What is the Root Cause of Islamic Terrorism?

What is the Root Cause of Islamic Terrorism?

THE HUMAN mind will not allow a condition of “no explanation” — especially of significant events. When something happens, you explain it to yourself. Everybody does. You can’t help it. Events cannot remain unexplained in your mind.

An explanation is an answer to the question, “What caused the event?” Here are three of examples of this principle to demonstrate how it works in different circumstances. But the point is, the mind cannot and will not allow an event to go by without having an explanation for it. If you don’t have enough information, or accurate information, you will explain it the best you can given what you know. Everyone’s mind does this. (Read the three examples if you do not believe this.)

The cause of much of the world’s chaos and violence is what it says in the Qur’an. That’s the source. That’s the cause. That’s where it all started, and that’s what is keeping it going. That is our explanation, and it is accurate.

Many people believe it must be something else. They either don’t know anything about Islam or they refuse to believe the information they’ve gotten about Islam.

So here’s the situation: Big events are happening and each of us must explain it. Those who know nothing about Islam explain the events the best they can given what they have to work with. So they think the government is behind it all, or the Muslims’ actions are merely a reaction to what the western world has done to them, etc.

And people who make these kinds of explanations get lots of support for them, for various reasons. In fact, many of these explanations have come from the Muslim world. Devout, politically-active Muslims are using Mohammad’s original technique of using false pretexts, and those explanations fill the vacuum in many people’s minds, explaining events that are otherwise perplexing.

This is what you’re up against when you try to talk to people about Islam. People already have an explanation for worldwide and historical events. If they accept what you’re saying about Islam, it is not just a new piece of information. It will cause a fairly large shift in a whole body of knowledge for them. It will change their worldview to some extent.

So your approach and your delivery need to be well done. They need to trust you. Your rapport needs to be good. For some people, understanding and accepting what you say will shatter many of their strong beliefs, so they will resist the information and deperately try to invalidate it. That is why it is crucial that you push them to read the Qur’an. For some people, that is the only way they will ever come to believe it. And your insistence on this point will greatly raise their confidence in what you’re saying. They don’t want to believe it, but if you can get them to read the Qur’an, they can slowly but surely come to grips with the new information.

That’s what we need to achieve: A majority of non-Muslims who understand some basic information about Islam. Too few people know. And they will never vote for immigration reform or investigations into mosques or legislation to prevent Sharia law from worming its way into our legal system unless they understand what’s in the Qur’an.

And they will not get this information on their own. It has to impinge on them. So it has to come from someone they know. That probably means you.

Most people only expose themselves to information that matches their worldview. It is uncomfortable to do otherwise. So nothing about basic Islamic teachings can get through to them except in a personal encounter with someone who knows.

You are the key.

Islamic Infiltration: What Can We Do?

Written by Marshall Frank

Wednesday, 16 June 2010 20:53

Right Side News

There’s no better question. Because it means that folks are beginning to wake up and realize that the threat is looming greater and greater with each day. It means, people are ready to start doing something, anything, whatever they can.

It was after 9/11 that I endeavored to begin learning all I could about the threat of radical Islam in the world. And when I dug deep, studying volumes of books by scholars and experts, including Muslims, and hundreds of articles, the hair stood up on my arm.

I realized we – Americans – had not a clue how wide spread and ominous the threat to our nation is. Even scarier, was to learn how little people cared, or how much Americans were in denial.

Today, four years after I published my book, “Militant Islam In America,” much of what I predicted is coming to fruition as the forces of Islamic extremism are succeeding in all their efforts to slowly, but surely, blanket our land with a new government, using our own constitution as a shield of protection, and our own ignorance and naivety as a target for success.

I had predicted that Islam, or its sympathizers, would slowly infiltrate all the infrastructural aspects of our country, including educational institutions, financial institutions, law enforcement, prisons and jails, major businesses, media, the military and the government itself. It has happened, right under our noses. And it’s we who are to blame. We’ve let it happen. We’ve fallen for the ruse. Americans have been duped into believing everything and anything they wanted to hear, while ignoring all the warning signs.

By now, you’ve read scores of my blogs, and hundreds of others. You know the threat. So, we’ll get to the prevailing question: What can we do?

There’s no one single answer. But are some actions you can take as individual citizens:

1) Get Smart. Educate yourself. Knowledge is power. There are scores of books and publications which are written by scholars, experts, mid-east immigrants and Muslim apostates who have all the facts to share, if you’re willing to open your minds to reality. The Internet has many sites and videos which are maintained for the very purpose of educating the public, and it’s all available for free. (I’ll list several at the end of this blog.)

Radical Islam is counting on American ignorance, naivety and stupidity…especially amid the young.

2) Share your education and knowledge with the less educated and knowledgeable. Get the word out to everyone, particularly the skeptics and naysayers who insist on denying the obvious.

Do all you can to present facts and information which can be backed up, not personal opinions.

3) Vote smart. Don’t allow our enemies to gain any more of a foothold in our government. I don’t care if you are Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent (like myself), get “party loyalty” out of your head. Vote the person who will openly stand up to radical Islam, much like Rudy Guilliani did when he refused dirty oil money from a Saudi sheik after 9/11.

4) Get involved. Don’t be afraid. Stand up for your country and the future of America. Brigitte Gabriel maintains an organization called “Act For America” which provides on-line informational material on a constant basis. ACT has organized chapters in every state, where patriotic Americans meet once a month, listen to speakers, discuss strategies and threats and gain the ear of local politicians. There is probably a chapter within driving distance of most readers. Check out the web site:

5) Include your kids and grandkids in the information network. They are the future. They are the kids who will soon be voting. They are the voters who unfortunately gravitate to facade and imagery while ignoring hard facts that will negatively affect their futures. We taught our kids the threats of international Communism back in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. We need to do the same with radical Islam today.

6) Support candidates for office who are unafraid and undaunted by the power of radical Islam, even if they are not from your district. Especially those who will openly name radical Islam as the enemy of the United States, i.e., Lt. Col. Allen West, candidate for congress from West Palm Beach. Rep. Sue Myrick, ( R) of N.C. is among the few who have the guts to stand up and speak the truth. These are the leaders who will make a difference in the nation’s future.

7) Write letters. Swamp letters. (Hard copy letters with stamps – not e-mails) Write regular Letters to the Editor. Letters to any American institutions that pander to, submit to, or take bribe money from Saudi Arabia or radical Islamic extremist organizations. Includes colleges and universities, corporate CEOs, congressmen and senators. Send letters to banks that have partnered with Islam, i.e. Sharia finance. Writer letters to, or publicly expose, tax-supported schools that indoctrinate kids, covertly or overtly, with Islamic teachings… (masked as cultural diversity) to the exclusion of other religions.

8 ) Withhold investments in any organizations, private or public, that support the goals of Islamic jihad. The Saudis, and the Muslim Brotherhood, are geniuses at targeting the greatest weakness of western society: Greed. They know that money buys influence, strengthens their cause and moves mountains. Americans have been all-too-willing to partner with those who would do us harm, all for the love of profit.

