Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit’ Category

Geert Wilders’ Speech in Tel Aviv

Posted by paulipoldie on December 11, 2010

Gates of Vienna

Geert Wilders’ Speech in Tel Aviv

Geert Wilders in Tel Aviv
Below is the text of the speech given today in Tel Aviv by Geert Wilders. Update: Thanks to Brian of London for the photo.

Shalom chaveriem,

Let me start by saying that it is with great sadness that I share your grief over the deaths of more than 40 brave Israelis who lost their lives — many while trying to save others in the great fire near Haifa. My country, the Netherlands, is amongst other countries helping to put down this fire, which is threatening the lives and property of thousands of your compatriots. I offer my heartfelt condolences to the families of those who perished. My thoughts are with them.

Israel is an immense source of inspiration for me. When I came to your country for the first time as a teenager, I lived here for a year.

I am not ashamed to stand with Israel, but proud. I am grateful to Israel. I will always defend Israel. Your country is the cradle of Western civilization. We call it the Judeo-Christian civilization with good reason.

Israel is often being treated unfairly. The world looks at the plight of the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza, and other places, and many blame Israel. The UN claims that there are over 4.7 million Palestinian refugees, and many blame Israel. These voices say the Palestinians should be allowed to return to “Palestine.” But where is Palestine? Many say Israel must solve the problems of Palestine. But is Israel guilty of the plight of the Palestinian refugees?

My answer is “No.” The Arab leaders are to be blamed — and Islam is to be blamed. Let me first tell you why, and then I will tell you where Palestine can be found.

At the end of World War II, there were 50 million refugees. Today, all the refugee problems dating from before the 1950s have been solved. All, except one — the problem of the Palestinians.

Why did this problem not get solved? The reason is simple: Because the Arab countries did not allow it to get solved. And because Islam does not allow it to get solved.
In May 1948, the number of Jews in the Arab countries was estimated to be close to 1 million. Today, fewer than 8,000 Jews are left in the entire Arab world. In 1948, the Arab countries forced the Jews out and confiscated their properties. More Jews fled the Arab countries than Arabs fled Israel. Where are the Jewish refugee camps? There are none.

So, why are there refugee camps for Palestinians in areas surrounding Israel? Because the Palestinians were not welcomed in the neighboring Arab countries. There was no Arab solidarity; the refugees were forced into camps and slums, where many of their descendants still linger today.

Under international definitions the status of refugee or displaced person only applies to first generation refugees. However, the UN makes an exception for Palestinians. Descendants of Palestinian refugees are granted the same refugee status as their ancestors. Consequently, the number of so-called Palestinian refugees registered with the UN increased from 711,000 in 1950 to over 4.7 million in 2010. These refugees are being used as a demographic weapon against Israel.

Instead of blaming the inhospitable Arab regimes, many blame Israel.

My friends, the blame should be laid where it belongs: with the Arab world. The Jewish refugees built new lives for themselves. They did what millions of refugees have done in the course of history, including, in the 20th century, the Germans who had to leave Sudetenland and the lands east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, the Hungarians who fled Transsylvania, the Greeks who were ejected from the Aegean coast of Anatolia, the Hindus who fled the Punjab.

With each generation, the resentment of these refugees and their descendants slowly fades away. Time heals all wounds. Acceptance of the new situation is the norm.

Islam, however, conditions Muslims to hate Jews. It is a religious duty to do so. Israel must be destroyed because it is the homeland of the Jews.

Influential Islamic scholars, such as Muhammad Tantawi, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar in Cairo, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning, call Jews “enemies of Allah.” Tantawi, who died last March, was generally considered a moderate by the Western media and policy makers. But how did this “moderate” address a delegation of Palestinian Muslims who visited him in 2002?

He urged them to intensify suicide attacks against Israelis, stating that every so-called “martyrdom operation” against — I quote — “any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land.” — end of quote.

Nizar Qabbani, one of the most revered poets in the Arab world, praised the madness of those who are blinded by an ideology of hatred. In his poem Ode to the Intifada, he wrote: “O mad people of Gaza, A thousand greetings to the mad. The age of political reason has long departed. So teach us madness.”

Thát is the nature of the Islamic enemies confronting the Jews — sheer madness.

Israel, on the other hand, is a beacon of light; it is like a Hanukkah menorah whose lights have been kindled in a region that until 1948 was engulfed by darkness.

