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 the ‘Brainwashing’ Category

Celebrating Multicultural Education in Austria

Posted by paulipoldie on July 19, 2010

by Baron Bodissey

Our Austrian correspondent AMT drew our attention to the following article from Kurier, which features an interview with the director of a multicultural school in Vienna, almost all of whose students are now foreigners.

You’ll notice that the director — despite the fact that 98.5% of the children under her care do not speak German as their native language — still issues the standard Multicultural party line. She takes every opportunity during the interview to celebrate the diversity of her school, as if she were totally unaware of the devastating long-term consequences of eroding the native culture of her city.

Many thanks to JLH for translating it from the German. AMT’s commentary appears at the end of translation:

Multicultural School: “Bring All the Children Into the Boat”

98.5% Foreigners, Only 3 in 200 Children Are Catholic. Now, Straight Talk from the Director of this School in a Kurier Interview

Awarding of certificates at the most cited school in Vienna last Friday. Chechen, Turkish, Chinese, African and Serbian children romp in front of the entrance. One student is leaning against a house wall in a side street, furtively puffing on a cigarette.

Vienna-Brigittenau: In a row here are Café Amor, Pizza Capri, Mek Leskvac Charcoal Grill, Johnny’s Cell Phone Shop. In between is a dart club, as lonesome as the few Austrian passers-by walking Dammstrasse. Of the 200 children in the school at Greiseneckerstrasse 29/1, only three are Roman Catholic — a fact which has caused some uproar in the past weeks. Even Cardinal Christoph Schönborn took the occasion to say some words of warning. The reason: By law, religious instruction only occurs if at least three children participate in it. A close call. The multi-culti school is a drastic example.

Among the directorship, there is a mood contemplating closing the school, but also mild exasperation at the sudden attention. On the wall is a drawing by Anna for the director: “You are the dearest and most beautiful (woman) in the world.”

“This controversy comes to me as the child to the virgin,” laments Ilse Riesinger, head of the truly colorful “Butterfly School,” which has not been an isolated case for some time now. In an interview with the Kurier, the educator spoke of prejudices, parallel societies and why so many different nations in one spot in the “Vienna International School” are chic, and in Wien-Brigittenau are frowned upon.

Kurier: Madame Director, do you understand the excitement that flared up around your school after a newspaper report?

Ilse Riesinger: No, I was horrified! First, it was said that we only had two Roman Catholic children left and religious instruction could not be offered. But that report was in error; there were still three! It would have been nice if we had been contacted, to determine the facts. Now it looks as though we went out with our butterfly net caught a Roman Catholic child somewhere.

Kurier: Don’t take this badly, but a child more or less does not change the fact that, let us say, a great imbalance dominates in your school.

Riesinger: That is true at considerably more schools than ours. This residential area has a great multicultural background. There are Roman Catholic children, Islamic, Serbian Orthodox… Altogether, we have sixteen nationalities: Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chechnya, China, Pakistan, Somalia, Poland, Germany, Rumania, Philippines, India, Albania, Slovakia, Macedonia

Kurier: How does that affect instruction?

Riesinger: Concerning religious instruction, it is logistically not simple. But we can circumvent the environment. It is sometimes tedious, but where is that not the case? I see it above all as a challenge.

Kurier: Many parents see it as threatening, when the children who cannot speak German are in the majority, which is a polite way of defining 98.5%.

Riesinger: I am happy to invite those parents to come to the school and observe. We make an intensive effort in pre-school to make sure that all children master their mother tongue as well as German. We take that slowly. Because it is our job to bring all children into the boat.

Kurier: And that is not a disadvantage for children who just want to learn?

Riesinger: We complete the same lesson plan as all other schools. To be sure, it is a pedagogical and cultural challenge. But it is also an enormous enrichment for both sides.

Kurier: Why is it fashionable to have so many nationalities in the Vienna International School, but here people wrinkle their noses?

Riesinger: That is due to PR on the one hand, and on other, money. The VIS is sponsored by UNO. The parents have a completely different financial background. Here in Brigittenau, you can have the multicultural environment for free (laughs).

– – – – – – – –

Kurier: There are nationalities at the VIS and also German-speaking children but more equitably distributed.

Riesinger: Yes, but how are supposed to solve that in Brigittenau? Maybe send a few children to the 13th or 18th district? I don’t think the parents would agree. Although they travel to Turkey and love the country.

Kurier: Are there crosses hanging in your classrooms?

Riesinger: In some yes, in others no. We never talked about that. St. Nicholas visits one year but not another. We have an Advent wreath and have Christmas singing, but also Christmas song from other countries or continents are sung. When so many nationalities are all pulling together, it is lovely.

Kurier: That is certainly a subject of interest to FP party leader Strache. And for many parents, cultural identity is important for their children.

Riesinger: Basically, I don’t listen to what Mr. Strache says. He is always talking about a parallel society. But we here are a together society. We have to integrate and hold together, not discriminate and exclude.

Kurier: So, is the suggestion of Mayor Häupl to create Islamic schools a stupid idea?

Riesinger: I would rather not comment on that.

Kurier: Cardinal Schönborn has warned against a demographic development where religious instruction in Viennese public schools is teetering on the brink.

Riesinger: I understand that the cardinal is concerned. But [religious] instruction is taking place. There is an hour per week out of a total of 22 hours of instruction. Under the cover of religious instruction, it is about something completely different.

Kurier: It is still taking place…

Riesinger: We are trying very hard for a mix. We certainly cannot help the Church more than we now do.

Kurier: Mrs. Riesinger, do you sometimes wish you were in a different district?

Riesinger: Absolutely not. I have been working in Brigittenau for twenty years, first as a teacher, and for six years now as director here at the Butterfly School. I know the realities of life in this district. Schools are a reflection of that and we all have to deal with that, politics as well as society.

Kurier: If you could have a wish for the next school year, what would it be?

Riesinger: More teachers! I still need four teachers. After this summer, three of them are retiring; one of them is going on sabbatical. Maybe as a result of the Kurier report, a few will apply for our school at the Viennese school council, now that it is in the headlines.

Kurier: Speaking of teachers: are you a fan or a foe of the Kurier school attorney?

Riesinger: I regard him with a certain healthy distance. It is fine for every pupil to be represented, but I sometimes have the impression that bad news outweighs other news.

However, perhaps the negative headlines are just the ones we educators notice.

AMT adds these comments:

The establishment must be getting desperate to rein in its disciples: More and more articles are springing up in the Austrian MSM loudly praising the merits of multiculturalism and the need for immigration, without which Austria, as the rest of the Western world, will not survive.

This interview is particularly hard to bear for someone who is not a true believer. It is, above all, interesting to note that the headmistress talks about the difficulties of her own heavily enriched school, especially in view of the required religious instruction, but fails to mention that the Vienna International School (VIS) was built to cater to the needs of the United Nations and embassy personnel in Vienna. It is a non-denominational school, its foremost goal being the integration of students from literally all over the world into an international school system, enabling them to finish their school years, where otherwise most of them would lose a year or two in the “local” school system because of the language barrier. However, each student at VIS must study German. There are no exceptions to this rule.

One another note: the headmistress mentions that she refuses to listen to what FPÖ party leader Heinz-Christian Strache says. Considering that, she appears to know quite well what he says and means. As is usual for the multiculti fanatics, she fails to explain precisely the merits of students being held back because the majority does not speak even rudimentary German. In contrast, nearly all students at VIS speak English. That is an important commonality.


A slightly different version of this post was published in two parts at Big Peace.

Posted in Österreich, Brainwashing, Gates of Vienna / Big Peace, Islamization, Sharia | 2 Comments »

Islamic Terror Caused by Small Minority of Muslims? Facts Prove Opposite

Posted by paulipoldie on July 11, 2010

from Rev. Sam Sewell
Friday, 09 July 2010 03:14

Think Islamic problems caused by a small minority of Muslims?

Read the facts, and think again!

As sure as I know that there will be another terrorist attack on the United States I know the day is coming when Muslims, or for that matter Arabs in general, are going to be hated on sight. I remember after 9/11 some nutcase in California killed a turban-wearing Sikh from India, because he thought he was an Arab.

mohammed_cartoonThere was an incident in Dallas immediately after Nine-Eleven. Another nutcase armed himself and drove around in his pickup on a killing spree. One victim was an Indian mini-grocer who’d lived there, legally and peacefully, for about 30 years. As I recall, this nut also killed a Pakistani shopkeeper, similarly situated and injured a Mexican. And as I recall, several such incidents occurred nationwide.

However, refusing to criticize, indeed vehemently condemn anything Islamic is pretty irrational, and will be costly if it doesn’t change. If a billion Moslems suddenly rose up in outrage against Usama Bin Lladin, Zawahiri, Nasrallah, Ahab Inajam and the rest of those deranged maniacs, the liberal-socialists and the rest of the world would join them, and we’d have a chance at eliminating this scourge.