9) Expose, Expose, Expose. The Internet is replete with ghastly examples of what Sharia Law will bring to the western world, it’s a matter of sharing that information with as many people as possible. Honor killings, beheadings, homosexual abuse, female abuse, political intimidation, instilling fear, deceit, lies, terror cells and secret Islamic enclaves distributed all over North America, veiled as “religious retreats.”

10) Cleanse the government. While this is covered in Item 3, “Vote Smart,” I cannot stress enough, that the current administration is the best friend Islamic jihad in America has ever had. Volumes have been written that expose Mr. Obama and his closest confidants as chronic capitulators and panderers who suck up to Islam, appointing devout Muslims to high positions within the Homeland Security Department, apologizing for America to the Islamic world, and refusal to allow his minions to specifically identify radical Islam as the source of world terror.

You can’t fight an enemy you’re not willing to identify, and this administration refuses to do that, as does many of the wimp leaders of congress.

That’s some of what we can do as individuals. In a separate blog, I will suggest what the U.S. government can do as an institution.

Meanwhile, the listings below are web sites and books which would be of interest to those willing to learn and/or stay up-to-date:

www.atlasshrugs.com

www.frontpagemag.com

www.steveemerson.com

www.islam-watch.org

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

INFILTRATION –by Paul Sperry

HOLY WAR ON THE HOME FRONT – by Harvey Kushner

THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA – by Adbullah al Araby

MILITANT ISLAM REACHES AMERICA – by Daniel Pipes

ISLAM AND THE JEWS – by Mark Gabriel

INSIDE THE KINGDOM – by Carmen Bin Laden

THE HISTORY OF ISLAM – by Robert Payne

THE INFIDELS – by David Anderson

A HISTORY OF ISLAMIC SOCIETIES – by Ira M. Lapidus

POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO ISLAM by Robert Spencer

AMERICA ALONE – by Mark Steyn

THE PROPHET OF DOOM – by Craig Winn

ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM – by Efraim Karsh

Scharia für Nicht-Muslime – Kapitel 1

Political Islam 16 Juni 2010
Von Bill Warner
Übersetzung: LIZ/EuropeNews

Dies ist ein Kapitel aus einem Buch, das demnächst erscheinen soll: Scharia für Nicht-Muslime. Dieses Buch ist als kurzes Werk konzipiert worden, es hat nur 48 Seiten

Viele Menschen möchten nichts über den Islam wissen, aber aus Erfahrung weiß man, dass sie ein Interesse an islamischem Recht haben könnten. Da es keinen Unterschied macht, welches Ende der Schnur man zuerst anpackt, ist die Scharia ein guter Weg, um etwas über die wahre Natur des Islams zu erfahren.

KAPITEL 1

Die Scharia in Europa heute

Wenn man heute den Islam in Europa betrachtet, dann sieht man, wie Amerika in 20 Jahren aussehen wird. Warum? Die Handlungsweisen der Muslime in Europa basieren auf dem Rechtssystem der Scharia, derselben Scharia die im Begriff ist, in Amerika heute umgesetzt zu werden.

• Der Verkehr kann sich auf den Straßen von London nicht mehr vorwärts bewegen, weil Muslime die Straßen beherrschen um zu beten – ein politisches Ergebnis das auf dem Recht der Scharia basiert.
• Ganze Gegenden Europas sind No-Go-Zonen für Nicht-Muslime, dies gilt auch für die Polizei. Es gibt islamische Enklaven, in denen nur Muslime leben. Der einzige Grundsatz der Muslime basiert auf der Scharia.
• In England verlangt ein anglikanischer Bischof die Scharia für Muslime. Der Bischof befolgt (somit) die Gesetze der Scharia.
• In den Schulen dürfen nur Texte benutzt werden, die in Übereinstimmung mit dem Islam sind. Dies beruht auf den Gesetzen der Scharia.
• Christen dürfen mit Muslimen nicht über das Christentum sprechen oder ihnen Literatur darüber aushändigen. Dies ist ein politisches Ergebnis der Gesetze der Scharia, wie dies auch in britischen Gerichten durchgesetzt wird.
• Vergewaltigungen durch Muslime nehmen derart überhand, dass Schweden nun der Polizei verboten hat, jegliche Daten zu ermitteln, die auf den Islam hinweisen würden. Vergewaltigung ist ein Teil der islamischen Doktrin, die auf nicht-muslimische Frauen angewendet wird.
• In London fordern Muslime auf Massendemonstrationen ein Ende des britischen Rechts, und dass die Scharia bestimmend sein soll für alle Menschen. Diese politische Aktion basiert auf der Scharia.
• In einigen englischen Krankenhäusern können Nicht-Muslime während des Ramadans (ein islamisches religiöses Fest) nicht essen, wenn Muslime dies sehen. Die Unterwerfung von Nicht-Muslimen basiert auf den Gesetzen der Scharia.
• In britischen Krankenhäusern werden muslimische Frauen nur behandelt gemäß den Gesetzen der Scharia.
• Wenn ein Däne in der Nähe eines Muslim steht und sagt, er sei Stolz ein Däne zu sein, dann kann man dies als Hassrede und Rassismus ansehen. Dies ist in Übereinstimmung mit den Gesetzen der Scharia.

Die Scharia im heutigen Amerika

Hier sind einige gegenwärtige und historische Anlässe in Amerika, die von den Gesetzen der Scharia beeinflusst werden:

• Am 11. September 2001 griffen Dschihadisten das World Trade Center an und zerstörten es. Dies ist in Übereinstimmung mit den Gesetzen des Dschihad, die sich wiederum auf die Gesetze der Scharia beziehen. Der Angriff war eine politische Aktion, die auf religiöser Motivation beruht.
• Alle Lehrbücher in Amerika müssen von islamischen Gremien genehmigt werden, die von der Muslimbruderschaft kontrolliert werden. Dies geschieht in Übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz der Scharia.
• Amerikanischen Arbeitgebern und Schulen werden Forderungen gestellt, nach Zeit und einem Raum, um islamische Gebete auszuführen. Diese Forderungen basieren auf dem Gesetz der Scharia.
• Das amerikanische Bankensystem wird islamisiert durch schariakonforme Finanzierungen. Unser Bankensystem gibt dem schariakonformen Finanzrecht nach, ohne den Rest des Schariarechts zu kennen.
• Universitäten werden gebeten Schwimmbäder und andere Einrichtungen zu schließen, um sie ausschließlich muslimischen Frauen zur Benutzung zur Verfügung zu stellen.
• Krankenhäuser werden verklagt, weil sie keine schariakonforme Behandlung anbieten können.
• Kein Seminar auf akademischem Niveau benutzt einen kritischen Denkansatz hinsichtlich Geschichte und Doktrin des Islam. Unter der Scharia darf kein Aspekt des Islam kritisiert werden.
• Muslimische Stiftungen geben Geld an Dschihadisten, gemäß dem Gesetz der Scharia.
• Muslimische Fußbäder werden an Einrichtungen von Flughäfen installiert, bezahlt von Steuergeldern. Dies geschieht in Übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz der Scharia.
• Amerikanische Gefängnisse sind eine Hochburg um zum Islam zu bekehren.
• An Arbeitsstellen werden spezielle islamische Gebetsstätten eingerichtet und spezielle Räume, und es gibt Pausen um zu beten. Dies geschieht in Übereinstimmung mit dem Gesetz der Scharia.
• Islamische Flüchtlinge bringen mehrere Ehefrauen mit nach Amerika, um Sozialhilfe und medizinische Behandlung zu erhalten. Die Behörden reagieren nicht, selbst wenn man ihnen Beweise liefert. Polygamie ist Scharia pur.
• Wir kämpfen in Kriegen in Afghanistan und Irak um Verfassungen zu installieren, die in ihrem ersten Artikel die Vorherrschaft der Schariagesetze vorsehen.

