Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Big Peace

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • Geert Wilders

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for October, 2010

Zivilisation oder Scharia

Posted by paulipoldie on October 16, 2010

Bayernkurier

Zivilisation oder Scharia

In Großbritannien spalten halboffizielle Scharia-Gerichte die Gesellschaft – Imame schließen Kinder-Ehen, auch in Deutschland

London – Mit Millionen mohammedanischen Einwanderern ist auch das vorzivilisatorische islamische Scharia-Recht in Großbritannien eingezogen.
Diese Internet-Fatwa aus dem mittelenglischen Leicester sollte deutsche Innenminister inter­essieren: Darf ein Muslim im Westen Polizist sein und Gesetze schützen, die nicht islamisch sind? Das wollte ein Fragesteller wissen. „Im Prinzip ja“, antwortete der in Leicester geborene pakistanischstämmige junge Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari. „Aber wenn man Dinge tun muss, die gegen die Scharia gehen, dann ist es verboten.“ Ein mohammedanischer Polizist, der dieses islamische Rechtsgutachten ernst nähme, würde wohl zögern, etwa gegen eine Zwangsehe einzuschreiten, einen muslimischen Polygamisten vor Gericht zu bringen oder einen muslimischen Geschiedenen, der seine Alimente nicht so zahlt, wie es deutsches oder britisches Gesetz verlangt.

Genau das fordert die Antwort auf die Frage einer Muslimin in der Schweiz, die, wie sie selber schreibt, „Kopftuch trägt“ und von ihrem Mann getrennt lebt: Laut Schweizer Gesetz steht ihr das halbe Monatsgehalt ihres Mannes zu, bis die Scheidung rechtsgültig wird. Hat sie ein Recht auf das Geld? „Auf keinen Fall“, erklärt wieder auf Englisch dieses Mal ein ungenannter Mufti auf der Internetseite http://www.islamonline.com, die übrigens dem katharischen Al-Jazeera Medien-Unternehmen gehört. „Die Scheidung ist gültig, wenn der Ehemann sie ausspricht, und dafür bedarf es weder des Urteils eines Scharia-Richters geschweige denn eines ungläubigen Richters.“ Und weiter: „Es ist nicht erlaubt, von Menschen gemachte Gesetze anzuwenden, um einen Mann zu hindern, dass zu tun, was Allah ihm erlaubt hat.“ Wer es doch tut, so die Fatwa, „fällt vom Glauben ab“. Wahrscheinlich hat die Schweizer Fragestellerin nach dieser Auskunft lieber auf ihr Unterhaltsrecht verzichtet. Denn die Al-Jazeera-Fatwa enthält eine reale Drohung, die jeden Moslem sofort zutiefst erschreckt: Auf Abfall vom Glauben – Apostasie – steht im islamischen Scharia-Recht der Tod.

Es wäre ein Fehler, die Abertausenden Online-Fatwas als belangloses islamisches Pendant zu „Dr. Sommer antwortet“ in der Pubertätszeitung Bravo abzutun. Solche Fatwas, ob online oder nicht, haben großen Einfluss, in der islamischen Welt und inzwischen auch in Europa. Sie entstehen so, wie Fatwas immer entstanden sind: Als Antwort eines Rechtsgelehrten auf eine Frage aus dem Kreise der Gläubigen. Sie sind die Grundlage für die Entscheidungen von Scharia-Gerichten. Und wo die Scharia gilt, sind sie Gesetz.

Das islamische Scharia-Recht selbst beruht auf dem Koran, dem Vorbild Mohammeds und Hunderttausenden seiner Aussagen und Entscheidungen, die in den Hadithen gesammelt wurden. Es geht dabei keineswegs nur um Speisevorschriften und religiösen Ritus. Die Scharia erfasst alles menschliche Tun und Handeln – vom Toilettengang bis zum Internationalen Recht. Seit dem 10. Jahrhundert hat es kaum Wandlung erfahren. Jeder Versuch, es zu reformieren, gilt als Blasphemie. Gottes Wort und Befehl verträgt keine Korrektur von Menschenhand. Als der Schweizer Islam-Wissenschaftler und Enkel des Gründers der ägyptischen Moslem-Bruderschaft, Tariq Ramadan, im Jahr 2005 vorschlug, die von der Scharia für Ehebrecherinnen vorgeschriebene Steinigungsstrafe für einige Jahre weltweit auszusetzen, warfen ihm auch sogenannte islamische Gelehrte im Westen Abfall vom Glauben vor.

Millionen Einwanderer aus der islamischen Welt haben diese Scharia nun auch nach Europa gebracht und mit ihr die Scharia-Gerichte. In Großbritannien wurde das erste Scharia-Gericht 1982 in Birmingham eingerichtet. Weitere folgten in London und den Yorkshire-Städten Rotherham und Dewsbury. Ihre Urteile hatten keinerlei juristische Bedeutung. Aber seit 1996 gibt ein „Gesetz über neutrale Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit“ (Arbitration Act) britischen Streitparteien die Möglichkeit, etwa finanzielle Forderungen außergerichtlich von einer Expertenjury klären zu lassen. Deren Urteile sind rechtswirksam – vorausgesetzt, die Streitparteien verpflichten sich freiwillig dazu, den Schiedsspruch anzuerkennen. Allerdings dürfen solch außerstaatliche Schiedsgerichte weder in strafrechtlichen noch in Scheidungs-, Sorgerechts- und Erbschaftsfragen urteilen. Moslemverbände erkannten, dass das neue Gesetz ihnen die Möglichkeit gab, Scharia-Urteile sozusagen offiziell zu machen und staatlich durchsetzen zu lassen. 2007 wurden darum unter dem Dach eines eigens dafür geschaffenen Muslimischen Schiedstribunals fünf Scharia-Gerichte gegründet, gewissermaßen mit dem Stempel der Labour-Regierung. Weitere zwölf Scharia-Gerichte arbeiten seither unter dem Dach des ebenfalls in London sitzenden Islamischen Scharia-Rats.

Der britischen Öffentlichkeit war das weitgehend verborgen geblieben. Das änderte sich, als im Februar 2008 ausgerechnet der Erzbischof von Canterbury, Rowan Williams, unbefangen forderte, es sei wohl „unvermeidlich“, dass Elemente der Scharia in britisches Gesetz aufgenommen würden. Ein Aufschrei des Entsetzens war die Folge. Der naiv-multikulturell gesonnene Erzbischof wurde mit Rücktrittsforderungen bombardiert. Die öffentliche Irritation wuchs, als die Presse registrierte, dass seit bald einem Jahr Scharia-Gerichte überall im Land Urteile fällten, „die von der Regierung still und leise anerkannt werden“, wie die Londoner Tageszeitung The Times schrieb – sogar in Strafrechts- und Familienrechtssachen, was das Gesetz von 1996 eigentlich ausschließt. Vergangenen Sommer brachte eine 120-seitige Studie der gemeinnützigen Civitas-Stiftung (Denis MacEoin: „Scharia-Recht oder Ein Recht für Alle?“, London 2009) ans Licht, dass in Großbritannien mindestens 85 Scharia-Gerichte tätig sind, meist inoffiziell und völlig unabhängig von englischem Recht und Gesetz aus den Moscheen heraus. „Jeder qualifizierte Imam kann Scharia-Urteile fällen“, bestätigte gelassen ein Mufti des Islamischen Scharia-Rats.

In England, heißt das, macht sich neben dem britischen Recht eine flächendeckende halboffizielle mohammedanische Nebengerichtsbarkeit breit. Selbst die staatlicherseits sanktionierten Scharia-Gerichte sind problematisch, meint die Civitas-Studie. Denn das Gesetz über die Schiedsgerichte von 1996 schreibe vor, dass sich die Streitparteien freiwillig unterwerfen. MacEoin: „Tatsächlich aber sind die Scharia-Gerichte für viele Muslime Teil einer insti­tutionalisierten Atmosphäre der Einschüchterung, hinter der die ultimative Sanktion der Todesdrohung steht.“ Von Freiwilligkeit könne keine Rede sein. Vor allem nicht für Frauen, die nach dem Scharia-Recht grundsätzlich minderwertig sind: Vor Gericht gilt die Aussage einer Frau nur halb soviel wie die eines Mannes; Frauen können nur halb soviel erben, und im Scheidungsfall müssen sie einen Sohn an den Vater abgeben, wenn er sieben Jahre alt und eine Tochter, wenn sie neun ist. Der Gedanke des Kindeswohls kommt in der Scharia nicht vor. Aus dem Grund entschied auch das britische Oberhaus im Jahr 2008, die Scharia-Regelung zum Sorgerecht widerspreche der Menschenrechtskonvention.

In 95 Prozent der britischen Scharia-Urteile geht es um Scheidungen. Das Problem: Während gemäß dem islamischen Scharia-Recht ein Mann nur drei Mal den Satz „Ich verstoße Dich“ aussprechen muss und damit die Scheidung sofort rechtskräftig wird, braucht eine Frau die Erlaubnis ihres Mannes, um sich scheiden zu lassen. Recht auf Unterhalt hat sie praktisch nicht. Im Gegenteil, der Mann kann von ihr den Brautpreis zurückfordern. Damit eine Scheidung rechtskräftig wird, brauchen britische Muslime natürlich auch das Urteil eines normalen britischen Gerichts. Aber am Scharia-Gericht kommt eine Frau nicht vorbei, sonst fällt sie vom Glauben ab. Civitas-Autor MacEoin erinnert daran, was das bedeutet: „Das Vorkommen von Ehrenmorden in manchen muslimischen Gemeinschaften, macht es für viele Frauen und Mädchen fast unmöglich, die Rechte in Anspruch zu nehmen, die ihnen nach britischer und europäischer Gesetzgebung zustehen.“

Ein ebenso düsteres Kapitel wie die Scheidung ist im Scharia-Recht auch die Eheschließung. Weil der Koran in Sure 65 über die Scheidung die Ehe mit vorpubertären Mädchen für normal erklärt und an anderer Stelle die Gläubigen auffordert, dem Vorbild Mohammeds unbedingt zu folgen – der Prophet heiratete ein sechsjähriges Mädchen, vermählen Imame bedenkenlos sehr minderjährige Mädchen. Auch in der westlichen Welt, wo das verboten ist. Die kanadische Einwanderungsbehörde etwa berichtete kürzlich von kanadischen Muslimen, die in ihren Herkunftsländern – genannt wurden Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan und Libanon – 14-jährige oder noch jüngere Kinderbräute zwangsheiraten. Die Braut-Eltern erhalten dafür Geld. Die Londoner Civitas-Stiftung schrieb 2008 in einer Studie über Ehrengewalt vom Fall einer 15-jährigen Pakistanerin, die per Telefon mit einem 40-jährigen geistig behinderten Pakistaner in Sheffield verheiratet wurde. In England wurde sie von der Schwiegerfamilie zur Prostitution gezwungen.

Auch Deutschland ist längst betroffen von Scharia und islamischer Kinder-Ehe. „Wir haben schon mehr als 100 Scharia-Richter in Deutschland – mindestens einen in jeder Großstadt, viele auch schon in mittleren und kleineren Städten“, bestätigte kürzlich der ehemalige bayerische Innenminister und Ministerpräsident, Günther Beckstein. Unlängst ging der Fall einer Türkin durch die Presse, die schon 1992 im Alter von 15 Jahren von ihrem Bruder mit Schlägen dazu gezwungen wurde, einen Cousin zu heiraten. Ein Imam verheiratete das Paar – mitten in Deutschland. Die Hochzeitsnacht, erzählt die Frau heute, „war für mich wie eine Vergewaltigung“. Am Tage ihres 18. Geburtstags wurde sie auf ein deutsches Standesamt geschleppt, das dann die Vergewaltigungsehe abstempelte. Ebenfalls in Deutschland wurde erst im vergangenen September eine 14-jährige Kurdin zwangsverheiratet. Die Eltern des Mädchens erhielten 15000 Euro – eine gekaufte Kinderbraut.