Like many members of many religions, there are Muslims who are not radical and who follow Islam only because it is part of their family tradition. I have a good friend who is a Lebanese Christian. She and her Italian husband are already beginning to notice hate stares and rude behavior. Most folks just assume that she is a Muslim Arab. The Lebanese people do not consider themselves Arabs. Nevertheless, she and her husband are likely to be targets of American revenge, should the time come when reason is conquered by an emotionally-driven response to terrorism.

Maybe I will need to create a modern “Schindler’s list” for all my Mediterranean looking friends.

My comments cautioning over-reaction are intended to address attitudes & actions toward American citizens who are Muslim, or those who just look like they might be Muslim.  We need to be careful not to victimize the innocent citizens of our own country.

My reasoning for saying that our best policy is to assume that most Muslims support terrorism, unless there is strong evidence–other than their own testimony–to the contrary, goes like this: Those who support evil behavior, or do not resist evil behavior, share responsibility for the evil acts of others. Bystanders who cheer and bystanders who do not intervene are also guilty of the crime. If you are not FOR us, you are against us. I am not a racist, but my conscience could not be clear unless I am actively resisting racism. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Ergo, most Muslims support terrorism, unless they are actively resisting terrorism. I am quite aware that most Muslims do not commit acts of terror. But their religion requires them to kill non-Muslims, and their religion requires them to lie about their intentions. I would say that I might trust a Muslim wearing the uniform of our military services, but maybe they enlisted, looking for an opportunity to throw a grenade in their officers’ tent. Our best bet is to put Muslims on probation, and assume their terrorist intentions, until we know for sure where they stand.

I have disagreed with many people who claim that the Islamic terror problem is caused by small minority of radicals.  Their comments usually say something like “99% of Muslims are peaceful law abiding citizens”.  It is always uncomfortable to disagree with some one you like and admire, so I did a little research.  Research on American Muslims is rare or biased so here are some facts from around the world.

Read a small sampling of research about those “mostly” peaceful Muslims:

Have you heard “Young, Unmarried Muslim Males Are the Most Likely to Become Terrorists”?

No. It is de rigueur (customary) to suggest that young, unmarried, Muslim males are the most likely population to become terrorists, or to support terrorism. But from the perspective of the global supply of terrorists, this claim is false. Consider the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. They are the world’s single largest group of suicide bombers. Their cadres are not Muslim, but Hindu by religion, and nearly 40 percent are female.

Even on the issue of support for terrorism, there is reason to be skeptical about the popular convention that young males are leading the pack. In a recent survey of 6,000 Muslims in 14 countries published in Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, females were more likely to support terrorism than were males. What’s more, married and unmarried persons are equally likely to support terrorism. Age matters less than one may think at first blush. In the same survey, some 47 percent of 62-year-olds surveyed were inclined to support terrorism. That percentage was only 10 points higher for 18-year-olds.

Young British Muslims believe, in surprising numbers (31 percent, according to the most recent poll,) that their country’s foreign policy justifies terror attacks.

Perhaps the most egregious case was that of the late British Muslim activist Kalim Siddiqui, who told a public meeting, “I would like every Muslim to raise his hand in agreement with the death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Let the world see that every Muslim agrees that this man should be put away.” Still, the Crown Prosecution Service refused to act, perhaps fearful of a poplar backlash. Polls showed almost a third of British Muslims agreed with Siddiqui and the Ayatollah.

Polls revealed that 57 percent of British Muslims regarded the campaign against the Taliban as a war on Islam.

When British Muslims were asked, “Is Britain your country?” only one in four claim that it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, “Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws.”

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent of British Muslims support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who “insult Islam.” When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Support for terrorism: All the Muslim populations polled display a solid majority of support for Osama bin Laden. Asked whether they have confidence in him, Muslims replied positively, ranging between 8 percent (in Turkey) to 72 percent (in Nigeria). Likewise, suicide bombing is popular. Muslims who call it justified range from 13 percent (in Germany) to 69 percent (in Nigeria). These appalling numbers suggest that terrorism by Muslims has deep roots, and will remain a danger for years to come.

One in eight UK Muslims world wide ‘support terrorist attacks.’

A recent European poll found that 65% of Palestinians “support Al-Qaeda actions in the USA and Europe.”  (Fafo-Norwegian-based NGO, in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 23, 2005) This strong support of those who would destroy America came in spite of hundreds of millions of dollars in annual US aid to the Palestinian alliance and was documented before the US announced a freeze in funding, after the election of the Hamas government.

A document, which was produced by officials from MI5 (British Intelligence) and the British Home and Foreign Offices, entitled “Young Muslims and Extremism” and drawn up for the prime minister by officials at the Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, also states that anecdotal evidence suggests that up to 13 per cent, or 208,000 of Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims, defended the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, while only 26 per cent feel loyalty toward England. That is not a tiny minority.

Muslim support for terrorist attacks against civilians:

Jordan:    88% sometimes or rarely, 11% never
Lebanon: 58% sometimes or rarely, 33% never
Pakistan: 44% sometimes or rarely, 35% never

These numbers contradict the claim that we are only dealing with a small minority of Muslims.  Today’s Islam is a pathology, and a significant portion of those who practice modern Islam are pathological.

Let us call for God’s grace to fall on those Muslims and Muslim looking people who are loyal Americans and are helping in the Global War On Terror.  I fear for them.

Rev. Sam Sewell

————————————————————

Rev. Sam Sewell is an ordained Christian clergyman, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers.  He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010070910938/editorial/islamic-terror-caused-by-small-minority-of-muslims-facts-prove-opposite.html

Posted in Brainwashing, Islamization, Must Read, Sharia | 5 Comments »

“Palestine”, an open-air prison?

Posted by paulipoldie on May 30, 2010

“Palestine”, an open-air prison?

Here you can make up your mind.

Fancy restaurants and Olympic-size pools: What the media won’t report about Gaza

By Special to the National Post May 25, 2010 – 9:44 am

By Tom Gross

In recent days, the international media, particularly in Europe and the Mideast, has been full of stories about “activist boats sailing to Gaza carrying desperately-needed humanitarian aid and building materials.”

The BBC World Service even led its world news broadcasts with this story at one point over the weekend. (The BBC yesterday boasted that its global news audience has now risen to 220 million persons a week, making it by far the biggest news broadcaster in the world.)

Indeed the BBC and other prominent Western media regularly lead their viewers and readers astray with accounts of a non-existent “mass humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.

What they won’t tell you about are the fancy new restaurants and swimming pools of Gaza, or about the wind surfing competitions on Gaza beaches, or the Strip’s crowded shops and markets. Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live a middle class (and in some cases an upper class) lifestyle that western journalists refuse to report on because it doesn’t fit with the simplistic story they were sent to write.

Here, courtesy of the Palestinian Ma’an news agency, is a report on Gaza’s new Olympic-sized swimming pool . (Most Israeli towns don’t have Olympic-size swimming pools. One wonders how an area that claims to be starved of water and building materials and depends on humanitarian aid builds an Olympic size swimming pool and creates a luxury lifestyle for some while others are forced to live in abject poverty as political pawn refugees?)

If you pop into the Roots Club in Gaza, according to the Lonely Planet guidebook, you can “dine on steak au poivre and chicken cordon bleu”.

The restaurant’s website in Arabic gives a window into middle class dining and the lifestyle of Hamas officials in Gaza. And here it is in English, for all the journalists, UN types and NGO staff who regularly frequent this and other nice Gaza restaurants (but don’t tell their readers about them).

And here is a promotional video of the club restaurant . In case anyone doubts the authenticity of this video, I just called the club in Gaza City and had a nice chat with the manager who proudly confirmed business is booming and many Palestinians and international guests are dining there.

In a piece for The Wall Street Journal last year, I documented the “after effects” of a previous “emergency Gaza boat flotilla,” when the arrivals were seen afterwards purchasing souvenirs in well-stocked shops. (You can also scroll down here for more pictures of Gaza’s “impoverished” shops.)

But the mainstream liberal international media won’t report on any of this. Playing the manipulative game of the BBC is easy: if we had their vast taxpayer funded resources, we too could produce reports about parts of London, Manchester and Glasgow and make it look as though there is a humanitarian catastrophe throughout the UK. We could produce the same effect by selectively filming seedy parts of Paris and Rome and New York and Los Angeles too.

Of course there is poverty in Gaza. There is poverty in parts of Israel too. (When was the last time a foreign journalist based in Israel left the pampered lounge bars and restaurants of the King David and American Colony hotels in Jerusalem and went to check out the slum-like areas of southern Tel Aviv? Or the hard-hit Negev towns of Netivot or Rahat?)

But the way that many prominent Western news media are deliberately misleading global audiences and systematically creating the false impression that people are somehow starving in Gaza, and that it is all Israel’s fault, can only serve to increase hatred for the Jewish state – which one suspects was the goal of many of the editors and reporters involved in the first place.

National Post

Tom Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the London Sunday Telegraph and the New York Daily News.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs also adds:

Behind the Headlines: The Israeli humanitarian lifeline to Gaza

25 May 2010
Despite attacks by Hamas, Israel maintains an ongoing humanitarian corridor for the transfer of food and humanitarian supplies to Gaza, used by internationally recognized organizations including the United Nations and the Red Cross.

