront such people and fanatics is the strategy of Political correctness (PC) , ‘opening a constructive dialogue’, ‘better understanding of their problems’, ‘addressing underlying socio-economic issues’ that fuel such feelings.
But such a strategy of PC and appeasement is utterly flawed, short sighted and doomed to fail. I will say a few things as to why it is so:

WHY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK:

This is perhaps the most important point of this whole article:

1. What the West must realize is that Islamists and Muslim fanatics are actually practicing and pious Muslims who follow the Quran and Sunnah and Muhammad. They have not hijacked Islam. They are simply following it to the letter. The above mentioned Quranic Surahs and a few tidbits of Muhammadan life is just a glimpse as to what Islam actually says about infidels and war. Thus, the strategy of PC, a ‘constructive dialogue’ etc; which assumes that there is something wrong with such people and their interpretation of Islam; in itself is illogical and fallacious.

The problem is Islam, Quran and Muhammad. People like Anjem Chaudary are but good Muslims. Tackle Islam and through that, tackle such Islamists.

2. These Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam and Quran. Nothing the west may do to appease these Islamists will work. Absolutely and literally nothing.

3. Dialogue is possible only where there is something to discuss. The West doesn’t realize that there is absolutely nothing to discuss with Islamists and those who indulge in religious rhetoric. Such people follow Quran and Sunnah and according to those sources it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim to forward the message the Islam in what ever way and manner.

4. Also, what the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Although people like Anjem Chaudary are a fringe minority, to underestimate them will be disastrous. Even one good Islamic preacher and Islamist can sway, arguably, hundreds of moderate and westernized Muslims towards his/her Islamic ideology. It is an ideological war that such people are waging and they need to be taken very very seriously. The concept of tableegh or preaching Islam is central to Islamic dogma and such people have historically been very successful in swaying large number of westernized Muslims.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos. There is no other alternative. Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analyzed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

Ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system and in true democracy; criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

2. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

3. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

4. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done. Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/what-the-west-needs-to-understand-about-islam.html

Heftige Attacken gegen Islamkritiker

Die abgegriffene Faschismuskeule kreist wieder – Necla Kelek wirft »Islamverstehern« Unkenntnis vor