Für die Scharia und für Scharia-Gerichte, so MacEoin, ist in der modernen Welt kein Platz: „Sie sind eine Herausforderung für unsere Überzeugungen von den Rechten und Freiheiten des Individuums und von einer Ordnung, in der Gesetze vom Parlament beschlossen werden. … Ein modernes Rechtssystem beruht auf der Vernunft, nicht auf willkürlichen, angeblich göttlichen Verkündigungen.“ Wer Scharia-Gerichte erlaubt, ist nicht tolerant, sondern teilt die Gesellschaft, warnt auch Civitas-Direktor David Green: „Fundamentalistische Muslime wollen britisches Recht benutzen, um Muslime zu zwingen, ein Leben außerhalb britischer Normalität zu führen. Wenn wir Scharia-Gerichten erlauben, in unser Recht einzudringen, führt das dazu, dass britische Muslime hier den gleichen Konformitätszwängen ausgesetzt sind wie in einem Dorf in Pakistan“.

Das heißt: In einem zivilisierten Land und in einer zivilisierten modernen Gesellschaft darf es nur ein Gesetz für alle geben. Zivilisierte westliche Staaten können Scharia-Gerichte nicht dulden und sollten die Ver­gewaltigungs-Scharia ächten. Auch über das Stichwort Zivilehe wird man neu nachdenken müssen. Bis Ende 2008 durften in Deutschland kirchliche Trauungen – und Imam-Eheschließungen – erst nach der standesamtlichen Trauung stattfinden. Am 1. Januar 2009 wurde das bis dahin unbedingte Verbot der religiösen Voraustrauung durch Gesetzesänderung aufgehoben. Religiöse Trauungen haben nun schlicht keine juristische Relevanz mehr. Mit Blick auf islamische Imam-Ehen heißt das aber auch, dass das gesetzliche Heiratsmindestalter nur noch auf dem Papier steht – ein gefährliches Einfallstor für Mädchenhandel und regelrechte Sex­sklaverei, mitten in Deutschland.Heinrich Maetzke

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

An Open Letter to Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC

Posted by paulipoldie on October 15, 2010

Gates of Vienna

by Baron Bodissey

In his latest post, Sergei Bourachaga tackles Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC in the form of an open letter.


An Open Letter to Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the OIC

By Sergei Bourachaga

Dear Dr. Ihsanoglu:

Allow me to begin my letter with a brief introduction of who you are, since the average North American reader will fail to associate your name with a face, a background, and the critical role you play in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

You are a person of Turkish descent born in Cairo, Egypt (26 December 1943). You lived for almost three decades in that country, mastered the Arabic language, and pursued an academic career in science at the Ain Shams University, receiving a BSc in 1966, followed by an MSc in 1970 from the same university, and last but not least a PhD from the Faculty of Science at the Ankara University in 1974. In January 2005 you were elected as the ninth Secretary General (SG) of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) — an international organisation with a permanent delegation in the UN, and a membership composed of 57 states. According to the official press releases of the OIC the 57 states/members dedicate resources and coordinate efforts, to articulate and promote with a unified voice the interests of Muslims globally.

In a speech delivered in the month of August 2010 at the University of Oxford, you stated to your audience that the time has come to achieve a “historic reconciliation“ between Islam and Christianity. You also warned Western democracies that using freedom of expression to offend Islam and fuel Islamophobia will alienate “moderate Muslims”, and provide more ammunition for Muslim jihadists determined to use violence to eradicate what in their perception can be classified as injustices inflicted by the West on the Muslim Ummah (Arabic for nation).

The same themes and points were reiterated in a different form in your address to the conference on “Islam and Muslims in America”, on September 29, 2010 in Chicago, organized by the OIC in cooperation with the American Islamic College in Chicago. You indicated also that the primary objective of the conference was to familiarize America with “the true and real image of Islam, based on tolerance, peace, pluralism and acknowledgement of diversity.”

With all due respect, sir, I find it very insulting and condescending from a scholar of your calibre to assume that the West in general and Americans in particular have no logical reasoning faculties, with which to dissipate the clouds of distortions you and the OIC have superimposed since 2005 on the real bloody image of Islam, in a desperate attempt to force us to tolerate one of the unique characteristics of Islam: INTOLERANCE. What makes a bad situation worse is the timing of your statements. It was not a coincidence that the OIC selected the month of September to promote the “True Image of Islam”. It was in 9/11/2001 that Islamic savagery showed its real tolerance of our values, and within hours 19 pious Muslims claimed the lives of 3000 Americans with their suicide missions directed against the Twin Towers of New York City, The Pentagon, and the failed attempt to target The White House. The 19 Jihadis of 9/11 were “moderate Muslims”, who lived in Western countries and pursued post-secondary education in well-respected academic environments, such as Hamburg University in Germany. Here I find it appropriate to dispel this myth called “moderate Muslims” or “moderate Islamists” that you, the OIC, and every Muslim who has managed to turn hypocrisy into a sophisticated form of art try to promote in Western democracies.

Any person who had taken an “Islam 101” course will tell you that the labels refer to nonexistent realities within the key principles of the religion called Islam. In the Arabic language the word Islam is rooted in the verb “ASLAMA”, meaning surrendered/submitted. A Muslim is a person who has surrendered or submitted himself to the will of God, as clearly expressed in the noble Koran — a guide in the Arabic language that points all true Muslim believers to the true path of salvation; an Islamic Umma under the wise rule of a Muslim Caliph, who rules justly with full compliance with Divine principles revealed in the Koran.

The Koran dehumanizes, demonizes, and expresses a clear contempt of any person who refuses to adopt Islam as “The Perfect Deen/Arabic for religion”. Just in case your mind often experiences “Selective Amnesia”, let me provide a few samples to refresh your memory:

“Satan has gained possession of The People of The Book (Jews and Christians) and caused them to forget Allah’s warnings. They are the confederates of Satan; Satan’s confederates shall assuredly be lost in hell. The Believers are the confederates of Allah (Hizbollah); and Allah’s confederates shall surely triumph”. Koran 58:19

“We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers (Jews and Christians). They serve other Gods for whom no sanction has been revealed. Hell shall be their home; dismal indeed is the dwelling place of the evil-doers”. Koran 3:149

Any Muslim (Turkish, Arab, Pakistani…) who rejects these verses and hundreds of other verses in the Koran, full of venomous hatred directed against Jews and Christians, is no longer a Muslim, because he is reversing his act of submission and questioning the judgement of Allah or the accuracy/reliability of the prophet who conveyed the will of Allah to his followers. There is no moderation or “pick and choose” your verses or souras. The Koran in its entirety is The Holy Book of Islam, and for many Western scholars a questionable literature.

You might rightfully argue that I am a biased Russian and my personal observations do not carry any weight. Then, allow me to use the statement of your compatriot Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey. During an interview on Kanal D TV’s Arena program, PM Erdogan commented on the term “moderate Islam”, often used in the West to describe AKP and said: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” (Source: Milliyet, Turkey, August 21, 2007).

On the issue of “Islamic Tolerance” and the West. I don’t want to list dozens of verses from The Noble Koran that make tolerance of other religions an anathema. Instead, I want to test your courage and dedication to “Inter-Faith Dialogue”, “Tolerance”, “Acknowledgement of Diversity” with a challenge. If you sincerely believe that Islam is a religion of “Peace & Tolerance” dedicated to dialogue, use your clout as the SG of OIC to launch a project of building a church in the city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The Vatican, the seat of Catholic Power representing almost 1 billion Christians, showed Christian tolerance with deeds not words, by convincing the City of Rome in 1974 to donate (absolutely free) 32,000 sqm of land in an area of Rome, less than 3 km away from St. Peter’s Basilica known as “The Pope Diocese”, to build a mosque and an Islamic Cultural Centre to encourage “Inter-Faith Dialogue”. The inauguration of the mosque took place on June 21, 1995, and the mosque’s construction was financed by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, head of the Saudi royal family, as well as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. Deeds speak louder than words, so provide the tangible evidence of “Islamic Tolerance” to the West by convincing the Saudi king to lift the absolute ban imposed on building churches anywhere in the Kingdom, especially Mecca. But until the construction of the church is over we will remember and systematically repeat to politicians seeking the appeasement of Islam, the prophetic warnings of Sir Winston Churchill on Islamism:

“The Mohammedan religion increases, instead of lessening, the fury of intolerance. It was originally propagated by the sword, and ever since, its votaries have been subject, above the people of all other creeds, to this form of madness [madness of intolerance-emphasis mine]… and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science — the science against which it had vainly struggled — the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

We will remember the statements of Sir Winston Churchill because often the so called Islamic dedication to tolerance is nothing but lip service. The best evidence again was provided by the imam of the Rome mosque (the one mentioned in the previous paragraph) Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa, 32, a cleric from Egypt who never showed any interest in learning the Italian language, but successfully used his Arabic oratorical skills with a Nile Delta accent to bite the very hands that have fed him and offered him a free mosque in Rome. A reporter of La Repubblica newspaper taped and translated the following statements made during a Friday sermon:

“O Allah, grant victory to the Islamic fighters in Palestine, Chechnya, and elsewhere in the world! O Allah, destroy the homes of the enemies of Islam! O Allah, help us to annihilate the enemies of Islam! O Allah, make firm everywhere the voice of the nation of Islam!”

“From the Islamic point of view, there is no doubt that the operations by the mujahidin against the Jews in Palestine are legitimate. They are acts of martyrdom, and their authors are martyrs for Islam, because all of Palestine is a ´Dar al-Harb,’ a war zone; because all of Jewish society is illegally occupying a Muslim land.”

The rant of the Imam went on and on, blaming every problem plaguing the Islamic Umma on the West and its corrupt values. Often you wonder why Muslims select Western democracies as their adoptive homeland if they so strongly believe and voice the concern that our moral values are so corrupt.
Please, Dr. Ihsanoglu, don’t try to convince me that what happened in the Rome mosque is an isolated event of misguided religious over-zealousness! On the contrary, in Canada, at least, Islamic radicalism preached regularly in Canadian mosques is a widespread phenomenon. I strongly suggest that you read an article published by Maclean’s Magazine (Sept.13/10), written by Canadian journalist Adnan R. Khan, titled “Spreading The Holy Word — and Fuelling Islamic Extremism”, in which Mr. Khan connects the activities of the Islamic fundamentalist movement Tablighi Jamaat (a movement considered by Western intelligence agencies as “conveyor belt to terrorism”) to the radicalization of the three Canadians arrested in Ottawa at the end of August 2010, on terrorism related charges.

Mr. Khan wrote also that “Virtually every mosque in Toronto has at one time or another hosted members of the group, often travelling from Pakistan to preach and convert Canadian Muslims to the “True Islam“. Of course “True Islam” means blind adherence to the will of Allah, clearly expressed in the Koran via the seal of the prophet Mohammed, whom every Muslim should emulate to impose by force the will of Allah on every infidel who rejected the perfect Deen/Religion — Islam.

Dear sir, Islamic fundamentalists preaching “True Islam” are casually hijacking freedom of expression to destroy our liberal democracies. Two key tools are used in the pursuit of their objective:

a)   The instructions of Allah conveyed by the Koran.
b)   The “narrative” that the West is against Islam, and every evil confronting Islam today can be traced back to the dark machinations of the West.