Humanitarian aid despite Hamas attacks

Despite attacks by Hamas, Israel maintains an ongoing humanitarian corridor for the transfer of perishable and staple food items to Gaza. This conduit is used by internationally recognized organizations including the United Nations and the Red Cross.

Well over a million tons of humanitarian supplies entered Gaza from Israel over the last 18 months equaling nearly a ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza. Millions of dollars worth of international food aid continually flows through the Israeli humanitarian apparatus, ensuring that there is no food shortage in Gaza.

Food and supplies are shipped from Israel to Gaza six days a week. These items were channeled through aid organizations or via Gaza’s private sector.

Large quantities of essential food items like baby formula, wheat, meat, dairy products and other perishables are transferred daily and weekly to Gaza. Fertilizers that cannot be used to make explosives are shipped into the Strip regularly, as are potato seeds, eggs for reproduction, bees, and equipment for the flower industry.

In 2009 alone, more than 738,000 tons of food and supplies entered Gaza. Pictures in local newspapers show local markets aplenty with fruit, vegetables, cheese, spices, bread and meat to feed 1.4 million Gazans.

In the first quarter of 2010 (January-March), 94,500 tons of supplies were transferred in 3,676 trucks to the Strip: 48,000 tons of food products; 40,000 tons of wheat; 2,760 tons of rice; 1,987 tons of clothes and footwear; 553 tons of milk powder and baby food.

In a typical week the IDF coordinates the transfer of hundreds of trucks containing about 15,000 tons of supplies.  During the week of May 18, 2010 there were more than 100 truckloads of animal food, 65 trucks of fruit and vegetables; 22 truckloads of sugar, some 27 truckloads of meat, poultry and fish; and 40 trucks of dairy products. At holiday times, Israel increases transfers. During the Muslim holy days of Ramadhan and Eid al-Adha, Israel shipped some 11,000 heads of cattle into the Strip.

Maintaining medical aid for all in need

The medical corridor

No Palestinian is denied medical care in Israel. However, if the Hamas regime does not grant permits for medical care, the Israeli government can do nothing to help the patient. Israel will facilitate all cases of medical treatments from Gaza, unless the patient is a known perpetrator of terror.

Israel maintains a corridor for the transfer of medical patients out of Gaza, and about 200 medical staff members go through the crossings every month. Israel also helps coordinate the transfer of Jordanian doctors into Gaza.

In 2009 alone, 10,544 patients and their companions left the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel. Moreover, there were 382 emergency evacuations from Gaza for medical purposes.

The Hadassah Medical Organization in Jerusalem donates $3 million in aid annually to treat Palestinians in Israel. Following fears of a swine flu outbreak, three Israeli hospitals were assigned to treat cases in the Gaza Strip and 44,500 immunizations were transferred to the Strip.

Since 2005, Palestinians exploited medical care arrangements more than 20 times to carry out terror attacks.

Medical equipment

In 2009, some 4,883 tons of medical equipment and medicine were brought in.

In the first quarter of 2010, Israel shipped 152 trucks of medical supplies and equipment into Gaza. In a typical week (in May 2010), some 37 truckloads of hygiene products were shipped to Gaza through the land crossings. In addition, a new CAT scan machine was recently shipped to Gaza.

In 2009, Israel coordinated the transfer of medical supplies for the disabled including wheelchairs, crutches and first aid kits. Other equipment shipped to Gaza include heart-monitors, baby feeding tubes, dental equipment, medical books, ambulance emergency equipment, artificial limbs and infant sleeping bags.

Building for the future: Infrastructure and economic aid

Building materials

While the import of cement and iron has been restricted into Gaza since these are used by the Hamas to cast rockets and bunkers, monitored imports of truckloads of cement, iron, and building supplies such as wood and windows are regularly coordinated with international parties. Already in the first quarter of 2010, 23 tons of iron and 25 tons of cement were transferred to the Gaza Strip.

On 13 May 2010, Israel allowed approximately 39 tons of building material into Gaza to help rebuild a damaged hospital. The construction material for al Quds hospital was transferred after safeguards in place and French assurances ensured that the construction material would not be diverted elsewhere.

On 24 May 2010 Israel opened the Kerem Shalom crossing to 97 trucks loaded with aid and goods, including six trucks holding 250 tons of cement and one truck loaded with five tons of iron for projects executed and operated by UNRWA.

Electricity

According to the UN report of May 2010, 120 megawatts (over 70%) of the Strip’s electricity supply comes from the Israeli electric grid, while 17 MWs come from Egypt and 30 MWs are produced by the Gaza city power station. Since January 2010, there has been deterioration in the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip since the Hamas regime is unwilling to purchase the fuel to run the Gaza City power station.

Throughout 2009 Israel transferred 41 trucks of equipment for the maintenance of Gaza’s electricity grid.

Israel facilitates the transfer of fuel through the border, and maintains that the diversion of fuel from domestic power generators to other uses is wholly a Hamas decision. Over 133 million liters of fuel entered Gaza from Israel over the last 18 months.

Sewage

During the first quarter of 2010, the UN coordinated with Israel the transfer of equipment for UNWRA to upgrade the sewage pumping station. In 2009, 127 trucks containing more than 3,000 tons of hypochlorite entered the Gaza Strip for water purification purposes. Moreover, 48 trucks of equipment for improving the sanitation infrastructure led to a substantial reduction in the Beit Lahya facility’s waste levels.

Economy

The United States, Israel, Canada, and the European Union have frozen funds to the Palestinian Hamas government since 2006, recognizing it as a terror organization. Israel has taken measures to support trade and commerce, the banking system, and the existing financial market in the Gaza Strip.

Gazans produce much of their own food products including olives, citrus, vegetables, Halal beef, and dairy products. Primary exports from Gaza are cut flowers and citrus, with trade partners being Israel, Egypt and the West Bank. During 2009, 7.5 million tons of flowers and 54 tons of strawberries were exported from Gaza with Israeli cooperation.

In 2009, 1.1 billion shekels (about $250 million) were transferred to the Gaza Strip for the ongoing activity of international organizations and to pay the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers. 40 million damaged bank notes were traded for new bills, and at the request of the Palestinian Monetary Fund, 282.5 million shekels were transferred from Gazan to Israeli banks.

In February 2010, an agreement was reached with the Palestinian Authority’s National Insurance Department to ensure that pensions reached those formerly employed in Israel. The funds were deposited in banks in Judea and Samaria, while the Palestinian Authority was given the responsibility of distributing the funds to the pensioners in Gaza.

Fostering hope and trust – Quality of life in Gaza

The cycle of life

  • Projected life expectancy in the Gaza Strip (2010) is 73.86, greater than Estonia, Malaysia, Jamaica and Bulgaria.
  • The infant mortality rate in Gaza is 17.71 per 1000, lower than that of China, Jordan, Lebanon and Thailand.
  • Fertility rates are about five children per family, equal to many African nations such as Rwanda and Senegal.

Healthcare

Palestinian families receive the same subsidized healthcare as Israelis, about 10% of the cost for the same treatment in the United States.

Schoolchildren

Israel transfers school equipment supplied by UNRWA including notebooks, school bags, writing implements and textbooks. Israel is currently coordinating the transfer of 200,000 laptops for Gaza schoolchildren and the shipment of 74 maritime containers for conversion into Gaza classrooms.

In the first quarter of 2010, Israel transferred 250 trucks with equipment for the UNWRA summer camp, including arts-and-crafts equipment, swimming pools, inflatable toys, ice cream machines, musical instruments, clothing, sports equipment.

Electronic life

About 20% of the population in Gaza owns a personal computer – this is more than Portugal, Brazil, Saudi Arabia or Russia. They have access to ADSL and dial-up Internet service, provided by one of four providers.

About 70% of Gazans own a TV and radio and have access to satellite TV or broadcast TV from the PA or Israel.

Gaza has well-developed telephone landlines, and extensive mobile telephone services provided by PalTel (Jawwal) and the Israeli provider Cellcom.

According to USAID report, 81% of households in Gaza have access to a cell phone. The PA-owned cell phone provider Jawwal has more than 1 million cellular subscribers.

Travel

Despite the inherent dangers involved, Israel permits Gazans and visitors to travel between Gaza and Israel, from Gaza to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), and even abroad for medical treatment, religious pilgrimages, and business trips. Whenever possible Israel allows for diplomatic activities and trade and commerce with the Gaza Strip.

In additional to medical travel, 21,200 activists from international organizations and over 400 diplomatic delegations were permitted entry into Gaza, while 2,200 Palestinians employed by international organizations were given exit permits from the Gaza Strip.

147 permits were given to Palestinian students for academic studies around the world and special permission was given to Gazan footballers to train in Judea and Samaria and compete in international matches abroad.

During the Christmas holiday, approximately 400 permits were given to visit Bethlehem from Gaza as well 100 permits to travel abroad. In addition, 257 permits were given to businessmen from Gaza to facilitate business operations.

Posted in Brainwashing, Must Read | 2 Comments »

Fatwa – Wann sollen Muslime den Kampf (Djihad) aufnehmen?