Der schwelende Streit um Islamismus und Islamkritik hat mit Beginn des neuen Jahres hörbar an Schärfe gewonnen. Auslöser war ein Interview der Soziologin, Frauenrechtlerin und Buchautorin Necla Kelek mit der Deutschen Presse­agentur (dpa). Die türkischstämmige Kelek prangert an, dass kritische Stimmen zum Islam „mit Hilfe deutscher Islamversteher“ als Rassisten verunglimpft würden.
Die Kritik aber sei allzu berechtigt, denn der Islam wolle „Leitkultur sein und nicht nur das Leben der Muslime regeln, sondern auch bestimmen, wie sich die übrige Gesellschaft gegenüber den Muslimen zu verhalten hat“, so Kelek, die selbst Muslimin ist und für einen aufgeklärten Islam eintritt. Dafür aber müssten sich die Muslime von der Scharia lösen und „den politischen Islam ächten“.
Die „Frauen- und Rechtsextremismusforscherin“ Birgit Rommelspacher warf Kelek daraufhin in der „taz“ vor, den Islam „zugunsten des Christentums abschaffen“ zu wollen. Rommelspacher geht noch einen Schritt weiter und macht eine Tendenz bei Feministinnen aus, neuerdings „mit Rechten gemeinsame Sache“ zu machen. Was sie unter „rechts“ versteht oder verdammt, das lässt Rommelspacher allerdings im Ungenauen.
Worauf sie abzielt, wird dennoch deutlich und kennzeichnet den gesamten Kurs der jüngsten Attacken gegen Islamkritiker: Dass Kelek ebenso wie die Anwältin Seyran Ates (wie Kelek Deutsche türkischer Herkunft) oder die somalisch-niederländische Politikerin Ayaan Hirsi Ali eine westliche Werteordnung gegen den Islam in Stellung brächten, verweise auf Frauen im Nationalsozialismus, die ihre „rassische Überlegenheit mit ihrem Einsatz für die Gleichstellung von Mann und Frau begründet“ hätten.
In der Tendenz ähnlich gehen Till-R. Stoldt in der „Welt“ und Thomas Steinfeld in der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“ gegen Islamkritiker in Stellung. Schon die Titel ihrer Beiträge lassen an Schärfe nichts missen: „Islamkritik als Schlachtgesang der Gehässigen“ („Welt“) und gar „Unsere Hassprediger“ („Süddeutsche“) lauten sie, womit die Islamkritiker auf eine Stufe mit islamischen Fanatikern gestellt werden, welche sich als  geistige Väter von Attentätern und „Gotteskriegern“ betätigen.
Stoldt sieht durch scharfe Islamkritik ein Weltbild wuchern, das „taugt zum ideologischen Fundament für Massendeportationen, religiösen Reinigungswahn und unendliches Leid“, weil die Kritik in fanatische Kanäle gelenkt“ zu werden drohe. Damit zieht auch Stoldt Parallelen von moderner Islamkritik und den verbrecherischen Spuren von Gewaltherrschaften des 20. Jahrhunderts. Dabei nimmt er selbst den Grünen-Politiker Daniel Cohn-Bendit und den Schriftsteller Ralf Giordano aufs Korn. Giordano hatte sich vehement gegen den Bau einer Großmoschee in Köln gewehrt (PAZ berichtete).
Soweit geht Thomas Steinfeld nicht, betont jedoch ebenfalls angebliche Parallelen zwischen islamischen Scharfmachern und ihren Gegnern: Auch die „Beschwörung der ,westlichen Werte‘“ bringe „ihre eigenen Hassprediger hervor“.
Diese Attacken blieben indes nicht ohne Antwort. Mit einer scharfen Replik widersprach Regina Mönch in der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen“: „Wer hoffte, die Kritik an parallelen Welten, an demonstrativer Verachtung für westliche Freiheiten werde nicht mehr sofort und umstandslos als eine Form von rechtsradikalem Rassenhass denunziert, ist nun eines Schlimmeren belehrt.“ Mönch sieht bei Rommerspacher und ihren Mitstreitern eine „alte Ideologie aus der blinden Multikultiseligkeit“ wiederauferstehen.
Kelek meint den Grund für die neuerliche Gereiztheit der „Islamversteher“ gefunden zu haben, den sie in der „Frankfurter Allgemeinen“ öffentlich macht: Nach drei Jahren „quälender“ Islamkonferenz sei unübersehbar geworden, dass mit dem organisierten Islam keine Integration gelinge. Um dieses Desaster kleinzu­machen, würde nun Religionskritik an sich in Frage gestellt. Dies und das Unverständnis vieler Europäer für das Denken in der islamisch-orientalischen Kultur führe dazu, dass man sich wieder in alte Opfer-Täter-Schemata zurückziehe. Kelek erklärt damit, wie die abgegriffene Faschismuskeule in eine Debatte zurückkehren konnte, die schon einmal sehr viel sachlicher geführt worden war.

Hans Heckel

http://www.ostpreussen.de/preussische-allgemeine-zeitung/nachrichten/artikel/heftige-attacken-gegen-islamkritiker.html

Geert Wilders: on trial for telling the truth

Douglas Murray is a bestselling author and award-winning journalist based in London. He has written for numerous publications including the Telegraph, Spectator, Wall Street Journal and Sunday Times. He is a columnist for Standpoint magazine and the Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a Westminster think-tank which studies radicalisation and extremism in Britain.

There is nothing hyperbolic in stating that a trial which has just started in Holland will have unparalleled significance for the future of Europe. It is not just about whether our culture will survive, but whether we are even allowed to state the fact that it is being threatened.

The trial of Geert Wilders has garnered hardly any attention in the mainstream press here. Fortunately the blogosphere can correct some of this.

Wilders is a Dutch MP and leader of Holland’s fastest-growing party, the Party for Freedom. Just a few years ago he was the sole MP for his party. The latest polls show that his party could win the biggest number of seats of any party in Holland when the voters next go to the polls.

His stances have clearly chimed with the Dutch people. They include an end to the era of mass immigration, an end to cultural relativism, and an end to the perceived suborning of European values to Islamic ones. For saying this, and more, he has for many years had to live under round-the-clock security protection. Which you would have thought proves the point to some extent.

Now the latest attempt of the Dutch ruling class to keep Wilders from office has begun. Last week, apparently because of the number of complaints they have received (trial by vote anyone?) the trial of Wilders began.

