Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for September, 2010


Posted by paulipoldie on September 28, 2010

When the idea is to integrate into the local culture, immigration, regardless of the background proceeds rather smoothly in spite of all the initial bumps in the road. Speaking as an immigrant to Finland, the TT can attest to the difficulties, but nothing is impossible if there’s determination and the will to accept the host state’s culture and and at least most of its values.
Here’s a story from the GOV’s own correspondent in Austria, AMT, concerning the “experience of ordinary Austrian parents with the much-touted advantages of Multiculturalism in primary education.” AMT offers a window on the stark, noticeable differences between immigrant groups, according to their desire to accept Austrian society.
One group of immigrants are in desperate demand for interpreters so that teachers can communicate with their children in school, while the other group of immigrants already have children fully fluent in the Austrian-German language, with no ‘language’ problems at all. KGS

NOTE: Same problem here in Finland as well.

The Joys of a Multicultural Education

by AMT

There is cultural enrichment and there is Cultural Enrichment. To explain this, my friend told me the following story:

Vienna is the city of multiculturalism in the old, positive sense. It was a melting pot, heartily inviting those who wanted to settle in this city in order to work, enrich it — again, in the old meaning of the word — and a great majority of them did. “They” being Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, refugees from neighboring countries when Communism was at its most threatening. The war in Balkans altered this enrichment dramatically: in the 1990s, the face of Vienna started to change. It wasn’t yet noticeable except by the most watchful people. And this is when Cultural Enrichment began. Crime rates roared, as did rape rates and “honor” murders.
My friend told me this story because her daughter, Marie, started first grade a couple of weeks ago. Marie cannot attend the public school near her house ever since her mother — on her way out from the voting booth located in a first grade classroom — saw that school children were taught Arabic. As a result, Marie’s parents chose a nearby Catholic school, which charges a hefty €145 a month, but which, according to the headmistress, does not accept non-Christians, with miniscule exceptions made for atheists.

Imagine my friend’s surprise when on the first day of school she heard the names of Marie’s classmates during roll call. Imagine also her surprise when she heard some of the parents talking with their children. The languages she heard included English, French, and Dutch. Henry’s parents are from Connecticut; Viktoria’s mom is from Texas, her father from Germany; Lily’s parents are Dutch. This is what she calls enriching: Viktoria is sitting next to Marie, thus allowing Marie to practice her English. Viktoria’s German is flawless. And this is what separates cultural enrichment from Cultural Enrichment: some these kids may be considered “immigrants”, but they speak the local language, as do their parents, and this allows the teacher to teach the curriculum without any “language” problems.

Posted in Österreich, E.U., Islamization | Leave a Comment »

The “Islamophobia” Weapon

Posted by paulipoldie on September 28, 2010

The “Islamophobia” Weapon

Posted 09/28/2010 ET

“The Muslim world is going through an unprecedented difficult and trying time,” said the Secretary General of the 56-state Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, on Friday.

One might reasonably have thought that he was referring to the recent increase in violent jihad incidents in the West, perpetrated by Muslims who explained and justified their actions by reference to Islamic texts and teachings. But no, Ihsanoglu was exercised about “Islamophobia,” the invented term Islamic supremacists use to try to stifle realistic analysis of the global jihad in all its manifestations.

“We are facing daunting challenges and severe hardships,” Ihsanoglu complained. “Islam and Muslims are under serious attack, and Islamophobia is growing and becoming more rampant and dangerous by the day.”

It is not at all established that “Islamophobia” really is growing. In fact, the FBI has recently released data establishing that hate crimes against Muslims are comparatively rare. But if there is any actual suspicion of or negative feelings toward Muslims in the United States, it is solely and wholly the responsibility of Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood jihadist; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas underwear jihadist; Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and murdered another in a jihad shooting outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark.; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square jihadist; Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden on 9/11; the London jihad bombers of July 7, 2005; and so many others.

Yet Ihsanoglu, with an evasion of responsibility that is characteristic of Islamic supremacists, pretends that non-Muslims are growing more suspicious of Muslims and Islam not because of this, but because of some gratuitous bigotry. This is a tried and tested tactic, designed precisely to divert attention from Islamic jihad attacks and to shame and discredit those who would dare stand up to jihad (both violent and stealth) and Islamic supremacism in the West.

Without any reference to the pandemic of jihad violence either in the U.S. or worldwide, Ihsanoglu referred instead to a “pandemic of Islam vilification” in the U.S. and Europe, and declared: “We need an all inclusive effort of OIC member states to stem this menace. That is why I firmly believe that this question of Islamophobia should figure prominently on the agenda of all OIC member states whenever they deal with their Western counterparts.”

What Ihsanoglu and the OIC want Western states to do is limit the freedom of speech regarding Islam and jihad. In 2008 he issued a dictatorial warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

Since then he has encountered success beyond his wildest dreams, for the Obama Administration has extended and broadened the Bush policy of refraining from speaking about Islam and jihad in connection with acts of Islamic jihad terrorism. The absurdity of this policy reached its apex with the official report on the Fort Hood massacre, which blithely ignored Nidal Hasan’s clear, public, and repeated adherence to Islamic jihad doctrine, his cries of “Allahu akbar” as he committed his murders, and his passing out of Korans on the morning of his massacre.

Ihsanoglu is coming to Chicago for a conference with leaders of Hamas-linked groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The mainstream media will almost certainly overlook the principal importance of the conference, and its anti-free speech agenda, and will report uncritically about the rise in “Islamophobia” and the fears among Muslims of a “backlash.” There will be no discussion at this conference of how to prevent or even limit the spread of the jihad ideology among Muslims—in other words, there will be no attempt to attack the actual causes of “Islamophobia.”

In less Orwellian times, that would be revealing enough for anyone to see how the Organization of the Islamic Conference and its allies are using charges of “Islamophobia” as a weapon to advance the jihad no less unmistakably than Osama bin Laden did on September 11, 2001.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad (both from Regnery—a Human Events sister company) and most recently coauthor of Pamela Geller’s The Post-American Presidency (Simon & Schuster).

Human Events

Posted in Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »

Why Did President Jefferson Read the Quran?

Posted by paulipoldie on September 28, 2010

From Citizen Warrior

WHEN KEITH Ellison was sworn into office as a congressman, he wanted to swear on a Quran instead of a Bible, so they used Thomas Jefferson’s Quran, which they borrowed for the occasion from the Library of Congress. The story behind Jefferson’s Quran, and what he did with it, is an instructive look at the power of accurate knowledge.

It began before Jefferson was president. He was then the American ambassador to France, and he was disturbed by what was happening in the Mediterranean. For centuries, the “Barbary Coast Pirates” had been raiding ships passing through the Mediterranean. These were not “pirates” in the sense that we usually think of them. They weren’t rogue agents acting independently. They worked for the governments of the North African countries. They would steal the ship and return to their countries, confiscating the booty aboard the ship, most of which added to the wealth of the Islamic state. They also took the ship’s crew members captive and ransomed the ones they could. Most of that money also went to the Islamic government. The crew who could not be ransomed were sold into slavery.

In addition, these “pirates” randomly raided towns on the coasts of Europe and captured people, bringing them back to North Africa to ransom or sell into slavery. They even came so far as the shores of America to capture settlers, to bring them back to Africa to ransom or sell. They especially prized young women and children who could be used as concubines or made into eunuchs. Over a million Europeans and Americans were sold into slavery during the 200-year reign of the Muslim “Barbary Coast” rulers.

Many European countries wanted this to stop, of course, to which the leaders of the North African countries replied, “All you have to do is pay us a certain amount of money annually, and we will not attack ships from your country.” Many European countries paid the tribute. It was cheaper than going to war. Of course, that was a short-term, self-defeating solution, since paying the tribute made the North African Muslim countries more powerful and more capable of terror, plunder, and mayhem.

The United States was paying this tribute also. This bothered Jefferson. It just so happened that while he was an ambassador in France, Jefferson met with John Adams (then the American ambassador to Britain) and together they two men met with the ambassador from Tripoli (one of the North African Muslim pirate countries). Jefferson and Adams sat down to talk with this man. They asked him why Tripoli attacked ships. Why attack the United States? They had no previous interactions. Why the hostility? Why did they choose America as an enemy?

The Tripoli Muslim ambassador was very straightforward. He said, basically, “That’s what we do. We are commanded to do so by Allah.” Jefferson later wrote that the Tripoli ambassador told him, “It was written in their Koran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman (Muslim) who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.”

Completely taken aback by this revelation, Jefferson decided to look into the matter further, and did the one thing everyone should do: He read the Quran. He learned what Islam was about.

And when he became president, he formed the United States Navy, created the Marine Corps, sent them to the shores of Tripoli, and soundly defeated the Muslim warriors. This brought an end to the “Barbary Coast Pirates.” This was the first foreign war fought by the U.S. and military aggressiveness of Islamic countries remained contained and weakened for over a century.