Warum müssen wir die Scharia kennen?

ISLAMISCHE GELEHRTE BEHAUPTEN: Das islamische Gesetz ist perfekt, universell und ewig. Die Gesetze der Vereinigten Staaten sind befristet, begrenzt und vorübergehend. Es ist die Pflicht eines jeden Muslim die Gesetze Allahs, die Scharia, zu befolgen.

SCHARIA: Die Scharia basiert auf Prinzipien, die im Koran niedergelegt sind, sowie in anderen islamischen religiösen/politischen Texten. Es gibt keine gemeinsamen Grundsätze zwischen amerikanischem Gesetz und Scharia.

Unter dem Gesetz der Scharia gibt es:

• Keine Religionsfreiheit
• Keine Redefreiheit
• Keine Gedankenfreiheit
• Keine künstlerische Freiheit
• Keine Pressefreiheit
• Es gibt keine Gleichheit der Menschen – ein Nicht-Muslim, Kafir, ist niemals gleichgestellt mit einem Muslim.
• Keine Gleichen Rechte für Frauen
• Frauen dürfen geschlagen werden
• Ein Nicht-Muslim darf keine Waffen tragen
• Es gibt keinen gleichwertigen Schutz für Menschen verschiedener Schichten unter der Scharia. Das Recht ist dualistisch, eine Reihe Gesetze für die muslimischen Männer, und andere Gesetze für Frauen und Nicht-Muslime
• Unsere Verfassung ist ein von Menschen gemachtes Dokument der Ignoranz, Jahiliyah, das sich der Scharia unterwerfen muss
• Es gibt keine Demokratie, weil dies bedeuten würde, dass ein Nicht-Muslim gleichberechtigt wäre mit einem Muslim
• Nicht-Muslime sind Dhimmis, Bürger dritter Klasse
• Es gibt keine Goldene Regel
• Es gibt keine kritischen Gedanken
• Alle Regierungen müssen durch das Gesetz der Scharia regiert werden

Die Scharia ist, im Gegensatz zum allgemeinen Recht, weder interpretierbar, noch ist sie veränderbar

DIE LÖSUNG

Dieses Buch benutzt einen faktenbasierten Ansatz an die Erkenntnis, und bedient sich analytischer und kritischer Gedanken. Wenn Sie zu Ende gelesen haben werden Sie wissen, was das Gesetz der Scharia genau ist. Wichtiger noch: Sie werden wissen warum die Scharia das ist was sie ist. Sie werden verstehen wie die Scharia „funktioniert“ und warum man sie nicht ändern kann. Zum ersten Mal werden Sie den Islam verstehen. Alles wird einen Sinn ergeben.

Die drei Sichtweisen des Islam

Es gibt drei Standpunkte wie man mit dem Islam umgehen soll. Der Standpunkt hängt davon ab, wie man über Mohammed denkt. Wenn man glaubt, dass Mohammed der Prophet Allahs ist, dann ist man ein gläubiger Mensch. Wenn man es nicht glaubt, dann ist man ein Ungläubiger. Der dritte Standpunkt ist der eines Apologeten des Islam. Apologeten glauben zwar nicht, dass Mohammed ein Prophet war, aber sie versuchen tolerant zu sein ohne eigentlich genau zu wissen was der Islam ist.

Hier ist ein Beispiel für diese drei Sichtweisen

In Medina, hat Mohammed den ganzen Tag neben seiner 12-jährigen Frau gesessen, während sie sich angeschaut haben, wie 88 Juden durch das Schwert geköpft wurden. Diesen wurde der Kopf abgeschnitten, weil sie gesagt hatten, dass Mohammed nicht der Prophet Allahs sei. Muslime sehen diese Morde als notwendig an, denn das Leugnen der Prophetenschaft Mohammeds war ein Angriff gegen den Islam, und Köpfen ist die allseits akzeptierte Art der Bestrafung, sanktioniert von Allah.

Ungläubige betrachten diesen Akt als Beweis der jihadistischen Gewalt des Islams und als böse Tat.

Apologeten sagen, dass dies ein historisches Ereignis war, dass alle Kulturen in ihrer Vergangenheit gewalttätig waren, und dass man darüber kein Urteil abgeben darf. Sie haben niemals tatsächlich irgendetwas aus den grundlegenden Texten des Islams gelesen, sprechen aber immer noch in einer bestimmten Art über den Islam.

Unter diesen drei Gesichtspunkten war der Mord an den 800 Juden:

• Eine Tragödie
• Ein perfekter heiliger Akt
• Nur ein anderes historisches Ereignis. Wir haben Schlimmeres getan.

Es gibt keine „richtige“ Sichtweise des Islams, weil diese Sichtweisen nicht zusammengeführt werden können.

Dieses Buch wurde aus der Sichte eines Ungläubigen geschrieben. Alles in diesem Buch wird betrachtet aus dieser Perspektive, welche Auswirkungen der Islam auf Nicht-Muslime hat. Das bedeutet auch, dass die Religion weniger wichtig ist. Ein Muslim kümmert sich um die Religion Islam, aber alle Ungläubigen sind von den politischen Ansichten des Islams betroffen.

Dieses Buch bespricht den Islam als politisches System. Es gibt keinen Grund über Muslime zu sprechen oder über Religion. Muslime sind Menschen und unterscheiden sich voneinander. Religion ist etwas, das jemand macht, um entweder ins Paradies oder in die Hölle zu kommen. Es ist weder nützlich noch nötig über den Islam als eine Religion zu diskutieren. Aber wir müssen über den Islam auf einer politischen Ebene sprechen, denn er ist ein mächtiges politisches System.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political IslamPermalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

Sam Solomon: What is a mosque?

Watch it and learn!

Thanks to Vlad Tepes

After America, There Is No Place To Go

http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-easlilyhitler-fooled-austrian.html

H/T Infidel Blogger Alliance

By: Kitty Werthmann
What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote.. I’ve never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna, Linz, and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group — Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education – Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag.
Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang “Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,” and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna . After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“Mercy Killing” Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps – Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria . Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria. Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn’t destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn’t, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

“It’s true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away

“After America, There is No Place to Go”

Is Gravity ‘Shirk’?