The Dutch courts charge that Wilders ‘on multiple occasions, at least once, (each time) in public, orally, in writing or through images, intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion’.

I’m sorry? Whoa there, just a minute. The man’s on trial because he ‘offended a group of people’? I get offended by all sorts of people. I get offended by very fat people. I get offended by very thick people. I get offended by very sensitive people. I get offended by the crazy car-crash of vowels in Dutch verbs. But I don’t try to press charges.

Yet, crazily, this is exactly what is going on now in a Dutch courtroom. If found guilty of this Alice-in-Wonderland accusation of ‘offending a group of people’, Wilders faces up to two years in prison.

If anyone doubts the surreal nature of the proceedings now going on they should simply look through the summons which is available in an English translation here. It shows that Wilders is on trial for his film Fitna. And for various things he has said in articles and interviews in the Dutch press.

Now some people liked Fitna and some people didn’t. That’s a matter of choice. But by any previous interpretation it is not the job of courts in democratic countries to become film-critics. In fact it would create a very bad precedent. I thought the latest Alec Baldwin film stank. But I don’t think (though the temptation lingers) Baldwin should go to prison for it.

I’ve seen Fitna a number of times. Recently in the House of Lords, at a meeting Wilders couldn’t attend because our then Home Secretary temporarily decided he shouldn’t even come into this country. And I’ve just watched it again.  And you can do so, too. It keeps getting pirated on YouTube but I think this is a good link here.

Parts of Fitna – which is a compilation of documentary footage – are very disturbing.  And very offensive indeed.  The clips of Muslim clerics calling for the murder of infidels. Very offensive. The clips of Muslims holding banners saying ‘God bless Hitler’. Very offensive. The clip of a three-year-old Muslim girl indoctrinated and brain-washed to describe Jews as ‘Apes and Pigs’. Very offensive. The passage of the Koran, Surah 47, verse 4: ‘Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.’ Very offensive.

Just to confirm – I find all these things very offensive. But Wilders didn’t say them. He is being tried for pointing out the fact that some – in some cases many – Muslims do. If there are to be prosecutions they should be of the clerics and leaders who advocate this nightmarish version of Islam. But not of Wilders.

There are quotes from Wilders in the summons, though. It states for instance that he has said, and he has (I love the detective-work the court implies when citing op-eds from national newspapers): ‘Those Moroccan boys are really violent. They beat up people because of their sexual orientation. I have never used violence.’ This is true. As a number of gay Dutch men and women can attest, Muslim youths are behind a rise in homophobic attacks in what used to be the most gay-friendly country in the world. Bruce Bawer and others have written about this at length. It is very disturbing. It is also a fact. There is no sanity at all in a court trying a man for saying something true.

Wilders is also being tried for saying things which some Muslims deem to be rude about the Koran.  Another dangerous precedent. Will the Dutch courts now come after Ricky Gervais for the rude things he says about the Bible in his show Animals (on sale in Holland)? Why the special laws for hurt Muslim feelings? Just wait till the others get on the band-wagon!  There won’t be room in the courts to prosecute the murderers and muggers. They’ll be too full up with the religious. Dutch Calvinist pastors madly petitioning for the extradition of Billy Connolly.

The whole thing is so farcical that it would be funny. If it weren’t for the fact that it is real. The most popular elected politician in Holland is on trial for saying things which the Dutch people are clearly, in large part, in agreement with.  Things which, even if you don’t agree with them, must be able to be said.

Whichever way the verdict goes, it can’t do anything but good for Wilders’s poll ratings. But it is a terrible day for democracy. A political class so intent on criminalising the opinions of its own people cannot last very much longer.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglasmurray/100024056/geert-wilders-on-trial-for-telling-the-truth/

Al-Jazira belegt, dass Wilders Recht hat

Heplev Worldpress 23 Januar 2010

Al-Jazira wählte dieses Bild, um einen Artikel zum Prozess von Geert Wilders zu illustrieren:

Könnte es sein, dass Wilders vielleicht nicht ganz unberechtigt die Alarmglocke wegen der Islamisierung Europas läutet, wenn Muslime gegen ihn demonstrieren, indem sie Plakate hoch halten, auf denen Dinge stehen wie:

– Der Islam wird überlegen sein

– Der Islam wird die Welt beherrschen

– Freiheit, fahr zur Hölle

(h/t: Jihad Watch)

http://europenews.dk/de/node/29284

Peinlicher Aufklärungsunterricht

Von Reinhard Mohr

Mehr Selbstverachtung und Realitätsverlust war selten: In deutschen Feuilletons tobt eine neue Debatte über den richtigen Dialog mit dem Islam. Kurioserweise werden dabei ausgerechnet jene Publizisten als “Hassprediger” bezeichnet, die auf westliche Werte wie Aufklärung und Menschenrechte pochen.