I am not going to elaborate on point (a) and the decrepit Allah of the Koran, who has to rely in his state of impotence on an army of Muslim jihadis to impose his will on this world. The internet — including this site — has a wealth of material on the Koran, and it would be unfair to inflict boredom on readers by playing the same record again and again. I will invest a significant effort to cover point (b), because organizations like the OIC disseminate the twisted ideas and logic making up the narrative, and it is a critical must for the West, and all who sincerely care about our freedoms and way of life to combat that narrative before an irreversible damage is inflicted on us.

The narrative promoted by OIC and all Islamic countries without exception, gained so much importance since 9/11 in shaping and coloring the relationship of Western democracies and Islamic countries, that former British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, made it the central theme of a speech addressed to an audience, gathered by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in New York City on October 6, 2010.

According to Mr. Blair, the “Narrative” is based on the universal pitiful Islamic lament that “… Islam is basically oppressed by the West; disrespected and treated unfairly; that the military action we took post-9/11 was against countries because they are Muslim; and that in the Middle East we ignore the injustice done to the Palestinians in our desire to support Israel, because the Palestinians are Muslims, and the Israelis Jews… The practitioners of extremism are small in number. The adherents of the narrative stretch far broader into significant parts of mainstream thinking.” Mr. Blair pointed out to his audience also, that thanks to efforts of “mainstream” Islamic organizations (like the OIC), Islamic governments, and the “paucity” of the West’s efforts, the Islamist “Narrative” remained “outspent, outmanoeuvred and out-strategised by Islamist extremism.”

As a historian, Dr. Ihsanoglu, I am sure you are aware that the Islamic conquest of Europe started with the invasion of Spain by Tariq ibn Ziyad, in 711. After an initial consolidation of the land conquered, Muslim invaders moved northeast across the Pyrenees, into present-day France, but were defeated by the Frank Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) in 732. The first Crusade to liberate the Holy Land did not start until three centuries later (1096-1099). So promoting the “Narrative” that Western hostility to Islam has roots in the First Crusade of the Holy Land is absurd. The same absurdity applies to the argument that Western support of the state of Israel is a serious source of tension between Islam and The West. The hatred Islam has for the Jews and all the infidels of this world who have rejected the teachings of Islam goes back to the time when the desert bandit masquerading as a prophet of Allah made the following revelations:

“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews…” Koran 5:82

“Believers, do not make friends with any men other than your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breasts conceal”. Koran 3:117

And that is when (629) Muslims decided to obey the instructions of Allah and “…put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers…” (Koran 3:149), not with the birth of the State of Israel in 14 May 1948 or Western support of Israel since its birth.

Dr. Ihsanoglu, I strongly urge you to stop the spread of the destructive “Narrative” the OIC is spreading with total disregard to the dire consequences this planet might face. Already, the madman of Iran (an OIC member), President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is engaged in a race to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium to build an atomic bomb and obliterate the State of Israel, to bring the “Narrative” to the disastrous conclusion promoted by the prophet Mohammed:

“Leave to me those that deny this revelation. We will lead them step by step to their ruin, in ways beyond their knowledge”. Koran 68:41
The only problem is that, if and when (hopefully never), such a catastrophic move is made by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the A-bomb is used to destroy and push the Jews of Israel back into the sea, the entire Islamic army engaged against Israel will end up in hell enjoying 72-year-old virgins, instead of the 72 young virgin houris promised by prophet Mohammed.

Iran’s ambitions to destroy Israel bring us back to the issue of religious tolerance, and the double standard used by the OIC in condemning the West for promoting animosity against Islam, but adopting total silence for the genocidal violence promoted by Iran against Israel in particular, and the West in general. And this double standard will remain, together with a long list of contentious issues, the focus of my attention and the attention of thousands of bloggers like me, who rely on the tireless efforts of administrators of sites like this one, to repeat to the rest of the world “WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER OUR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION” for the following fundamental reasons:

  • If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.” Sir Winston Churchill
  • To many Christian-secularists, Islam has been nothing more than a violent and elitist seventh-century political project, prior to it serving any religious purpose for mankind. It is on the basis of those two concerns of freedom of speech and the freedom of religious worship that the West should never extend an apology to Islam.” James McConalogue, The Pope, the Monk and Islam

Respectfully yours,

Sergei Bourachaga

 

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islamization, Sharia | 5 Comments »

Händel statt Mendelssohn

Posted by paulipoldie on October 15, 2010

English version here

Dass die deutschen Massenmedien-Journalisten in ihrer Berichterstattung die Wirklichkeit nach ihren Zwecken zurechtbiegen und ihren Lesern nur das präsentieren, was zu ihrer Ideologie passt, ist eine Binsenweisheit. Wolf Schneider hat das vor vielen Jahren schon in seinem Klassiker “Unsere tägliche Desinformation – Wie die Massenmedien uns in die Irre führen” überzeugend dargelegt.

(Wie deutsche Zeitungen und Magazine in ihrer Berichterstattung über Geert Wilders’ Rede in Berlin ihre Leser belügen – von Wolfgang Halder)

Doch so, wie es ein großer Unterschied ist, ob man abstrakt weiß, dass Leichen stinken, oder ob von der Nachbarwohnung tatsächlich übelriechender Leichengeruch herüberdringt, dass einem schlecht davon wird, so war es für mich bestürzend, in welchem Maße die Berichterstattung über Geert Wilders’ Rede am 2. Oktober in Berlin von der Wirklichkeit abweicht. Ich habe die Rede im “Hotel Berlin” gehört – was ich dort erlebt und gehört habe, hat mit dem, was viele Zeitungen darüber berichteten, kaum etwas zu tun.

Den Grund für das korrumpierte “Berufsethos” europäischer Journalisten hat der amerikanische Publizist Bruce Bawer, der viele Jahre in Europa gelebt hat, in seinem Buch “While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within” auf den Punkt gebracht: “Europäische Politik-Journalisten betrachten sich als Zugehörige derselben gebildeten Elite wie die Mainstream-Politiker und sehen es als ihre gemeinsame Aufgabe an, die sozialdemokratischen Werte lebendig zu halten.” Sie wollten nicht aufklären und informieren, sondern erziehen und betrieben deshalb einen missionarischen Journalismus. Sie begriffen sich, so Bawer, nicht als Diener des Volkes, sondern als dessen Lehrer und Erzieher.

Diese Haltung der europäischen Journalisten trifft auf eine gleichermaßen fatale Lesermentalität: “Die meisten Amerikaner neigen dazu, Journalisten – ebenso wie Professoren und Politiker – mit Skepsis, ja sogar Verachtung zu sehen. Amerikaner haben eine niedrige Toleranzschwelle für Anmaßung und überhebliches Getue. Wir haben wenig Geduld mit jenen, die wollen, daß man zu ihnen als Autorität aufsieht, nur weil sie mit einem Jargon um sich werfen. … Europäer dagegen sind es seit Jahrhunderten gewöhnt, auf Autoritäten zu hören und fühlen sich schneller als wir wohl in der Konformität. Die europäischen Medien sind zu einem außergewöhnlichen Grad Instrumente der Regierungen, dienen deren Zwecken und spiegeln deren Ideologie wider.”

Bei der Irreführung ihrer Leser bedienen sich die deutschen Journalisten eines breiten Repertoires: Es reicht von der schlichten Lüge über Verdrehungen, Unterstellungen bis zur manipulierenden Bildauswahl. Der Generalbass aller Artikel ist die Weigerung, auf Wilders’ Argumente einzugehen. Es findet keine Auseinandersetzung in der Sache statt. Die journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht und die Forderungen des deutschen Pressecodex werden häufig verletzt – etwa diese beiden Punkte:

– “Die Achtung vor der Wahrheit, die Wahrung der Menschenwürde und die wahrhaftige Unterrichtung der Öffentlichkeit sind oberste Gebote der Presse.”

– “Nachrichten und Informationen sind auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt zu prüfen. Ihr Sinn darf durch Bearbeitung, Überschrift oder Bildbeschriftung weder entstellt noch verfälscht werden.”

Alle von mir im folgenden angeführten Zitate und Erwähnungen beziehen sich auf die Online-Ausgaben der genannten Zeitungen und Magazine, da ich grundsätzlich kein Geld für deren Printversionen ausgebe. Der Einfachheit halber nenne ich immer nur den Zeitungs- bzw. Magazinnamen – “Bild” bedeutet also “Bild online”, “Spiegel” ist “Spiegel online” usw.

Falsche Sachverhalte

Die Verfälschungen beginnen schon auf der untersten Ebene der einfachen Fakten. Rainer Haubrich schreibt in der “Welt”:

35 Euro hat jeder der mehr als 500 Zuhörer bezahlt, um einen Vortrag des niederländischen Islamkritikers Geert Wilders zu hören.

Falsch, Herr Haubrich, es waren 15 Euro. Auch eine Dame vom Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, die im Saal in der Reihe hinter mir einen älteren Herrn aus Berlin interviewte, sprach von “35 Euro Eintritt” für die Rede. Auf Nachfrage ihres Interviewpartners, wie sie auf die 35 Euro komme, konnte sie keine Quelle nennen, sie habe das irgendwo gehört. – So etwas, verehrte Journalisten, findet man durch Recherche heraus, z.B. durch Anruf beim Veranstalter oder durch Aufruf des Anmeldeformulars, und Recherche gehört zum kleinen Einmaleins des journalistischen Handwerks.

Dass man sich als “kritischer” Journalist nicht mit schnöden Fakten aufhält, zeigt erneut Rainer Haubrich von der “Welt” durch seine Schreibweise im ersten Absatz “René Stadtkiewicz” für René Stadtkewitz sowie der Behauptung, bei der Veranstaltung habe es sich um eine “Tagung der neuen Partei” DIE FREIHEIT gehandelt. Gibt es bei der Welt keinen Textchef, Schlussredakteur oder Korrekturleser?

Mit den Fakten tun sich auch Jörn Hasselmann und Ulrich Zawatka-Gerlach vom “Tagesspiegel” schwer, heißt es doch in ihrem Artikel:

Offenbar brachte Wilders auch Anhänger aus dem eigenen Land mit. Direkt vor dem Hoteleingang stand ein großer Reisebus aus den Niederlanden.

Die Weltläufigkeit, die aus dieser Anmerkung spricht, ist köstlich, denn der Bus war aus Ungarn – das bekanntlich das Länderkennzeichen “H” hat, welches für Hungary steht und eben nicht für Holland (NL).

Was macht Jan Bielicki in der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” aus Geert Wilders Satz:

“Ein Deutschland voller Moscheen und verschleierter Frauen ist nicht mehr das Deutschland Goethes, Schillers und Heines, Bachs und Mendelssohns”

Er läßt perfiderweise die beiden von Wilders genannten jüdischen Künstler Heine und Mendelssohn weg, dichtet statt dessen Händel dazu und macht aus dem schönen Genitiv des Fremdsprachlers Wilders (“Schillers”) den barbarischen Journalisten-Genitiv “von Schiller” – Zitat Bielicki:

“Ein Deutschland mit Moscheen und verschleierten Frauen ist nicht das Deutschland von Schiller und Goethe, von Händel und Bach.”

In seinem zweiten Artikel zu Wilders Rede bringt Bielicki dieses Zitat wieder, meistert nun den Genitiv, erwähnt auch Heine und Mendelssohn und lässt den von ihm erfundenen Händel weg – aber auch Goethe fehlt:

“Ein Deutschland voller Moscheen und voller verschleierter Frauen ist nicht mehr das Deutschland Schillers und Heines, Bachs und Mendelssohns.”