EuropeNews 06 June 2010
By Henrik R. Clausen

At the 2010 Vienna Forum hosted by EICEE and the Hudson Institute, a very interesting session held by Robert R. Reilly, ”Status of Reason in Islam and Christianity”, illuminated the differences between Islamic and Western logic, differences that has significant implications for the respective world views, and as to what is considered heresy (‘Shirk’) in Islam. This essay is inspired by that session.

The idea that different (valid) kinds of logic can exist (an idea known as polylogism) would seem ridiculous to the modern Western mind. Yet, since the idea does exist and contributes to the formation of a separate Islamic identity, it is worth examining.

Core tenet: Allah’s will is all-pervading, all-upholding

One of the core tenets of Islamic philosophy is that everything in the universe is continously being upheld by Allah. Thus, a stone does not fall to the ground due to (secular) gravity, it falls because it is the will of Allah. Was Allah to change his will, the stone might just as well fly upwards tomorrow, for Allah is considered to be upholder of all things, and thus able to do anything he desires. The implication is that in principle it it futile to search for consistent behaviour and natural laws, for any such laws could be reversed by Allah without notice.

This is a significant difference from the Christian world view, where examining the workings of Creation is encouraged, that we may live life to the fullest extent possible. This difference has manifest consequences, as the Western world has forged ahead in science and technology, while the Islamic world has produced almost no scientific and technological advances, resorting instead to reluctant adaption of Western inventions such as the printing press, television and most recently the Internet, for a free flow of information could seriously undermine the authority of Islamic leaders.

To illustrate this difference, Robert R. Reilly took out a ballpen, let it fall to the table, and asked what was at work here. One participant responded ‘Gravity’, to which another participant Robert Spencer, who is well versed in Islamic thinking, respónded ‘Shirk’, the Islamic name for a preposterous rejecting of Islamic faith. In a genunine Islamic society, this accusation can easily be sufficient ground to halt any further investigation into the curious fact that until now, all objects on Earth have been falling to the ground in a uniformly systematic fashion.

This is unscientific

The idea that Allah continously upholds the existence and behaviour of each object, even each atom, does have some problems. For one, it’s unscientific. The idea does not lend itself to predict anything that can be measured and tested in the real world. Even if an experiment reproduces the same result a thousand times over, this can still be claimed by the Islamic scholar to be an expression of the arbitrary fact that Allah decided to let the experiment give this result a thousand times, and still could change it at his whim at the 1001st execution of it.

Now, Western science also has tools to handle the likelihood that a thousand experiments will, by pure chance, provide the same result every time. For a simple binary experiment, one that gives a result of Yes/No, Up/Down and the like, a thousand results of the same kind occurs with a probability of less than 10 to the power of -300, that is: Practically never. As all simple gravitational experiments on Earth has so far given the result ‘Down’; it remains exceedingly unlikely that we will ever see any practical evidence of the arbitrary will of Allah.

The lack of a mechanism

Experiments aside, there is a wholly different problem with the Islamic view: No mechanism is suggested for how Allah does the actual influencing of all particles in all of the universe at the same time. Surely, at the time of the Islamic scholars, we didn’t have good explanations for electromagnetism, gravity and the other forces of nature, but technology and science has moved on since then. Today, we know that the photon is the carrier of the electric and magnetic forces, that the more exotic nuclear forces, the so-called Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces, are carried by mesons and bosons. While the call is still out with regards to gravity, we have not only one scientifically viable theories, there are two: Either the graviton, which is yet to be found, or a distortion of space-time itself, as suggested by Einstein.

The problem of differentiating Allah from non-Allah

A distinct problem is the difficulty of finding any ‘Allah’ at all. While Allah is claimed to be absolutely trancendent, beyound any concept or limitation, this actually is problematic, for it is another unscientific claim, not subject to any form of test, verification or – most significantly – falsification. Looking at atoms and sub-atomic particles, we find no trace of any kind of god influencing all particles at all times according to his whim.

What we do find is a systematic set of particles, forces and transmutations, which can be described consistently and verified by further experiments. Even the uncertainty introduced at quantum mechanic levels can be described mathematically, as can curvature of space, time, and the behaviour of black holes. No distinct ‘Allah-force’ has yet been detected by the experiments, nor is any distinction of ‘Allah’ and ‘non-Allah’. While we still have to subject the black stone in Mecca for any Allah-traces, it can already now be safely assumed that any ‘Allah’, in any sense distinct from space and matter itself, cannot be found anywhere. This is a significant failure for a supposedly all-pervading god.

The lack of Islamic science

The strange statements of ‘scientific facts’ given in the quran and the hadith, along with Islamic fatalism, has caused a near-complete lack of scientific results in the Islamic world. Singular persons have made some inventions, but relative to the size of the Islamic world, in area as in population, the dearth of results has only one suitable label: Catastrophic Failure

This failure also translates into a failure to provide citizens in Islamic countries better living conditions. With no systematic Islamic science or technology, all progress is based on importing knowledge from the West. For although the fatalism of Islam states in principle that Muslims should be content with the circumstances ‘provided by Allah’, the reality on the ground is that most Muslims prefer the results produced by Western science over the fatalism of Islam, for the simple reason that science and technology provide for less suffering and better living conditions.

Could Islam pick up to speed?

Western science has advanced in strides, while Islamic thinking suffers a thousand years of going nowhere. And how could Islamic thinking even move, no matter how faulty a premise it would move from? If any experimental way was found to test, substantiate or disprove the ideas of the previous Islamic scholars, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The Islamic idea is proven false.
2. The Islamic idea is shown to have some kind of merit.
3. The result is undecisive.

The first case would constitute a devastating blow to Islam, for another tenet is that Islam is flawless. In contrast with the Bible, where any flaws can be attributed to errors on the part of the (divinely inspired) persons who wrote it down, Islamic scripture and law is supposed to be flawless, and a proven flaw would destroy Islamic faith as unfounded and false superstition, replacing it with logic and reason,

The second case is more useful, except that it still would damage faith significantly. For if an item of faith is proven scientifically, it ceases to be faith and becomes knowledge, reducing the value of faith. That would be an open invitation to test more Islamic thinking by the yardstick of science, leading to an endless strings of hazardous experiments, where the failing of even a single one to uphold Islamic ideas again would be potentially devastating. Given the number of such statements in Islamic scripture [examples], this path of experimentation is too dangerous to thread. Each experiment would reduce one or more items of faith with ‘Fact’ or ‘False’, would diminish the area of life ruled by faith, and in turn the authority of Islamic leaders.

Thus, the third case obviously is the most desirable for Islamic scholars. Undecisive results leave the role of faith intact, and the very best way to ensure undecided results is obviously not to perform any experimenting in the first place, keeping the believers in a firm state of ignorance.

The battle between ignorance and freedom

The main tool for doing so is a systematic and widespread enforcement of Islamic rituals in daily life, frequently maintained through threats and intimidation on all levels, from suicide terrorism all the way down to the local society and single families.

And since Islam is perceived as being under attack (an interesting Internet tag line read: ”Islam is a lie, and the truth is killing it”), we can expect this exhortion to intimidation, threats, violence and terrorism to increase, until either Islamic rule is established everywhere, or Islam as a political force is so throughoutly discredited that it collapses.