It’s amazing what a little accurate information can do.

Read more: Thomas Jefferson’s Quran.

And for goodness sake, Take the Pledge to read the Quran yourself and convince everyone you know to do the same.

Posted in Islam, Islamization, Mission Europa, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Preparing for the Universal Ummah

Posted by paulipoldie on September 27, 2010

Preparing for the Universal Ummah

by Baron Bodissey

As has often been discussed in this blog, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the worldwide clearinghouse for political Islam. This makes the OIC the linchpin of the Ummah, and thus the enabler and promoter of the Great Jihad. More than any other Islamic entity, the OIC merits the closest scrutiny of the Counterjihad.

In an article today in The American Thinker, Bat Ye’or has composed a succinct summary of the history, mission, and significance of the OIC. She begins with this overview:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Ms. Ye’or also points out what has often been noted here: the OIC is the nascent Caliphate, ready to re-establish what was abolished in 1924. It’s also obvious that Turkey is lining up for the privilege of hosting the new Caliph, thus re-establishing the Ottoman Empire at the same time.

By characterizing Muslim violence all over the world as “legitimate resistance”, the OIC supports jihad against non-Muslims in its various manifestations. This is a logical extension of the OIC’s assertion that its mandate extends to all Muslims, including those who form a minority within non-Muslim countries.

This extraterritorial ambition — to influence legal and political doings in countries where such matters are none of its business — is characteristic of political Islam. In this enterprise the OIC is aided and abetted by cowardly Western leaders, who are only too willing to grant the concessions sought by the Muslim Brotherhood.

As Ms. Ye’or says:

The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari’a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.

Islamic law is a danger not only to the Copts in Egypt, the Baha’i in Iran, and the Maronites in Lebanon. It menaces all non-Muslims everywhere, because the craven and/or bespoke elected leaders of Western countries are passive and supine in the face of it.
September 26, 2010

OIC and the Modern Caliphate

By Bat Ye’or

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the Ummah, based upon the Koran, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. The OIC represents 56 countries and the Palestinian Authority (considered a state), the whole constituting the universal Ummah with a community of more than one billion three to six hundred million Muslims.

The OIC has a unique structure among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, but also to this it adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 56 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice, as though this would supply some protective system against the global jihad, which it endeavored to focus on Israel.

Religion as the main aspect of the OIC emerges from its language and its targets. It seems that the OIC is restoring in the 21st century the Caliphate, the supreme controlling body for all Muslims. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and — in contrast to to the European states — to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds Al Sharif, the Arabized name for Jerusalem, as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari’a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system — in other words, compliance with shari’a.

They also undertake to stimulate noble Muslim values, to preserve their symbols and their shared heritage, and to defend the universality of the Islamic religion — simply put, the universal propagation of Islam (da’wa). They state that they are promoting women’s rights and encourage their active participation in all walks of life, in accordance with the laws of the Member States. They agree to inculcate Muslim children with Islamic values and to support Muslim minorities and communities outside the Member States in order to preserve their dignity and their cultural and religious identity.

The Charter’s strategic targets seek “[t]o ensure active participation of the Member States [of the OIC] in the global political, economic and social decision-making processes to secure their common interests” (I-5) and “[t]o promote and defend unified position on issues of common interest in international forums” (1-17).

Among its targets, the OIC Charter specifies the propagation, promotion, and preservation of Islamic teachings and values, the spread of Islamic culture, and the preservation of the Islamic heritage (I-11). Article I-12 promotes the protection and defense of the true image of Islam, the fight against its defamation, and the encouragement of dialogue between civilizations and religions. The other objectives deal with protecting inherent Islamic family values (I-14) and the preservation of rights, dignity, and religious and cultural identity of the Muslim communities and minorities in non-Member States (I-16). This issue points to the OIC authority over immigrants abroad and its pressure on the governments of the non-Muslim host countries through the channel of dialogue, including the Alliance of Civilizations, whose Report backs OIC programs, and interfaith and immigration networks.

The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting “foreign occupation,” including those in “occupied” Indian Kashmir, and condemns the “humiliation and oppression” of Muslims in India.

The Charter stipulates that the International Islamic Court of Justice shall become the Organization’s main legal body (Chap. X, Art. 14) and that “[t]he Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights shall promote the civil, political, social and economic rights enshrined in the organization’s [OIC] covenants and declarations and in universally agreed human rights instruments, in conformity with Islamic values” (Art. 15). It implies that the covenants which do not conform with Islamic values will not be followed.

One can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused (according to Western criteria of justice) of genocide committed in southern Sudan and Darfur, has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan.

The Islamic Court of Justice has an international mandate and could try foreigners, both Muslims and non-Muslims (blasphemers, apostates, resisters to jihad) who have broken the laws of shari’a anywhere. Moreover, the claim by the OIC to be the guardian and protector of Muslim immigrants living in all countries that are not members of the OIC implies an extension of its jurisdiction and political influence over all the Muslims of Europe, North and South America, and the other non-Member States. This situation exacerbates the danger incurred by non-religious European Muslims, whether atheists, apostates, or free thinkers.

Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU’s very antithesis. Even if it employs the language of international organizations, the meaning of the words is different by their being rooted in the conceptual world of the Koran, which contradicts the basis of secular Western thought. Thus, Article 32-2 states, “The Council of Foreign Ministers [of OIC countries] shall recommend the rules of procedures of the Islamic Summit.” This implies an Islamic view and understanding on policy.

Such a combined political and religious institution is at the very outer rim of Western thinking, anchored as it is in the separation between politics and religion. Even if interference between the two fields has persisted, the principle of such separation has facilitated emancipation in the intellectual and political arenas from religious authority and the development of critical thought.

Present-day aspiration of the Ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being’s greatest privilege and finest adventure.

Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his human intermediary, Mohammed. According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. Faced today with this political archaism, a divided and broken West seeks refuge in denial and grasps at the demise of tiny Israel as though at a lifebelt. Taking in water from every side, this West that abandons its own identity for multilateralism and multiculturalism and ruins its citizenry by buying security has little chance of survival.

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia, Sharia | 1 Comment »


Posted by paulipoldie on September 26, 2010

Posted at American Thinker, August 19, 2010

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


One of the clearest lessons about Islam is found in the Sharia. The largest part of the Sharia is devoted to regulating the life of Muslims down to the smallest detail. There is no aspect of life that is not regulated-sex, food, art, business, education, prayer, manners, speech and how to think and not to think. There is no aspect of life that is outside the power of Sharia-religion, politics, ethics, culture are included. The Sharia is the operating manual for a complete civilization. Islam is complete within itself and needs nothing from the outside.

The Sharia has one other quality that is as important as the totality of its scope. The civilization of Sharia is not just different, it contradicts our civilization.

Inside Islam justice, religion, politics, law, human rights and compassion do not mean what they mean to us. All of these ideas are based on the principles of submission and duality as found in the Sharia.


Our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. We do not always fulfill the principles, but they are the ideals we strive for, and can be used for debate and self-criticism to correct and improve our culture.

Our principles lead to the ideals of critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and a free-ranging humor.

These are beautiful ideals and they are worth keeping and striving towards. Do we meet them? No, but what is more important they contradict the Sharia. It is one thing to fail to achieve these ideals, but it is entirely another to see them disappear as a public option under the impact of Sharia. Sharia law limits critical thought, self-criticism, equality of all peoples before the law, freedom of thought and ideas, freedom of religion, public debate, separation of church and state, liberal democracy and humor.


Part of the genius of Islam is the totality of Sharia, which includes a concept of war that attacks the host civilization at every aspect of its being. In modern times the military power of Islam is weak, but this is more than compensated by its ability to attack along legal and cultural lines under the guise of being a religion.

As Sharia is applied to a society, the host civilization is annihilated in each and every manifestation of culture. This annihilation is demonstrated by a peculiar fact about the history of Islamic countries-part of it is missing. Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist civilization. We see its remnants in ruins and fragments such as the Bamiyan Buddhas that were destroyed by the Taliban. Who knows the Buddhist history of Afghanistan? Practically speaking, it does not exist. Who knows the history of how Turkey, North Africa, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq went from being Christian to Islamic?

We don’t know the history because of the total annihilation of the past cultures by Sharia law. As time goes on customs, law, art, literature, and ethics of the host culture are replaced by Islamic values under the application of Sharia. The result is that there is nothing left of the history before the implementation of Sharia law.

There is a second aspect of this annihilation-the dhimmitude of the Kafirs (non-Muslims) remaining inside Islamic society. If you talk to Christians who are left in Islamic countries, they are an abused people who are unable to fight back after centuries of suffering and degradation under Sharia law. They are not supported by other Kafirs and are left to suffer under the oppression that will eliminate their few numbers. Whatever memory they have of the past is ignored by those who should be defending them.

If we are to go down the Sharia road, history teaches that it has always led to an Islamic mono-culture. In the end, there is no such thing as a little Sharia.