Der “Spiegel”-Autor Severin Weiland unterschlägt in der Erwähnung dieser Passage Heine und Mendelssohn nicht, macht aber aus Mendelssohn “Mendelsohn”. Ich vermute, dass Weiland, laut Impressum stellvertretender Leiter des Berliner Büros von “Spiegel online” und bei der “Tageszeitung” journalistisch sozialisiert, den Namen Mendelssohn zum ersten Mal in seinem Leben geschrieben hat. Ich bezweifle, dass er Mendelssohns “Sommernachtstraum” und “Elias”, die “Lieder ohne Worte” und das f-Moll-Quartett kennt. Er weiß wahrscheinlich gar nicht, welche Kultur Geert Wilders und wir hier gegen den Islam verteidigen, weil er sie nicht kennt.

Aber das ist – wie gesagt – nur meine Vermutung. Tatsache ist, dass weder Weiland noch seine Redaktion wissen, wie man Mendelssohn schreibt. Und wenn “Spiegel”-Leser an dieser Stelle aufheulen und sagen, naja, einen Namen falsch schreiben, das ist doch nicht schlimm, das sind spießige Sekundärtugenden, dann erinnere ich an Karl Kraus, dem die ganze Barbarei des National-Sozialismus schon daran offenbar wurde, dass dessen Anhänger in ihrer Grußformel “Heil Hitler” das Komma zwischen “Heil” und “Hitler” nicht setzten.

Der Haider-Vergleich

“Hollands Haider” lautet die Dachzeile des “Bild”-Anreißers zur Wilders-Rede. Man traut seinen Augen nicht. Hier mischt sich des deutschen Journalisten Hang zum Stabreim mit Unkenntnis in der Sache. Jörg Haider, der Freund Gaddafis, der von sich sagt, daß er “mit Saddam Hussein sehr gut war”, der sich im Karikaturenstreit gegen die Meinungsfreiheit gestellt hat (“Meinungsfreiheit und Narrenfreiheit sind verschiedene Dinge”), der über Israel sagte, “es nennt sich eine Demokratie”, der meinte, “wir müssen die arabische Welt respektieren”, der George Bush mit Saddam Hussein gleichsetzte…

Die blonde Bestie

Geert Wilders ist blond. Ob das Natur oder Chemie ist, sollte einen zivilisierten Menschen ebensowenig interessieren wie die Körbchengröße von Angela Merkel, denn die Haarfarbe ist für das Wirken eines Politikers ebenso unwichtig wie seine Schuhgröße. Sie anzuführen ist Stimmungsmache mit dem primitivsten aller Ad-hominem-Argumente – der Erwähnung eines körperlichen Merkmals der Person, deren Meinung einem nicht gefällt.

Und eben wegen dieser Primitivität lässt kaum ein deutscher Journalist, der über Wilders’ Rede in Berlin geschrieben hat, die Erwähnung der Haarfarbe aus: “Der Mann mit der blonden Mähne” (Spiegel); “der hochgewachsene Mann mit den nach hinten gekämmten weiß-blonden Haaren” (Focus); “als drinnen auf der Bühne Wilders’ blondierte Haartolle auftaucht” (Frankfurter Rundschau); der “groß gewachsene und auffallend blonde Niederländer” (WAZ); “der Mann mit dem blondierten Haarschopf” (Süddeutsche Zeitung). Noch weiter geht die Journalistin Eva Male von der Presse aus Österreich, die ihre Blondierungskompetenz ausspielt:

Was macht die Attraktivität des groß gewachsenen, bubengesichtigen Mannes mit den weichen Zügen und dem blondierten Haarschopf aus, der dringend nachgefärbt gehört?

Da läuft untergründig die Anspielung mit auf die “nach Beute und Sieg lüstern schweifende blonde Bestie” aus Nietzsches “Genealogie der Moral”, denn die Autoren, die Wilders’ Haarfarbe erwähnen, wollen damit folgende unbewußte Assoziationskette im Leser hervorrufen: Wilders – blond – blonde Bestie – Nietzsche – Nazis – Wilders=Nazi. Dieses Verfahren ist an bösartiger Absurdität nicht zu übertreffen: In der Manier der National-Sozialisten wird ein körperliches Merkmal arglistig zur Abwertung eines Menschen eingesetzt, damit dieser als National-Sozialist erscheint…

Wie gut die Stigmatisierungen bei den Vertretern der Mainstream-Medien selbst verfangen, sieht man am Beispiel eines Journalisten, der vor dem “Hotel Berlin” gefragt wird, warum er da sei (siehe nachfolgendes Video). Wegen der “Rede eines rassistischen Politikers”, lautet seine Antwort. Auf die Nachfrage, wie er das Urteil “rassistisch” begründe, relativiert er zunächst seine Aussage und wird dann misstrauisch. Für ihn ist es augenscheinlich gewöhnungsbedürftig, dass jemand von der Presse für so eine Behauptung eine argumentative Bergründung möchte. Deshalb fragt er nach dem Presseausweis. Als ihm der nicht gezeigt wird, verschwindet er erzürnt und verunsichert.


(Quelle: Tundra Tabloids…)

Der Rudi-Carrell-Faktor

Harmloser, aber auch vollkommen sinnfrei ist die Erwähnung in SZ und FAZ, dass Wilders wie Rudi Carrell klinge: In “fließendem Rudi-Carrell-Deutsch” habe Wilders geredet, blubbert Andreas Ross in der FAZ, und Jan Bielicki stellt in der SZ fest:

Er liest seine Rede auf Deutsch, in jenem Rudi-Carrell-Tonfall, die auch harte Sprüche weich klingen läßt.

Ross und Bielicki scheinen außer Rudi Carrell noch nie einen anderen Holländer Deutsch sprechen gehört zu haben. So klingt es eben, wenn Holländer Deutsch reden. Und? Was ist daran bemerkenswert? Welche wertvolle Information erhalten dadurch die Leser dieser beiden Flaggschiffe des deutschen “Qualitätsjournalismus”?

Immer wieder der Islam

Vorwurfsvoll heißt es im “Spiegel”: “Der Islam und immer wieder der Islam – das durchzieht seine Rede.” Hätte Geert Wilders über die Geschichte des Deichbaus in Holland sprechen sollen? Es liegt in der Natur der Sache, dass in einer Rede, die den Islam zum Thema hat, immer wieder der Islam vorkommt. Das “Hotel Berlin” war an dem Wochenende, an dem Wilders dort gesprochen hat, auch Übernachtungsstätte der Teilnehmer des Kongresses “Diabetes in Wissenschaft und Praxis”. Man stelle sich vor, ein Kongress-Berichterstatter hätte den Rednern vorgehalten, diese sprächen “über Diabetes und immer wieder Diabetes” – kein Mensch würde diesen Journalisten mehr ernst nehmen. In der Politik-Berichterstattung ist solche Stümperei erlaubt, ja die Regel.

Die Leibwächter

“Wo Geert Wilders ist, sind seine Leibwächter”, schreibt “Bild”, und in der “Süddeutschen” heißt es, er sei “umgeben von bulligen Personenschützern der niederländischen Polizei”. Hier kann man wieder die subtile Heimtücke der SZ bewundern. Die “bulligen Personenschützer” – das klingt bedrohlich und negativ, wirft ein schlechtes Licht auf Wilders, diese “zwielichtige Figur aus den Niederlanden” (Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger). Doch was sollen Personenschützer anders sein als bullig, ist es doch ihre Aufgabe, unter Einsatz ihres Körpers andere Menschen zu schützen. Mit der Statur eines Gregor Gysi könnten sie das nicht.

Doch das Wichtigste im Zusammenhang mit dem Personenschutz wird von der SZ verschwiegen: Geert Wilders leidet unter diesem Personenschutz, aber er braucht ihn seit Jahren – ebenso wie Ayaan Hirsi Ali -, weil gläubige Muslime drohen, beide zu ermorden. Dass das keine leeren Drohungen sind, weiß jeder seit der Abschlachtung Theo van Goghs in Amsterdam 2004. Doch selbst diese Tatsache, die in jedem normalen Menschen ein mitfühlendes Bedauern auslöst, wird von der SZ gegen Wilders gewendet. Das ist menschenverachtende Propaganda der übelsten Sorte.

Bilder und Bildunterschriften

Jeder Leser nimmt zuerst die Bilder wahr. Auch wenn er einen Artikel nicht liest, liest er zumindest die Überschrift und die Bildunterschrift. Deshalb kann man ihn da besonders gut manipulieren. Das tut die “Welt” in ihrer Bilderstrecke denn auch: “Pfiffe und Beifall für Geert Wilders” steht da bei allen acht Bildern. Erstens gab es während der Rede keine Pfiffe, zweitens soll schon die Reihenfolge – erst die Pfiffe, dann der Beifall – Stimmung gegen Wilders machen. Die angeblich hundert Demonstranten vor dem Hotel (ich habe nur knapp fünfzig gezählt) werden von der “Welt” mit drei Bildern bedacht, die 540 Teilnehmer im Hotel bekommen dagegen nur ein einziges Bild.

Der “Spiegel” greift bei der Bildauswahl ganz tief in die Propagandatrickkiste. Man sieht Wilders, als er sich von seinem Sessel aus der hinter ihm befindlichen Leinwand zuwendet, um sich die Videobotschaft Oskar Freysingers zu betrachten, mit nach oben verdrehten Augen, in denen er wie ein Zombie wirkt, weil nur das Weiße zu erkennen ist. Das Ganze ist zudem von unten aufgenommen. Seit den Tagen des expressionistischen Stummfilms ist das ein beliebtes und billiges Mittel, um jemanden zu dämonisieren und negativ darzustellen.

Alle Kulturen sind gleich

Viel Aufregung gab es über Wilders’ Aussage, “dass unsere Kultur bestimmten anderen Kulturen überlegen ist”. Wilders’ Argumente gegen die Gleichheit aller Kulturen, diesen Glaubenssatz des Multikulturalismus, werden z.B. von Severin Weiland im “Spiegel” nicht widerlegt, sondern mit einer raunenden Anspielung unterstellt er hinterhältig, Wilders’ Position führe nach Auschwitz:

An dieser Stelle ist der Applaus eher verhalten. Vielleicht erinnern sich manche im Saal noch an jene Zeiten, in denen Deutsche sich zum Herrenvolk aufschwangen.

Dabei hat Wilders mit seinem Verweis auf Schiller, Goethe und Heine, auf den ersten Zusatz der amerikanischen Verfassung und auf die Tatsache, dass “freie Individuen freie moralische Akteure” sind, deutlich gemacht, welche Kultur er meint, wenn er von einer dem Islam überlegenen spricht. Er meint die “westliche Zivilisation”, die die “freieste und die florierendste auf Erden” ist (Zitate Wilders) – mit anderen Worten den kapitalistischen Westen, dem die Freiheit des Individuums und dessen “pursuit of happiness” die höchsten Werte sind. Wilders meint damit genau die Kultur, welche die Sozialismen aller Farben – braune wie rote, nationale wie internationale – und eben auch der Islam zerstören wollen.

Ich hätte von Severin Weiland und all den anderen, die diese Aussage Wilders’ kritisieren, gern ein Argument gehört, weshalb eine Kultur, in der das Leben einer Frau weniger Wert ist als der linke Hoden eines Mannes, in der ein Mann sich unrein fühlt, wenn er einer Frau die Hand gibt, und in der eine vergewaltigte Frau die Ehre ihrer Familie beschmutzt, ein vergewaltigender Sohn aber nicht, gleichwertig ist mit der westlichen Zivilisation und ihren Werten wie Freiheit des Individuums, Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz und Meinungsfreiheit.