Upholding a free society, even after the fact of Muslim immigration, requires protection from violent enforcement of religion, that the immigrants may freely choose between the barren faith of their past and the fertile results of logic, science and technology, as in particular the freedom to exchange views without fear, that we will remain able to judge statements on their merits rather than on implausible ‘religious authority’.

Gravity isn’t ‘Shirk’, it is gravity.

And, in contrast to Arabic superstition, it works.

Religion of Peace: Taliban ‘hang 7-year-old boy for spying’

From Jihadwatch

They claimed he was “passing information to foreign soldiers.” “Afghanistan: Taliban ‘hang 7-year-old boy for spying’,” from AdnKronos International, June 9:

Lashkargah, 9 June (AKI): Taliban fighters have hanged a seven-year-old boy, claiming he was passing information to foreign soldiers in the volatile southern province of Helmand, the governor’s spokesman, Daud Ahmadi, told Pajhwok Afghan News.

“Volatile.” And why is that?

The child’s shocking murder took place in the Sarwan Qala area of Sangin district late on Tuesday. The boy, whose name was not immediately known, was abducted from the village of Heratyan, Ahmadi said.

„Die Zukunft Europas und die Islam-Frage”

von ESW

Anfang Mai fand in Wien eine – bedauerlicherweise von der Öffentlichkeit völlig ferngehaltene – hochkarätig besetzte Konferenz zum Thema „Die Zukunft Europas und die Islam-Frage” statt. Laut Veranstalter nahmen an der Konferenz Politiker, Religionsführer, Akademiker und Journalisten teil, wobei die Anzahl ersterer und letzterer äußerst überschaubar war. Auch dies war und ist zu bedauern, da das Thema doch sehr brisant ist; ein Blick in die Tageszeitungen genügt als Bestätigung. Das Publikum bestand ausschließlich aus jungen Menschen aus Osteuropa, Österreicher waren keine dabei.

Die Ankündigung verriet weiters die Ziele:
Der Integrationsprozess des Islam in der europäischen Kultur ist einer der Hauptaspekte des Forums, das vom Educational Initiative for Central and Eastern Europe (EICEE) in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Hudson Institute und „Kairos Journal“ veranstaltet[e]. Das Vienna Forum 2010 [ließ] – als Fortsetzung des höchst erfolgreichen Vienna Forums 2008  –  ebenso spannende wie ergiebige Vorträge und Diskussionen erwarten.

In den zahlreichen Workshops des dreitägigen Forums [standen] Themen wie demokratische Defizite Europas und die Entwicklung des Islam im Westen auf der Tagesordnung. Eine der Expertenrunden beleuchtet[e] die Rolle der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition des Westens und stellt auch die Frage: Was wird Europa letztlich zusammenhalten?

Die Antwort darauf konnte nicht gegeben werden, jedoch konnte Einigkeit erzielt werden, daß ein massives Wiederaufleben der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition einer der wesentlichen Punkte der Rettung sein müßte. „Müßte“, weil die Wächter der neuen Religion namens „Europäische Union“ in keiner Weise daran interessiert sind, sondern alles daran setzen, alles Jüdisch-Christliche aus Europa zu verbannen. Einzig der Islam ist willkommen, da er in Form der islamischen, ölreichen Staaten, d.h. laut der Eurabia-These dafür sorgt, daß Europa keine Öl- und damit Energie-Krise fürchten muß.
Die Liste der Vortragenden, die großteils gut und auf sehr hohem wissenschaftlichen Niveau referierten, findet sich auf der oben verlinkten Website. Besonders erwähnt werden sollen und müssen jedoch drei Teilnehmer, die dem deutschsprachigen Leser vielleicht noch nicht ganz so bekannt ist:

Bat Ye’or, die großartige Wissenschaftlerin, die den Begriff „Eurabia“ geprägt hat. Wikipedia schreibt folgendes über sie:
Ihr wissenschaftliches Spezialgebiet ist die Geschichte und aktuelle Situation nicht-muslimischer Minderheiten, speziell die von Christen und Juden, unter islamischer Herrschaft. Sie arbeitet in einer ganzen Reihe von Büchern und Aufsätzen die Merkmale der Dhimmitude heraus: Darunter versteht man die sozialen Beziehungen zwischen Muslimen und Nichtmuslimen unter den Prämissen der Dhimma, des von der Scharia vorgeschriebenen „Schutzvertrages“. Diese Verhältnisse sind laut Bat Ye’or durch die systematische Diskriminierung der „Kuffar“ (arab.: Nichtmuslime, Ungläubige) geprägt. Der Druck, dem sie jahrhundertelang ausgesetzt waren, dies die These von „Der Niedergang des orientalischen Christentums unter dem Islam“, führte dazu, dass das Christentum in seinen früheren Kerngebieten Nordafrika, Kleinasien und dem Nahen Osten, zur Randerscheinung verkam, und dass seine Anhänger auch heute noch in einer Situation permanenter Diskriminierung und latenter Bedrohung leben.

Bat Ye’ors zweites großes Thema sind ihre Thesen zum politischen Begriff Eurabia. Sie entwickelt in „Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis“ die These, die politischen Eliten der Europäischen Union arbeiteten spätestens seit 1973 systematisch auf die Verschmelzung Europas mit der arabischen Welt hin und nähmen dabei die Islamisierung Europas, nicht zuletzt auch die Vernichtung Israels, zumindest billigend in Kauf.

Was Wikipedia interessanterweise verschweigt, ist, daß sie in wissenschaftlichen Kreisen sowohl in Europa als auch in den USA völlig ignoriert, ja sogar negiert wird. Ihre Eurabia-These, der sogenannte Euro-Arabische Dialog, wird sogar als Verschwörungstheorie gesehen, obwohl es genügend Beweise gibt. Ein Beispiel dafür im folgenden:

Rom (OTS) – Heute wurde der vormaligen Bundesministerin für europäische und internationale Angelegenheiten, Abgeordnete zum Nationalrat und Sonderbeauftragte für internationale Frauenfragen, Botschafterin Dr. Ursula Plassnik, der ihr von der „Fondazione Mediterraneo“ zuerkannte „Premio Mediterraneo Diplomazia 2009-2010″ feierlich überreicht. An der Preisverleihung nahmen der österreichische Botschafter in Rom sowie Vertreter der italienischen Regierung und der Stadt Neapel teil.

Botschafterin Plassnik wurde für ihre Bemühungen um die Förderung des europäisch-arabischen Dialogs unter aktiver Einbindung der Zivilgesellschaft ausgezeichnet. Insbesondere die in Wien im Dezember 2008 auf ihre Initiative abgehaltene europäisch-arabische Ministerkonferenz unter Beteiligung von fast 200 VertreterInnen der Zivilgesellschaften, stellte einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Stärkung der Partnerschaft auf politischem, wirtschaftlichem, sozialem und kulturellem Gebiet zwischen den Ländern Europas und der arabischen Welt dar. Der Dialog der Kulturen hat in ihrer Amtszeit eine besondere Stärkung und Intensivierung in der österreichischen Außenpolitik erfahren. Botschafterin Plassnik setzt sich insbesondere für die Stärkung von Frauenrechten und ihrer Präsenz im öffentlich-politischen Leben, die Einbeziehung religiöser Autoritäten in den gesellschaftspolitischen Dialog, wie auch für eine auf den allgemeinen Menschenrechten (welche Menschenrechte?, Anm.) basierende und gelebte Vielfalt der Kulturen und Religionen als Grundpfeiler der Demokratie ein.