Posted by paulipoldie on May 27, 2010

Danke an den Patriot für diese Analyse

Fatwa – Wann sollen Muslime den Kampf (Djihad) aufnehmen?

Ibn Taymiyya erklärte, dass der Koranvers (Sure 3,186) für Muslime gilt, die in einer Position der Schwäche sind, die also nicht in der Lage sind, für Allah und Allahs Propheten  mit der Hand oder Zunge zu handeln. Der [Muslim] handelt [für Allah und Muhammad in dieser Situation nur] mit dem Herzen [nicht offen erkennbar]. Der Koranvers zur Erniedrigung derjenigen, die einen Vertrag [mit Muslimen] geschlossen haben (z. B. Sure 9,29) gilt für jeden Muslim, wenn er in einer Position der Stärke ist.
Muslime in der Endphase des Lebens des Propheten Muhammads haben sich gemäß dieser Koranverse verhalten. Das [oben beschriebene] Prinzip wurde weiter während der Zeit der Nachfolger Muhammads eingehalten und es gilt bis zum jüngsten Tag.

Ein Muslim, der sich in einem Land befindet, in dem er in einer Position der Schwäche ist, muss sich gegenüber Juden, Christen und Polytheisten tolerant und vergebend verhalten, wenn diese Allah und seinem Propheten gegenüber verletzende Äußerungen machen.

Ein Muslim, der sich jedoch in einer Position der Stärke befindet, muss sich gemäß den Koranversen verhalten, die zum Kampf gegen die Ungläubigen aufrufen. Dies gilt gegenüber denjenigen, die Allahs Religion [den Islam] angreifen. Die [Muslime] müssen sich ebenfalls gemäß des Koranverss (Sure 9,29) verhalten, der zum Kampf und der Erniedrigung von Juden und Christen aufruft.

Infolge dessen ist klar, dass man zwischen der Position der Stärke und der Schwäche unterscheiden muss. Die mekkanischen und medinensischen Abschnitte spielen an sich keine Rolle, sondern es ist nur entscheidend, ob es um eine Position der Stärke oder Schwäche geht, und ob [durch das Handeln] Vorteile oder Nachteile [für Muslime] entstehen … Wenn [ein Muslim] sich in einer Position der Schwäche befindet, muss er sich gemäß der Texte verhalten, die seiner schwachen Situation entsprechen. Wer sich jedoch in einer Position der Stärke befindet, muss er sich gemäß der Texte verhalten, die seiner starken Situation entsprechen. Dieses Prinzip gilt für einen einzigen Menschen sowie für eine ganze Gruppe, abgesehen von der allgemeinen Lage der gesamten Gemeinschaft der Muslime.
(Institut für Islamfragen, dh, 25.05.2010) Ganzer Artikel… Quelle: mareb.org/showthread.php?p=7717

Unsere Fragen diesbezüglich an Österreichs Islamvertreter (Schakfeh, Baghajati,…):
* Was sollen wir von solchen Prinzipien halten?
* Wird unsere vorgeworfene „Islamophobie“ damit geheilt?
*  In welcher Position steht der sogenannte „Europäischer Islam“ zurzeit – in der „schwächeren“ Phase? –  und wie verhält er sich mal in der „stärkeren“ Phase???
* Distanziert sich die IGGÖ von solchen „Gutachten“?

Posted in Brainwashing, Islam, Islamisierung, Islamophobia, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Das Kalifat als eigentliche Heimat

Posted by paulipoldie on May 26, 2010

Die als islamistisch eingestufte Partei Hizb-ut-Tahrir hat auch unter österreichischen Muslimen Anhänger

Von Stefan Beig, Wiener Zeitung

  • Islamisten verstehen den Islam als umfassende Lebensordnung. (Und die “anderen” Muslime? Wie verstehen die den Islam? Wie ist das mit Herrn Erdogan? Der meinte doch, es gäbe keinen Islamismus, sondern nur den einen Islam. Alles Andere wäre eine Beleidigung.)

  • Einige überwinden so ihre Identitätskonflikte.

Wien. Der Islam und seine Gesetze sind für sie mit dem Leben in Europa nicht vereinbar. Westliche Demokratie lehnen sie ab. Der einzige Weg, um ihren Glauben umfassend leben zu können, ist für Mitglieder der Partei Hizb-ut-Tahrir die Gründung eines streng islamischen Staates. In Deutschland und in arabischen Ländern ist die Organisation verboten, in Österreich ist sie zwar legal, wird jedoch vom Verfassungsschutz beobachtet.

“Der Vorteil des Islam ist, dass er eine Lebensordnung ist, die alle Bereiche des Menschen regelt, ob politische, wirtschaftliche oder soziale”, verteidigt sich der 23-jährige Yasir Firat, Mitglied bei Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Wie viele seiner Gesinnungsgenossen ist er gut ausgebildet, arbeitet im Familienbetrieb, einer Bäckerei, und spricht fließend Deutsch. Seine Partei-Kollegen verfügen oft über einen Universitätsabschluss. Aber ihrer Partizipation im Staat setzen sie Grenzen: “Die Teilnahme an säkularen politischen Wahlen ist im Islam verboten”, meint Firat. “Wir lehnen das Wählen dieser säkularen Parteien ab, weil sie dem Islam widersprechen.”

Früher hatte der Sohn von Einwanderern aus der südöstlichen Türkei Identitätsprobleme: “In der Schule habe ich mir Gedanken gemacht, was ich bin. Türke, Kurde oder Österreicher?” Heute legt er auf etwas anderes wert: “Meine Heimat ist der Islam, ich betrachte mich als Teil der Ummah, der religiösen Gemeinschaft aller Muslime. Nachdem ich Hizb-ut-Tahrir kennengelernt habe, konnte ich den inneren Konflikt überwinden, weil mir bewusst wurde, dass die Ideologie des Menschen seine Identität ausmacht.”

Firat betrachtet Österreich als seine Heimat, weil er hier aufgewachsen ist. So richtig zuhause ist er nicht: “Wir haben hier keine islamische Atmosphäre in Gesellschaft, Bildung oder Wirtschaft. Ich kann meinen Glauben nur ausleben, insofern es die Beziehung zu Gott betrifft.” (Wie wäre es mit einem Umzug nach Saudi Arabien?) Er hofft auf ein Kalifat, einen islamischen Staat, dessen Errichtung das Ziel von Hizb-ut-Tahrir ist. “Zurzeit gibt es einen solchen Staat nicht”, erklärt Firat. Denn selbst in der islamischen Welt existieren aus seiner Sicht nur “Vasallen-Regime”: “Wenn dort ein Kalifat gegründet wird, ziehe ich hin.”

Keines von Firats neun Geschwistern ist bei Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Seine Eltern reagierten zunächst besorgt, als er sich mit 17 Jahren der Partei anschloss. Kennengelernt hatte er Hizb-ut-Tahrir über Lehrkreise von Shaker Assem, dem Sprecher der Partei. Assem, 1964 in Kairo geboren, meint, dass diese Partei “den Islam so präsentiert, wie er wirklich ist”. In Ägypten hatte er “die bittere Armut der Bevölkerung und rohe Korruption des Staates erlebt” und nach einer Lösung gesucht. Die Antworten fand er “in den Ideen und Wundern des Korans”.

Koran als einzige Lösung

Die heilige Schrift der Muslime ist für Assem die Wahrheit und von Gott offenbart: “Durch Hizb-ut-Tahrir habe ich gelernt, dass der Islam mehr ist als nur Beten, sondern auch Lösungen für alle wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Fragen anbietet.” Das Kalifat kannte Assem aus dem Geschichtsunterricht. “Ich habe die von Hizb-ut-Tahrir angebotene Lösung mit meinen Kindheitserinnerungen verknüpft.”

Die Wiederherstellung des Kalifats wird bei Hizb-ut-Tahrir zum Allheilmittel für die Misere in islamischen Ländern, aber auch zum Schutzwall gegen den Westen, erklärt der an der Universität Osnabrück lehrende Religionswissenschafter Rauf Ceylan. In Bezug auf den Karikaturenstreit verlautbarte Hizb-ut-Tahrir etwa: “Allein das Kalifat wird solche boshaften Zungen zum Schweigen bringen. Die ungläubigen Kolonialisten werden es schon aus Angst vor dem Kalifat nicht wagen, den Islam zu beleidigen.”