Doch Argumente sucht man bei den Wilders-Gegnern vergeblich. Denn gegen Leute wie Wilders braucht man keine Argumente. Er ist blond, er ist islamkritisch, er ist ein Populist. Das reicht. Damit gilt er als widerlegt und moralisch minderwertig – und das im Land Schillers, Goethes und Heines…

Politically Incorrect

Posted in Geert Wilders | Leave a Comment »

Possessing Freedom is Not Enough — We Must Exercise Our Freedom to Preserve It

Posted by paulipoldie on October 11, 2010

From Citizen Warrior

The following is a transcript of a speech columnist Diana West gave at a free speech conference of the International Free Press Society held in Denmark’s parliament in Copenhagen:

AMERICANS ARE proud, and rightly so, of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which, among other things, protects speech from government control. The Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Increasingly, however, Americans seem content to regard the First Amendment not as the fundamental working tool of democracy, but as a national heirloom, a kind of antique to admire rather than put to use. I don’t think many of my countrymen perceive how profoundly their attitude toward free speech has changed. But there is a difference between having freedom of speech and exercising freedom of speech, one that has become glaringly and distressingly obvious to me since September 11, 2001. So, while it is true that the US government is not Constitutionally empowered to make laws that censor Americans, it is also true, I believe, that Americans have come to censor themselves. But why?

I speak today in regard to the effect of Islam on speech in America — Islam as it has entered our national discussion and debate — and, I must add, lack of national discussion and debate — since the heinous Islamic attacks on the US in 2001.

You may recall that just days after the attacks, then-President Bush said — and I quote — “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while.” At that same moment, the Pentagon, just across the river from the White House, was a colossal ruin, there was still carnage and mangled steel in the Pennsylvania woods, and an acrid fire of souls burned at the bottom of Manhattan. But once President Bush uttered that word “crusade” a new fear seemed to grip Washington and the wider world: namely, the fear that the President would “alienate” Muslims, even so-called “moderate Muslims.”

I believe such a fear may be unique in the annals of peoples under assault and bears further consideration. The English word “crusade,” of course, harkens back to the medieval wars between Islam and Christendom, which Islam ultimately won, as we know. In the more than nine centures since, the word has become a familiar metaphor for any moral fight for right: Long ago in America, Thomas Jefferson spoke of a “crusade” against ignorance; the feminist Susan B. Anthony called for a women’s temperance “crusade”; more recently Colin Powell referred to the “equal rights” crusade. And when Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote his memoir of World War II, he called it “Crusade in Europe.”

But after 9/11 it became instantly clear that there wasn’t going to be a 21st-century-“crusade” against newly expansionist Islam — not even against the most violent manifestations of jihad as exemplified by these bloody attacks on civilians and cities in the United States. Why? Muslims didn’t approve. Non-al Qaeda Muslims, presumably, didn’t approve of a “crusade” against al-Qaeda, and the leader of the Free World deferred. A White House spokesman quickly expressed the president’s “regret” that anyone might have been “upset” by the word “crusade.” After that, the word was effectively struck from the English language.

This may seem like a small thing, no more than a diplomatic nicety, but the significance of excising this rousing and storied word from the vocabulary of Americans at the onset of war can hardly be overstated, and must be understood as an early and decisive psychological victory for Islam over the West. In this early semantic retreat we can see the beginnings of the official American lexicon that now strives to avoid associating Islam and jihad altogether, that no doubt gives mighty encouragement to the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s continuing efforts to outlaw all criticism of Islam.

Let me explain. In acceding to the Islamic interpretation of the word “crusade” as something wrong and indefensible — and, worse, something taboo and also verboten — the president traded away a piece of our history and our language — and our understanding of our history through our language — for the sole sake of appeasing Islam. And truly, this was just the beginning.

Soon, the president was giving up other words, other pieces of our culture. Operation Infinite Justice, the Pentagon name for the assault on the Taliban, for example, was changed after Muslims complained that they believed only Allah dispenses infinite justice. The new name was Operation Enduring Freedom. Presumably, Muslims do not believe Allah dispenses freedom, enudring or otherwise (which is interesting), so that was all right. But in making the change, the US was again deferring to Islamic demands, Islamic understandings.

In other words, as a military intelligence officer-friend of mine likes to put it, we were “outsourcing” our judgment to Islam. Indeed, the name “war on terror” itself was a generic sop to Islamic sensibilities, omitting any reference to the Islamic dimension of the struggle, namely the jihad that was and is underway.

In those early days after 9/11, President Bush also made it part of his job to serve as the nation’s head cheerleader for Islam as “the religion of peace.” Confusingly, this immediately put “jihad” in a box as something superfluous to Islam. This is now the conventional wisdom in America, from Left to Right: jihad has nothing to do with Islam. Or: “Jihadism is not Islam,” former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney obediently declared.

People think Barack Hussein Obama is the first American president to promote Islam. The fact is, President Bush’s incessant declarations that Islam is a peaceable creed that terrorist-traitors had “hijacked” or “twisted” drove Abu Qatada, the notorious imam in Britain linked to Al Qaeda to comment — and I quote: “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Koran that justifies jihad or violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Koran?”

It’s fair to say that the answer to both questions is no. It’s also disturbing to realize that in the mainstream conversation, the only questions balking at the president’s depiction of Islam as a hearts-and-flowers ideology came from an Islamic terror-imam — never from our own media or politicians.

George W. Bush’s Department of Homeland Security made it difficult for government officials to talk about anything but “hearts and flowers” Islam by issuing a long memorandum “suggesting” that government officials stop using all such words as “jihad,” “jihadist,” “Islamic terrorist,” “Islamist” “Islamofascist” and the like when discussing, well, Islamic terrorism. “Using the word “Islamic” will sometimes be necessary,” the memorandum said, adding that the department’s Muslim experts were concerned that in such a case — quote — “we should not concede the terrorists’ claim that they are legitmate adherents of Islam.”

It’s not hard to imagine Abu Qatada cackling over this propaganda, but I regret to say there was scant media coverage of even this outrageous Islamic apologetic via government directive.

This shouldn’t be surprising since the media in the US, as elsewhere in the West, is overwhelmingly predisposed to ignore or deny, as a key point of cultural relativism, all specifically Islamic roots of jihad violence and conquest. This is the philosophical basis of what I call Islam-free analysis. Add to that the fear factor of Islamic violence — as we saw in the Danish cartoon crisis — or fear of Islamic protests or harassment, and the United States of America is happy to comply with a universal gag order on Islam, First Amendment or no First Amendment.

And so, from the so-called war on terror — which is now, even more opaquely known by the Obama administration as an “overseas contigency operation” — to newsrooms across America, Islam as what sociologists call “an underlying cause” is increasingly treated as a forbidden topic. Another example: As a journalist, I attend expert lectures in Washington, DC, on, What happened in Iraq? or, The future of Afghanistan. I can attest that at all the ones I have attended, Islam — its culture, its history, beliefs, supremacism, sharia, jihad, anything — is never even mentioned. In this same mold, when Gen. Stanley McChrystal gave one his first interviews as the newly confirmed commander in Afghanistan about the challenges facing coalition forces in Afghanistan. Such challenges, apparently, have nothing to do with Islam, Islamic law (sharia), or jihad — none of which he even mentioned.

This same see-no-Islam mindset, to focus on the media for a moment, drives stories such as the Buffalo, New York “businessman” who beheaded his wife this spring after she filed for divorce. Did I mention he was a Muslim? That he had founded a television station to combat negative Islamic stereotyping? Most US media didn’t. Initial reports, such as they were, cited “money woes,” or general “domestic violence” as the trigger, never noting the sacralization of misogyny within Islam, let alone the unfortunate Koranically inspired propensity toward beheading people.

To take another typical story, last month authorities uncovered a terror plot in New York City targeting synagogues and military aircraft. I listened to a 2 minute and 29 second radio report of the story and didn’t get the information that the suspects were jailhouse converts to Islam until the final eight seconds. And that was typical.

Another non-story for the Islam-blind: When Harvard University’s Muslim chaplain recently declared support for the traditional Islamic penalty of death for apostasy, there were exactly two newspaper stories: one in Harvard’s student newspaper, and one that I wrote.

Some of the most egregious examples of Islam-free reporting came out of the jihadist attacks on Mumbai. Early this year, for example, the Indian government released intercepts of conversations of the jihadists who murdered 163 people last November. The conversations frequently invoked Allah, Islam and the need to spare Muslims in the bloody rampages but world media including the New York Times and the Asscoiated Press, for example, omitted all or very nearly all references to Allah, Islam, and the need to spare Muslims in the bloody rampages.

As a conservative, I would like to say that such silence on all things Islam is a phenomenon of the mainstream media, or the Left in general. But this same silence is also a phenomenon of the Right, the side of the politial spectrum where one expects to find some fight. But American conservatives, too, protect Islam by not talking about it — our most famous conservative talk show hosts, for example, barely ever mention it — or by obscuring the subject with the nonsense words that hide the mainstream Islamic roots of terror and supremacism.

Soon after 9/11, I tried some of these same terms out myself — Islam”ist,” Islamo-fascist, radical fundamentalist, Wahhabist, and the like — but came to find them 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 Islamic ideology with Western liberty.

Worse than imprecision, however, is the evident childishness that inspires the lexicon, as though padding “Islam” with extraneous syllables such as “ism” or “ist” is a shield against politically correct censure; or that exempting plain “Islam” by criticizing imaginary “Islamofascism” spares us Muslim rage — which, as per the Danish experience, we know explodes at any critique. Such mongrel terms, however, not only confuse the disucssion, but keep our understanding of Islam at bay.

Here is how it works on the Right. In writing about Cartoon Rage 2006, Charles Krauhammer, probably the leading conservative columnist in America, clearly identified why the Western press failed to republish the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

He wrote: “What is at issue is fear. The unspoken reason many newspapers do not want to republish is not sensitivity but simple fear.” Unquote.

This was clear as a bell: but then he wrote:

“They know what happened to Theo van Gogh, who made a film about the Islamic treatment of women and got a knife through the chest with an Islamist manifesto attached.”

To repeat, the columnist wrote that Theo van Gogh made a film about the “Islamic treatment of women” and was killed by a knife “with an Islamist manifesto” attached. Given that both Theo’s film and murder-manifesto were explicitly inspired by the verses of the Koran, what’s Islamic about the treatment of women that’s not also Islamic about the manifesto? The “ist” is a dodge, a semantic wedge between the religion of Islam and the ritual murder of van Gogh. It saves face. But why, why, is it up to an infidel American columnist to save face … when the face is Mohammed’s?

I think the answer is connected to what may have been the real war President Bush began to lead the day he gave up the “crusade.” I’m afraid this effort isn’t against “jihad,” and it isn’t against Islamization. On the contrary, it’s a very strange war for the West: it’s our war against alienating Islam; our war against blaming Islamic ideology for violence and repression in the cause of Islamic conquest. In this Western struggle to protect Islam, denouncing an Islam”ist” manifesto, for example, leaves Islam itself ideologically blameless. And this constitutes a win in this very weird war.

But the war against alienating Islam is not a war I want to fight — and no adherent of Western liberty could believe it’s the war we want to win. Indeed, this war effort turns out to be the same thing as fighting for Islam. It calls us to self-censorship, self-abnegation, self-extinguishment. It depends on and encourages our submission. This is the behavior of the dhimmi and the culture of dhimmitude as catalogued by the great historian Bat Ye’or.

Honestly, I don’t think Americans realize they’re engaged in such a suicidal effort, which has even intensified under President Obama. Nor do I believe most Americans would rally to such a cause — if, that is, they became educated enough to understand it. But the knowledge gap is as wide as the communications gap. Deep down we may not have lost our will; however, at this terrible point, we have lost our language to mobilize that will. And very few Americans seem to realize it.