Die Eurabia-These sei jedem interessierten Leser dringend ans Herz gelegt. Ein Verständnis dieser These klärt so einiges an Fragen auf, vor allem aber, weshalb Europa sich in der heutigen Lage befindet und wieso sich das Straßenbild in vielen europäischen Metropolen derart (rasant) verändert. Ein Abriß auf Deutsch findet sich hier.

Der vom bekannten norwegischen Blogger Fjordman sehr lesenswerte kritische Aufsatz bezüglich Eurabia findet sich hier.
Bat Ye’ors Bücher über Eurabia, Dhimmitude und dem Untergang des orientalischen Christentum, von denen jedoch nur eines in deutscher Sprache erhältlich ist, sind ebenfalls sehr lesenswert. Sie sind problemlos über Amazon erhältlich.
Hier findet sich das Video ihrer Rede (in englischer Sprache) in Wien.

David Littman, Bat Ye’ors Ehemann, ein Historiker und Menschenrechts-Aktivist, der seit Jahrzehnten den UNO-Menschenrechtsgremien einiges an Kopfzerbrechen bereitet. Seine Frau und er arbeiten unermüdlich daran, den Mitgliedsstaaten des UNO-Menschenrechtsrates – Bahrain, Ägypten, Saudi Arabien, etc. etc – Menschenrechte zu erklären. Ein schwieriges, gar unmögliches Unterfangen. Herr Littman wird in Sitzungen des sogenannten Human Rights Councils regelmäßig von Staaten mit fragwürdigem Menschenrechtsstatus gemaßregelt, vor allem, wenn er die Scharia,  Mädchenbeschneidungen, Christophobie oder Judeophobie anspricht. Hier eines der vielen Videos eines „Auftritts“ von David Littman bei den Vereinten Nationen in Genf (März 2010).

Beim Vienna Forum in Wien berichtete David Littman über die neuesten Verrücktheiten des Human Rights Council, einer im Jahr 2006 gegründeten UNO Institution von 47 Mitgliedsstaaten für die „Verteidigung und Förderung von Menschenrechten weltweit“, die als solche auch (wie bei diesen Veranstaltungen üblich) Empfehlungen im Hinblick auf Verfehlungen aussprechen kann. Die Bekämpfung von Islamophobie wird im Human Rights Council hochgehalten, während Christophobie und Judeophobie sowie Menschenrechtsverletzungen an Christen und Juden negiert werden.

Hier der Link für das Video seines Vortrages in Wien, eben falls in englischer Sprache.

Last, but not least muß auch Robert Spencer erwähnt werden. Wikipedia schreibt über ihn:
Robert Spencer (* 1962) ist ein US-amerikanischer Schriftsteller und Religionswissenschaftler. Er hat bisher insgesamt fünf Bücher veröffentlicht, in denen er sich vor allem mit dem Islam und dem Dschihad auseinandersetzt. Robert Spencer ist der Gründer und Leiter der Webseiten JihadWatch und Dhimmiwatch.
In seinen aktuellen Arbeiten stellt Spencer folgende Thesen auf:

• Wegen seiner frühen Geschichte und der Ereignisse im Leben von Mohammed sieht er im Islam eine höhere Neigung zur Gewalt als bei anderen Weltreligionen wie Christentum, Judentum und Hinduismus.
• Der Koran müsse im Kontext mit den Hadithen (die Überlieferungen aus dem Leben Mohammeds) und der frühen Geschichte des Islam gelesen werden, um die Motive von islamischen Extremisten wie Osama bin Laden und extremistischen Organisationen wie al-Qaida zu verstehen.
• Er bezeichnet Dschihad als zentrale Verpflichtung eines jeden Moslem. Moderne muslimische Theologen hätten viele Dinge als Dschihad bezeichnet: Den Kampf innerhalb der Seele, den Glauben gegen Kritik zu verteidigen, seine Ausbreitung und seine Verteidigung finanziell zu unterstützen, sogar in nicht-muslimische Länder einzuwandern mit der Absicht, den Islam zu verbreiten. Gewalttätiger Dschihad sei dabei eine Konstante islamischer Geschichte.
• Islamischer Fundamentalismus sei von einer völlig anderen Natur als Fundamentalismus in Christentum oder Judentum. Modernes Christentum und Judentum würden extrem gewalttätiges Verhalten innerhalb ihrer eigenen Reihen verurteilen. Dazu nennt er folgende Beispiele:
  • Christen seien gegen Abtreibung, aber wenn ein Christ versuche, Bomben oder Gewalt zu benutzen, um Abtreibung zu stoppen, bestehe in der Gemeinschaft der Christen keine Sympathie für ihn.
  • Dagegen würden sich viele moderate Moslems weigern (zumindest öffentlich), extremistische Moslems zu kritisieren, da die Wurzeln des islamischen Extremismus im Koran liegen würden. Im Interesse der politischen Korrektheit werde islamischer Extremismus ignoriert, kleingeredet oder missverstanden.
• Er sieht „keinen klaren Unterschied zwischen friedlichen und gewalttätigen oder moderaten und radikalen Moslems“.
• Er bezeichnet den Islam als eine wachsende Herausforderung für die christliche Kirche. Der islamische Glaube sei heute der wichtigste und engagierteste Rivale der Kirche um die Seelen.

Robert Spencer, den ich schon seit 2007 kenne und dessen Bücher mich und viele andere über die wahren Hintergründe des Islam aufklärte und zu weiteren Studien animierte, ist einer der bekanntesten Analytiker des Islam, vor allem in englischen Sprachraum. Leider ist bis dato keines seiner Bücher in deutscher Sprache erschienen. Allerdings hat sich anonymer Übersetzer die Mühe gemacht, Spencers wahrscheinlich wichtigstes Buch- The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) – in die deutsche Sprache zu übertragen. Dafür ist diesem Übersetzer aufrichtig zu danken.
HIER PIG-Islam[1]_deutsch_RS

Was Robert Spencer besonders auszeichnet, ist seine Fähigkeit, die komplexen Materien des Islam wissenschaftlich fundiert, aber für den nicht-wissenschaftlich ausgebildeten Leser zu präsentieren. Seine Vorträge sind leicht verständlich, auch für Laien, auch für diejenigen, die Englisch „nur“ passiv beherrschen.

Hier ein Video mit Robert Spencer mit deutschen Untertiteln.

Hier findet sich sein in Wien gehaltener Vortrag.