Friends, Israel is not to blame for the situation in the Middle East. The problem is Islam’s rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Only last month, Fatah concluded its convention in Ramallah by declaring its blatant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

The problem is also our Western leaders’ refusal to understand that Israel is the West’s canary in the coalmine: If the Jews are denied the right to live in freedom and peace, soon we will all be denied this right. If the light of Israel is extinguished, we will all face darkness. If Israel falls, the West falls. That is why we are all Israel.

But as long as the West refuses to understand how the Palestinians are used as a weapon against Israel, it will not be able to see who is truly to blame; it will not be able to see that it is not Israel’s duty to provide a Palestinian state — for the simple reason that there already is a Palestinian state and that state is Jordan.
Indeed, my friends, Jordan is Palestine. Take a look at the map of this part of the world after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I. Both contemporary Israel and contemporary Jordan were part of the British Mandate of Palestine.

In 1922, the British partitioned Palestine into Cisjordan and Transjordan — the latter comprising 78 per cent of the territory of Palestine. The British handed that territory over to their ally, the Hashemite strongman Abdallah ibn Hussein. Abdallah was the son of the emir Hussein bin Ali, guardian of the Islamic holy city of Mecca. The Hashemites belong to the Quraish tribe — the tribe of Islam founder Muhammad. They are a foreign body in Palestine.

In 1946, Transjordan became an independent state under Hashemite rule. In November 1947, the United Nations proposed to partition the remaining 22 per cent of Palestine. The territory between the Jordan River and the sea was divided into a Jewish and an Arab part. The Jewish representatives accepted the UN partition plan, but the Arab representatives refused. In an attempt to “drive all the Jews into the sea,” they began the 1948 war — which they lost.

They took revenge, however, on the Jews in East Jerusalem and the rest of Cisjordan — the ancient provinces of Judea and Samaria — held by the Arab forces. This entire region was ethnically cleansed of all Jews. Even the names of Judea and Samaria were wiped off the map and replaced by the ridiculous term “West Bank.” A river bank of over 40 kilometers wide. I come from a country full of rivers, and there the river banks are only a few dozen meters wide.

Israel, including Judea and Samaria, has been the land of the Jews since time immemorial. Judea means Land of the Jews. Never in the history of the world has there been an autonomous state in the area that was not Jewish. The Diaspora of the Jews, which began after their defeat by the Romans in AD 70, did not lead to the departure of all the Jews from their ancient homeland. Jews had been living in the Jordan Valley for centuries until the Arab invaders drove them out in 1948, when the provinces of Judea and Samaria were occupied by the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which abbreviated its name to Jordan in 1950.

And until 1967, when Israel regained the ancient Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria, no-one, not a single Islamic scholar or Western politician, ever demanded that there be an independent Palestinian state in the so-called West Bank.
Must Israel trade land for peace? Should it assign Judea and Samaria to another Palestinian state — a second one, next to Jordan? My friends, let me be very clear: The conflict in the Middle East is not a conflict over territory, but rather an ideological battle.

People are mistaken when they assume that giving up Judea and Samaria and East Jerusalem and letting the Palestinians have it, will end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. In 2005, Israel sacrificed the settlements in Gaza for the sake of peace. Did it get peace?

On the contrary, because the conflict is essentially ideological, the situation worsened. Because the conflict is ideological, territorial concessions are counterproductive. Ideologies cannot be defeated by concessions. They are encouraged and emboldened by it.

Ideologies must be confronted with the iron will never to give in, “never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty.” That is the lesson which the world learned from Winston Churchill when he confronted the evil ideology of nazism.

This conflict here in the Middle East is not about land and borders, but about Islamic jihadism opposing Western liberty. From the moment that Israel was founded, the Arab leaders have rejected every partition plan and every initiative for a territorial settlement. The Islamic ideology simply does not accept the concept of a Jewish state. Neither Hamas nor Fatah are willing to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own in their historic homeland. No territorial concession on Israel’s part can ever change that.

Israel’s ideological enemies want to wipe Israel out as a nation. They simply deny the Jewish state the right to exist and to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

For the sake of its own survival and security, Israel needs defendable borders. A country that is only 15 kilometers wide is impossible to defend. That is the strategic reason why Jews need to settle Judea and Samaria.

Therefore, the Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria are not an impediment to peace; they are an expression of the Jewish right to exist in this land. They are tiny outposts of freedom, defying ideological forces which deny not only Israel but the entire West the right to live in peace, dignity and liberty.

Let us never forget that Islam threatens not just Israel; Islam threatens the entire world. Without Judea and Samaria, Israel cannot protect Jerusalem. The future of the world depends on Jerusalem. If Jerusalem falls, Athens and Rome — and Paris, London and Washington — will be next.

Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting our common civilization. When the flag of Israel no longer flies over the walls of Jerusalem, the West will no longer be free.

However, a peaceful solution must also be found for the many Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere. Each year, hundreds of millions of euros and dollars are spent on the Palestinian refugees in international aid.

The financial assistance, however, did not provide the refugees a new home, a place to live and build a future for their children and grandchildren. It is obvious where this place should be. It should be Palestine, just as, after the Second World War, the obvious place for the German refugees from the East to go to, was Germany. Since Jordan is Palestine, it is the duty of the Jordanian government to welcome all Palestinian refugees who voluntarily want to settle there.

Until the late 1980s, Jordan’s Hashemite rulers did not deny that their country was Palestine. They said so on numerous occasions. In 1965, King Hussein said: “Those organizations which seek to differentiate between Palestinians and Jordanians are traitors.” As late as 1981, Hussein repeated — I quote — “Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.”

In March 1971, The Palestine National Council, too, stated that — I quote — “what links Jordan to Palestine is a national bond […] formed, since time immemorial, by history and culture. The establishment of one political entity in Transjordan and another in Palestine is illegal.” — end of quote.

By the late 1970s, however, the Arab authorities began to differentiate between Jordanians and Palestinians. What was previously considered to be treason and illegality suddenly became the propaganda line.

In March 1977, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein admitted in a candid interview in the Dutch newspaper Trouw: — I quote —

“Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot lay claim to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” — end of quote.

In 1988, as the first Intifada raged, Jordan officially renounced any claim of sovereignty to the so-called West Bank. In recent years, the Jordanian authorities have stripped thousands of Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship. They do so for two reasons.

First, because the alien Hashemite rulers fear that the Palestinians might one day take over their own country. And second, because stripping Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship supports the falsehood that Jordan is not a part of Palestine. And that, consequently, the Palestinians must attack Israel if they want a place of their own.

By arbitrarily reducing thousands of their citizens to statelessness, the Jordanian authorities want to force the Palestinians to turn their aspirations towards the establishment of another Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria. This decision is a great injustice committed by the Hashemite rulers of Jordan — this foreign clan which the British installed.

I am not naïve. I am not blind to the possibility that if Jordan were to be ruled by the Palestinians, this might lead to political radicalization in Jordan. However, a continuation of the present situation will most certainly lead to radicalization. We need a paradigm shift. If we keep thinking along the same lines as we have done so far, no peaceful solution of the Palestinian problem is possible without endangering the existence of Israel and disrupting the social and economic fabric in Judea and Samaria. Resettling millions of Palestinians in these small provinces is simply impossible and is not going to happen.

To the skeptics, I say: What is the alternative? Leaving the present situation as it is? No, my friends, the world must recognize that there has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the Kingdom of Jordan.

Allowing all Palestinians to voluntarily settle in Jordan is a better way towards peace than the current so-called two-states-approach (in reality a three-states-approach) propagated by the United Nations, the U.S. administration, and governing elites all over the world. We only want a democratic non-violent solution for the Palestinian problem. This requires that the Palestinian people should be given the right to voluntarily settle in Jordan and freely elect their own government in Amman. If the present Hashemite King is still as popular as today, he can remain in power. That is for the people of Palestine to decide in real democratic elections.

My friends, let us adopt a totally new approach. Let us acknowledge that Jordan is Palestine.

And to the Western world I say: Let us stand with Israel because the Jews have no other state, while the Palestinians already have Jordan. Let us stand with Israel because the history of our civilization began here, in this land, the homeland of the Jews. Let us stand with Israel because the Jewish state needs defendable borders to secure its own survival. Let us stand with Israel because it is the frontline in the battle for the survival of the West.

We must speak the truth. The truth that Jordan is Palestine, the truth that Samaria and Judea are part of Israel, the truth that Jerusalem may not fall, the truth that Israel is the only democracy in a dark and tyrannical region, the truth that Israel is the linchpin of the West.

Of course, I am just a foreign guest and should be modest. Israel is a democracy and I respect every decision which its people and government will make. But I am proud to be here and grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts and beliefs with you.

Because it is here that our civilization is under attack as we speak. It is here that we, men and women of the West, must show our resolve to defend ourselves. It is here that Israel has lit the light of freedom and that Europeans and Americans must help the Israelis to keep that light shining in the darkness. For Israel’s sake and for the sake of all of us.

Toda raba… And shalom to all of you.


Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders | Leave a Comment »

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Posted by paulipoldie on December 2, 2010


By Max Hastings

We live in a democracy in which it is widely supposed that anything can be said and anything done – at least by celebrity ­television performers.