Posted in Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Muslim Whining Doesn’t Work With Non-Muslims Who Have Read the Quran

Posted by paulipoldie on September 26, 2010

from Citizen Warrior

THE CHRISTIAN Science Monitor has the reputation of being an unbiased publication, but in a recent article, Why ‘Islamophobia’ is Less Thinly Veiled in Europe, I felt compelled to respond to many of Robert Marquand’s (the author’s) points.

Marquand begins by trying to show that Muslims in Europe are just normal Europeans — except that they are the target of unfair prejudice by non-Muslim Europeans. In other words, Marquand seems to unquestioningly accept the Muslims’ standard position as the unfairly persecuted underdog.

The article quotes a Muslim apologist, Edward Mortimer, vice president of the Satzburg Seminar in Austria which helped launch the Muslim professionals network: “Values of national identity and patriotism are starting to take shape over an older argument in Europe about tolerance, plurality, freedom of expression.”

This is an absurd and deceptive statement. The values of national identity and patriotism are not in conflict with tolerance, plurality, or freedom of expression, and to imply that they are is a verbal slight-of-hand. The principles for which Islam stands are intolerance, supremacism (anti-plurality), and total submission to Islamic law (anti-freedom of expression). And it is largely for this reason Europeans are asserting their desire to run their own countries and hold onto their Western values in the face of the relentless onslaught from orthodox Muslims pushing for “reverse integration” — the attempt to coerce Europeans to integrate into Islam.

Marquand writes, “Social politeness and taboos on talking about Islam are eroding at a time when Europeans aren’t exactly sure what they think about Islam.” That struck me as good news, although I’m sure Marquand didn’t mean it that way. I hope it will stop being a taboo to talk about Islam. We need to talk about it.

Marquand writes, “The ground zero debate in Europe, for example, has brought a small geyser of anti-Muslim invective, even on websites like Le Monde’s. They included an often articulate though sometimes churlish depiction of Islam as a single monolithic form of faith, inherently violent and extreme, and of Muslims as incapable of being moderate.”

Muslims can be anything they want to be, but Islam itself is a single monolithic ideology, regardless of the local customs or ethnic origins of the Muslims of the world. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence have a wide range of Islamic principles upon which they agree. Most doctrinal issues in Islam were worked out long ago and are almost universally considered “settled.” And all are based on a single, unchanging collection of books, which is, in fact, inherently violent and intolerant.

Are Muslims capable of being moderate? That depends on two things: What we mean by moderate, and do we mean “even whey they have the political clout to do otherwise?” To untangle that one paragraph is a chore. Why? Because Marquand apparently knows almost nothing about Islam, so I would first have to spend a couple of hours schooling him on Islam 101 before I was able to clear up the misconceptions in this single paragraph.

And his readership probably doesn’t know much about Islam, either, so they probably read the paragraph without a second thought, with the feeling that it all sounds perfectly reasonable.

Short of giving the full explanation, anything I said would probably sound like I’m prejudiced against all Muslims, but I’m not. For any particular Muslim, I don’t know how much they accept or reject of Islamic doctrine. But I am definitely prejudiced against the doctrine. What is there for a non-Muslim to like about 527 unabrogated verses advocating intolerance or violence against non-Muslims?

Marquand writes, “They [Muslims] resent the fact that Islam is a subject of derision and reject the stereotype of Muslims as being one uniform, slightly sinister group.”

And yet they don’t resent it enough to openly reject what non-Muslims understandably object to! Muslims are welcome anytime they wish to speak honestly — to say, “Yes, that stuff is in our doctrine, and we reject it completely.” I’ve never heard a Muslim say this. I’ve read a couple of people online do it, but of all the Muslims I’ve heard from and talked to, I’ve never heard a Muslim speak honestly about the objectionable material in the Quran and Sunna.

So here’s the problem: Many non-Muslims have read the Islamic doctrines and we don’t like what it teaches about us or about Islam’s prime directive. Any idiot could see why a non-Muslim wouldn’t like it. And yet, Muslims tend to focus on this “unfair” suspicion as if it’s coming out of nowhere. This is hogwash. I don’t believe such a large percentage of Muslims could be so dense as to be unable to see what non-Muslims don’t like, and they could easily put us at ease to acknowledge it and reject it. But almost unanimously, they don’t. Instead they are “resentful” at the “stereotyping.”

Marquand writes, “Young second-generation Muslims have high expectations but often feel excluded.”

But are they trying to discover why they are excluded? Are they explicitly rejecting the supremacism in Islamic doctrine? No? Then we should emphatically ridicule and dismiss their whining. We need to hold them to higher expectations and quit the coddling. Welcome them to the new era in non-Muslim-Muslim relations.

Marquand writes, “Some come to escape orthodox Islam while still being devout.”

When I read that line, I actually laughed out loud! The Christian Science Monitor is considered a serious magazine. It has a good reputation. How did such a completely moronic sentence get past the editors! Orthodox means “Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.” That’s pretty much the same as devout: “Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations.”

We’re talking about jihad. The thing non-Muslims object to most about Islamic doctrine is jihad — the deliberate, merciless intolerance against non-Muslims, the effort to impose their supremacist dominance wherever possible, and the relentless drive to bring all people under the rule of Islamic law. If a Muslim is orthodox, his religious devotion will be applied to this goal. If he is devout, he will be devoted to this goal.

So how is someone going to “escape orthodox Islam while still being devout?”

This is the problem. People like Marquand are completely missing the point and unaware of it. The article was accompanied by a video that equally misses the point, profiling three American Muslims all presenting themselves as normal as can be, all baffled as to why non-Muslims might look at them suspiciously, all equally self-righteous about how silly and misguided that is, and none of them mentioning the supremacism and intolerance at the core of their doctrines.

One of the women in the video even pointed out that believers of other religions don’t get this kind of scrutiny or prejudice. I wanted to tell her, “That’s right. It’s been a long time since anyone worried about the Amish rioting, beheading people, infiltrating governments, threatening violence to silence their critics, or blowing up buses. Ideology actually counts.”

We don’t have a situation where all these religions are the same but one is being picked on unfairly. We have a situation where most religions share many principles about universal love and kindness, but Islam does not. According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are the best of people and non-Muslims are the worst of people and deserve to suffer in this life and burn in the afterlife.

One man in the video implied that if only people could get to know him and his family, their suspicions would disappear. I wanted to tell him, “Dude, how you treat your family is the least of their worries. They wonder whether you are a believer in jihad in any form. They wonder if you pay your zakat and thus potentially fund suicide bombers. They wonder if you participate in CAIR or ISNA or any of the other Muslim organizations under the umbrella of the Muslim Brotherhood and if you’ve aligned yourself with its goal to sabotage our government. They wonder if you believe in reverse integration and if you’re striving in the way of Allah to Islamize America. They wonder if you follow the Quranic teachings to never make friends with non-Muslims — to go ahead and fake it, but never actually befriend them or like them.”

If he is actively working toward Islam’s prime directive, no amount of “getting to know him and his family” will matter. What might matter is if he acknowledged those teachings and rejected them. And told us he rejected them. That would at least be a start. But in this video, which would make any PR hack proud, you hear nothing of the sort.

Marquand writes, “Muslims agree that some younger adherents get radicalized.”

In a recent study in Britain, they found second-generation Muslims are more “radical” than their parents. That is, they hold more orthodox views. In other words, they believe in Islam’s prime directive. They are more committed to jihad than their first-generation parents.

Why would this be? Because of what I’m harping on: All these perfectly nice Muslims in the PR video are raising their children without ever telling them that supremacist and intolerant teachings are strewn throughout the Quran and Sunna, and without saying, “but we completely reject those teachings.” No, they say nothing of the sort. They do just the opposite. They tell them being a Muslim is great, that the Quran is the word of the Almighty, that they are being unfairly persecuted by non-Muslims around the world, and they must band together and “defend” Islam.

So our young Muslim grows up and gets easily recruited by a devout Muslim who simply tells the kid to read the Quran and discover his obligations as a Muslim.

Marquand writes, “In university settings and among some Muslim moderates, frank reappraisals of the Koran are under way, which includes a tougher look at its calls for militancy.”

Some Muslims are taking a tougher look? Big deal. These doctrines are clear and easy to find. They don’t need to be looked at; they need to be vociferously repudiated, clearly and forcefully. These teachings are imbeded deep in Islam throughout its doctrine and throughout its history. And Muslims are acting on these passages all over the world, killing people, destroying property, and wrecking lives. They’re doing that right now, today. Someone will die today because of these doctrines. The situation is urgent. A “tougher look” doesn’t cut it. Not even close. Does Marquand really believe that we can all relax now because some Muslims are taking a tougher look? Give me a break.