Am Ende dieser mehrtägigen Veranstaltung zeigte ich Bat Ye’or, David Littman, Robert Spencer und Henrik Clausen einige Highlights des (noch) wunderschönen Wien, unter anderem die Sobieski-Kirche auf dem Kahlenberg, die Michaelerkirche und den Heldenplatz.

Bat Yeor u. Robert Spencer

Making the World Safe for Apostasy

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Making the World Safe for Apostasy

by Baron Bodissey

Even if he is not strictly speaking a Muslim, President Barack Hussein Obama has an Islamic background and is a famous sympathizer with Islam. He received an Islamic education as a child in Indonesia, and seems to identify with Muslims when implementing what passes for his foreign policy.

Modern American policy towards Islam — especially that subset of Islam which avowedly intends to destroy the United States and the rest of the West in the name of Allah — went though several stages of development. It began as avoidance under Bill Clinton, escalated to denial under George “The Religion of Peace” Bush, and has now reached its full flower under the Obama administration. If the country continues on its present course, it is headed for full Islamization and cultural dhimmitude.

We have reached a point where nobody in public life who values his career prospects dares to mention the word “Islam” in connection with terrorism or mob violence. “Jihad” has officially been ruled out of the lexicon by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The word “terrorism” itself is discouraged, because too many people have come to associate it in their minds with Islam, for some strange reason.

We are so far down the rabbit hole that returning to a state of denial would be an improvement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
In her book The Death of the Grown-Up, Diana West examines the cultural infantilization which has allowed the West to become such easy prey for Islamic expansionism. A suicidal policy of mass immigration driven by the ideology of Multiculturalism leverages the demographic advantage of Muslims, but to guarantee an Islamic ascendancy we had to abandon “discrimination” and all the other virtues that formerly guided Western Civilization.

Ms. West was writing in 2007, before the Husseinization of America, but everything she said in her book is even more relevant today than it was back then. In her final chapter she gets to the heart of the matter:

In retrospect — namely, post-9/11 — it seems odd that these terrorists have always been called “Arab terrorists,” or “Arab Palestinian terrorists,” and have never been labeled according to the animating inspiration of their religion as “Muslim” terrorists. Such coyness has buried a relevant part of the story: the Islamic context. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, it was Muslim terrorism that had come to Europe, and, as a result, Jews were worshipping, if they dared, at their own fearsome risk.

And not just Jews. By now, the same fearsome risk extends to whole populations, in houses of worship and the public square alike. After reading Bat Ye’or, I realized that the now-familiar strategies of fearsome-risk management — guns around the synagogue, for example — represents a significant capitulation. The security ring around the synagogue — or the airport ticket counter, the house of parliament, or the Winter Olympics — is a line of siege, not a line of counter-attack. The threat of violence has become the status quo, and, as such, is incapable of sparking outrage, and is certainly not a casus belli. Guns at the synagogue door — or St Peter’s Basilica, or the Louvre — symbolize a cultural acquiescence to the infringement of freedom caused by the introduction — better, the incursion — of Islam into Western society. Thus, dhimmitude — institutional concessions on the part of non-Muslim populations to Islam — has arrived in the West.

– – – – – – – – –

And it’s here in the U.S. of A., as well. Brandishing automatic weapons, police and soldiers patrol our cities, our buses, our banks, our institutions, our subways, our trains, our stadiums, our airports to prevent specifically Islamic violence. This, lest we forget, is a situation unparalleled — unimagined — in our history. Official Washington has become an armed camp. No longer does traffic stream down Pennsylvania Avenue past the White House; the historic street is now a cement-dump-lined “plaza” blocked off by retractable security stumps. The Capitol, meanwhile, sits behind a hamster-cage Rube Goldberg might have designed, its grand staircases blocked, and metal posts — called “bollards,” I recently learned — bristling down the sidewalks. The fact is, we are living in a state of siege. After 9/11, the United States embarked on an open-ended war against Islamic terrorism, with varying degrees of foreign cooperation. But even as we fight abroad, we simultaneously assume the status of victims at home, surrendering our bags and purses for security searches, erecting aesthetics-destroying metal detectors, transforming our ennobling vistas and public halls into militarized zones under 24-hour-surveillance. This is necessary, we understand, for public safety: But is it the new “normal”? Or do we ever get Pennsylvania Avenue back? Do we ever get to make that mad dash down the airport concourse onto a plane just pushing off from the gate again? (This was an odd, if recurring point of pride of a family friend who used to time his drive from Kennebunkport, Maine, to Logan Airport with perilous precision). Don’t hold your breath; these homeland defenses sprouting up across the country look and feel like they’re here for good.

In this seemingly permanent climate of fear, then, ignoring genuine heroes — our exemplars of such adult virtues as bravery and sacrifice, honor and duty — is more than a cultural matter of infantile vanity. It is a security risk. “By our focus on victimization,” Crossland writes, “we have adopted our enemies’ standard of measure, and are handing them a victory.” It’s a psychological victory, of course, not a strategic one; but this, above all, is a psychological war.

As a people, then, we begin to make choices predicated on our new siege mentality, choices that a free people — free from fear, and, I would add, free from dhimmitude — would never make.

I’m old enough to remember when you could just walk into Dulles Airport and ride the escalator up to the observation deck to watch the planes take off and land. No one had to pass through metal detectors or have his bags searched. Departing passengers were advised to get to the terminal twenty minutes — twenty minutes! — before their flights were due to board.

I suppose we can credit the new security regimen for the lack of successful terrorist attacks since 9-11 — even though the Lap Bomber and the Shoe Bomber demonstrate that luck and alert civilians have also played an important part. But nobody should confuse the current situation with victory. A victory would have consisted of reducing half the Middle East and South Asia to rubble, and then installing compliant dictators of our own choosing in the half that remained. I can guarantee you that if we had chosen such a path, taking a plane out of Dulles would not be the grueling ordeal that it is today.

We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and it wasn’t just the jihad that brought about our current debased state of fearfulness. Cuban terrorists — remember them? — started the hijacking fad back in the seventies. By the time the mujahideen deployed their forces on the information battlespace, it had already been softened up by the Marxists, cultural and otherwise.

Our collective fear and cowardice took decades to mature, and we are now living with the predictable results, as Ms. West so lucidly describes:

Standing around Logan Airport last summer with some time to kill, I watched crowds of travelers winnow down to single file in order to pass through a phalanx of metal detectors, dutifully unstrapping wristwatches, dropping off keychains, and removing their shoes. They were, of course, cooperating with airport “screeners” charged with determining whether any of them had secretly bought a ticket to paradise — not the Pearly Gates one, but the 72 Virgins kind — and not some earthbound destination. I wondered whether these low-level indignities would get passengers home safe and sound, or whether they would require body bags, burn masks and prosthetics to reach their final destination. It was shortly after the London Underground bombings (7/7, 7/25), and it seemed like an open question. As this final line of defense against murder-in-the-skies deployed, I wondered when the arsenal would also include those high-tech scopes and scanners we read about that are designed to identify retinas and fingerprints; and I thought how strange it was that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.