A final point: I’ve had the opportunity to observe Geert Wilders speak in the United States this past year, and, as you know, he speaks in robust terms to explain forthrightly the perils of Islamzation in the West. His heroic manner and clarity electrify many of the Americans who hear him — which suggests there is a healthy flicker of life out there.

But there is often someone in the crowd who will tell Mr. Wilders that while he agrees with the message, Mr. Wilders should soften his words so as not to offend anyone — meaning, of course, Muslims. “Don’t say Juedo-Christian culture is better,” I heard one man say to Mr. Wilders. “Say: ‘we believe in women’s rights.’”

I know I don’t have to worry about Mr. Wilders “moderating” his message, but I worry greatly about all the Americans who ask him to.

On hearing about the Dutch court’s sharia-compliant prosecution of his freedom of speech, an American journalist reacted with genuine horror that such a state of repression could exist in a Western country. At the same time, I could sense his quiet pride in knowing, at the back his mind, that he, as an American, was fully protected by the First Amendment. But I wondered to myself, Did he use it? Did his colleagues use it? If the state of American journalism is any marker, the answer is no.

Geert Wilders speaks out as if he is protected by the First Amendment, but US journalists and politicians speak so as not to “give offense,” so as not to raise alarm, so as not to criticize Islam.

Islam, of course, is not our only block on speech. For decades, Americans have been schooling themselve to speak with political correctness. As the country has lurched Left under President Bush and now even further under President Obama, we are now seeing ominous legislation making its way through Congress — so-called “hate crimes” legislation — that bodes ill for free speech and also for equality before the law. We are seeing alarming efforts on the Left to “regulate” — in fact, to censor — radio talk shows, for example, and also the Internet.

I wish I could end on a hopeful note, but my sense is that it will have to get worse in America before it gets better. And how will we know when things are beginning to improve? When Americans, as a people, learn, or re-learn something: that it’s not enough to possess freedoms. We must learn that it’s vital to exercise our freedoms if we want to have any hope of preserving them.

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Koran vs. Mein Kampf

Posted by paulipoldie on October 11, 2010

The Koran Versus Mein Kampf

From the Anti-Jihadist at Pedestrian Infidel:

A recent comment thread here at PI compared Herr Hitler’s Manifesto from over 80 years ago, “Mein Kampf”, to that “holy of holies” to Muslims, the Koran. Commenters have noted the remarkable similarities between the two, and indeed, the resemblances are more than skin deep and are worth examining in more detail. A closer look at the facts reveals that Islam (not ‘Islamism’) and Nazism are two kindred ideologies with many, many commonalities.
Let’s start with titles. The very title of Herr Hitler’s tome means “My Struggle” in English. One could even entitle this book “My Jihad” and this Islamic term would have the same precise meaning. “Kampf” in a Nazi ideological context and “Jihad” in the Islamic one are almost identical. That in itself goes a long way to explaining why ‘Mein Kampf’ is still such a best seller in current times all over the Islamic World, including in supposedly ‘moderate’ Islamic states like Turkey. But the similiarities between the Koran and Mein Kampf don’t just stop there. Far from it. Fellow blogger and ally Freedom Fighter over at his/her blog Joshua Pundit has come up with an exceptional, enlightning list of how alike Islam and Nazism really are:

Mein Kampf– States that Germans are the superior race of mankind and that Germany is destined to rule the world , and dominate all other races and nations. The Q’uran-States that Islam and Muslims are the superiors of mankind and that Islam is divinely mandated to rule the world and dominate all other races, creeds and nations. … Mein Kampf-Says that the German State is to have control over every aspect of life. Says all individuals must submit to the State. The Q’uran-Says that Islam and Sharia is to have control over every aspect of life. Says all individuals must submit to Islam. … Mein Kampf-Says that Germans have the duty to claim their divinely appointed place in the world by whatever means necessary. Puts loyalty to the Volk (the race) above all other ethical considerations.
The Q’uran-Says that Muslims have a duty to wage Jihad and to advance Islam’s domination over the world (Dar Islam and Dar Harb) by any means necessary. Places loyalty to fellow Muslims (Umma) and Islam above all other ethical considerations.
Mein Kampf-Mandates that men are superior to women and that women’s place should be limited to procreation, the kitchen and the home.
The Q’uran-Mandates that men are superior to women and that women’s place should be limited to procreation, the kitchen and the home. (Admittedly, the Q’uran goes quite a bit farther than Mein Kampf on this topic)
Mein Kampf-Says that homosexuals are ‘race traitors’ and should be condemned to death. (Many, in fact were murdered in the concentration camps).
The Q’uran-Says homosexuals are unholy to Allah and should be condemned to death
Mein Kampf-Sets out a detailed model for world conquest, including rules for how conquered peoples are to be suppressed and dominated by the German race. States that the wealth, resources and property of subject peoples belongs to Germans by right and the right to life for subject peoples is dependent on Germans. States that non-Germans have no legal or civil rights.
The Q’uran-Sets out a detailed model for world conquest, including rules for how conquered peoples are to be suppressed and dominated by Muslims. States that the wealth, resources and property of subject peoples belongs to Muslims by right and the right to life for subject peoples is dependent on Muslims. States that non-Muslims have no legal or civil rights. (in truth, a lot of this has its basis in the Hadith and the Sunna, but both derive essentially from what’s in the Q’uran, along with all the other aspects of Sharia).
Mein Kampf-Divides the world into ‘German land’ and enemy territory. States that land with Germans living in it or land that once had Germans ruling it rightfully belongs to Germany, and Germany is entitled to get it back by any means necessary. The Q’uran-Divides the world into ‘Dar al Islam’ (Muslim ruled land) and enemy territory (Dar al Harb). States that land with Muslims living in it or land that once had Muslims ruling it rightfully belongs to Dar al Islam, and Muslims are entitled to get it back by any means necessary. … Mein Kampf-Blames the Jews for society’s ills and says that they will be exterminated.
The Q’uran-Blames the Jews for society’s ills and says that they will be exterminated. (“On the day of Judgement the rocks and trees will call out ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me! Come and slay him!”)

Islam and Nazism. Mohammed and Hitler. As plain as day, they are cut from the same cloth.

Posted in Islam, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Decoding the Words of the OIC

Posted by paulipoldie on October 10, 2010

Decoding the Words of the OIC

by Baron Bodissey

Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), has forcefully condemned Tyranny of Silence, a new book by Flemming Rose.

Mr. Rose, you may remember, is the editor who published the infamous Mohammed Cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten back in 2005. His book gives an account of that incident and related events, and includes a copy of the full page of cartoons. Needless to say, the reappearance of the Motoons is what twists the knickers of the OIC.

“Baron,” you say, “This is a dog-bites-man story. Why do you even bother mentioning it?”

That’s a good question.

This is a small skirmish in a much larger battle: the OIC’s ten-year plan to combat “Islamophobia”, which is chronicled by its much-touted Islamophobia Observatory. There’s more to Prof. Ihsanoglu’s statement than meets the eye, but you have to know how to decode the utterances of the OIC to get at the full import of what they’re putting over on us.

When the OIC issues public declarations, they are carefully constructed to be in full compliance with sharia. Islamic law is “coded”, in the sense that a computer program is coded; that is, lengthy instructions and pieces of information are condensed into a relatively small number of words and phrases, which are packed with pre-defined meanings. What is significant for our purposes is that those words and phrases often signify something completely different from what we commonly understand them to mean.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
We’ll begin with the full statement by Prof. Ihsanoglu, with selected portions bolded to receive greater attention later on. According to the OIC’s website:

OIC Secretary General Condemns Publication of the Book “Tyranny of Silence”

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu today strongly condemned the publication of the book entitled “Tyranny of Silence” in Denmark. The book contains a compilation of denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) published by the Jyllands Posten in 2005 which aroused worldwide condemnation and denunciation, and caused hurt and insult to the sentiments of Muslims around the world.

The OIC Secretary General expressed his dismay and disappointment at the release of the book despite the fact that he and some other leaders of the Muslim countries had personally addressed letters to the Foreign Minister of Denmark urging the intervention of the Danish government against the publication due to the highly provocative and inciting contents of the book. He reiterated his position when the Foreign Minister of Denmark called on him to discuss the issue at the sidelines of the 65th session of the UN General Assembly.

Emphasizing the moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard, the Secretary General said that the publication of the book was a deliberate attempt to incite prejudices and animosity which would undermine the ongoing efforts of the international community for promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence among peoples of diverse religious and cultural backgrounds.

Referring to the statement issued by the Danish Foreign Ministry, the Secretary General said that the publication constituted a flagrant violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. In this connection he also referred to the Danish Criminal Code which in its section ‘140’ stipulates protection of religious feelings against mockery and scorn, and in section ‘266 b’ stipulates protection of groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religions among other things.

He added that the publication of the book substantiated the OIC’s concerns over the abuse of freedom of expression by motivated groups and individuals to fuel hatred towards Islam and Muslims in some parts of the western world.

Jeddah, September 30, 2010

The first thing to notice is this lovely Trojan Horse which the UN has kindly provided for the OIC, and inside which the Soldiers of Allah have been wheeled into the heart of the citadel of Western human rights:

Violation of the stipulation of Article 20 of 1966 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights”

As published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Article 20 prescribes the following:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law [emphasis added].


The above wording has proved very useful to the Ummah. As I have pointed out many times in the past, the OIC has been hard at work for more than a decade to persuade the UN that “Islamophobia” is a form of racism. And they have largely succeeded in their efforts, especially now that the current American administration has given their initiative the Obama seal of approval.

With all that in mind, let’s take a closer look at some of the words and phrases that are so densely packed with meaning when used by the OIC.

1. Abuse of freedom of expression

So what does the OIC mean by freedom of expression?

The OIC identifies English as one of its official languages, so to understand the official position of the OIC on any issue, one need only visit the OIC website, choose the “English” tab, and read what is found there. Those English-language descriptions represent the official policy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

From the OIC’s perspective, “freedom of expression” is a precisely-defined term. Its meaning is controlled by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which in turn is controlled by Islamic law. So the OIC’s understanding of “freedom of expression” is drawn directly from sharia.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is a formal legal instrument that was promulgated by the OIC on behalf of OIC member states. The official document is dated 5 August, 1990, and was formally served at the United Nations in 1993. From the point of view of the OIC’s member states, the Cairo Declaration is real law, and has real consequences.

Below are some of the relevant provisions spelled out in the Cairo Declaration:

ARTICLE 2:

(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to safeguard this right against any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
[…]
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by Allah is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
[…]

ARTICLE 19:

(a) All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.
[…]
(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is really the application of sharia law repackaged as “human rights”. For its signatories, there is no right that can contravene or lie outside of sharia. Articles 24 and 25 give a concise expression:

ARTICLE 24:

All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

ARTICLE 25:

The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.

Now we know that sharia contains the sole criteria by which these rights are measured. For all OIC member states — that is, all signatories to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam — human rights are defined as sharia law.

Therefore, when analyzing statements from either the OIC or an OIC member state, the reader should keep in mind that Articles 24 and 25 are in effect.

And what does the Cairo Declaration have to say about freedom of expression?

ARTICLE 22:

(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
[…]
(d) It is not permitted to excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination. [emphasis added]

The Cairo Declaration thus lists racism and the incitement of doctrinal hatred as exceptions to the right of free speech. The European Union has already criminalized “racist” speech, and “incitement of doctrinal hatred” is the basis of one of the charges filed against Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. The United States is not as far along as Europe (yet), but, as you can see, the European Union is well on the way to full sharia-compliance with respect to freedom of expression.