Und ewig grüßt das Murmeltier. “Es muss nur irgend etwas geschehen, ein missglücktes Attentat wie zu Anfang des Monats zum Beispiel, und schon geht die Debatte wieder los” – so beklagte der Journalist Thomas Steinfeld am Donnerstag im Feuilleton der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” die jüngste Auseinandersetzung über Islam, “Islamophobie” und die Werte des Westens. Ja, es muss nur gerade wieder mal ein 400-facher Massenmord durch einen islamistischen Terroristen mit knapper Not verhindert worden sein, schon kommen sie wieder aus ihren Löchern, die Islamkritiker, Kulturkämpfer und “heiligen Krieger” des Westens, wie Claudius Seidl, Feuilletonchef der “Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung”, formulierte. In Steinfelds Worten: “die Hassprediger” der westlichen Werte.

Der Direktor des “Zentrums für Antisemitismusforschung”, Wolfgang Benz, sieht sogar strukturelle Ähnlichkeiten zwischen Antisemitismus und einer “Islamkritik”, der er ebenfalls in einem Artikel für die “Süddeutsche Zeitung” islamophobe, also irgendwie rassistische Motive unterstellt. Die Muslime, so könnte man glauben, seien die verfolgten Juden des 21. Jahrhunderts.

Und schon ist sie fertig, die steile These: Die Kritiker des militanten Islam sind ihrerseits radikal gläubige Fundamentalisten. Steinfelds Logik ist bestechend: “Wenn man aber mit den ‘westlichen Werten’ ebenso kämpferisch umgeht, wie es der radikale Islam mit seinen heiligen Schriften tut, dann verhält man sich wie der, den man sich zum Feind erkoren hat”, schreibt er. Schlimmer noch: “Man zerstört die sozialen und moralischen Einrichtungen, die man zu verteidigen sucht.”

Um es recht zu verstehen: Publizistische Kritiker des aggressiv politisierten Islams wie Henryk M. Broder und Necla Kelek verteidigen demnach die – in der Uno-Charta festgelegten – Menschenrechte ebenso fanatisch wie überzeugte Muslime den Koran und die Scharia.

Quasireligiöser Furor

Mehr noch: Mit ihrem quasireligiösen Furor unterminierten sie den Kern ihres eigenen Glaubensbekenntnisses: die demokratischen Institutionen und Werte, zuvörderst Meinungsfreiheit, Toleranz und das Gebot von Gleichheit und Menschenwürde. Die Islamkritiker seien also die eigentlichen Verfassungsfeinde, die mit ihrem “grundsätzlich gedankenfeindlichen, bedingungslosen” Vorgehen “alle Debatten, alle Argumente, alle Zweifel, womöglich auch die an sich selbst, ersticken”. Steinfelds Resümee: “Gewiss, der Islam ist, anders als das Christentum, entstanden als eine Religion von Siegern, in einer Parallele von religiöser und politischer Macht. Mit einer Siegerreligion der westlichen Werte dürfte dennoch nichts zu gewinnen sein.”

Darf schon das hübsche Wort von der “Parallele” religiöser und politischer Macht, siehe etwa Ahmadinedschads Islamische Republik Iran, die Anwartschaft auf einen Preis für den Euphemismus des Jahres beanspruchen, so macht die sensationelle Umkehrung von Worten und Werten beinahe sprachlos. Man könnte, um im Bild zu bleiben, glatt vom Glauben abfallen: Aufklärung ist also Religion geworden!

Was aber ist dann mit der Religion? Wird sie nun wenigstens, gleichsam im Umkehrschluss, zur Aufklärung?