Yet within politics, freedom of speech is more drastically constrained than ever before. Seldom have those who govern us been so much inhibited in what they feel able to say or write, not by legislatively-imposed censorship, but by a smothering blanket of supposed propriety and oppressive liberal values.

Until Thursday, former Tory MP Howard Flight enjoyed a lower recognition rating than your average park pigeon. He sprang to fame, or rather plunged into notoriety, by making some explosive remarks during an interview prompted by his newly-awarded peerage.

Open debate rages at Speakers' Corner, Hyde ParkUncensored: Open debate rages at Speakers’ Corner, Hyde Park

He denounced government benefit cuts as likely to make the middle class have fewer children and the underclass breed more: ‘Well, that’s not very sensible.’

Headlines screamed. David Cameron fumed, Labour raged, The Guardian revelled in the furore. The ‘guilty’ man apologised. Here was another day, another ‘gaffe’, less than a week after Tory veteran Lord Young was forced to resign after telling the nation it had ‘never had it so good’.

Shocking, isn’t it, the wicked things these politicians say? The funny part starts, however, when we examine the words of Howard Flight and Lord Young.


It is a statistical fact that the middle class have fewer children than the underclass, because the former assess their own ability to raise and educate them, and the latter seldom bother.

As financial pressures on the middle class intensify in the years ahead, it is indeed highly likely that some parents will decide to have fewer children, because they cannot afford them.

The truth of Lord Young’s remarks is equally evident: the British people enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle than at any time in their history.

Whether we shall be able to maintain this happy state is another story, and again the middle class has cause for special alarm. But Young was correct to assert that we ‘have never had it so good’.

His words nonetheless cost him his ­government job. He committed the most heinous crime of a modern politician: he told the truth, but in terms unacceptable to the commissars of the liberal establishment.

We claim that we want our ­rulers to be honest, but in ­reality modern politics is ringed by a vast minefield of Things We Know, But Are Not Allowed To Say.

The term political correctness has become a cliche, but identifies something real. In every aspect of our lives, lines are drawn which politicians and even the rest of us cross at our peril, because a raging pack of truth-deniers will spring at our throats.

Examples? Let us start with the NHS. The idea that healthcare must be absolutely free for everybody has been elevated to a neo-religious principle, which David Cameron treats with more respect than the prayer book.

Every intelligent study shows that Britain’s present NHS structure is not indefinitely affordable. People treat their own health more responsibly if they have a financial stake in adopting a sensible lifestyle, however small. Sooner or later, Britain must move to an insurance-based system or go broke.

But it is deemed suicidal for ministers to admit this. No MP who wants to keep his seat will say that all but a handful of obese people eat too much and exercise too little – that their ghastly condition is their own fault.

More than that, no canny politician suggests that any misfortune in life is the victim’s own fault. It is a fundamental tenet of our society that somebody must be blamed for everything that goes wrong, in order that they can be sued. A whole new breed of vulture lawyers has arisen, to fulfil this purpose.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams called the Government's benefit cuts immoralPolitically correct? Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams called the Government’s benefit cuts immoral

The Archbishop of Canterbury, that supremely foolish Welsh windbag Dr Rowan ­Williams, has denounced the ­Government’s impending ­benefit cuts as not merely ­mistaken, but ‘immoral’.

Dr Williams offers no hint of any constructive ideas about how the unaffordable cost of the current welfare state is to be curbed: like Labour’s front bench, he merely proclaims the wickedness of cutting welfare entitlements, as if these were enshrined in Magna Carta.

Rights, rights, rights – the word is abused almost daily by people who should know better, to foreclose debate about how Britain can pay its way through the 21st century, and about what rewards should be conferred on those at the bottom of the pile, heedless of any obligation to strive for themselves.

Another taboo subject is immigration. Almost no frontline politician dares tell the truth about something that has changed this country more irrevocably than two world wars.

Nor are we allowed to say that as long as we are members of the EU and subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights, pitifully few avenues are open to ministers by which the flow of migrants can be stemmed. It is also these days essential to pretend to think well of Islam, and pay the occasional visit to a mosque.

Any minister who said publicly ‘Race relations in Britain might be in better shape if more ­Muslims who live here showed a willingness to join our culture and adopt our values’ would be out on his ear next day, denounced on front pages as a bigot. It is unacceptable to assert that if newcomers want to come and live in Britain, they will live happiest and fit in best if they dress and act British.