Officially or not, intentionally or otherwise, the EU is moving towards the implementation of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

Having absorbed the above lessons in basic sharia, it’s easy to understand the significance of the next phrase:

2. Incite prejudices and animosity

As we now know, it is an abuse of freedom of expression as defined by sharia to “excite nationalistic or doctrinal hatred”, and “inciting prejudices and animosity” constitutes one method by which such hatred might be excited. What precise abuses might constitute the incitement of prejudices and animosity? The Secretary General’s statement includes several variants of the same offense:

3. Denigrating caricatures and cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

  • Highly provocative and inciting contents of the book
  • Hatred towards Islam
  • Insult to the sentiments of Muslims
  • Mockery and scorn
  • Scorn and degradation on account of their religions

This last item contains a “term of art” that is artful enough to verge on kitman, or theologically-mandated misdirection.

When the OIC refers to “religions”, it seems to be embracing modern Western principles by acknowledging the need to show tolerance for other religions.

But what other religions does Islam recognize?

When a Westerner — generally a Jew, a Christian, or an atheist — uses the word “religion”, he knows exactly what he means: a group of people who share a body of beliefs, recognize a supernatural creator, and adhere to moral doctrines as laid down in scripture and codified by tradition. He also recognizes that there are many religions, and accepts that other people may adhere to a different one than he does — if he himself even has one.

But that’s not a Muslim means by “religion”. Assuming that he follows the tenets of Islamic law, when he says “religion”, he means “Islam” — there is no other.

The grounds for this assertion may be found — surprise! — in the Koran, which recognizes only one religion. Surah 3 tells us:

God said, “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah)418, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).” (Koran 3:85, Yusef Ali’s translation)

Yusef Ali footnotes this passage with #418:

The Muslim position is clear. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view all Religion is one, for the Truth is one. It was the religion preached by all the earlier Prophets. It was the truth taught by all the inspired Books. In essence it amounts to a consciousness of the Will and Plan of Allah and a joyful submission to that Will and Plan. If anyone wants a religion other than that, he is false to his own nature, as he is false to Allah’s Will and Plan. Such a one cannot expect guidance, for he has deliberately renounced guidance. [emphasis added]

If the Koran — which is the basis of all Islamic law — tells us that any religion other than Islam is false, then what does the OIC mean when it proposes “to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation”? What other religions does the OIC acknowledge besides Islam?

The most authoritative compilation of Sunni Islamic law, as understood by the Shafi’te School, is Reliance of the Traveller. In Book W, “Notes and Appendices”, al-Misri tackles the topic of “Abrogation of Previously Revealed Religions”. Quoting Mohammed (citing a rigorously authenticated hadith from Muslim), he says:

By Him in whose hand is the soul of Muhammad (pbuh), any person of this Community, any Jew, or any Christian who hears me and dies without believing in what I have been sent with will be an inhabitant of hell.

Furthermore, in Book W, Section 4 “The Finality of the Prophet’s Message”, al-Misri tells us:

(2) Previously revealed religions were valid in their own eras, as is attested to by many verses in the Holy Koran, but were abrogated by the universal message of Islam, as is equally attested to by many verses of the Koran. Both points are worthy of attention from English-speaking Muslims, who are occasionally exposed to erroneous theories advanced by some teachers and Koran translators affirming these religions’ validity but denying or not mentioning their abrogation, or that it is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world.

To believe that “remnant cults” such as Judaism or Christianity are acceptable is a form of unbelief. And “unbelief” is explained in Book O, “Justice”, Section 8, “Apostasy from Islam”:

Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst. (o8.0)

Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.

[…]

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. (o8.1)

If “denying or not mentioning” the abrogation of the other religions is “unbelief”, anyone who believes that Christianity or Judaism is “acceptable” is an apostate, and may be put to death.

The passage at w4.1 continues:

This is a matter over which there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars…

When there is no disagreement among Islamic scholars, the matter in question has been permanently and completely settled. Scholarly consensus (ijma’) puts an issue beyond ijtihad, or interpretation. As far as Islam is concerned, the matter is closed.

So we may conclude that published Islamic law — relying on recognized authority, citing authoritative hadith, validating the plain reading of Koran 3:85 — tells us that the set of all religions that are considered valid has only a single element, and that element is Islam.

When any member state of the OIC — or any other entity of the Ummah — speaks of “defamation of religions”, it cannot refer to any religion other than Islam. Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Wicca cannot be defamed. According to Islamic legal definition, the only religion that can possibly be defamed is Islam.

This is why the OIC, using its overwhelming influence at the UN, is making such a concerted effort to force non-Muslim countries to enact laws against the defamation of “religions”.

This also helps us understand what it is meant by:

4. Moral responsibility of the political leadership of Denmark in this regard

And:

5. Promoting understanding and peaceful coexistence

The non-Muslim nations of the world have a moral responsibility, and that responsibility can only de defined by Islamic law, since Islam is the only recognized moral authority.

The political leadership of Denmark, like any other political entity in the world, exercises the authority delegated to it as a dhimmi state subordinated to the Ummah. Using that authority, it must execute the moral code specified by sharia by protecting Islam from insults and defamation.

For Muslims, “understanding” means to accept their submission to the will of Allah as revealed to his messenger Mohammed.

For non-Muslims, “understanding” means to recognize their inferiority, and acknowledge the supremacy of Islam.

“Peaceful coexistence” means that dhimmis — non-Muslims who are allowed to live within an Islamic state on a provisional basis — must obey the tenets of sharia, pay the poll tax by their own hand with full submission, and feel themselves subdued.

These are the meanings that are encoded in the OIC statement. The same meanings are encoded in various forms in every OIC statement.

All of this is quite clear. None of it is occluded. It’s not hard to understand; you just have to study the actual texts that make up the body of Islamic law.

It’s not a secret. It doesn’t require any special insider knowledge to figure it out. Read what Islamic legal authorities write with Muslims as their intended audience, and that will explain it all.

You also have to ignore what the glib-tongued impresarios of Islam say for the benefit of non-Muslims.

You have to recognize that you’ve been snowed up until now.

You’ve been scammed.

They’ve been filling your head with pretty lies.

You have to say, “We won’t get fooled again.”

Posted in Dhimmitude, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, Islamization, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »

Robert Spencer: Truth On Trial

Posted by paulipoldie on October 9, 2010

by Robert Spencer for FrontpageMag

How imperiled is the freedom of speech? Take this passage from Slate magazine: “In 2004, filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered after making anti-Muslim remarks, as was the anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Why is there so much anti-Muslim rhetoric in the Netherlands?”

If Slate flipped those sentences, they’d have their answer. If there is any actual “anti-Muslim rhetoric” in the Netherlands, it is because those who dare to point out the outrages against human rights that Islamic law sanctions get murdered; and those who are still alive are vilified, marginalized, smeared, and put on trial – like Dutch politician and freedom fighter Geert Wilders, whose trial resumed Monday.

“I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens.” So said Wilders as his trial reopened in Amsterdam. Wilders faces a year in prison or a fine of up to 7,600 euros for supposedly inciting hatred against Muslims – which he has supposedly done by telling the truth about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam themselves to incite hatred and violence against non-Muslims. If anyone should be on trial for “hate,” it should be the jihadist imams depicted in Wilders’ film Fitna – but in the hyper-politically correct Netherlands of today, the only offender is the non-Muslim who dared to call attention to the hatred they preach: Geert Wilders.

On Monday, after asserting that the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens was on trial, Wilders continued: “I can assure you, I will continue proclaiming it.” He added: “I am sitting here as a suspect because I have spoken nothing but the truth. I have said what I have said and I will not take one word back, but that doesn’t mean I’ve said everything attributed to me.” Then he asserted the right to remain silent for the remainder of the proceedings — whereupon the presiding judge, Jan Moors, claimed that Wilders had gotten a reputation for making bold proclamations but then refusing to discuss them, saying that he was “good in taking a stand and then avoiding a discussion.” Moors added: “By remaining silent, it seems you’re doing that today as well.”

At that, Wilders’s attorney, Bram Moszkowicz, moved to have Moors removed for his bias, and the just-resumed trial ground to a halt. Wilders commented: “I thought I had a right to a fair trial, including the right to remain silent. It is scandalous that the judge passes comment on that. A fair trial is not possible with judges like that.”

A ruling will be made Tuesday on Moszkowicz’s motion, which, if granted, could delay the trial for months. But if the Dutch authorities had any sense of what is really at stake, they would drop all charges against Wilders and adjourn the trial for good. The Wilders trial is a turning point for the West: will Western authorities defend the hard-won principle of the freedom of speech as a bulwark against tyranny and the establishment of protected classes that enjoy rights that other citizens do not have, or will they – in the interests of suicidal political correctness — allow Islamic supremacists to obliterate that freedom in the interests of establishing in the West the Sharia principle that Islam is not to be questioned or criticized, especially by non-Muslims?

If they succeed in doing this, Europeans and Americans will be rendered mute, and thus defenseless, in the face of the advancing jihad and attempt to impose Sharia on the West. It is no coincidence that one of the key elements of the laws for dhimmis, non-Muslims subjugated under Islamic rule, is that they are never critical of Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. Thus this prosecution in Amsterdam not only aids the advance of Sharia in the West, but is itself an element of that advance.

This is part of an ongoing initiative by the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). In 2008 the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and jihad terrorism. Even at that time, 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, Ihsanoglu must be more than pleased by how successful his offensive against the freedom of speech in the West is proving to be. Wilders is on trial for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.” If intentionally offending someone is a criminal offense, numerous Islamic supremacists could end up in court, but of course that is not the purpose for which the law was drafted. The Dutch political establishment hopes to use the Wilders trial to stop his rise in Dutch politics, since he challenges so many of the core assumptions upon which current Dutch and European Union policy are based. Since one of those policies is unrestricted immigration from Muslim countries, Dutch officials hope to discredit Wilders’s work in exposing how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism.

Unfortunately for them, however, Wilders really is telling the truth: Islamic jihadists really do use the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism, and as I show in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, there is plenty in the Muslim holy book that they can use in this way. As my colleague Pamela Geller has noted, “Truth is the new hate speech” – and nowhere is that aphorism truer than in the trial of Geert Wilders. The Dutch authorities can jail and fine Wilders, and do their best to discredit him domestically and internationally, but there is one thing neither they nor anyone else can do: engage him in honest debate and prove him wrong. And so instead, we have this Stalinist show trial.

Wilders has stated the problem plainly: “I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom.”

Wilders’s words are true not just for the Netherlands, but for all of Europe – and ultimately for the United States of America as well.

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islamization | 2 Comments »

Citizen Warrior: My Family and My Community is Muslim, and None of Us Are Terrorists”

Posted by paulipoldie on October 8, 2010

Citizen Warrior

THIS IS THE FINAL chapter in our series, Answers to Objections. The list is now complete (unless someone sends us another objection). You will sometimes criticize Islam and a Muslim will say something like, “My family and my community is Muslim, and none of us are terrorists.” Rather than jumping in and crying “taqiyya!” I think the best approach is to take their statement as a sincere and even innocent and legitimate objection, just as a matter of policy.

I once got this objection from a young woman who I knew was promiscuous and partied a lot (including drinking alcohol, which Islamic doctrine says is taboo). My response was, “I am criticizing Islamic teachings. You do not follow these teachings, so what are you objecting to?” It effectively stopped her in her tracks. I think she was afraid someone in her family would find out, and didn’t want me saying any more.

But I generally avoid telling Muslims about the doctrines of Islam. If they don’t know, I’d rather they stayed ignorant, unless I feel I could actually turn them into apostates. And if they already know the doctrines, I am unlikely to dislodge their belief, so it’s a waste of time.