Laut Assem arbeitet Hizb-ut-Tahrir gewaltfrei. (Gewaltfrei??? Bitte um Ihre Definition von Gewalt, Herr Assem!) Quintessenz sei die Auseinandersetzung “mit falschen und unislamischen Ideen, um sie argumentativ zu widerlegen und die Richtigkeit der islamischen Ideen zu beweisen. Das Unheil auf der Welt ist auf nichts anderes als auf die falschen Ideologien zurückzuführen”. Als Hauptfeind gilt der politisch dominierende Kapitalismus: “Deswegen gibt es keinen anderen Lösungsweg als die Bekämpfung der kapitalistischen Ideologie und ihre vollständige Beseitigung”, heißt es in einer politischen Schrift. “Dazu ist nur der Islam in der Lage.” Auch gegen die USA wettern die Islamisten – wegen deren “Arroganz, Parteinahme für die Juden (Äh, ich dachte, Juden und Christen seien Freunde des Islam? Haben Sie da etwas falsch gelesen in Ihrem Koran?), den von ihnen betriebenen Kolonialismus und deren Unterjochung anderer.” (Genau! Zu Zeiten Mohammeds gab es ja auch schon Amerika, daher machen wir sie gleich einmal für alles verantwortlich! Sarkasmus off)

“Aufgrund ihrer ausgeprägten antijüdischen und antizionistischen Grundhaltung gilt für die Hizb-ut-Tahrir auch der Einsatz von Gewalt als legitimes Mittel”, begründet der deutsche Verfassungsschutz das Verbot. Wegen ihres “radikalen, islamistischen Freund-Feind-Schemas” ist die Partei auch dem österreichischen Verfassungsschutz nicht geheuer: “In diesem Kontext entsteht ein feindseliges Klima, das zu dschihadistischen Tendenzen (Was ist das genau?) führen kann”. Der Religionswissenschafter Ceylan meint: “Dieses Freund-Feind-Schema wirkt auf viele entlastend, denn Feindbilder haben Sündenbockfunktion. (Und ich dachte, die bösen Ungläubigen sind die Sündenböcke!) Zugleich sollen sie den Gruppenzusammenhalt stärken.”

Arabische Welt im Visier

Zeitweise treten Imame von Hizb-ut-Tahrir in den Moscheen auf. “In den Predigten wurde die arabische Welt attackiert”, erinnert sich ein Besucher an Freitagsgebete im Afro-Asiatischen Institut. “Die Zuhörer waren primär Studenten von der arabischen Halbinsel. In unserer Heimat war so eine Polemik streng verboten.”

“Wir streben hier keine Veränderung an. Aber dafür zu arbeiten, dass das Kalifat in einem islamischen Land gegründet wird, ist für uns genauso Pflicht wie das Gebet”, verteidigt sich Assem gegen Gewaltvorwürfe. “Uns geht es in Österreich darum, dass die Muslime ihre islamische Identität bewahren, ein richtiges islamisches Bewusstsein entwickeln”, betont auch Firat: “Wir wollen auch der österreichischen Bevölkerung ein richtiges Islamverständnis vermitteln (Danke. Aber vielleicht weiß ich schon genug und habe mir mein eigenes Bild gemacht) und Vorurteile abbauen (Vorurteile hat man, wenn man über etwas nichts weiß. Die Österreicher wissen schon genug, um zu sagen: Islam, nein danke). Eine friedliche Koexistenz ist möglich, vor allem wenn man als Muslim in dem Bewusstsein lebt, dass man im Jenseits für das, was man tut, zur Verantwortung gezogen wird.” (Genau! Und so pfeifen wir auf die Integration und lassen die anderen das machen. Wer braucht schon Integration als Muslim?)

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

Bishop Aydin: “Dialogue of Religions and Cultures”

Posted by paulipoldie on May 18, 2010

Ohrid/Macedonia May 6-9, 2010
Emanuel Aydin
Chorespikopos
Syrian Orthodox Church of Austria
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost of the one God. Amen.
Bism al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Ruhulqudus, Ilah wahid. Amin.

Mr. President, Madame Cultural Minister, honored officials , excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.

In the framework of this conference with a circle of outstanding personalities, we have the marvelous opportunity to discuss the dialogue of religions and civilizations. I thank UNESCO for making this task its own. I especially thank the Macedonian government for enabling us to take up this difficult task in such a welcoming atmosphere and inspiring surroundings. In an area where civilizations have encountered one another for millennia, the world community can justifiably be called upon to seek what we all have in common.

So much more is it our responsibility that our answers not remain stuck on the surface as formulas and attractive mottoes. Many here are depressed by the possibility that the often expressed desire for “dialogue” will rigidify into mere ritual and cover over the actual problems of people with varying religious backgrounds living together.

Therefore, we should honestly confront some central questions: What is the nature of the dialogue and what does it consist of? What is the meaning and goal of the dialogue? Who are the parties, that is, the partners to the dialogue?

In answer to the first question: The paradigm, the example and the prototype for the “dialogue,” the socratic dialogue as described for us by Plato. It is the cooperative struggle for truth, for insight into reality. Socrates attempts to draw perception from his interlocutor just as the midwife tries to help the mother at birth. The basic requirement is that both partners of the conversation are guided entirely by reality. In other words, they must both be concerned only with the truth. In regard to questions of justice, piety and bravery, Socrates and his outstanding student, Plato, try to do just that: recognize and formulate truth. An insight must never be imposed. An insight can never be imposed,

The Platonic dialogues instruct us that it is difficult to achieve the truth by natural means. In the dialogue “Phaidon,” Plato expresses the hope that God himself will come to our aid. We find a masterful example of genuine dialogue in the dialogues of Justin the Martyr (Dialogue with the Jew, Tryphon) and the debates of St. Ephraim of Syria with the opponents of his time, especially Neo-Paganism under Emperor Julian Apostata.

Plato’s concern was captured masterfully by the African church father Augustinus in his dialogue “On the Teacher” (De Magistro). St. Augustinus tells us that true insight can never be imposed or “taught.” Individual insight is necessary, which is gladly vouchsafed to each honest seeker.

Concerning the second question about the meaning and goal of the dialogue: The meaning of the dialogue is in the classical sense simply directed at gaining understanding. What could this comprise? With great aspiration, “absolute understanding” could be the goal: insights which lie beyond the insights of the partners to the dialogue and which, at best, even overcome these positions. Is that a realistic demand in the “dialogue of religions” which is consciously committed to differing principles of faith and realities of manifestation? I think not, for it would radically oppose the self-image of all religions, so as to comprehend what each “Other” thinks and wants. Only in a following step could the modalities of a peaceful and fruitful togetherness be considered, by asking whether there are rules seen from a third standpoint–for instance that of the secular state–which are compatible with the convictions of all partners to the dialogue.

Even such an “unambitious” goal assumes at a minimum that one partner to the dialogue not imply that the other would not know or understand his own position.
Today, we Christians must take note that many of the public dialogue forums held worldwide, in which “commonalities,” “solidarity” and “cooperation” are invoked, have not contributed to a better understanding of the Christian faith. In publications from Islamic countries, in concord with Islamic source texts, Christians are still condemned as “polytheists” or “infidels.” The Christian belief in the most sacred Trinity is misrepresented. We Christians believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost, not in Allah, Isa and Maryam!

We Christians are not “people of the Book.” We are “people of Jesus Christ.”

We think of ourselves as “Christianoi”–”those who belong to the Messiah, as it was expressed for the first time in Syrian Antioch in the time of St. Peter, the first of the apostles.

There must be no Islamic prerogative of interpretation about the Christian faith. It would dramatically contradict the basic principles of dialogue as just delineated.

It is even more destructive when one partner to the dialogue is deemed unworthy of protection as a person or a subject in a common regime. This point is mostly omitted, but it cannot be denied that such an attitude is set down in numerous Koranic verses.
a. Sura 2, 191 Pa And kill them (infidel opponents) wherever you find them and drive them out of where they have driven you out
b. Sura 2, 193 Pa: And fight them until no one any longer tries to seduce (believers to leave Islam) and only Allah is worshipped!
c. Sura 8, 12 Pa: Strike (them [the infidels] with the sword) on the neck and strike at each of their fingers.
d. Sura 8, 39 [textually equivalent to Sura 2, 193] Pa: And fight against them until no one (else) tries to seduce (the faithful to leave Islam) and only Allah is worshipped.
e. Sura 9, 5 Pa: And when the sacred months have passed, kill the infidels where you find them, seize them, surround them and ambush them everywhere.
f. Sura 9, 123 Pa: You faithful! Fight against those of the infidels who are close to you! They shall see that you can be hard!
i. Sura 47, 35 Pa: Do not falter (in your combativeness) and do not offer (the enemy) peace too early where you will (ultimately) have the upper hand.
g. Sura 9, 55 Pa: Those who do not believe and will not believe are to Allah as the worst of the animals.
Sura 47, 12 Pa: The infidels however enjoy (their short existence) and thoughtlessly take in (literally eat) their sustenance as the animals do. They will have their place in the fires of Hell.
To this day, Muslims have not distanced themselves from such Koranic statements in any conference I know of.
We are also quite far from the second possible goal of the dialogue.
One could also set a more modest goal for the dialogue. “The path is the goal” is a not-infrequent stylish motto. If at the time a goal of perception cannot be realized, the dialogue is justified by the fact that people are dealing peacefully with one another as long as they are speaking and abjure violence as long as they are sitting together at the conference table.

But even this hope proves deceptive.

As we are speaking of dialogue here, Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs in Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq, Malaysia, the lands of the Arabian Peninsula and many other countries. Muslims are emboldened to overreaching violence by calling upon the authority of their sacred writings.

It is a certainty that there is no one in this hall who does not condemn such acts of violence and believe that they are incompatible with his basic beliefs.