Man erfährt es nicht, denn die Opfer des westlich-abendländischen Kulturkampfs kommen in dieser Feuilleton-Debatte nur als Schimäre vor, als westlich-negative (Angst-)Projektion, Gestalten ferner Ereignisse dort drunten, wo die Völker scheinbar grundlos aufeinanderschlagen. Islam, Islamismus und Terror sind da nicht mehr als eine feuilletonistische Duftmarke. So verwundert es keineswegs, dass die seit Jahren geführte Diskussion über die Vereinbarkeit eines korantreuen, gläubig-militanten Islam mit Demokratie und Menschenrechten bei Steinfeld auf die Gegenüberstellung einer “stark idealisierten Fassung freiheitlicher Werte” mit “abweichenden religiösen Sitten” zusammenschnurrt.

Verleugnung der Realität

In dieser geradezu phantastischen Verharmlosung stehen die Dinge endgültig auf dem Kopf, und die Wirklichkeit kommt gar nicht mehr vor. Es scheint, als solle die globale, asymmetrische Bedrohung durch den islamistischen Terror mit einer scheinbaren Symmetrie weggezaubert werden. Motto: Die einen sind so schlimm wie die anderen.

Andersherum gilt die gleiche Äquilibristik: Die historischen Errungenschaften von Humanismus, Aufklärung und Säkularisierung werden ebenso grotesk kleingeredet wie die weltweiten Freiheitsbedrohungen, die von den vielfältigen Strömungen eines radikalisierten Islam ausgehen.

Geradezu einer Verleugnung der Realität kommt es nahe, wenn Steinfeld schlussfolgert, dass die Integration des Islam in die demokratischen Gesellschaften des Westens nach dem Willen der publizistischen “Hassprediger” nur über eine autoritäre “Zwangsmodernisierung” à la Atatürk denkbar sei.

Mal abgesehen davon, dass der Münchener Feuilletonist damit die moderne Türkei als historisch abschreckendes Beispiel präsentiert; statt von Zwangsehen und “Ehrenmorden”, von einem reaktionären Frauenbild und einer voraufklärerischen Fixierung auf Jahrtausende alte “heilige” Worte (bis zur legitimen Verfolgung und Tötung von “Ungläubigen”) zu reden, attackiert er die Polemiker jener Freiheit, die er selbst tagtäglich genießt.

Schon die einfachste intellektuelle Unterscheidung fällt hier unter den Tisch: Anders als das Christentum, dessen aggressives Wüten seit der Französischen Revolution gebändigt werden konnte, kennt der Islam bis heute keine echte Aufklärung, keine wirkliche Trennung von Religion, Staat und Gesellschaft, keine unveräußerlichen Rechte des frei geborenen Individuums, schon gar nicht von Mädchen und Frauen, ob mit oder ohne Kopftuch.

So ist es auch nur folgerichtig, dass offizielle Repräsentanten und Verbandsvertreter des Islam in Deutschland an Debatten dieser Art praktisch gar nicht teilnehmen, denn es geht in diesen ja nicht um religiöse, sondern um gesellschaftliche und politische Fragen. Zu ihnen haben sie – außerhalb der üblichen Interessenvertretung – ganz offenbar nichts zu sagen. Es sei denn, sie wären in der Lage, ihr religiöses Bekenntnis gleichsam von außen und damit eben kritisch-historisch zu betrachten, mit räsonierendem Abstand, in einem tatsächlich “herrschaftsfreien Diskurs”.

Genau deshalb auch braucht es wohl die selbsternannten Gouvernanten des Feuilletons, die gar nicht merken, dass ihr ideologischer Paternalismus einer Entmündigung all jener Muslime gleichkommt, die selbst das Wort ergreifen sollten – frei, selbstbewusst und gerne auch polemisch, wenn’s der Wahrheitsfindung dient.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,672117,00.html

What did you do in the Great Counterjihad?

h/t  Baron Bodissey

Will Europe Put its Foot Down? – by Hege Storhaug

“Either Islam will be Europeanized, or Europe will be Islamized.”  In recent years this prediction has been made by many major experts, among them the American Bernard Lewis ^[1], the Syrian-born German Bassam Tibi ^[2], and the French Gilles Kepel ^[3].  This is, without question, an uncomfortable and sensitive topic, but it’s one that is very pertinent now that the Swiss have put their foot down and said that they will not accept another minaret within their borders.