But occassionally you will accidentally have to engage Muslims. For the most part, you can simply say, “I’m glad you and your family and community are not terrorists.” But if you have an audience — if this is a public conversation, or if it’s a comment on Facebook or a blog or YouTube, and others are waiting to see how you will respond — here’s a way you could answer the objection:

Terrorism is a tactic. The goal is to bring “the light of Islam” to the world. That is one of a Muslim’s primary religious obligations. It is known as jihad. The purpose of jihad is not to blow things up. The purpose is to bring Islamic law to the world; to ultimately create the conditions wherein all people on earth are under the legal rule of Sharia law.

One way to accomplish this goal is with intimidation. If you can frighten people with your willingness to do violence if they don’t comply, if you have sufficient power to inflict the violence, this tactic can be very effective. In places like India, where there is a sizable minority of Muslims, the tactic is powerful.

But in a place like the United States, where the Muslim population is only one percent, it is much less effective. So other tactics are used here. The Muslim Brotherhood — the largest Muslim organization in the world — has set up lots of seemingly mainstream and moderate organizations, working legally within the United States and other Western democracies, to accomplish the goal of getting non-Muslims to follow the legal rules of Islamic law. For example, it is against Sharia law to criticize Islam or Mohammad, and these organizations are working hard to make Americans follow this rule. So organizations like CAIR will sue people, or get the media involved in conflicts so someone gets fired, and many other legal means they can use to suppress the free expressions guaranteed under our constitution but illegal under Sharia, and they often succeed. One example of their success was the riots over the Mohammad cartoons. One one newspaper in the United States reprinted the cartoons. Every other newspaper, in essence, followed Sharia law.

Groups like CAIR and ISNA are funded, in part, by donations from Muslims. And many other politically-oriented Muslim projects are funded by mosques around the country. So if the Muslim who has a family and community who are not terrorists are paying their zakat, they may well be funding this ongoing non-violent jihad without knowing it. If they are a member of any religious organizations like the Muslim Students Association, ISNA, or whatever, they may be advancing the agenda without ever doing anything that might be considered “terrorism.”

My general goal when answering an objection is using the objection as an opportunity to get more good information into the other person’s head. Not to argue. To educate.

Now in this case, you are answering a Muslim, but the purpose is not to educate the Muslim. Try to educate anyone who is listening. I don’t recommend arguing with Muslims at any time. You have more important things to do. Focus your attention on educating your fellow non-Muslims. But if the situation comes up, and if there is a non-Muslim audience, use your conversation with the Muslim to help educate your fellow non-Muslims. Get some important, basic facts into their heads.

Posted in Brainwashing, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization | 1 Comment »

Citizen Warrior: Twelve Tactics of Taqiyya

Posted by paulipoldie on October 6, 2010

from Citizen Warrior

FROM THE inimitable Trencherbone, creator of the single greatest resource about Islam known to man, Everything You Need to Know About Islam, here is a list of twelve taqiyya tactics used by orthodox Muslims with great success against their enemies in Western democracies. Below is an edited version of Trencherbone’s article. Here is the original Twelve Tactics post.

Allah is “the best of deceivers” (Quran 3.54), and since the prime directive is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever, it should not be surprising that deceiving unbelievers is acceptable behavior if carried out for the benefit of Islam.

This “sacred deception” is known as taqiyya. It can take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnations of terrorist attacks to the non-Muslims while celebrating the attacks with fellow Muslims.

Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:

1. Taqiyya about taqiyya. Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. “There is no such thing as Taqiyya.” Or “Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up.” See here and here for refutations.

2. Playing the race card and guilt by association. An accusation of racism is such a trump card that jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of “racism.” For example, “You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist.” This is similar logic, “Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist.” Read more about why criticizing Islam is not a racist activity.

3. Godwin’s Law. A special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The “logic” is something like this:

CRITICISM OF ISLAM = RACISM = NAZISM

Therefore, if you criticise Islam you are a Nazi.

4. Circular reasoning. The Quran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Quran is the word of God because it says so.

5. The infidels’ quotes from the Quran are always taken out of context. For example, “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is taken out of context, and really means “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house” — or something similar. Read more about this objection. And also here.

6. Infidels can’t understand the original Arabic of the Quran. So “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning “Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter.”

7. Tu Quoque (you also). “We blow people up and behead them but you do the same.” Normally this is used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often people refer back to the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Also “There are equally nasty parts in the Bible.” Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Quran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come. Read more about this here. And here.

8. “Abrahamic and monotheistic faith” false kin argument. This scam usually takes the form of “Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic or monotheist faith.” Of course it isn’t. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea (Mark 9:42). In Islam, stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam. Read more about the differences in basic doctrine here.

9. Quoting abrogated verses from the Quran in order to appear moderate. A favorite one is “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are completely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses. Read more about abrogation here. And here.

10. “You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilization.” This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance. In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance. Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West’s development.

11. “A third of the world’s population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect.” But not so long ago a third of the world’s population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don’t mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on “respect,” but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.

12. “We are victims of Islamophobia.” Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of Islamophobia. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.

Learn more about taqiyya and how it is used here.

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

Geert Wilders in Berlin including Video

Posted by paulipoldie on October 6, 2010

Die Presse

Während die niederländischen Christdemokraten Geert Wilders am Samstag als Mehrheitsbeschaffer der nächsten Regierung akzeptierten, ging der Kämpfer gegen den Islam auf Überzeugungstour nach Deutschland.

Kurz vor 15 Uhr ist endlich so weit. Geert Wilders tritt zum Mikrofon, um zu den über 500 Gästen im Hotel Berlin zu sprechen, die nicht nur aus verschiedenen deutschen Bundesländern, sondern etwa auch aus Österreich und der Schweiz angereist sind, um den niederländischen Rechtspopulisten live zu erleben. „Geert, wir lieben dich“, ruft eine Frau, bevor Wilders überhaupt zu sprechen begonnen hat.

Standing Ovations, zustimmendes Raunen und Applaus begleiten den Auftritt des anti-islamischen Wanderpredigers, der durch die Lande zieht, um für seine „International Freedom Alliance“ zu werben. Was macht die Attraktivität des groß gewachsenen, bubengesichtigen Mannes mit den weichen Zügen und dem blondierten Haarschopf aus, der dringend nachgefärbt gehört? Eher unbeweglich steht er da, spricht, deutsch übrigens, ohne große Gesten, ohne die Stimme zu erheben oder Pausen zu machen.

Wilders sucht Bestätigung. Und die bekam er an diesem Samstag gleich doppelt. In Berlin und bei dem zeitgleich abgehaltenen Parteitag der niederländischen Christdemokraten (CDA), die ihn als Mehrheitsbeschaffer für ihre Minderheitsregierung mit der rechtsliberalen VVD akzeptierten. Für ihn ein Durchbruch, hat er doch damit erstmals reale politische Macht in Händen.

Mozart mit schrägen Tönen. Charisma hat er wenig, aber Durchhaltevermögen, der 47-Jährige mit dem Spitznamen „Mozart“. Es ist wohl eher das, was er sagt, als wie er es sagt, was wie Musik in den Ohren seiner Anhänger klingt. Wilders ist hier, um vor den „Gefahren des Islam als totalitärer Ideologie“ zu warnen und zur „Verteidigung der jüdisch-christlichen Tradition und Kultur“ aufzurufen. Es sei ihm ein Anliegen gewesen, nach Berlin zu kommen, „weil Deutschland eine politische Bewegung braucht, welche die deutsche Identität verteidigt und sich der Islamisierung Deutschlands entgegenstellt“.

„Genau so eine Bewegung braut sich gerade zusammen“, freut sich ein Zuhörer. Eingeladen hat Wilders der CDU-Dissident René Stadtkewitz (45), den bis vor Kurzem kaum jemand kannte. Der „hohe“ Besuch aus Holland ist eine willkommene Werbung für seine im Entstehen begriffene Partei „Die Freiheit“, ganz ähnlich benannt wie Wilders’ „Partei für die Freiheit“ (PVV). Stadtkewitz, der im Vorstand der islamkritischen „Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa“ sitzt, war 2009 aus der CDU ausgetreten, vorerst aber im Parlamentsklub der Stadt Berlin geblieben. Als er sich weigerte, Wilders wieder auszuladen, schloss ihn der Klub Anfang September aus. „Wie überall auf der Welt hast du auch in Deutschland viele, viele Freunde, lieber Geert“, so hat Stadtkewitz eingangs schon Stimmung gemacht. „Wenn wir den Islam kritisieren, richtet sich das nicht gegen Muslime“, sagt er, und Wilders wiederholt es wenig später. Vielmehr gehe es um die Ideologie: „Sie ist nicht moderat, sie hat globale Ambitionen und beabsichtigt, der Welt die Scharia aufzuzwingen.“ Der Saal tobt.

Wegen des gleichzeitigen Parteitags der niederländischen Christdemokraten über den Duldungsvertrag mit Wilders’ PVV war eigentlich erwartet worden, dass sich der streitbare Politiker in Berlin eher zurückhalten würde. Doch Wilders zeigte wenig Rücksichtnahme. Er fügte vielmehr auch dieses Ereignis in seine Rede ein. Da die Christdemokraten zustimmten, dürfte die PVV bald als Mehrheitsbeschafferin „im Zentrum der Einflussnahme“ auf die Regierungspolitik stehen, wie es Wilders formuliert. „Das wäre ein historisches Ereignis für die Niederlande, und ich bin stolz darauf, ein bisschen dazu beigetragen zu haben.“ Vor vier Jahren hatte die PVV neun der 150 Sitze im Parlament gewonnen, bei den Wahlen im vergangenen Juni wurde sie mit 24 Abgeordneten drittstärkste Kraft. Klare Worte werden vom Hotel Berlin aus an die deutsche Bundeskanzlerin Merkel (CDU) gerichtet. „Wir sind nicht wie Frau Merkel, wir akzeptieren die Islamisierung nicht“, so Wilders programmatisch. Die Bundeskanzlerin hatte die zu erwartende Regierungsbildung unter Duldung Wilders’ Partei bedauert und dessen fremdenfeindliche Politik kritisiert: „Es ist nicht unsere Art, Religionen in Bausch und Bogen zu verdammen.“ Mit ihrem Bedauern spreche Merkel nicht für die Mehrheit der Deutschen, ja nicht einmal für die Mehrheit ihrer Partei, donnerte Stadtkewitz, der dieser Partei bis vor Kurzem noch selbst angehörte.

Ihm wünscht Wilders „viel, viel, viel Erfolg mit deiner neuen Partei“, Deutschland sei wichtig als starker Partner für die „International Freedom Alliance“. Diese soll zu einer mächtigen internationalen Plattform und zunächst in fünf Staaten aktiv werden, die Wilders als „reif“ dafür ansieht: die USA, Kanada, Frankreich, Großbritannien – und eben Deutschland. In all diesen Ländern gebe es große muslimische Bevölkerungsgruppen, sie seien in hohem Maß der „Gefahr des islamischen Terrorismus“ ausgesetzt.

Gegendemonstration. Während im Hotel Berlin noch lange nach Wilders’ Auftritt mit viel Eifer und ohne Maulkorb diskutiert wird, und zwar ganz in seinem Sinne, ist es draußen unerwartet ruhig geblieben. Zu den angekündigten Gegendemonstrationen, zu denen unter anderem das Bündnis „Rechtspopulismus stoppen“ aufgerufen hatte, waren höchstens 100 Menschen erschienen. Aus Sicherheitsgründen war der Veranstaltungsort bis zuletzt geheim gehalten worden. Wilders wurde von seinen ständigen Leibwächtern begleitet, auch die Berliner Polizei hatte schärfste Sicherheitsvorkehrungen getroffen.

(“Die Presse”, Print-Ausgabe, 03.10.2010)

Die gesamte Rede von Geert Wilders auf Deutsch und auf Englisch:

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamkritik | Leave a Comment »