Selection in education is a ­litmus test, which no candidate for high office can flinch from, or rather address honestly. David Cameron has closed the door on new grammar schools and is apparently also against any selective schooling system.

The Left and the education establishment denounce these things as elitist, anti-egalitarian, discriminatory.

Some of the mud sticks even to those who argue the rational case for apportioning children to schools and classes according to their abilities and willingness to learn.

It is acceptable for women politicians to speak ill of men, but an ambitious male politician who knows which way his bread is ­buttered will say nothing about the opposite sex, except how wonderful they are.

He will not admit, for instance, that some women shamelessly milk employment law to ­pursue bogus claims of sexual ­discrimination; that few pretty women in the workplace fail to make the most of their looks; that extending maternity leave, never mind paternity leave, is potty.

One of the least attractive spectacles in British politics is that of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband vying with each other to demonstrate their credentials as good parents, running the kids to school and taking paternity leave.

As a voter, I don’t want anybody who has chosen to run the country at a time of crisis to be messing about with Lego. I want him dealing with our problems, not his children’s. If a man wants to play the good dad, he should choose another career.

But now the entire front rank of British politicians has agreed to play the parenting game, what future candidate for high office will dare break ranks and say ‘This job is too important to waste time changing nappies’?

The silly myth must be sustained that people filling the most demanding offices in the country should also do their bit about the house.

In 2010, it is suicidal to make any statement that might invite a charge of discrimination: I doubt whether any member of the Government could long keep their job after suggesting publicly that gay adoption or IVF treatment for ­lesbians is a bad idea.

The current comedy 'The Kids Are All Right' about a couple of lesbian parentsSays it all: The current comedy ‘The Kids Are All Right’ about a couple of lesbian parents

The title of the current comedy movie The Kids Are All Right, about a couple of lesbian parents, says it all. Many of us do not think ‘the kids are all right’: but we would have no future at Westminster if we declared as much.

Consider what would be said about an MP who argued that it is tough for BA to run a popular airline with stewardesses who are allowed to work until they drop, in competition with Singapore ­Airlines and their kind, who employ only young and pretty ones.

He or she would be in even deeper trouble if they suggested that breast-feeding babies in ­public places is anti-social.

The Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, recently took much stick for his alleged blunder in saying that those who want to have a lot of children should think more about taking financial responsibility for them, which most of us think a statement of the obvious.

It is politically perilous these days to assert that the aspirational middle class deserve to succeed because they work hard, use their money sensibly, make the most of education, and accept responsibility for their actions.

It is even more hazardous to say that some of those who fail in life do so because they dismiss those principles.

At a more frivolous level, every politician must enthuse about Harry Potter, Strictly Come Dancing and The X Factor, or find themselves denounced for being ‘out of touch with the public’.

Can you imagine David Cameron admitting in an interview, as did Harold Macmillan when he was prime minister, that he spent his leisure hours reading the Victorian novels of Anthony Trollope?

If you want to end a promising career fast, tell a TV audience that you hate football. Worse still, suggest that Joanna Lumley is not the fount of all wisdom about public issues and should stick to acting.

We allow and even expect our rulers to offer obeisance to the vacuous culture of celebrity, when we should have the sense instead to demand that they behave like serious people with serious ­values. We might even applaud if they wore ties in ­public, rather than flaunt open-neck shirts to ­emphasise their informality and ‘accessibility’.

The BBC, with its overwhelming power to set the agenda and ­influence values, bears a significant responsibility for driving our politicians into an iron cage of political correctness.

Not merely its news coverage but the entire ethos of the BBC’s ­output reflects the values of the liberal establishment – the Rowan Williams view of life, if you like.

The knowledge that BBC correspondents will treat any minister’s deviation from the PC path not as an error but a career-threatening gaffe goes far to explain why traditional rights of free speech are now so rarely exercised at Westminster.

Both Howard Flight and Lord Young were foolish to say what they did in the way they said it, especially at a time when the ­British people’s tolerance is strained by financial crisis and looming spending cuts.

But the wider becomes the gulf between obvious realities – or at least, reasonable points of view – and our politicians’ willingness to express these, the worse it must be for us all.

Freedom in Britain is not today threatened by law or official ­censorship, but by an oppressive liberalism which is almost equally pernicious.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1333542/Whatever-happened-freedom-speech.html#ixzz16vmlmVLr

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit | Leave a Comment »

NPR, Juan Williams, and Sharia Law

Posted by paulipoldie on November 9, 2010

Posted 11/07/2010 ET

Human Events

NPR’s sacking of Juan Williams was more than the politically correct act du jour.  It was the latest in a series of media and political capitulations to Sharia law.