Marquand quotes Ahmet Mahamat, an immigrant from Chad who lives in France. Mahamat said, “Immigrants are linked to criminality or delinquency or fanaticism.” He meant “linked in peoples’ prejudiced minds.” Wah wah wah. I wanted to tell him to suck it up and prove people wrong, just like every immigrant group before him has had to do. Everywhere immigrants arrive on foreign shores, they face prejudice. And if they work hard and prove themselves loyal members of that society, they are eventually accepted and embraced. That’s how it goes. You want to be on our team? You had better prove yourself worthy. We don’t owe you anything. We’ve already let you move here — the rest is up to you. If anything, you owe us.

But Mahamat is pursuing the example of Mohammad the Whiner. “I look in the eyes of so many people,” he says, “and what I see does not correspond to who I am. They see another me.”

I want to tell him, “Look, man, they know the ideology you supposedly believe in. You say you’re a Muslim. We naturally assume you believe in Islam. We assume you are an adherent of Islamic doctrine. We assume you believe in the supremacism and intolerance inherent in your ideology. Either stop calling yourself a Muslim or explicitly say, ‘I reject jihad, I reject Mohammad’s political, supremacist model, and I embrace Western values of freedom, women’s rights, religious equality, etc.’ It took me all of twenty seconds to say that, so what’s the problem? If you can’t honestly say those things, then our suspicions of you are correct, so quit your whining and get used to permanent rejection because you do not belong in this society.”

When you know something about an ideology, you treat the person differently. And you should. You don’t feed a Jain a steak dinner when they come to your house (Jains believe you should not kill any living creature). You don’t invite a Buddhist with you on a deer hunt (Buddhists believe in trying to avoid harming living beings).

If you know about someone’s ideology, you usually will (and definitely should) treat them differently.

And in the same way, if someone’s ideology calls for unrelenting jihad against non-Muslims until the whole world submits to Islamic law, generally speaking, you don’t invite them to come live in your country and bring their wives! And if they are already in your country, you usually will (and definitely should) be wary of them until they prove their devotion and loyalty to your country and the principles your society is founded on. In this case, until they forthrightly reject the objectionable precepts of their religious ideology.

This should be common sense. If it doesn’t make sense to you, your first step should be to read the Quran. Start here: Take the Pledge to read the Quran.

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

Do Your Homework On Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on September 24, 2010

Daily News-Record Home

By Ron McMullen

I AM APPALLED at the ignorance and naiveté of Westerners relating to Islam. Ideologically driven neophytes can be found mostly in academic, political, media and liturgical circles near the publicly-funded feeding trough where they enjoy a disproportionate vocal presence.

These vocal few provide Americans with inaccurate, incomplete or false information we use to come to the debate. Few venture beyond CNN, The Associated Press or Reuters to see what is really going on. State-sponsored media knows this and is successful at controlling the issue.

This was clear in the last presidential election. High profile individuals like George Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, extol the virtues, peaceful nature and wonderful contributions Islam has made to this country. I realize we need the oil and I know diplomatically they must say these things to appear friendly. There is only one problem: They are not truthful.

From elementary school, on through high school and college, students are fed a constant diet of sanitized, doctored and airbrushed nonsense. This could be no clearer than the presentations of the world’s great religions, Islam in particular. Seldom will a textbook mention the deterioration of human rights women’s rights, and the economic, educational and agricultural downturns as Islam works its way into the fabric of civil and governmental structure.

The majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the radical demands of the Taliban, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Fatah, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. But 88 million out of 1.3 billion do, as evidenced by terror in Somalia, India, New York, Pakistan, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey, Madrid, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Scotland, London, Indonesia, etc. It only takes a few to cause a mess.

I have put together a quiz, probably not one you would get in Comparative Religion or World History class:

What great religion originated the term “jihad,” which means a permanent holy war against non-Muslims?

What great religion since the mid-600s persecuted, executed, tortured, taxed, enslaved, beheaded and, more recently, bombed those who do not subscribe to their faith?

Under the banner of what great religion, are men and, mostly, women buried up to their waists in dirt and stoned to death?

What great religion permits and encourages the beating of a wife (with limits)?

What great religion permits public flogging for a woman who shows too much skin?

What great religion forces a divorce if one of the spouses defects from the faith?

What great and peaceful religion orders the killing of any individual who attempts to mock or draw a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed or question the veracity of the Koran?

What great religion promises 72 awaiting virgins in paradise for a young man to strap a bomb to himself and take as many innocent lives with him as he can?

What great religion allows the killing of a relative because they have dishonored the family by converting, leaving the faith or simply walking down the street with someone other than a designated family member?

What great religion permits fathers and grandfathers to have unfettered sexual access to their children and grandchildren based on a twisted interpretation of property rights?

What great religion still permits female genital mutilation?

What great religion teaches that deception is appropriate when it furthers their cause?

Under the banner of what great religion has Iran executed more people other than China, and executed more juveniles than any other country? (One-hundred-forty minors are on death row).

Under the cover of what great religion has Iran imprisoned more journalists than any other country?

Under the banner of what great religion is incitement to the genocide of the Jewish people and the nation of Israel standard fare?

Under what great religion is wearing a cross or Star of David rewarded with arrest or imprisonment?

Under what great religion does the U.S. hold the title, “The Great Satan”?

What great religion systematically defaces, destroys and builds over historical and archeological sites to remove any reminder of their existence (particularly Christian and Jewish sites)?

America, do your homework before we have a mosque on every street corner.

Ron McMullan lives in Grottoes.

Posted in Islam, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Playing Chess With the Imams

Posted by paulipoldie on September 23, 2010

Playing Chess With the Imams

by Baron Bodissey

As is often noted, political Islam — which is sometimes referred to as “radical Islam” or “Islamism” — is a totalitarian ideology. All four schools of Sunni Islamic law, along with Shi’a jurisprudence, affirm the orthodox political interpretations of the Koran and the hadith that justify the establishment of an all-powerful theocratic state by any and all means. These interpretations of Islam’s core scriptures are validated by traditional doctrine as taught by scholars at all major Islamic universities, especially the most prestigious of them all, al-Azhar University in Cairo.

For these reasons we may assert that Islam is inherently totalitarian. Muslims themselves may or may not have totalitarian tendencies — it’s certainly true that many millions of Muslims, whether they really believe in their religion or not, are politically apathetic and indifferent to any practical political application of their creed. But official Islamic doctrine promotes a totalitarian political philosophy.

Westerners who long for a “reform” of Islam — which they imagine will somehow purge Islamic theology of its violent tendencies — fail to realize that a reform is already well underway. The latest wave began in 1928 in Egypt with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al-Banna, and it continues to this day. Followers of al-Banna have returned to the core scriptures of Islam and studied the life and sayings of Mohammed. They take what is written in these texts and commentary seriously, and are thus driven to implement various totalitarian political practices, through violent means or otherwise.

John J. Dziak points out that political Islam, like other totalitarian systems such as those of China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., and Nazi Germany, takes the form of a diffuse counterintelligence state, with its typical characteristics:

The residual influence of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia on Islamism may be seen precisely in the assimilated features of the counterintelligence state absorbed by both radical Islamic movements and radical Islamic regimes: the multiplicity and redundancy of intelligence and counterintelligence services with counterintelligence being the preferred tendency; fixation with conspiracies and incessant conspiratorial intrigue; provocation and associated deception; conspiracy-laced propaganda and very sophisticated information warfare campaigns; draconian police state tactics, this time justified by theocratic strictures vice party dogma. In its drive to nuclear power status Iran, especially, has shown adeptness at deception in masking the weapons side of its program, and in information warfare and propaganda with its bombast of military prowess aimed at strong anti-war sentiment in the U.S.

Many Westerners had trouble grasping the nature of the U.S.S.R., and they are no better at understanding the workings of the Islamic counterintelligence state. Iran is a good example: we treat it as if it were a Western democracy, with a parliament (the Majlis) as a legislative authority, a judiciary (the mullahs and ayatollahs) and an executive (President Ahmadinejad). However, there is at best a superficial resemblance between these structures and their Western counterparts. Politics in Iran is conducted quite differently from what we are used to. It is opaque to us because its operations proceed according to the internal logic inherent to a counterintelligence state.

As a made-up example, imagine that three American charity workers in Iran are arrested and detained by the Revolutionary Guards, and then later charged with being spies for the CIA. We’ll assume for the sake of argument that they are not really CIA spies.

So what is Iran up to?
It may be quite difficult to determine the motives for such an arrest. If talks on Iran’s nuclear program are about to begin, the act may constitute the first move in the chess game of those negotiations. When backdoor discussions about the hostages are initiated, Iran may discreetly hint that a relaxation in the IAEA inspection regime might just result in the release of the captives.

Or the arrest may be some other international gambit in a complex game — an effort to influence Russia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia.

Or the real reason may be found within the internal politics of Iran itself. Political disagreement and maneuvering in a counterintelligence state generally proceed out of sight. Publicly staged political events simply ratify what has been decided by other means — that is, through the struggles between the factions that form the power structure of the state. In Iran, as in any other Third World country, Western hostages — particularly Americans — are very valuable. They function as a big bank deposit for the faction that holds them. Taking the three prisoners may well have given the Revolutionary Guards or their allies more leverage in ongoing internal factional struggles.