Notice I said “Islam.” I didn’t say “Islamists.” Or “Islamofascists.” Or “fundamentalist extremists.” Or “Wahhabism.” Except for Wahhabism — an overly narrow term for the jihadism that permeates all schools of Islam, not just this infamous Saudi one — I think I’ve tried out all the other terms in various columns since 9/11, but I’ve come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so. In their amorphous imprecision, they allow us to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it “moderately” tolerates, or “extremistly” advances jihad — with the West. Worse than its imprecision, however, is the evident childishness that inspires this lexicon, as though padding “Islam” with extraneous syllables (“ism,” “ist” “ofascist”) is a shield against PC scorn of “judgmentalism”; or that exempting plain “Islam” by criticizing fanciful “Islamism” or “Islamofascism” puts a safety lock on Muslim rage — which, as per the Danish cartoon experience, we know explodes at any critique. Such mongrel terms, however, keep our understanding of Islam at bay.

Diana West has put her finger on the essence of the problem. The taboo against discussing the nature of the Islamic threat is part and parcel of the universal childishness of modern American society. We don’t want to look at the heart of the problem because what we might see is too awful to contemplate. It’s scary and icky and would force us to make choices that almost none of us are ready to face.

So we’re putting it off. We say, “Eeewwww! Gross!” and push it away from ourselves. We wait for Daddy to come home and make it all go away.

But the grown-ups aren’t going to take care of it. There aren’t any grown-ups left anymore, at least not within the cloistered precincts of those who make and implement public policy in Western countries. The kids are running the show.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Just for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that instead of the limp-wristed milquetoasts who man our present governments, the real grown-ups — people like Diana West and Mark Steyn and Col. Allen West and Bat Ye’or — were in charge of dealing with the Islamic threat. What would they do differently?

To start with, they wouldn’t rule out any terminology or body of description when studying the enemy. They’d examine the stated doctrines of those who are trying to kill us, and would take them at their word.

By doing so they would learn that our enemies publicly state that they make war on us in the name of Allah, in order to impose Islamic law on the entire world. They do this because their scripture requires it — it is written down quite clearly in the Koran, the hadith, and the sunna — and all four major schools of Sunni Islamic law, as well as Shi’ite doctrine, describe violent jihad as a duty for all Muslims.

They would come to realize that Islam is not just a religion — and perhaps not even primarily a religion — but a specific totalitarian political doctrine with violence at its core.

A reasonable investigation would reveal that the command to subjugate the infidel through violence is not “extremist”. It’s not a “fringe doctrine”. Islam has not been “perverted” or “hijacked” by those who practice violent jihad. Violence lies at the very core of Islamic doctrine, and Islam itself has told us that repeatedly, if only we would listen.

I’ve been blogging the Counterjihad for almost six years now, and during that time I’ve been watching for evidence that Islam has the capacity to reform itself. I long to see a demonstration that there really is an alternative to “extremism”. I’ve been patiently drumming my fingers, waiting for the “moderate Muslim” to appear and take charge.

And, throughout those six years, whenever I thought I’d found a “moderate”, it always turned out to be some brave soul who was raised as a Muslim but no longer believes in Islam. Virtually every “moderate” is an apostate in all but name.

It’s a hard fact to face, but anyone who truly believes in what is written in the Koran either fights jihad in the name of Allah, or supports those who do.

This is the crux of the problem, but it also offers a solution: the way to encourage “moderate” Islam is to create a space in which people can abandon their belief without risking their lives. Millions — perhaps hundreds of millions — of Muslims are ready to leave Islam, but they are justifiably afraid for their lives if they do so.

We need to make the world safe for apostasy.

But first we have to man up. It takes guts to say the forbidden words:

“The problem is Islam.”

There! That wasn’t so bad, was it? Don’t you feel better now?

It is incumbent upon us to look at the situation clearly and realistically, even if it leads to grim and alarming conclusions about the nature of what is facing us. Several decades of dire consequences lie ahead, no matter what we do.

Whether we decide to hide under the bed and whimper, or grab a shotgun and confront him, the intruder is already in the house.

It’s time to start acting like grown-ups.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/06/making-world-safe-for-apostasy.html

The EU and Its Likely Breakup

May 24, 2010 4:30 AM
by Herbert I. London

Euro skeptics knew what few would admit about the European Union: the fractures in the union now apparent were there all along merely waiting for one crisis to make them evident.

With demonstrations over tough austerity measures in Greece, the E.U. is experiencing the first of what could be a host of violent reactions across the continent. In a sense, Greece is the canary in the mineshaft, foreshadowing what might occur in Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland.

In recent conversations in Austria, the typical response is “Why should we bail out the Greeks for their profligacy?” And this is the typical German response as well. The Germans were willing to be an underwriter of the Greek bailout, as long as the IMF was a major partner. But borrowing costs for Europe’s most vulnerable countries are soaring and the euro’s value is plummeting. E.U. officials warn of “high uncertainty” surrounding the region’s economic recovery. Despite a $141 billion rescue package offered to the Greek government, it is not clear this sum will cauterize the problem or stop its spread elsewhere.

It is instructive that pensioners took to the Athenian streets in protest against financial retrenchment. In news interviews, the point was often made that these aging citizens saved for retirement and counted on a pension during retirement. Now they find themselves in a financial quagmire they did not create.

Should Spain, with an economy considerably larger than Greece, face similar economic pressure – a condition that seems inevitable – Europe could face an unprecedented banking crisis. While the bailout could help Greece and might be needed for Spain, it is already widening the divide between Europe’s southern area where the financial problems are concentrated, and the northern tier, which contains most of the industrial exporters best positioned to take advantage of a weak euro.

Some European economists contend that devaluation will serve as a spur for exports, growth and a return to balance-of payments equilibrium. But this scenario overlooks the fact that 27 euro-zone countries are inextricably linked to the euro, which militates against individual trade strategies. What might be desirable for Sweden could be undesirable for Spain. This is the E.U. dilemma.

Bailouts come with prescriptions, specifically deep austerity cuts to compensate for generous government hand-outs. However, this measure has sparked, and probably will spark, social anger wherever it is applied. While Greece has been in the forefront of this financial crisis, the IMF has raised the possibility that Spain could be next on the path to insolvency. It is estimated that a bailout for Spain could cost five times the sum allocated for Greece. According to Mark Kirk, a U.S. congressman on the committee that oversees financing for the IMF, “that amount of money is far more than is available to lend.”

One Vienna merchant described the crisis personally and poignantly: “I do not feel any responsibility to assist a welfare recipient in Barcelona or Lisbon.” Whether he feels responsibility or not, the E.U. locks him into a confederation that imposes a level of responsibility. That union cannot continue if the taxes in industrial areas rise to assist nations that are, or soon may be, insolvent. The complication of regional multiplication is that it penalizes the strong members of the union so that they can assist weak members. By any political calculation this is an unsustainable arrangement.

When the E.U. falls victim to these centrifugal forces is difficult to say; in my judgment, it will happen, and with it, the euro will be a casualty as well, returning Western Europe to its traditional status as a continent with individual states, languages, histories and economic conditions.