A central provision of Sharia law is its prohibition against speech that can be construed as “defaming” Islam or the prophet Mohammed.  Where Sharia is practiced and enforced, such “defamation” is a criminal offense that can be punished by death.

In other words, what we in America take for granted as free speech is a capital crime in some areas of the Muslim world.

Islamists around the world are seeking to impose Sharia’s muzzling of free speech on free societies.  The Organization of the Islamic Conference, composed of 56 Islamic states, has won passage of a United Nations resolution calling on countries to criminalize speech that “defames” religion—clearly referring to Islam.  After all, does anyone really expect countries like Saudi Arabia to criminalize speech that “defames” Judaism?

Criminalizing speech that is deemed “defamation” of Islam is tantamount to a backdoor enactment of Sharia law.  The law may have a different name or description, such as prohibiting “hate speech,” but the effect on speech is the same as if Sharia law were in place.

The Netherlands and Austria are two countries where such de facto “Sharia-compliant” laws are in effect.  Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders is currently on trial for publicly criticizing Islam.  Austrian Parliamentarian Susanne Winter was convicted of a similar “crime” in early 2009.  And just last week we were informed that Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, an Austrian who is an ACT! for America member and chapter leader in our expanding international program, will go on trial there for allegedly transgressing the same law.

When newspapers around the world, including most in America, refused to publish the satirical Mohammed cartoons, capitulation to de facto Sharia law occurred.  The ostensible reason was to avoid “offending” or “inflaming” the Muslim world.  The practical effect was a widespread media self-censorship that was every bit as much a compliance with Sharia law as if Sharia law were the actual law of the land.

Some Muslims and Islamic organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argue that such self-censorship is necessary because without it “Islamophobia” will continue to rise.  But there is more here than meets the eye.

Immediately after Juan Williams’ appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, CAIR swung into action and demanded that NPR “address” what Juan Williams said.

Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR spokesman, appeared on Megyn Kelly’s program on Fox News to defend CAIR’s actions.  Tellingly, he failed to reiterate his comment made in a 1993 article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, in which he said, “I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad expressed a similar sentiment in 1998 when he was quoted in two California newspapers maintaining that “the Koran should be the highest authority in America.”

In other words, he wants Sharia law, not the Constitution, to be the supreme law of the land.

Contrast Hooper’s statement with one recently made by moderate and reformist Muslim Dr. Tawfik Hamid:

“Organizations like ACT! for America have come into existence because of the very real threat posed to free people everywhere by what some call “radical Islam” or “Islamism.”  Sadly, the response I see from too many in the Muslim world is to reflexively label such efforts as “Islamophobic” rather than [to] conduct a serious evaluation of Islam that asks why so many non-Muslims harbor legitimate fears and concerns.  I believe [that] the Muslim world needs to provide a peaceful understanding of the religion that unambiguously rejects the current mainstream teachings in Islam that promote hatred, discrimination, and violence.  It is the responsibility of Islamic scholars to provide such alternative teaching to Muslims before asking the world to stop engaging in so-called “Islamophobia.”

Hamid’s reference to the harboring of “legitimate fears” by non-Muslims speaks directly to what Juan Williams was expressing.  Don’t shut down free speech.  Instead, we should encourage more speech that candidly addresses the threat of radical Islam and what that threat means to Americans, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslims.

It’s clear that NPR decided to make an example of Juan Williams for crossing a line into the Forbidden Zone of political correctness when he spoke out on the “sensitive” issue of Islam.  But NPR’s action transcends the boundaries of political correctness.  As newspapers did when they self-censored cartoon renderings of the prophet Mohammed, NPR sent an unmistakable message to Islamists worldwide that Sharia law, even when not formally the law of the land, trumps our First Amendment.

Brigitte Gabriel is a terrorism analyst, a New York Best-selling author of “Because They Hate” and “They Must Be Stopped” and president and CEO of ACT for America.org. Guy Rodgers is Executive Director of ACT for America.org.

Posted in Counterjihad, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islamization, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Think Again: A double standard for Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on October 31, 2010

Jerusalem Post

Hate speech laws are applied in West against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish, Christian infidels.

Islamists everywhere demand respect for Islam, the prophet and the Koran, and threaten murderous mayhem should that demand not be honored. At the same time, they do not hesitate to express their contempt for other religions and their adherents, as well as the system of democratic rights protecting the freedom of religion.

Nor are those threats to be taken likely. More than 50 people died in violence triggered by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1989 edict against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and all those connected with its publication or distribution. Dozens of Europeans are now in hiding or under police protection because of death threats from Muslims.