By the time the captives are released by a smiling Ahmadinejad during a carefully staged photo op, the political issues of their capture have already been settled. The tearful erstwhile prisoners thank the president for his gracious help, the cameras and the journalists depart, and the real game moves on to the next move, unnoticed and unrecognized by the vast majority of Western observers.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Moving beyond Iran, we leave the realm of state totalitarianism and enter the world of diffuse non-state Islamic radicalism. Non-state actors such as Al Qaeda and the various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood display the same characteristics as the counterintelligence state, but they operate in a different context. Their goal is not to maintain internal control within a discrete political entity, but subversion: they aim to turn non-Muslims into dhimmis by stages, without the intended targets being aware of what is happening until it is too late.

To accomplish this goal, the Ikhwan uses all the techniques — provocation, penetration, diversion, disinformation, etc. — familiar to students of Soviet counterintelligence. These methods serve to undermine and subvert the targeted society below the level of public awareness.

One of the most successful counterintelligence operations yet mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood was the notorious “Flying Imams” affair. In November 2006 a handful of imams affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood front groups managed to paralyze the Transportation Security Agency (and through it the Department of Homeland Security) with an easy and inexpensive provocation at the Minneapolis airport. Their belligerence and litigiousness served to neutralize the already weak attempts by TSA officials to monitor and act upon specific behaviors that might be expected from potential Islamic terrorists.

The superficially apparent objective of the operation — to test security systems and procedures using a terrorist dry run — was accomplished. However, by drawing attention to their particular tactics, the imams compromised the future effectiveness of such methods. The subsequent out-of-court shakedown of USAirways could hardly suffice as a motivation for such an audacious public operation.

Understood from the point of view of the counterintelligence state, however, the Flying Imams were an enormous success. The incident was a probe, a diversion, and it neutered the capacity of domestic security agents to evaluate and react to evidence of Islamic terrorist behavior. By rewarding targeted lawfare, it ensured that no TSA or DHS official who values his career will ever take into consideration any obvious radical Muslim behavior until a bomb actually detonates.

The incident may accurately be labeled a “diversion” because the exact modus operandi of the probe — belligerent behavior, loud Arabic prayers, the demanding of seat belt extensions, etc. — is unlikely to be used again. What it accomplished instead was to restrict the scope of America’s available responses, so that the real attack, in whatever form it may take, will be impossible to deal with until dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Americans are already dead.

Seen from a counterintelligence standpoint, the Flying Imams gig was an enormous success achieved at almost no cost. The value of the operation was greatly enhanced by the fact that very few Americans are even aware of the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood’s achievement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
This brings us to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the proposed Ground Zero mosque.

References to Imam Rauf in the following discussion should be understood to encompass not just the imam himself — who, after all, is simply the oily-tongued spokesman for the Cordoba Initiative, chosen for his soothing glib demeanor as displayed on television — but also the more powerful movers and shakers of the international Ikhwan who put him in place to help the planned mosque come into being.

For a number of months the Park51 project flew mostly under the radar. Then, as news began to spread through patriotic anti-jihad networks, the protests and resistance began to emerge. All through the summer of 2010 the controversy grew hotter, to the point where it made headlines every day in the mainstream media.

The more prominent the news about the Ground Zero mosques, the more Americans who opposed it. Despite the best efforts of local, state, and federal officials — not to mention the media — to spin the issue as one of religious freedom involving an innocuous place of worship, ordinary citizens woke up to the fact that the building of the mosque would in fact be a celebration of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. The more they learned, the less they liked it.

The affair climaxed on September 11th during protests and demonstrations against the mosque that were staged at Ground Zero, across the rest of America, and all over the world.

There were rumors just before 9-11 that Imam Rauf was going to back down and announce at the last minute that the Park51 project would be moved to another location. When I read those reports, I thought, “Of course — what a brilliant move!”

By allowing the “Islamophobes” to gain public prominence, and then deflating their cause, Mr. Rauf would marginalize opposition to the mosque simply by moving the planned structure a few blocks away.

Members of the hard-core resistance to Park51 — including such people as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Andy McCarthy, and Brigitte Gabriel — insist that moving the mosque is not enough, that it must be stopped. But the vast majority of the opponents of Park51, probably more than 90% of them, would have been content with its being moved.

At one stroke Imam Rauf could have deflated the entire anti-mosque movement, fragmented the opposition to Park51, discredited its more strident opponents, and made it that much easier for the Muslim Brotherhood to build mosques elsewhere.

As icing on the cake, in the process of relocating it he could have taken up Donald Trump (or one of the other potential buyers) on his offer, sold the property, and made a fifty million dollar profit on the deal.

So why didn’t he do it?

Considering the affair as a counterintelligence chess game, relocating the mosque at the last minute was the obvious move — it was a pawn-takes-queen gambit. In order to work, however, it had to be a 9-11 moment — once the anniversary passed, the enormous propaganda impact of the move would have been diminished. The eve of 9-11 was the peak opportunity, but Imam Rauf and his handlers let it pass.


To understand why Islamic radicals sometimes fail to make certain moves that would otherwise serve their interests, we must examine the details of Islamic law. Although the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are totalitarians at heart, unlike their Soviet counterparts they are constrained by an internally recognized set of limits: sharia law.

Consider this passage from ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller). In Book O, “Justice”, o9.16, al-Misri has this to say concerning truces:

Truces are permissible, not obligatory … for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, …

In other words, there must be an acceptable reason to halt a jihad, because Muslims are required to wage it if they possibly can. Reliance of the Traveller continues:

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah most high says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost.” (Koran 47:35).

If he is not engaging in deception, the only reason a Muslim fighter can call for a truce, according to Islamic law, is that he is too weak to fight. That is, once a jihad is launched, the mujahideen must continue it until victory is achieved, because to cease the jihad would be to acknowledge that they were too weak to fight it in the first place, and thus that Allah was not with them. This is tantamount to suicide — and not the sacred martyrdom kind.

This feeds into the core Islamic concept of jihad. Those fighting jihad in the cause of Allah may have setbacks, as Allah says in the Koran. But victory is guaranteed if it is in the cause of Allah. Continuous defeat in jihad is an indicator that the jihad was never sanctioned by Allah. In such circumstances, the Muslim community will turn against the jihadis.

So, if truce is denied them, the mujahideen will go out and fight as if their eternal souls depended on it. They have to throw everything into the battle.

This is exactly what happened in Iraq to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi put a bomb in a souk and killed a lot of women and children, but no Americans were present. The Salafists were outraged; they said this was the murder of innocents (where the “murder of innocents” means to kill Muslims without just cause).

Zarqawi managed to finish himself off not long afterwards when he detonated a bomb in an employment line and killed a number of men. This made the Salafists condemn him even more: they turned on him, gave his location up to the American military, and collected the bounty.

Zarqawi’s actions demonstrated that he had launched a jihad that he could not win, and also one that violated the tenets of Islamic law. This proved he had sinned against Allah, and his life was forfeit.

From this we can deduce that Jihad fighters do not respond to their own perceived weakness in the same way that a typical “insurgent” does. If the mujahideen ever concede that they are losing, then they have lost the entire jihad. Rather than withdraw, they will return to the fight with increased ferocity, otherwise they will have broken one of the core rules of Islam. They are well aware that the entire Muslim world treats such lawbreakers with utmost severity.

The Ground Zero mosque project is not a “hot” jihad, but it is jihad nonetheless. To pull back now from the Park51 jihad would be to admit that that Imam Rauf and the mosque’s backers were actually too weak to succeed in their stealth jihad. They would be discredited, and would be subject to sanction under Islamic law.

So the only possible response is to double down and push even harder to get the Ground Zero mosque built. And that is exactly what seems to be happening: as Phyllis Chesler reports, Muslim organizations are repeating their insistence that Park51 must go ahead as planned.

One can’t help but feel that the KGB would have handled the matter differently. As the undisputed masters of the greatest counterintelligence state in history, they would have calculated the odds, and then made the move that best served their interests.

But unlike Imam Rauf, they were not bound by the constraints of sharia (or anything else, for that matter). If Islam has an Achilles heel, it lies within the restrictions imposed by Islamic law itself.

This characteristic can be useful to us, but only if we study and understand Islamic law. Total immersion is required: we must learn to think like Salafists.

This is the only way we can win a chess game with the imams. Unfortunately, to our great detriment we are still playing checkers.

Posted in Islam, Islamization, Must Read | 1 Comment »

Fjordman: A Few Reasons for Cautious Optimism

Posted by paulipoldie on September 23, 2010

A Few Reasons for Cautious Optimism

The noted blogger Fjordman is filing this report via Gates of Vienna.
For a complete Fjordman blogography, see The Fjordman Files. There is also a multi-index listing here.

