Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

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

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

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Islamophobia’ Category

Cry Islamophobia!

Posted by paulipoldie on September 21, 2010

We Americans should be ashamed! What an intolerant, bigoted, hateful lot we are! Or so we are being told by our political and media elites. Lawrence Wright, in The New Yorker — yes, The New Yorker — announces: “Culture wars are currently being waged against Muslim Americans across the country.” Are they really? The crowds in Kandahar and Karachi will be most interested to hear that.

Even on Fox — yes, Fox — Chris Wallace talked last weekend of “growing anti-Islamic feeling in this country.” Excuse me, but where’s the evidence?

In recent days, we’ve been told that it’s in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll showing 49 percent of respondents holding an “unfavorable” opinion of Islam. At first glance that does seem disturbing. But take the trouble to actually examine the poll and a very different picture emerges.

First: Recognize that holding an unfavorable opinion of Islam is not the same as holding an unfavorable opinion of Muslims. Tolerance does not require that you favorably regard others’ beliefs. It requires only that you take a live-and-let-live attitude in regard to others — even if they hold beliefs you do not share (for example, regarding women’s rights, homosexuals’ rights, the rights of minorities in Muslim-majority countries, whether amputation and stoning should be used as punishments, and whether those who convert from Islam to another religion deserve execution).

Consider this, too: How many Muslims in Muslim-majority countries do you think have a “favorable” opinion of Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism? How many liberals have a “favorable” view of conservatism — or vice versa?

Second: Immediately after the 9/11/01 attacks, the Post/ABC poll found 39 percent of respondents saying they had an unfavorable opinion of Islam — ten points below where it is now. The percentage actually fell from there: By June of 2002, after President Bush and other opinion leaders reassured people that Islam was a “religion of peace” that al-Qaeda was perverting, the figure dropped to just 24 percent. But soon the percentage began to climb. By 2006 it was at 46 percent — about where it is today.

So what happened between 2002 and 2006 to change how people viewed Islam? Well, scores of additional terrorist attacks including the August 2003 Marriott Hotel bombing in Jakarta, the March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, the July 2005 suicide bombings in London, and the October 2005 suicide bombings in Bali. Also multiple suicide bombings in Iraq. Also: the videotaped beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

Such atrocities — all carried out in the name of Islam — may have tarnished the Islamic brand, may have caused some people to revise their opinion of Islam from “favorable” to “unfavorable.” You may agree or disagree — but is arriving at that conclusion really an expression of hatred?

Okay, you say, but what explains the rise since then? The fact is an uptick from 46 percent in 2006 to 49 percent today is within the poll’s margin of error — meaning it’s not clear there has been any change at all over the past four years.

And if there has been, perhaps that might have something to do with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and the massacre at Fort Hood, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the attempted Christmas Day bombing, Faisal Shahzad and the attempted Times Square bombing, and Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who was thought to be preaching peace at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in a Washington, D.C., suburb but who is now linked by U.S. intelligence to all of the above and to al-Qaeda as well. And then, of course, there have been the many incendiary pronouncements and provocative gestures of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran (emphasis added).

Should all Muslims be held responsible for what these individuals have said and done? Of course not. But it has not gone unnoticed that there have been no mass demonstrations in the capitals of what we now routinely call “the Muslim world” to protest jihadism — no crowds shouting: “Not in my name! Not in the name of my religion!” What we’ve seen instead: Protesters carrying signs saying, “Behead those who insult Islam!”

With this as context, surely it is not only logical but inevitable that some people will conclude that perhaps there is a problem within Islam — and maybe even with Islam. In the wake of the 9/11/01 attacks, Irshad Manji, the courageous Muslim reformer, titled her groundbreaking book “The Trouble With Islam Today.” To avoid being accused of Islamophobia, should she have called it instead “The Trouble With Americans Today”?

Additional data undercuts the notion that anti-Islamic fever is rising. The Post/ABC poll also asked this question: “Thinking of mainstream Islam, do you think mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims, or is it a peaceful religion?”