This problem brings us to our third question, about the partners to this dialogue. The question can be formulated differently. Who speaks for whom and with what authority and degree of representation? And who distances himself from what and with what responsibility and gravity? What Islamic dignitary has rejected the demand of head-of-state Gadhaffi that all Muslims enter into jihad against Switzerland? How does it happen that in the parliament of EU candidate country, Turkey, Christians are called “infidels” and in Turkish religious publications Christians are described as second-class human beings? What sense does it make to speak about dialogue with representatives of Al-Azhar University in Cairo who, on other occasions, describe terror attacks as justified self defense?

There are admittedly always people at work here who can be said not to be representative of the religion as a whole. What does it signify when religions and cultures, not persons, want to enter into dialogue. How can a dialogue, whose subjects are world-wide collectives or intellectual-spiritual concepts, be shaped? The requirements for answering such question are too complex to allow answers. This shows us that we are standing at the beginning of a long path in the dialogue of religions and cultures. And it shows us that we should be very cautious in how we deal with the expectation that dialogue would be a universal cure for the conflicts of this world. Is there not even a danger that a toothless dialogue will nourish and strengthen the conflicts it conceals or create a sympathetic alibi for those who regard dialogue as a weapon?

To be sure, there are also moments if hope and confidence. The new president of the Council of Europe, the Turk Mevlut Cavusoglu said in his inaugural address that intercultural and interreligious dialogue must be strengthened. All sorts of racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, islamophobia and similar phobias which lead to discrimination and intolerance must be stamped out. I would like to believe that President Cavusoglu included among these phobias anti-Christian sentiment, which we experience daily.

An understanding of this kind would indicate acceptance of comprehensive human rights, which should be the basis of or policy. It is an understanding that points to the “Assumption of Naum,” which was chosen as one of the guidelines of this conference. It is a vantage point out of which the life model of Europe, to which we owe our freedom, was developed.

This life model also constitutes the principle of free practice of religion in the framework of a legally anchored religious freedom, which includes includes individual freedom, freedom of religious affiliation, freedom not to affiliate, freedom to change affiliation. Naturally, religious freedom must also include the freedom to criticize religion.

What dialogue must under no circumstances encourage are cultural relativism and double standards in human rights.

For us as Chrstians and for me as a priest of the Syrian Orthodox Church, there is of course more to declaim, namely Jesus Christ, the savior of humanity. He is the prototype of any dialogue, since he has told us in many conversations with friend and foe: The truth shall make you free.

That is the source and the zenith of the dialogue: not just the socratic, philosophical insight into intellectual truth, as good and valuable as it is. but the encounter with the word-become-flesh in freedom and truth. We don’t give it cheaper. That is the message we have received and that we offer here.

That is what I would like to proclaim here.

I would also like to proclaim this message everywhere, unimpeded, without being sentenced to inhumane punishment for “upheaval” (al-fitna).

That is why I have come here.

God bless you all, the hospitable citizens of Macedonia, and the dedicated representatives of all the earth.

Thank you for your attention.

Posted in Berichte von Konferenzen, Brainwashing, Christenverfolgung, Islam, Islamization | Leave a Comment »

Auf dem Weg zum Djihad

Posted by paulipoldie on May 15, 2010

Von Francisco Garcia Fitz 1. Juni 2006, 00:00 Uhr

Die Toleranz im islamischen Spanien ist nur ein multikultureller Mythos

Es bleibt eine verlockende Idee: eine tolerante Gesellschaft, in der Völker mit verschiedenen Sitten, Sprachen und Religionen friedlich zusammenleben. Gerade in unserer Zeit hat sie eine außerordentliche Anziehungskraft. Dabei herrscht die weit verbreitete Vorstellung, daß sich im mittelalterlichen Spanien eine solche geradezu ideale multikulturelle und gemischtreligiöse Gesellschaft herausgebildet habe, in der drei Kulturen – die christliche, die muslimische und die jüdische – in relativer Harmonie zusammenlebten. Dort habe es, anders als im homogenen und monolithischen christlichen Europa nördlich der Pyrenäen, Toleranz und Verständnis füreinander gegeben.

//

// <![CDATA[
function searchAndExecuteJS(nodes)
{
for (var i = 0; i Nicht wenige Politiker und Intellektuelle sehen darin ein Modell, um den wachsenden Problemen der Integration von Einwanderern aus anderen Kulturkreisen zu begegnen. Obwohl es Ansätze dafür auch in den christlichen spanischen Reichen gegeben hat, glaubt man dieses geradezu idyllische Profil vor allem im muslimischen Andalusien vorzufinden. Doch diese Vorstellung einer Gesellschaft dreier verschiedener, sich gegenseitig respektierender Kulturen ist ein Mythos oder ein Gemeinplatz, der nicht der historischen Realität entspricht.

Auf den ersten Blick deutet manches im mittelalterlichen Spanien tatsächlich auf eine “convivencia” zwischen den verschiedenen religiösen Gruppen. Die politische Struktur im muslimischen Spanien ermöglichte es Christen und Juden, ihre Identität auch unter muslimischer Herrschaft zu bewahren. Eine gewisse Teilhabe der Unterworfenen an den Geschicken des Landes innerhalb der muslimischen Verwaltung war weiterhin möglich. Diese Haltung gegenüber den religiösen Minderheiten basierte auf dem Koran, der Muslimen vorschreibt, die Mitglieder der monotheistischen Religionen zu respektieren. Christen und Juden galten somit als geschützte Minderheiten, als sogenannte “dhimmis”.

// <![CDATA[
// read meta_keywords from html header and add to sas_target
var metas_keywords;

for (var i = 0; i 0) {
if (sas_target.length > 0) {
sas_target+= ‘,’;
}
sas_target+=metas_keywords;
}

if (document.referrer.indexOf(‘google’) > -1) {
if (sas_target.length > 0) {
sas_target+= ‘,’;
}
sas_target+= ‘googleref’;
}
if (isNegativ == ‘true’) {
sas_target = ‘xxxnaxxx’;
}
//alert(“tagSmartAd.tag: sas_target: ” + sas_target);
SmartAdServer(sas_pageid,sas_formatid,sas_target);
// ]]>


Der politische, gesellschaftliche und wirtschaftliche Status der Christen und der Juden in al-Andalus war aber dennoch von Ausgrenzung und Minderwertigkeit geprägt. Entscheidende Positionen – beispielsweise Führungsaufgaben im Heer oder in der politischen Administration – blieben Christen und Juden verwehrt. Wenn gegen diese Regel verstoßen wurde, kam es mitunter zu Protesten der muslimischen Bevölkerung, die zur Absetzung, manchmal sogar zum Tod des Emporkömmlings führen konnten. Insbesondere das Steuerrecht spiegelte die gesellschaftliche Benachteiligung wider: Christen und Juden zahlten spezifische Steuern -eine Individualsteuer, und eine Grundsteuer -die sehr viel drückender waren als diejenigen Steuern, die den Muslimen auferlegt waren.

Hinzu kamen allerlei Herabsetzungen und Schikanen. So war es den christlichen und jüdischen Gemeinden verboten, ihre Religion öffentlich sichtbar auszuüben z.B. durch das Schlagen der Glocken und das Abhalten von Prozessionen oder durch den Bau neuer Gotteshäuser. Strikt verboten war ihnen, ihre Ansichten über Religion öffentlich zu äußern. Kleidervorschriften dienten dazu, die “dhimmis” in der Öffentlichkeit eindeutig von den Muslimen zu unterscheiden.

Unklar ist, ob diese Bestimmungen in der Zeit des Kalifats (929-1031) durchgesetzt wurden. Doch für das 12. Jahrhundert ist belegt, daß Christen und Juden einen Gürtel, den sogenannten “zunnar”, tragen mußten, während den Juden im islamischen Granada eine gelbe Mütze oder eine andere gelbe Kennzeichnung sowie besondere Kleidung vorgeschrieben war. Jede auch nur äußerliche Unterordnung eines Muslimen gegenüber einem Christen oder Juden war verboten, wie sich auch Christen und Juden keinerlei Zeichen eines höheren Ranges wie z.B. Waffentragen oder auf einem Pferd Reiten anmaßen durften. Ehen zwischen muslimischen Männern und christlichen Frauen waren erlaubt, aber die Kinder dieser Verbindung galten als Muslime. Umgekehrt war die Ehe zwischen einem christlichen Mann und einer muslimische Frau untersagt. Es ließen sich weitere Beispiele für diskriminierende Sanktionen und entehrende Bilder aufzählen – manchmal wurden Christen und Juden etwa mit Aussätzigen verglichen.

Auch wenn viele dieser diskriminierenden Gesetze nicht strikt befolgt wurden: Die pure Existenz dieser Vorschriften zeugt von einem grundsätzlichen Mißtrauen, von Geringschätzung, Feindseligkeit und Vorurteil der Muslime gegenüber dem “Anderen”. Während der Herrschaft der nordafrikanischen Almoraviden und Almohaden über das muslimische Spanien im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert mündete diese Grundhaltung sogar in Zwangsbekehrungen, in Deportationen und in massenhaften Emigrationen in das christliche Spanien.