In recent decades, Islam has exploded in Europe.  You can see the changes with your own eyes from year to year – whether it’s the increasing presence of hijabs on the street in a city like Oslo, or the bearded men with ankle-high baggy pants, or the new and resplendent mosques that are under construction.  For my part, I’ve noticed an increasing insecurity and unease among “ordinary” people who feel like aliens in their own country.  People ask: what is the purpose of this project?  Don’t we, as a nation, have a right to pass our own cultural legacy, our traditions and values, on to our children and grandchildren?  Should we, in the name of tolerance, give in to the demands made by “others” whose influence is growing, and whose voices are becoming louder, as their numbers increase? Or as a Norwegian Labor Party politician said to me in a private conversation: “On the day that most of the members of the city council are Muslims, what do you think will happen to the right of Oslo bars to serve alcohol?”  Another leading Laborite with over a couple of decades’ experience in politics put it more bluntly when I asked him “What you think about immigration from the Muslim world?”  The answer was so crisp, merciless, and genuinely felt that I gasped: “What have they contributed?”  Period.

Let it be said that of course there are many Muslims in Europe who are getting along just fine and who get the same chills down their spines that other European citizens do when they think of Sharia and the lack of freedom that accompanies classical Islam.  But as a rule those aren’t the Muslims who are the most prominent members of their faith among us; they aren’t the ones who enjoy power in the Muslim community, and they aren’t the ones who are best organized and who have developed exceptionally strong connections to our public officials.

No, it’s not the secularized Muslims who are leading the way – far from it.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali made this clear when I and a colleague of mine from Human Rights Service in Oslo met her at the Dutch Parliament in The Hague in 2005.  As she put it, there most certainly are Muslims in Europe who want a Europeanized Islam – that is to say, a private, personal Islam without political and judicial influence.  But these aren’t the Muslims who are powerfully positioned in Europe’s community organizations, Europe’s corridors of power, and Europe’s universities.

Here is an interesting point: immigrants from Iran tend to be secular, well-integrated, and – very often – well-educated.  Here in Norway, Iranians have generally integrated themselves into our culture, accepting Norwegian values even as they’ve maintained Iranian traditions that don’t conflict with human rights, such as celebrating Iranian New Year.  But Iranians are not the leaders of Europe’s Muslim communities.  Nor can I think of a single mosque in Norway, or anywhere in Europe for that matter, that has been founded by Iranians.

If Iranians, generally speaking, have been an immigration success story, enriching Europe and becoming fully participating members of European society, this isn’t true of the members of many other major immigrant groups, whose origins are in traditional villages in other Muslim countries.  It’s precisely these people’s unwillingness (or inability?) to assimilate to European society – indeed, to appreciate such typically European values as freedom, equality, social participation, and personal responsibility – that may be a major reason why Switzerland said no to more minarets.  At some point, Europe must put its foot down if it truly wishes to continue to be the Europe we know today.  There is a limit as to how many minarets a society can live with, how many hijabs and baggy pants the streets of Europe can tolerate, before the public space becomes as ideologically charged and as palpably unfree as the streets of, say, Pakistan.  We need to stand up and preserve our culture – a successful culture that is itself the only reason why immigrants are streaming from the Muslim world to our continent rather than in the other direction.

Here’s a specific example of how misguided our politicians have been in their handling of the challenge of Islam – an example that I think provides a very clear picture of grotesque weakness.  In 1974, Muslim immigrants from Pakistan established the first mosque in Norway, the Islamic Cultural Centre (ICC).  The name has a comforting, harmless sound: a “cultural center” sounds like something very different from a mosque.  In reality, however, the ICC is a direct subsidiary of an extreme religio-political movement and political party in Pakistan, Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), which was established by one of the leading Islamist ideologues of the last century, Abu Ala Maududi ^[4] (1903 – 1979). When Pakistan’s worst despot ever, General and President Zia ul-Haq ^[5] (1977 – 1988), Islamized that country from top to bottom, his main inspiration was Maududi. Today Qazi Hussain Ahmad ^[6], who has been a top JI leader for several years and has been banned for security reasons from entering about 25 European countries, as well as Egypt.  He has been under house arrest in Pakistan several times for having instigated violent riots that took human lives. Unsurprisingly, he’s also a fan of Bin Laden. Yet he’s not prohibited from entering Norway, and when he landed at Oslo Airport in August 2004, the arrivals hall was packed with Norwegian-Pakistani men and boys who openly cheered him as a prophet.