Sadly, the West has to a shocking degree acquiesced in this double standard. The Washington Post removed from its website a cartoon including the words “Where’s Muhammad,” even though it contained no depiction of him; South Park’s producers edit episodes mentioning Islam but not those ridiculing Christianity; Yale University Press deleted all the actual cartoons from a book on the Danish cartoon controversy. Australian preachers were fined for quoting the Koran, and leading Dutch politician Geert Wilders was put on trial for his strident criticism of Islam.

Hate speech laws are applied in Europe against those critical of Islam, but never against Muslim imams who mock Jewish or Christian infidels. Even here, Tatiana Susskind was sentenced to two years in jail for posting a cartoon of the face of Muhammad on the body of a pig, but preachers from the Islamic Movement can broadcast what they want about Jews and Judaism.

The double standard conveys to the Islamists two dangerous messages. First, violence works; the West is terrorized. Second, Islam is the one true religion: Behold, even Westerners treat it with a deference not shown to Christianity or Judaism.

INTELLECTUALS AND cultural elites have played a major role in fostering the West’s acceptance of voluntary dhimmitude by manipulating the level at which the debate takes place whenever it touches issues of Islam. In part, intellectual attitudes are motivated by fear; in part by a refusal to acknowledge a civilizational struggle between the West and expansionist Islam. For some, the frisson of seeing their own bourgeois society under attack contributes to the fun.

The recent uproar over the threat of an obscure Florida pastor to burn the Koran provides a classic example of the different ways the debate is framed depending on whether Islam is perceived as the “aggressor” or the “victim.”

The Koran burning would undoubtedly have been protected “symbolic speech” under settled First Amendment doctrine. Burning the American flag, another highly charged act, has been protected by the Supreme Court. At the same time, it must be conceded that the Koran burning is highly offensive to Muslims and has no purpose other than to offend.

Let’s compare the response to the threatened Koran burning to another recent hot-button issue: the Ground Zero mosque. In discussing the proposed mosque, President Barack Obama focused, or at least claimed to focus, on the impermissibility under the First Amendment of banning only mosques from a particular area. He expressed, or claimed to express, no opinion on the propriety of the project.

The issue of the propriety of the project or the implicit message it would convey to the broader Islamic world was beyond the pale of legitimate discussion, proclaimed New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg. He professed to be totally uninterested in the fact the project’s initiator, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an advocate for the spread of Islamic law (Shari’a) or that he has assigned America part of the blame for 9/11 or that he initially described the site of the mosque as so close to Ground Zero that debris from one of the hijacked airplanes fell on it. That the building of the mosque will be viewed by Islamists worldwide as an example of Islamic religious structures replacing those of the conquered infidels is irrelevant.

Pastor Terry Jones, by contrast, was immediately condemned by Obama (“un-American”), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (“disgraceful”) and Supreme NATO Commander in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus. The latter argued that the Koran burning would endanger allied troops and make the Taliban’s recruiting easier.

In short, critics of Jones – just about every single person in America – framed the discussion of his proposed action in terms of its propriety or impact, and ignored its protected status under the First Amendment, while defenders of the Ground Zero mosque talked only of the First Amendment, and ruled out of court issues of propriety or the boost the mosque would give to the Islamist narrative of Islam triumphant.

Even more striking is the contrast of the calumny heaped on Jones, with the public discussion of grossest offenses to Christianity. Christians who protested the taxpayer-supported Brooklyn Museum of Art’s display of a picture of Jesus’s mother on a background of buttocks and female genitalia or the use of a National Endowment of the Arts grant to produce a jar with a plastic crucifix in urine (Piss Christ) found themselves pilloried by their cultural betters as philistines and lectured on the privilege of living in a society in which even the most transgressive art can find a public forum.

Only transgressive art that might rile notoriously irritable Muslims gets a pass. US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer seriously entertained the idea, in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, that Koran-burning might be compared to shouting fire in a crowded theater if Muslims in Afghanistan would go on murderous rampages in response. He thereby treated Muslims as possessed of rage response instinct that completely bypasses all higher brain function.

THE DISPROPORTIONATE media attention focused on Jones served the Islamist cause by giving credence to the charge of Islamophobia, which is constantly used to exclude discussion of Islam from the free marketplace of ideas. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, for instance, felt compelled to “apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness directed at you.”