In his article Dreaming of a Culture War, Paul E. Gottfried at the website Alternative Right criticizes my essay Thilo Sarrazin vs. the Ruling Multicultural Oligarchs, which he claims is “full of dubious assumptions.” He states that “‘democracies,’ and particularly the ones that look after their ‘citizens’ with tax monies and custodial oversight of behavior, generate widespread loyalty because of their uninhibited paternalism and because the people are made to believe they consent to having their brains laundered. This is a political success story unparalleled in human history.” Furthermore, “While [Fjordman]’s into happy talk, I’m trying to understand why the current oligarchs have done so well for so long. And I find absolutely no evidence that their string of successes will not continue into the indefinite future.”

I agree that far too many Westerners stubbornly keep voting for bad political parties. I was personally disappointed during the previous parliamentary elections in Britain, when rather few citizens voted for real alternatives such as the BNP or the UKIP and instead supported the three established left-wing parties. And yes, I consider the Tories to constitute a centrist or center-left party today. It is unfortunately true that many of the establishment so-called “conservatives,” from Merkel via Sarkozy to George W. Bush, are little better than the left-wing parties. This exposes serious flaws in the democratic system. Apart from that, I disagree with most of the assumptions Mr. Gottfried makes and I believe his conclusions are incorrect.

Ordinary Westerners are indeed guilty of not putting up enough resistance to the ongoing Multicultural destruction of the West, but they are not the driving force behind it. The common people are divided, but with a large and rapidly increasing percentage of them rejecting the anti-Western Multicultural propaganda of the ruling elites. The ruling elites — or perhaps we should call them oligarchs since “elites” is how they view themselves — are still almost uniformly behind the deliberate program of flooding the West with mass immigration to demographically and culturally transform Western countries. Dissenters from this policy are branded as heretics and formally expelled from their ranks, as is happening to Sarrazin.

This is uncontroversial as far as I am concerned. The interesting question is why the ruling elites are doing this, and what they hope to gain from their destructive policies. My bet is that many of the Leftists are informed by a Marxist understanding in which the West is the evil inventor of capitalism that needs to be destroyed for its sins to pave the way for a just world order. The Big Business supporters simply want unrestricted access to markets, raw materials and workers and feel less and less loyalty to any specific nation. In general, all the elites, not just the Leftists but the centrists and large segments of the “establishment Right,” believe that dismantling Western nation-states is necessary because functioning nation-states constitute an obstacle to a Globalist world order. Also, it is quite possible that some of the oligarchs suffer from “Third World envy” and want to turn the West into a giant Mexico, where the wealthy elites lord over a vast sea of serfs and with no significant middle class to challenge their rule.

While the Multicultural oligarchs remain in control, they are less firmly so now than they were a few years ago. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that they are scared, some of them might be getting a little nervous. Despite having near-total control over the propaganda flow in the form of the mass media, they find it increasingly hard to convince the common people that being mugged in previously safe cities is “enriching,” that importing dysfunctional Third World tribes is “good for the economy” or that Islam is a “religion of peace.” A critical mass of ordinary individuals in the West currently know that they are being lied to on a daily basis and that they have been deceived by their own leaders for decades.

Even the nuclear weapon in the Multicultural arsenal, the “racism” card, is not as intimidating as it used to be, especially since rapid advances in genetics are making it clear that there likely is a genetic component to intelligence. White Westerners are sick and tired of being abused and dispossessed second-rate citizens in their own countries, of being the subject of constant ridicule and unfair demonization and above all of being the only peoples on the planet who do not have the right to preserve their culture and heritage, despite the fact that they have created the most dynamic and innovate civilization that has ever existed in the history of mankind.

A rising tide of white anger is one of the most significant political developments in the Western world today. This change is real, not imaginary. In September this year the Sweden Democrats, operating under appallingly repressive conditions in what is probably the most totalitarian country in the Western world, were swept into the Swedish parliament. I have noticed when talking to random people that many of the subjects that I write about which were considered highly controversial only five years ago are finding more acceptance.

This movement is gradual, but for the first time in generations it is going in the right direction. I choose to see the cup as half full in this case rather than remain a grumpy professional pessimist. Also, as Islam is becoming increasingly unpopular among the masses, so too will its apologists in the West become. If all of your enemies are in the same boat this potentially makes it possible to hit all of them with the same torpedo, figuratively speaking.

Does this mean that I think we have won? Of course it doesn’t. We have tremendous challenges ahead of us. I’m merely saying that something resembling a genuine opposition is finally emerging. It is not sufficiently organized and it needs guidance, but let us then focus on how to provide that guidance. The opposition movement has potential, especially if the economy keeps deteriorating in the near future, which is a very real possibility. If Mr. Gottfried has failed to notice the rising popular resentment against the lying Multicultural oligarchs then I fear that he no longer understands what is going on in his own civilization.

Posted in Fjordman | Leave a Comment »

Der Islam ist wie eine Droge

Posted by paulipoldie on September 21, 2010


Der Politikwissenschaftler Hamed Abdel-Samad, Sohn eines Imam in Ägypten, über Thilo Sarrazins umstrittene Thesen, seine schwierige Integration in Deutschland und sein Werk “Der Untergang der islamischen Welt”.

SPIEGEL: Herr Abdel-Samad, Deutschland ist ein gespaltenes Land. Gehören Sie zur Pro- oder Contra-Sarrazin-Fraktion?

Abdel-Samad: Weder noch.

SPIEGEL: Sie haben den goldenen Mittelweg in der Integrationsdebatte gefunden? Oder wollen Sie sich nicht in die Nesseln setzen, weder bei Ihren deutschen Freunden noch bei Ihren muslimischen Glaubensbrüdern?

Abdel-Samad: Mir gefällt die Art der Debatte überhaupt nicht. Man hält Gericht über Sarrazin oder bejubelt ihn unreflektiert. Alles bündelt sich in seiner Person – ob als Held oder Sündenbock, Sarrazin ist zum unfreiwilligen Freund der Untätigen und Ratlosen geworden. Alle Versäumnisse und Vorwürfe haben nun eine Adresse: Superman Sarrazin.

SPIEGEL: Sie halten ihn und seine Thesen für überschätzt?

Abdel-Samad: Ich bin gegen Sarrazins Rauswurf aus der SPD und denke, dass eine unverkrampfte Debatte über Integration in Deutschland bitter notwendig ist. Aber seine Schlussfolgerungen helfen uns nicht weiter, sie sind von gestern. Deutschland schafft sich nicht ab, Deutschland verändert sich durch Immigration, und das ist gut so. Über Probleme des Zusammenlebens sollten wir reden. Über die Versäumnisse der Immigranten, die nötigen Angebote an sie.

SPIEGEL: Und das verhindert der Provokateur Sarrazin mit seinen biologistischen Gedankenspielen?

Abdel-Samad: Befördert es jedenfalls nicht. Aus der Integrationssackgasse hilft uns das keinesfalls heraus. Sie sehen doch, was gerade passiert, wie sich alle eingraben: Ein CDU-Politiker wird zum wiederholten Mal betonen, dass Ausländer anständig Deutsch lernen sollten, und ein SPD-Politiker wird, nachdem er Sarrazins Äußerungen verurteilt hat, Beispiele für gelungene Integration aufzählen. Eine wütende Islamkritikerin wird die Türken für alles verantwortlich machen.

SPIEGEL: Sie meinen Necla Kelek, die Sarrazins Buch begeistert vorgestellt hat.

Abdel-Samad: Und ein türkischer Beschwichtigungsromantiker wird die Grünen-Multikulti-Hymne singen. Thilo Sarrazin ist lediglich ein Beleg dafür, dass wir ein Problem haben. Er ist der Überbringer der Botschaft, dass bei uns eine verkrampfte Streitkultur herrscht. Stimmungsmache, Apologetik, Überempfindlichkeit.

SPIEGEL: Hätte man Sarrazins Buch totschweigen sollen?

Abdel-Samad: Meine bescheidene arabische Intelligenz sagt mir, dass Sarrazin harmloser ist als das, was die Medien aus ihm machen wollen. Er kann das Land weder spalten noch heilen.

SPIEGEL: Klären Sie uns doch mal auf: Sie sind ein scharfer Kritiker des Islam und müssten doch eigentlich mit Sarrazin, der diese Religion pauschal verteufelt, in einem Boot sitzen. Warum ist das nicht so?

Abdel-Samad: Er sieht den Islam überall auf dem Vormarsch. Auch ich kritisiere vieles am Islam. Ich sehe ihn aber auf dem Weg ins Abseits. Der Islam muss nicht verteufelt werden, er muss sich von Grund auf modernisieren.

SPIEGEL: Sie prophezeien den “Untergang der islamischen Welt”. Dabei ist der Islam die am schnellsten wachsende Religion, vor allem Europa fürchtet sich vor Überfremdung.