The ICC, then, which has a grandiose new mosque with minarets in downtown Oslo, follows an ideology that is a carbon copy of Maududi’s terrifying, violent creed.  It doesn’t just belong to a philosophically dangerous movement; it belongs to a movement which preaches that Muslims should not become fully integrated members of Norwegian society.  This is exactly the same attitude that is preached at every mosque in Europe that has “respect” for itself.  And yet the ICC, like many other mosques that share its theology, was allowed to establish itself in Norway, and in Europe generally, without protest from anybody.  And that’s not all: today it’s one of the largest and most influential so-called faith communities among Norwegian Muslims and has, over the years, received tens of millions of kroner in government support because it is regarded – absurdly – as a purely religious body.

But Europe’s cultural elite is blind to this ugly reality.  On the contrary, that elite, which lives largely off of the dialogue industry – exchanging endless amiable platitudes with Muslim leaders – is all bent out of shape over Switzerland: it views the ban on minarets as an assault on free speech and on freedom of religion; the ban, according to the elite, is an offense against cultural diversity, an expression of intolerance, prejudice, and extremism that will lead to a clash of civilizations.  Not to mention that the ban violates international conventions.

Yet this same elite never gets worked up when Christians are murdered in Pakistan or when their churches and homes are burned down.  Or when women and men are stoned to death in Somalia, or when burka-clad women in Afghanistan are crammed together with goats in the backs of trucks.  Nor do they pay the slightest heed to a woman walking through the streets of Oslo in a burka – a garment that must be described as the clearest possible manifestation of antipathy to Western culture, a powerful statement of complete rejection of the society in which the woman lives.

It is not too much to say, then, that the elite is completely off-balance.  And it’s this lack of balance, this lack of sensible attitudes in the salons of the privileged, this lack of respect for their own culture and for the values on which that culture is founded, that the grass roots are reacting to.  Simply put, ordinary people are sick of being told by their “betters” what to do and think: they want with all their hearts to defend themselves and their own.  Their message is: By all means, come to Europe and become one of us.  But don’t come here to turn our culture and our values upside down. The people have, in short, begun to wake up and to say no to the utopian multicultural dream. For they realize that Norway will no longer be Norway, and the West will no longer be the West, if the country’s essential culture is not preserved; and Christianity is an indissoluble part of that culture.  Whether one is personally religious or not, that’s simply a fact.  If Islam is going to place itself at the heart of our culture, most Norwegians understand that what we now consider Norwegian will be dead and buried.  The only alternative would be a miracle: a revolution within Islam that would place all of Muhammed’s inhumane actions on the ash heap of history and reduce all of his “sacred” legal and political pronouncements to the status of fairy tales like A Thousand and One Nights. Of course, such a revolution would also require an end to all of the violence and hatred preached in the Koran.

For about a millennium, Islam has failed spectacularly to pull off such a revolutionary project.  It’s precisely for this reason that people are pouring out of these failed states (yes, they’re also failed on account of other kinds of ideological despotism, including socialist projects, which when combined with authoritarian, oppressive religion produce something like gunpowder). The big question, however, is this: why should we expect a form of Islam to develop in Europe that is entirely antithetical to the form of Islam found in the Muslim world?

Of course Norway, and Europe as a whole, should not embrace any and every kind of culture or religion that finds its way here.  But where to draw the line?  There is no one answer to this question.  The answer will vary according to the nature of the culture or religion and the strength of the challenge that it represents.  But if we sell out our mainstream culture, and relativize it, accept a watering down of our rights, we may end up with a set of supposedly democratic but in fact empty and meaningless ideals that fail to provide us citizens with a values-related map or compass.  And what can happen in critical situations if the people don’t share a sense of community?  How can we ensure a sense of belonging if, for example, freedom of speech faces a major threat or if we suffer a terrorist attack?  Can we risk having civil war-like conditions, as we is already the case in Europe’s no-go zones?  Democratic order is, above all, a technical and practical matter, and it can thus never replace people’s need for a community, their need to be part of a common culture.