Yet Islamophobia is largely a fiction. Jones, one person in a nation of more than 300 million, did not constitute a wave of anything. Hate crimes against Muslims are exceedingly rare in America – even after 9/11, the Fort Hood massacre, the attempted Times Square bombing and a dozen other foiled terrorist attempts. Hate crimes against Jews and Jewish institutions are eight times as common as those against Muslims.

The Western media consistently downplays the scope of Islamic threat, perhaps in an effort to calm its fears. The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide are peace-loving fellows, we are assured, and only a handful of bad apples spoil the image of the rest. Ignored are the worldwide network of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi mosques and the vast number of Muslim Brotherhood-inspired offshoots – not just al-Qaida and Hamas, but groups in Western countries promoting Shari’a as the only legitimate system of law.

Endemic problems in virtually the entire Arab and Muslim world are ignored. On a Freedom House scale of freedom (on which seven is the least free) the median for Arab nations is 5.5. For the rest of the world it is 2.5. Whether it is child brides in Gaza, institutionalized selection of dancing pre-pubescent boys as mistresses by older males in Afghanistan or widespread clitoridectomy in much of the Muslim world, the media take a pass. All these phenomena deserve more attention than Jones’s antics.

When Khomeini pronounced it the duty of every Muslim to kill Salman Rushdie and all those promoting his book, British intellectuals rallied to his defense. Recently, when Mollie Norris, a cartoonist for a Seattle alternative weekly, had the misbegotten idea of promoting “Draw Muhammad Day,” she was advised by the FBI to change her identity and go underground. Her own paper contented itself with a laconic announcement, “Mollie Norris no longer exists.”

The story of an American journalist fearing for her life in America received scant coverage.

No wonder Paul Berman titled his recent book on Western responses to Islam The Flight of the Intellectuals.

The writer is the director of Jewish Media Resources. He has written a regular column in The Jerusalem Post Magazine since 1997, and is the author of eight biographies of modern Jewish leaders.

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

The Leading Edge of Freedom: How to Support Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff

Posted by paulipoldie on October 26, 2010

Citizen Warrior

Sunday, October 24

GEERT WILDERS is well-known to most counterjihadists, but Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s case is very similar. Like Geert, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Quran, and explained the dangers of Islamic encroachment.

Like Geert, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words (read an example of what she actually said). Unlike Geert, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.

Elisabeth will go on trial in Vienna on November 23rd, in what is clearly a political action intended to silence anyone who dissents against the prevailing multicultural orthodoxy.

Her European and North American supporters have created Elisabeth’s Voice to ensure she is not silenced. By appealing for financial aid, they intend to ensure that her defense is well-funded. By appealing for publicity, they intend to ensure that her case is well-known, not just in Austria and the rest of Europe, but across the entire Western world.

Americans may think Elisabeth’s plight is uniquely European, and has nothing to do with them. But make no mistake about it: the same repression is on its way to the United States of America. As the recent cases of Molly Norris, Juan Williams, and Derek Fenton demonstrate, free speech may already be taken away by non-juridical means. Dissent is even now being silenced in schools and on college campuses, and politically incorrect expression is cause for dismissal from both public and private employment.

The same types of “hate speech” laws that were used against Elisabeth in Austria are being prepared for the United States through the work of the United Nations. At the initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — the largest voting block in the United Nations — the UN is on the verge of requiring all member states to pass laws criminalizing “the defamation of religions, including Islam.”

Barack Obama has indicated his support for the UN’s proposed resolution. Time is running out for all of us. If we don’t stand up now for people like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, there will be no one to stand up for us later, when our turn comes.

How can you stand up for Elisabeth? Show your support. Contribute to Elisabeth’s defense fund (which is not under her control, and may only be used to pay her lawyers) visit the In Defense of Free Speech website. You can also get updates on her case at that website.

And we can each spend some time publicizing Elisabeth’s case. Write a letter to your local paper. Make comments on blogs. Post something on Facebook about it. Let people know what’s happening. Share the video below; share articles, talk about it to your friends and family. In both Elisabeth’s and Geert’s cases, this is the leading edge of freedom: Either the legal verdicts will be in favor of freedom of speech, or the verdicts will be in favor of limiting freedom of speech to accommodate Islamic sensitivities. Let freedom ring. Let’s make freedom ring!

Watch an interview with Elisabeth.

Read more about Elisabeth’s case: Lawfare in Austria: Is Truth Illegal? Paul Revere Gets the Slammer.

Posted in Fight back!, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islamkritik, Sharia | Leave a Comment »


Posted by paulipoldie on October 20, 2010

Presseerklärung ESW

Posted in Österreich, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islam, 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 »

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:


(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.


(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:


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


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?


(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


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 »