Als weiteres Argument für die Vorstellung, daß es im mittelalterlichen Spanien eine tolerante und offene Gesellschaft gegeben habe, gelten die Kulturleistungen. Zwischen iberischen Christen und Muslimen, und in geringerem Umfang zwischen diesen und der jüdischen Bevölkerung hat es einen intensiven kulturellen Austausch gegeben. Dazu gehören der fruchtbare Einfluß des Arabischen auf die kastilische Sprache sowie der Einfluß der islamischen Kunst auf die christliche, der zu einer eigenen Kunstrichtung führte, dem sogenannten “Mudejar-Stil”. Doch es ist ein Irrtum, kulturellen Austausch mit “convivencia” und Toleranz gleichzusetzen. Gleichheit oder Respekt sind dafür keine zwingende Voraussetzung. Die Herrschaft einer Gemeinschaft über eine andere, Marginalisierung, Intoleranz oder sogar Verfolgung und Versklavung einer Gruppe waren niemals ein Hindernis für kulturellen Austausch.

Ähnlich verhält es sich mit den Institutionen, die im mittelalterlichen Spanien einer friedlichen Lösung von Konflikten zwischen den Nachbarn verschiedener Religion auf beiden Seiten der Grenze dienten. Denn wir dürfen nicht die wahre Natur der Beziehungen verkennen, die jene Institutionen zu normalisieren versuchten: Wenn es friedliche Vermittlungsinstanzen gab, dann eben deshalb, weil Aggression, Raub, Verschleppung und Versklavung sowie Mordtaten an der Tagesordnung waren. Von daher erscheinen jene Institutionen viel weniger ein Argument für die Existenz guter nachbarschaftlicher Beziehungen, als vielmehr für die gewalttätige Natur der Beziehungen, die sie zu regeln versuchten.

Zwar sind nur wenige offizielle, von den Herrschern erklärte Kriege überliefert. Aber es gab immer wieder militärische Kampagnen zur systematischen Zerstörung und Verwüstung ganzer Landstriche, mit denen die spätere Eroberung von Städten und Befestigungen vorbereitetet wurde. Dies war kein offener Krieg, aber ein dauerhafter Zustand von Gewalt, der ohne Zweifel dazu beitrug, den Groll und den Haß zwischen den Parteien zu vertiefen. Sicherlich war nicht alles zwischen Muslimen und Christen von Konfrontation geprägt, und die friedlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Religionsgemeinschaften hatten ein spezifisches Gewicht. Aber man darf ihre Bedeutung nicht idealisieren.

Nicht zuletzt waren die Weltanschauungen, die auf beiden Seiten den kriegerischen Zusammenprall rechtfertigten und belebten – der Djihad auf der islamischen und der “Heilige Krieg” oder die “Reconquista” auf der christlichen Seite – totalitäre Konzeptionen, die darauf angelegt waren, den Feind zu zerstören und nicht darauf, mit ihm zu paktieren oder zusammenzuleben. Die militärischen Unternehmungen des cordobesischen Herrschers Almanzor im 10. Jahrhundert oder die Djihad-Expeditionen der fundamentalistischen Almoraviden und Almohaden im 12. Jahrhundert gegen die christlichen Gebiete waren eine Entsprechung zu den Kreuzzügen der Christen in ihrem Kampf gegen den Islam.

Aus alledem läßt sich schließen, daß die Beziehungen zwischen Christen, Muslimen und Juden in ihrer Gesamtheit kaum von Toleranz zeugen, zumindest nicht im Sinne des Verständnisses, das wir heutzutage von diesen Konzepten haben. Unbestreitbar hat es kulturelle Anleihen und Einflüsse und friedliche wirtschaftliche Beziehungen gegeben, aber keine Beziehungen auf der Basis von Gleichheit und voller Akzeptanz der Unterschiede. Die Koexistenz verschiedener Gemeinschaften war relativ, denn zugleich wurden die persönlichen, familiären und politischen Kontakte zwischen den einen und den anderen behindert oder sogar verhindert.

Vor diesem Hintergrund wirkt die idyllische Vorstellung eines muslimischen Spaniens als Treffpunkt dreier Kulturen eher wie die Antwort auf ein aktuelles Bedürfnis. Die Modelle für interkulturelle Beziehungen, die unsere Gesellschaft benötigt, sollten nicht im Mittelalter gesucht werden. Denn was man dort findet, ist die Kehrseite: eine Politik der Ausgrenzung, die schließlich in Gewalt und Vertreibung mündete.

Der Autor lehrt Mittelalterliche Geschichte an der Universität von Extremadura in Cáceres. (Übersetzung: Alexander Bronisch)

Posted in Brainwashing, Islamisierung, Must Read | Leave a Comment »

Obama, Cairo, and the Religion of Peace

Posted by paulipoldie on May 15, 2010

Picture of the Week

New beginning – same old Religion of Peace.   In the year since
Obama’s pledge for a “new beginning” with the Islamic world, Muslims
in America have, 1) Plotted to set off a car bomb in  Illinois, 2) Plotted to
blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, 3) Attempted to detonate an airplane
over Detroit, 4) Murdered an army recruiter in Arkansas,  5) Planted a
car bomb in Times Square, and 6) Massacred thirteen people in Texas.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Posted in Brainwashing, Islam | 1 Comment »

Islam Does Not Mean Peace

Posted by paulipoldie on May 15, 2010

http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/05/islam_does_not_mean_peace.html

One of the greatest deceptions and just another Islamic myth that Muslims foist on the kuffar (dirty infidels) is that Islam means peace. It does not. It never did. And it never will. A number of commenters in response to my article 13 Beautiful Muslim Women protested that true Muslims could not throw acid into a woman’s face because, they allege, Islam means peace.

I responded:

Islam does not mean peace, it means submission just as Muslim means “one who submits” to God. Yes, the triliteral SLM [in Arabic] also means peace but not in the context of religion just as catholic means liberal or comprehensive but not in the religious sense.

But no Catholic would tell another person that Catholic means liberal because that would be deceptive and inaccurate.

Two kinds of Muslims parrot this “Islam means peace” nonsense:

  1. Those who do not speak Arabic, or are poorly educated or who recently converted who were taught this lie.
  2. Those who do know Arabic but practice al-Taqiyya, religion-sanctioned lying and deception for the benefit of Islam.

There is even a facebook page declaring Islam Means Peace! Dont call Muslims terrorists!! with the idiot who put up the page giving this lie: “My religion is Islam and it means Peace. It was not spread by the sword, but by the word of God.” Only a backward, uneducated moron would not know that Islam was spread by force.

But back to the peace stuff. Those who are expert in pre-Islamic history know that the Semitic root SLM originally was used thousands of years BC with the meaning of safe or at peace. In Babylonia, words such as shulmani meant “peace gifts,” or “gifts to make one safe,” that is to say, what we would call today “tribute” to a ruling despot. Tribute is something one pays to dissuade an attack. The person paying the tribute is in submission to the other. And so, in Middle Eastern languages one finds the words formed from S-L-M meaning either safe (or at peace), whole or unbroken, or when defining a slave/master relationship, meaning submission.

When used between equals it means peace such as in greetings in Hebrew or Arabic: Peace be unto you. However, there is a rule as to who gets to say it first: the rider should greet the one walking; the one walking should greet the one sitting; and the one entering a home should greet the one living within.

However, when used between unequals as between slave and master, loser and winner, supplicant and God, another SLM root covers the meaning of submission. For example, Musalam means “undisputed.” Muslim means “One who submits.” Islam means “submission to another.” With regard to religion, Islam means submission to Allah and a Muslim is one who submits to Allah.” Islam does not mean peace nor does Muslim mean “one who is peaceful.”

When Mohammed sent letters to all the tribes not yet under his rule he ended the missives with “surrender and you will be safe.” Which, to give you the taste of that pun in English: “MSLM (submit) and be SLM (safe).” Or in plain English: “Surrender or die.”

In only that sense, does Islam mean peace, submit – and the result will be peace. Otherwise there is no peace.

It should be noted that the definition of submission in English when used in the context of one surrendering to another implies acceptance with fear. Which is exactly how Islam rules: by fear rather than by love. One cannot break the bonds of submission except at the pain of death.

While it is true that many American Muslims have been able to become non-Muslim without getting themselves killed, that is true only because the proportion of Muslims to non-Muslims is small. Every country with a few Muslims eventually becomes almost 99.99% Muslim, unless the Muslims are thrown out as they were in the Reconquista. Certainly one cannot become an unbeliever in a Muslim-majority country without getting his ass fatwahed.

Real Muslims do not believe that Islam means peace. CBN News traveled to London to talk with Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim radical:

Jihad Watch, Anjem Choudary: “Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission.”

Although both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that Islam is a religion of peace, Choudary begs to differ.

A Religion of Peace?

“You can’t say that Islam is a religion of peace,” Choudary told CBN News. “Because Islam does not mean peace. Islam means submission. So the Muslim is one who submits. There is a place for violence in Islam. There is a place for jihad in Islam.”

So who are you going to believe, American Muslims who wants us to believe that Islam is a religion of peace and no threat to us, or a Muslim who who has nothing to hide?