People must, then, have feelings – positive ones – about one another.  Last winter I had a thought-provoking experience on the east side of Oslo on my way home after work.  A thin layer of snow covered the icy streets.  A Somali women dressed in a tent slipped on the ice as I passed her.  Instinctively, I grabbed her and thus managed to prevent what could have been a bad fall, and helped her back to her feet.  I asked if she was okay, but she just hurried on with a completely expressionless look on her face.  Not a single sign of human connection, not a single glance at me.  I stood there feeling empty and alienated.

Awareness of a society’s and a culture’s need for a sense of community seems especially absent from the EU system.  The kind of communal feeling I am talking about contrasts sharply with the multicultural mentality of the pro-EU and antinational forces.  They refuse to understand that a nation’s culture – its folk songs, traditions, holy days, flags, and national anthems – is different from a broad-based constitution based on ideals of equality.  A text, simply put, cannot replace a feeling of community.  A national community with strong survival instincts is founded not on a text but on matters that are close to the heart, on traditions, on things that are palpable, on things as obvious as a common language and a sense of belonging to a fatherland.  And yes, this sense of community also has something to do with the churches and church spires, as well as the church’s rituals and traditions.  The principles that tie people together cannot be legislated by politicians; such bonds call for something more – trust between citizens, national loyalty, a high degree of agreement as to what freedom is and is not, and a broad sense of support for the obligations that a real community demands of its members.

The minarets, then, don’t symbolize community in the European sense – they symbolize the umma, the Muslim community.  They don’t represent loyalty to Norway or Switzerland or any other European country – they represent loyalty to Mecca and to the umma.  They don’t signify freedom, but illiberalism (women’s oppression, the punishment of apostasy with death).  The minarets, in short, embody the antithesis of the Declaration of Human Rights (as is clear to anyone who has read the 1990 Cairo Declaration about so-called “human rights in Islam,” which was formulated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference).  Nor are they, one might add, a part of our architectural tradition or any other Western tradition.  On the contrary, they bear witness to a state of mind that views us, the “others,” as strangers.

The policy of forcing oneself to tolerate something for which one has no sympathy whatsoever will, moreover, only erode the national culture.  Pointing fingers and making moral judgments is not the way to enhance tolerance.

In light of the immigration from the Muslim world, it’s very important for us to be aware of the history of our Western democracy.  It’s not true, after all, that we adopted democracy, with all the magnificent liberal values that accompanied it, and then developed a broad community of the people.  On the contrary, our free society is a historical consequence of a communal society based on trust, a shared culture in which Christianity has naturally played a central role.  Norway would not have managed to come together under our constitution, signed at Eidsvoll in 1814, if the country that produced it had been split along cultural and religious lines.  The people whose representatives met at Eidsvoll were a people who shared essentially the same culture and religion and who could hence agree on the text upon which their nation was to be founded.  The same thing happened when the Puritans settled in New England and built a society that grew into American democracy.  It is actually somewhat odd to think that America owes the liberal democracy enshrined in its founding documents to a group of original settlers whose strong sense of community was based on conservative religion and illiberal traditions.  It is, then, shared cultural norms, and not theoretical or abstract ideals of equality or international conventions, that lead people to stand shoulder to shoulder and to find community together.  A liberal democracy such as that of Norway or Switzerland is not and never has been self-sustaining.

The minaret case, then, can be very critical for Europe’s future.  How many minarets can Europe tolerate before our strong sense of communal connection is dissolved?  What will happen, then, to our democracy’s liberal values and to the social harmony we have enjoyed?  These are questions that most of the political parties in Norway and in a number of other European countries do not wish to address.  As I wrote ^[7]a few days ago, they absolutely refuse to recognize that Islam is an ideology and a social system, a religion of laws – a religion with a political orientation and with political ambitions.   Yet Islam and Christianity are still treated by Norwegian (and European) officials as identical twins.  This misguided way of thinking may end up costing us heavily.  We must learn from the Swiss as quickly as possible – must learn, that is, to face up to, and respond appropriately to, the political and legal realities of the Islamic congregations in our midst.

This essay originally appeared in Norwegian on the website of Human Rights Service, www.rights.no ^[8], and was translated into English by Bruce Bawer.

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/09/will-europe-put-its-foot-down-by-hege-storhaug/print/