Abdel-Samad: Zahlen sagen wenig – es gibt 1,4 Milliarden Muslime, na und? Entscheidend ist: In fast allen Ländern mit einer muslimischen Mehrheit sehen wir einen zivilisatorischen Rückschritt, eine Erstarrung aller Lebensformen. Der Islam hat keine überzeugenden Antworten auf die Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts, er befindet sich im geistigen, moralischen und kulturellen Niedergang – eine todgeweihte Religion, ohne Selbstbewusstsein und ohne Handlungsoptionen.

SPIEGEL: Machen Sie nicht den Fehler vieler radikaler Islamkritiker, die gesamte Religion mit all ihren Ausprägungen über einen Kamm zu scheren?

Abdel-Samad: Selbstverständlich hat unsere Religion viele Strömungen. Die Unterschiede mögen für Theologen und Ethnologen von Interesse sein, politisch gesehen sind sie ziemlich irrelevant. Entscheidend sind die gemeinsame Orientierungslosigkeit und Rückständigkeit, die oft zu einem aggressiven Fundamentalismus führen. Der gibt den Ton an.

SPIEGEL: Dubai trennen Welten von Somalia, das relativ liberale Indonesien Lichtjahre vom rigorosen Gottesstaat Iran. Die Türkei ist eine Demokratie und hat gegenwärtig ein höheres Wirtschaftswachstum als jeder andere europäische Staat. Alles Ausnahmen von der Regel?

Abdel-Samad: Natürlich gibt es Unterschiede. Aber wenn es Muslimen um die Einführung von Islamunterricht an europäischen Schulen geht oder wenn sie für eine islamische Organisation den Status einer Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts beantragen, dann ist immer die Rede von einem Islam. Kaum attackiert jemand den Glauben, greifen sie zu einem Taschenspielertrick, um die Kritik abzuwürgen, und fragen scheinheilig: Von welchem Islam ist die Rede?

SPIEGEL: Helfen Sie uns weiter.

Abdel-Samad: Der Islam ist in gewisser Weise wie eine Droge. Wie Alkohol. Wenig davon kann sehr heilend und inspirierend wirken, aber wenn der Gläubige in jeder Lebenssituation zur Flasche der dogmatischen Lehre greift, wird es gefährlich. Von diesem hochprozentigen Islam rede ich. Er schadet dem Individuum und gefährdet das Zusammenleben. Er hemmt die Integration, denn dieser Islam teilt die Welt in Freund und Feind, in Gläubige und Ungläubige.

SPIEGEL: Das hört sich an, als ob Sie von Sarrazin so weit nicht entfernt sind.

Abdel-Samad: Mich verbindet mit Herrn Sarrazin nur, dass wir beide Migrationshintergrund haben. Er hat Angst vor der islamischen Welt, ich habe Angst um sie. Deutschland bietet uns beiden ein Forum, allein deshalb darf dieses Land nicht abgeschafft werden.

SPIEGEL: Sie propagieren einen Islam light. Was bleibt vom Kern der Religion?

Abdel-Samad: Mein Traum ist in der Tat ein aufgeklärter Islam, ohne Scharia und Dschihad, ohne Geschlechter-Apartheid, Missionierung und Anspruchsmentalität. Eine Religion, die sich jeder Kritik und Nachfrage stellt. Was mich betrifft: Ich bin schon vor längerem vom Glauben zum Wissen konvertiert.

SPIEGEL: Sie sind Atheist geworden.

Abdel-Samad: Nein.

SPIEGEL: Können Sie ruhig zugeben, es ist ja keine Schande, Atheist zu sein.

Abdel-Samad: Aber es stimmt nicht.

SPIEGEL: Das würde Ihnen kein Imam, kein katholischer Priester, kein Rabbi durchgehen lassen. An Gott glauben heißt doch akzeptieren, dass etwas jenseits des Wissens existiert. Wenn Sie das nicht teilen – warum bestehen Sie darauf, sich als Muslim zu bezeichnen?

Abdel-Samad: An Gott glauben kann auch heißen, mit ihm zu hadern. Ich bete nicht regelmäßig, ich faste nicht im Ramadan. Ich bin in diesem Sinn kein Gläubiger. Aber ich fühle mich als Muslim. Das ist mein Kulturkreis. Der Islam ist für mich auch Heimat und Sprache, mein Arabisch ist von all dem nicht zu trennen. Man kann Distanz zum Islam haben, aber im Herzen des Islam bleiben. Ich will das Feld nicht den Fundamentalisten überlassen, die Gewalt predigen. Sie sind auf dem Vormarsch.

“Ideologischer Flirt mit den Marxisten und mit der Muslimbruderschaft”

SPIEGEL: Ist der Islamismus nicht auf dem Rückzug – trotz oder vielleicht wegen aller Attentate der Qaida? Osama Bin Laden ist nicht mehr der Held der arabischen Straße.

Abdel-Samad: Der Hass auf den Westen ist geblieben und hat mancherorts sogar zugenommen. Und die Gewalt richtet sich zum größten Teil gegen Muslime selbst, wie im Irak und in Somalia.

SPIEGEL: George W. Bush ließ die Muslime der Welt seine Vorbehalte spüren. Im Irak und in Guantanamo haben Amerikaner Gefangene gedemütigt, auch ihre Religion verspottet. In Florida wird zur Koran-Verbrennung aufgerufen.

Abdel-Samad: Alles irgendwie richtig, was Sie sagen.

SPIEGEL: Bis heute prangert die islamische Welt mit einigem Recht an, dass ein auf Israel eingeschworenes Washington im Nahen Osten mit zweierlei Maß misst.

Abdel-Samad: All das ist aber keine Rechtfertigung für Gewalt.

SPIEGEL: Natürlich nicht. Aber warum verbinden Sie den Terror so ursächlich mit dem Islam? Warum führen Sie ihn nicht auf die elenden Lebensumstände zurück, auf die Chancenlosigkeit, die arabische Gewaltherrscher zu verantworten haben, oft enge Verbündete des Westens?

Abdel-Samad: Weil die Terroristen sich auf die Religion berufen. Und weil Armut nicht die Ursache von Terror ist.

SPIEGEL: Seltsam. Wir klagen nicht die Christenheit an, wenn nordirische Splittergruppen im Namen der Religion morden. Wir nehmen nicht das Judentum ins Gebet, wenn ein Terrorist in Hebron Dutzende Muslime in der Grabstätte Abrahams abschlachtet und sich dabei auf Jahwe beruft. Aber gerade beim Islam…

Abdel-Samad: … ist es anders. Weil die Gewalt sich mit der Kultur verbündet hat.

SPIEGEL: … behaupten Sie …

Abdel-Samad: … und sich die Täter überdurchschnittlich oft auf den Koran berufen. Deswegen brauchen wir dringend Häretiker, die tabulos und ketzerisch alles an dieser Religion in Frage stellen.

SPIEGEL: Sie tun so, als würde sich Ihre Religion nicht verändern. Das amerikanische Nachrichtenmagazin “Time” pries in einer Titelgeschichte “die sanfte Revolution des Islam”. Und die von Ihnen geforderten Reformer gibt es doch: den Iraner Abdolkarim Sorusch etwa, der viele Wege zur Glaubenswahrheit anerkennt, und den kürzlich verstorbenen Ägypter Nasr Hamid Abu Said.

Abdel-Samad: Abu Said habe ich gut gekannt und verehrt, Sie wissen, dass radikale Richter wegen seiner liberalen Ansichten die Zwangsscheidung von seiner Frau erwirkt haben und er aus Ägypten in die Niederlande fliehen musste. Aber solche Denker sind Ausnahmen. Die meisten sogenannten Islamreformer erinnern mich an das Salonorchester auf der “Titanic”, das bis zum Untergang weiterspielt, um den Passagieren die Illusion einer Normalität zu vermitteln. Grundsätzliche Probleme bleiben außen vor.

SPIEGEL: Und die wären?

Abdel-Samad: Den Koran selbst in Frage zu stellen. Debatten werden zwar derzeit angestoßen, aber nie zu Ende geführt – Reformer und Konservative sind nach wie vor vom heiligen Text besessen. Manchmal frage ich mich, wer heute noch den Koran braucht. Hat unser Glauben vielleicht einen Geburtsfehler? War er zu schnell zu erfolgreich und hat deshalb staatliche und militärische Aufgaben mit dem Religiösen vermischt? Wie konnte der Islam im Mittelalter eine solche Blüte erreichen, und warum ging anschließend fast alles schief?

SPIEGEL: Was bedeutet Ihnen der Koran?

Abdel-Samad: Ich greife immer noch oft nach ihm, das ist meine Erziehung, das ist meine Kindheit.

SPIEGEL: Erzählen Sie von Ihrer ägyptischen Heimat.