Disclaimer: 99.9% of all rattlesnakes in the world will never kill a human being. But because of their nature one should not have one roaming around the neighborhood. Likewise, 99.9% of Muslims in the world will never kill a human being, but because of their nature …

Posted in Brainwashing, Islam | 2 Comments »

Fragen an Frau Bundesminister Fekter

Posted by paulipoldie on April 29, 2010

Ist ja interessant, was Frau Fekter da von sich gibt:

Wien – Innenministerin Maria Fekter (V) hat sich dafür ausgesprochen, den „europäischen Islam“ zu fördern. Es gebe etwa in Bosnien-Herzegowina starke Elemente eines solchen Islam, „der eine Bereicherung für unser gemeinsames Europa ist“, sagte Fekter am heutigen Donnerstag bei einer Innenministerkonferenz zum Thema „Interkultureller Dialog und innere Sicherheit“ in Sarajevo.

Bosnien-Herzegowina habe in den vergangenen Jahren „eindrucksvoll bewiesen“, wie interkultureller Dialog aussehen könne und welch positive Rolle Religionsgemeinschaften bei der Herstellung sozialen Friedens spielen können, wurde Fekter in einer Aussendung des Innenministeriums zitiert. „Nicht zuletzt gilt die Brücke von Mostar weltweit als Symbol für die Verbindung von Christentum und Islam, von Katholiken und Orthodoxen.“

An der von Österreich und Bosnien-Herzegowina organisierten Konferenz nehmen Innenminister und Experten der Westbalkan-Staaten und aus dem „Forum Salzburg“ sowie Vertreter von EU, UNO, OSZE (Organisation für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa) und der Internationalen Organisation für Migration (IOM) teil.

Als Eckpunkte für einen funktionierenden interkulturellen Dialog nannte die Ministerin ausreichende Sprachkenntnisse, „eine von allen anerkannte Wertebasis“ sowie „ähnlich gute Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten für alle“. Seien diese Voraussetzungen erfüllt, „ist der Weg zum sozialen Frieden geebnet und wesentliche Anreize für Kriminalität, Extremismus, Radikalisierung und damit letztlich für Terrorismus fallen weg“.

„Respekt vor dem Gesetz, Achtung der Demokratie und Ihrer Institutionen und die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte sowie insbesondere die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau“ seien Werte, die allgemein akzeptiert werden sollten. So dürfe es auch „keinen Missbrauch von Religionen auf dem Rücken der Menschenrechte geben“, sagte die ÖVP-Ministerin mit Blick auf die Debatte über ein Kopftuch-oder Burka-Verbot. Hier bedürfe es einer sachlich fundierten Debatte unter Einbeziehung von Experten und Zivilgesellschaft, aber auch eine „objektive, untendenziöse Kommunikation“ aller Beteiligten. „Denn eines darf nicht vergessen werden: Es gibt, etwa in Bosnien-Herzegowina, starke Elemente eines europäischen Islams, der eine Bereicherung für unser gemeinsames Europa ist. Diesen gilt es zu fördern.“

Ich hätte da ein paar Frage, Frau Bundesminister:

1. Wo und was sind genau die Elemente dieses mysteriösen, von vielen Muslimen (siehe Erdogan) abgelehnte, “europäische” Islam? Gibt es konkrete Beispiele?

2. Bitte um Beweise für die Ergebnisse des “erfolgreichen” interkulturellen Dialogs, der in Bosnien-Herzegowina, inbesondere in Mostar, stattfindet. Ein Brücke ist nicht wirklich “interkultureller” Dialog.

3.  Wo sind die Beweise, daß “ausreichende” Sprachkenntnisse vor Terrorismus und “Extremismus” schützen? Und wie sieht das mit den zahlreichen Studien aus, bei denen Muslime eben NICHT die westliche Rechtsordnung als die ihre anerkennen?

4. ‘…Die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte sowie insbesondere die Gleichberechtigung von Mann und Frau“ seien Werte, die allgemein akzeptiert werden sollten’: Von welchen Menschenrechten sprechen Sie hier? Die universellen oder die islamischen? Und Werte, die akzeptiert werden sollten: Und was passiert, wenn sie nicht akzeptiert werden, wie das täglich vorexerziert wird? Lesen Sie die Kronenzeitung und Österreich.

5. „keinen Missbrauch von Religionen auf dem Rücken der Menschenrechte geben” in Bezug auf Burka und Kopftuch: Was bedeutet für Sie “Missbrauch von Religion”?  Und was ist Ihre Definition von Freiheit? Freiheit zum Kopftuch oder auch Freiheit vom Kopftuch? Ein Verbot einer Gesichtsverschleierung ist Mißbrauch für Sie, wenn doch meines Wissens nach in Österreich ein Vermummungsverbot gilt?

Und 6. Von welcher Bereicherung sprechen Sie im Hinblick auf den (bosnischen bzw. europäischen) Islam? Können Sie diese präzisieren oder sind das nur Schlagworte?

Um Sie wieder in Realität zurückzubringen, lege ich folgenden Artikel ans Herz:

Bosnien – Sarajewo: Fortschreitende Islamisierung und Ausgrenzung der Katholiken

(Sarajewo) Die Bedingungen der Christen Sarajewos werden immer schwieriger. Sie bilden nur mehr eine verschwindend kleine Minderheit, wie Kardinal Vinko Puljic, seit 1990 Erzbischof in der bosnischen Hauptstadt, in einem Buch des italienischen Historikers Roberto Morozzo della Rocca berichtet. „Vor dem Krieg gab es 60.000 Katholiken in Sarajewo, heute sind es gerade noch 13.000. Es fand eine ethnisch-religiöse Säuberung statt“, so Kardinal Puljic. „Die Islamisierung entmutigt die Katholiken, die zurückweichen und auswandern“, so der Purpurträger. Die Situation gilt mehr oder wenig für ganz Bosnien-Herzegowina. Vor dem Krieg von 1992-1995 lebten 860.000 Katholiken im Balkanstaat. Heute sind es nur noch 420.000. Der Katholikenanteil an der Gesamtbevölkerung sank von 17 Prozent auf neun Prozent. „Die Katholiken wandern nach Deutschland und in die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika aus“, erklärt Morozzo della Rocca.

Sarajewo sei das Aushängeschild der Multiethnizität, des Multikulturalismus und der Multikonfessionalität gewesen. „Heute kann die Sarajewo nicht mehr als ‚pluralistische Stadt‘ bezeichnet werden, so der Historiker. Fast 90 Prozent der Stadtbevölkerung sind Moslems unter denen es nur noch „kleine katholisch, orthodoxe und jüdische Gemeinschaften gibt, der Rest sind Atheisten“, so Kardinal Puljic, der auch Vorsitzender der katholischen Bischofskonferenz von Bosnien-Herzegowina ist.

„Den ausländischen Besucher und der internationalen Gemeinschaft erzählt man: ‚Wir sind offen für das Zusammenleben‘. Doch in Wirklichkeit gibt es keinen Platz für das Zusammenleben, vor allem in den Bereichen Arbeit, Verwaltung und Information. Es befindet sich alles in einer einzigen Hand“, so der Erzbischof von Sarajewo mit Blick auf die erdrückende muslimische Mehrheit.

Wer aber sind die Moslems Bosnien-Herzegowinas? „Es sind keine Araber, sondern islamisierte Slawen“, erklärt der Kardinal. „Mit dem letzten Krieg wurde erst ihre Sonderidentität im nationalen Sinn geschaffen. Gleichzeitig brachten radikale Moslems aus den arabischen Ländern viel Geld, Unterstützung, Sitten, Gebräuche und auch Ideologie. Daraus entstand eine neue, bis dahin unbekannte Form von Radikalität“, so Msgr. Puljic.

In einem solchen Szenario vervielfältigen sich die praktischen Probleme für die Katholiken. Sie reichen von jahrelangen Wartezeiten für die Genehmigung zum Bau einer Kirche bis hin zu zunehmenden Angriffe gegen Priester und Vandalismus gegen Kirchen. Katholiken bekommen zunehmend seltener Arbeitsplätze und selbst die Gesundheitsversorgung wird ihnen teilweise verweigert. Sanität, Justiz und Sicherheit scheinen nur für den dominanten moslemischen Teil zu gelten, wie Morozzo della Rocca anmerkt.

Gleichzeitig ruft Kardinal Vinko Puljic, der Erzbischof von Sarajewo, seine katholischen Landsleute auf, nicht den Mut zu verlieren: „Ich will mein Volk ermutigen, nicht aufzugeben: Schafft Neues mit eurem Glauben und aus eurem Glauben heraus! Es gilt den öffentlichen Raum stärker durch den Glauben zu beeinflussen. Nicht nur in Bosnien-Herzegowina, sondern in ganz Europa.“

(Corrispondenza Romana GN, Bild: flickr.com M Eriksson)

Für weitere Informationen, siehe:

http://sosheimat.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/fekter-will-europaischen-islam-fordern/

Posted in Österreich, Brainwashing, Islamisierung, Migranten/Migrants | 5 Comments »