A solid majority, 54 percent, said they think “mainstream Islam” is a “peaceful religion.” Only 31 percent said they think it “encourages violence” — despite the many Islamic clerics around the world encouraging violence on the basis of passages in the Koran that might be perceived as encouraging violence (e.g. “behead the unbeliever”).

Here’s how I interpret these poll numbers: Most Americans are struggling to understand what separates — and what links — Islam, Islamism, and jihadism. Most do not blame average Muslims for the fact that there are Islamic regimes, movements, and groups vowing to murder their children. In other words: Most Americans are astonishingly tolerant.

Needless to say, this is not the story being told by the mainstream media. The narrative they are pushing was expressed skillfully in a front-page, above-the-fold story in the Washington Post this weekend. This “news” story emphasized only the 49 percent that hold “unfavorable” opinions of Islam. It omitted the fact that this figure has changed little if at all over the past four years. It neglected to mention, too, that 54 percent continue to view “mainstream Islam” as “peaceful.”

Such selective use of facts provided support for this thesis: that President Obama “has found himself confronting rising anti-Islamic sentiment at odds with his message of religious tolerance.”

To make sure readers absorbed the spin, the story asserted a second time that public opinion “is moving against Islam,” and then referred, again, to an “increasingly anti-Islamic public” — all on the basis of a poll that, as I believe I’ve established, demonstrates no such thing.

The story went on to suggest that while Obama, acting on principle, strives to promote tolerance, Republicans, seeking partisan benefit, “have tapped into” the “anti-Islamic” trend, in particular “during the debate over the Islamic center” planned for near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

But here, too, if you actually read the Post/ABC poll you’ll see that the truth is not so simple: Sixty-six percent of respondents said they think the Islamic center “should not be built” near the site of the former World Trade Center. But, of those, 82 percent specify that they do not oppose Muslim community centers in general — only at “this location.”

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to build a $100 million, 15-story Islamic center a stone’s throw from where self-proclaimed Islamic “martyrs” murdered thousands. Is it really so clear that those who question Rauf’s goals and financing are motivated by “racism” and “anti-Muslim bigotry” — as signs carried by demonstrators in New York on Saturday charged?

The Post article quotes “a senior administration official” lamenting: “‘What’s most distressing is when you see it picked up by mainstream political figures,’ referring to the stand toward American Muslims taken by prominent Republicans such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who have argued against the Islamic center in Lower Manhattan.” The senior administration official “declined to be named in order to speak candidly on a sensitive subject.” Excuse me, but when did it become “sensitive” for an official of any administration to criticize members of the opposition? Indeed, when did it become sensitive for anyone to criticize Gingrich and Palin?

One other question posed by the Post/ABC poll: Respondents were asked to “honestly” assess themselves: “Would you say that you have at least some feelings of prejudice against Muslims?” Seventy-one percent said they do not.

But what do they know? If they’re so smart, why are they answering pollsters’ questions? Why aren’t they on TV and in the newspapers telling Americans what bigots they are, based on blatantly cherry-picked polling results?

By Clifford D. May
National Review Online

Posted in Islam, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »

Islamophobiaphobia

Posted by paulipoldie on September 20, 2010

Pajamas Media

Posted By Roger L Simon

Along with “progressive” (a word that should be restricted to poker), “Islamophobia” is one of the more maddening propaganda constructs of our time. Orwell could not have done better.

Of course we all know what a phobia is — an irrational fear. It comes from the Greek phobos, meaning “fear” or “morbid fear.” Common ones are acrophobia (heights) and agoraphobia (crowds).

With very minor exceptions, I have seen little irrational fear of Islam in our society. What I have seen is a lot of serious and justifiable dislike of the religion for its ideology — notably its heinous treatment of women and homosexuals and its opposition to the separation of church and state, all codified by its all-encompassing Sharia law that seeks to legislate all facets of existence while instituting a global caliphate.

Nevertheless, soi-disant liberals and progressives or whatever they want to call themselves accuse those who dislike Islam for those reasons of irrational fear. That’s like having an irrational fear of totalitarianism. Ironically, it could also be construed, according to those same progressives, as an irrational fear of their own professed liberal values.

Crazy, no? La vie a l’envers. Life upside down.