Abdel-Samad: Ich wurde geboren in einem kleinen Fellachendorf am Nil, als drittes von fünf Kindern. Mein Vater war der Imam und oberste Hüter des Glaubens dort, und er hat mir absichtlich einen besonders heiligen Namen gegeben: “der dankbare Sklave Gottes”. Ich konnte unter seiner Anleitung den Koran bald auswendig. Es war eine behütete Zeit – und doch erlebte ich öfter, wie mein Vater meine Mutter schlug, die sich dabei klaglos vor ihm hinkniete.

SPIEGEL: Warum tat er das?

Abdel-Samad: Weil er als Soldat im Sechs-Tage-Krieg vor den Israelis fliehen musste und dieses Erlebnis nicht verarbeiten konnte. Weil die meisten Männer im Dorf ihre Frauen schlugen. Weil es der Glaube nicht ausdrücklich verbot. Es war eben so.

SPIEGEL: Sie wurden als Kind missbraucht.

Abdel-Samad: Ich muss damals vier gewesen sein; vor Angst gelähmt, rezitierte ich stundenlang nachts den Koran. Mit elf Jahren wurde ich noch einmal missbraucht, diesmal von einer Horde junger Männer. Gemäß unserer Tradition war es undenkbar, meinen Vater oder sonst jemanden einzuweihen.

SPIEGEL: Sie machen den Islam für diese Taten mitverantwortlich?

Abdel-Samad: So wie er heute gelebt wird, ja. Unterdrückte Sexualität, Leben auf kleinstem Raum und in einer geschlossenen Gesellschaft, Autoritätshörigkeit waren ursächlich.

SPIEGEL: Genau die Phänomene, wie man sie aus katholischen Einrichtungen kennt.

Abdel-Samad: Mag sein. Mein Vater jedenfalls wollte, dass ich Islamwissenschaft studiere. Ich hatte mich für Englisch und Französisch entschieden, tagelang bereitete ich mich klopfenden Herzens auf die Auseinandersetzung vor. Er akzeptierte meinen Wunsch, voller Verzweiflung, wie mir schien. An der Uni in Kairo hatte ich einen ideologischen Flirt mit den Marxisten und mit der Muslimbruderschaft. Auf Demonstrationen rief ich antisemitische Sprüche. Weil alle es machten.

“Die westliche Freiheit war für mich zunächst ein Fluch”

SPIEGEL: Wie kamen Sie nach Deutschland?

Abdel-Samad: Ich wollte heraus aus der Enge. Ich hatte zwischendurch als Fremdenführer gejobbt und eine Deutsche kennengelernt, die mich einlud. Aber deswegen war ich meine Ängste, meine Orientierungslosigkeit noch längst nicht los. Als ich 1995 in Frankfurt am Flughafen vor dem Beamten stand, bildete ich mir ein, er zögere, den Eintrittsstempel in meinen Pass zu drücken. Ich glaubte in seinen Augen zu lesen: Aha, noch ein Kamelflüsterer, der von unserem Wohlstand profitieren will.

SPIEGEL: Sie haben sich schnell integriert?

Abdel-Samad: Ganz und gar nicht. Deutschland kam mir fremd vor, wie ein kompliziertes Gerät für das es keine Gebrauchsanweisung gibt. Ich heiratete schließlich meine 18 Jahre ältere Freundin, eine rebellische linke Lehrerin. Nicht aus Liebe. Sie hatte die Lohnsteuerklasse drei vor Augen, ich den deutschen Pass.

SPIEGEL: Dann war es ja ein Geschäft auf Gegenseitigkeit.

Abdel-Samad: An sich schon. Nur war ich unvorbereitet auf die westliche Freiheit, sie war für mich zunächst ein Fluch, sie machte mich aggressiv. Ich begann ein Politikstudium in Augsburg. Verführungen überall, junge Frauen in der Mensa, das Bier in der Kneipe. Ich litt unter Schuldgefühlen, wenn ich zu viel von den Früchten des Westens genoss, die mein Glaube verbot. Ich fühlte mich gedemütigt, entwurzelt. Für kurze Zeit schloss ich mich einer Gruppe islamistischer Studenten an, suchte aus meiner Einsamkeit heraus die wohlige Gemeinschaft – andere sind so in die Fänge von Terroristen geraten. Ich nicht. Aber ich bekam Halluzinationen, Schweißausbrüche, Todesangst.

SPIEGEL: Hatten Sie professionelle Hilfe?

Abdel-Samad: Ja, ich unterzog mich einer stationären psychiatrischen Behandlung. Ich war dem Selbstmord nahe. Man überwies mich in eine geschlossene Abteilung, behandelte mich als Borderline-Persönlichkeit. Es war die Hölle, und die Hölle war auch in mir. Ich tat alles, um die Therapeuten davon zu überzeugen, dass ich draußen wieder zurechtkommen würde. Die Ärzte vertrauten mir. Nach meiner Entlassung machte ich mich auf zur nächsten Flucht – nach Japan, wo ich Japanisch lernte und mich mit fernöstlicher Spiritualität befasste. In Kyoto lernte ich dann die Liebe meines Lebens kennen, halb Dänin, halb Japanerin, die Frau, mit der ich heute verheiratet bin.

SPIEGEL: Kann es sein, dass Sie der Religion in Ihrem Leben eine zu große Rolle aufbürden, zu viel von ihr verlangen?

Abdel-Samad: Das müssen andere beurteilen. Ich habe mich rational mit dem Islam auseinandergesetzt und Kant und Spinoza gelesen. Ich habe mich mit der Aufklärung beschäftigt. Ich habe die Reformation studiert, die im Islam bis heute ausgeblieben ist.

SPIEGEL: Sie klagen die Muslime pauschal an, sich schnell gekränkt zu fühlen und dieses Beleidigtsein sogar zu genießen. Sie warfen europäischen Linksliberalen vor, gegenüber dem Islam eine “Appeasement-Politik” zu betreiben. Warum machen Sie als Wissenschaftler gelegentlich den Sarrazin – Lust an der Provokation? Gnadenlosigkeit des Konvertiten?

Abdel-Samad: Wenn man gehört werden will, muss man deutlich sagen, was man meint. Islam-Apologeten gibt es genug.

SPIEGEL: Der Trend geht doch hierzulande eher in die andere Richtung. Die Islam-Panikmacher dominieren die öffentliche Meinung. Auf Web-Seiten werden Muslime als “Ziegenficker” und “Schleierschlampen” niedergemacht, die Religion als “barbarisch”.

Abdel-Samad: Was so unterirdisch ist, dass ich es mit keinem Kommentar würdigen möchte.

SPIEGEL: Aber Islam-Bashing ist auch bei vielen deutschen Intellektuellen salonfähig geworden. Fühlen Sie sich wohl im Kreis der Islamophoben?

Abdel-Samad: Ich mag den Ausdruck nicht. Eine Phobie hat, wer Hirngespinste hegt. Die Gefahr durch Islamisten aber ist real, die mangelnde Integrationswilligkeit vieler Muslime in Deutschland ein ernstes Problem. Wenn andere Kritiker übertreiben und verbal aus dem Ruder laufen, kann das nicht mein Problem sein. Ich spreche nur für mich.

SPIEGEL: Der Historiker Wolfgang Benz, langjähriger Leiter des Zentrums für Antisemitismusforschung an der TU Berlin, sieht zwischen antisemitischen Hetzern und extremen “Islamkritikern” Parallelen. Sie arbeiteten mit ähnlichen Mitteln an ihrem Feindbild, mit instrumentalisierten Zerrbildern, mit Hysterie. Ist da nichts dran?

Abdel-Samad: Man kann alles mit allem vergleichen. Ich sehe keinen Zusammenhang.

SPIEGEL: Sie sind dabei, zum Vorzeige-Muslim der konservativen Politiker in Deutschland zu werden.

Abdel-Samad: Wie kommen Sie darauf?

SPIEGEL: Der Bundesinnenminister hat Sie in die Deutsche Islam Konferenz berufen.

Abdel-Samad: Das ist alles? Ja, ich war jetzt bei drei Sitzungen dabei und finde das ein interessantes Gremium, in dem Muslime unterschiedlichster Prägung zivil und streitbar miteinander umgehen. Ein Pluspunkt für Deutschland.

SPIEGEL: Sie werfen Ihren Glaubensbrüdern vor, immer nur nach Sündenböcken zu suchen.

Abdel-Samad: Ja, anstatt bei sich selbst nach Fehlern zu forschen. Vielleicht ist der Prozess, den ich durchlebt habe, der Prozess, den der Islam insgesamt braucht: dass sich jeder selbstkritisch betrachtet und aufhört, immer andere für seine Misere verantwortlich zu machen, sich als Opfer zu fühlen. Dass er sich befreit von Zwängen. Denn Verbitterung und Schuldzuschreibung führen zu Gewalt, und davon haben wir genug auf der Welt.

SPIEGEL: Herr Abdel-Samad, wir danken Ihnen für dieses Gespräch.

Das Gespräch führte der Redakteur Erich Follath

Posted in Islam, Islamisierung, Islamkritik, Sharia | Leave a Comment »