We are back in the days of the ACLU defending the Nazis marching in Skokie, except the situation is quite different. In those times, the number of Nazis in Illinois was minuscule and the likelihood of a return to the Third Reich remote. Today there are 1.5 billion adherents of Islam, 21% of the world’s population. Achieving a global caliphate is not entirely unlikely. Irrational fear or ideological battle?

Clearly I see it as ideological battle with the word “Islamophobia” itself a weapon in that battle. It is an obvious way of avoiding debate by tarnishing the opposition.

Only it is not working very well anymore. It’s become too obvious. With 70% of the country opposing the Ground Zero mosque, a huge number of people aren’t buying it. Or don’t care. How many times can you attack someone before we’re back in grammar school and it becomes a case of “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”?

Okay, I’m an Islamophobe. Bleh.

But I propose a new term for something I suffer from much more acutely — Islamophobiaphobia. It’s an irrational fear of ideological nitwits.

There are many examples but some recent ones are Fareed Zakaria [1] — who has informed us that GZM critics are worse than Hezbollah — and the New York TimesTimothy Egan [2] — who thinks most Republicans are dopes. Talk about projection. (Note to Egan: As one who was once a Democrat and now hangs out, relatively speaking, with Republicans, intelligence and ideology do not correlate.)

So now you can call me Islamophobiaphobic. But I am not the only one. My suspicion is that we are many. How do you know us?

Well, not just because we break out in a rash when touching the editorial page of the New York Times or get migraine headaches in the presence of Christiane Amanpour. There are subtler indications. One of the key ones is the ability to differentiate. For example: just because you oppose a mosque being built at Ground Zero doesn’t mean you oppose mosques in general.

And finally, as you know these are difficult times, so I have some special advice to you, in the tradition of that great Dos Equis ad [3]: Wherever you go and whatever you do — stay Islamophobiaphobic, my friends.

UPDATE: This article has been translated into French by Daniel Laprès. [4]


Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/08/27/islamphobiaphobia/

URLs in this post:

[1] Fareed Zakaria: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/08/26/fareed-zakaria-needs-a-new-gps/

[2] Timothy Egan: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027089.php

[3] Dos Equis ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U18VkI0uDxE

[4] ranslated into French by Daniel Laprès.: http://www.postedeveille.ca/2010/08/usa-soyons-fièrement-islamophobiephobes-.html

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

Islamophobia? Not really

Posted by paulipoldie on August 25, 2010

The supposed anti-Muslim backlash among Americans is mostly a myth.

Here’s a thought: The 70% of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from ground zero are the real victims of a climate of hate, and anti-Muslim backlash is mostly a myth.

by Jonah Goldberg, LA Times

Let’s start with some data.

According to the FBI, hate crimes against Muslims increased by a staggering 1,600% in 2001. That sounds serious! But wait, the increase is a math mirage. There were 28 anti-Islamic incidents in 2000. That number climbed to 481 the year a bunch of Muslim terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans in the name of Islam on Sept. 11.

Now, that was a hate crime.

Introducing the LA Times Star Walk app for iPhone. Tour the famous Hollywood Walk of Fame with the Los Angeles Times archives, history and information. Available in the App Store.

Regardless, 2001 was the zenith or, looked at through the prism of our national shame, the nadir of the much-discussed anti-Muslim backlash in the United States. The following year, the number of anti-Islamic hate-crime incidents (overwhelmingly, nonviolent vandalism and nasty words) dropped to 155. In 2003, there were 149 such incidents. And the number has hovered around the mid-100s or lower ever since.

Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like a anti-Muslim backlash to you?

Let’s put this in even sharper focus. America is, outside of Israel ,probably the most receptive and tolerant country in the world to Jews. And yet, in every year since 9/11, more Jews have been hate-crime victims than Muslims. A lot more.

In 2001, there were twice as many anti-Jewish incidents as there were anti-Muslim, again according to the FBI. In 2002 and pretty much every year since, anti-Jewish incidents have outstripped anti-Muslim ones by at least 6 to 1. Why aren’t we talking about the anti-Jewish climate in America?

Because there isn’t one. And there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate either. Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party“) than you will toward Muslims.

No doubt some American Muslims — particularly young Muslim men with ties to the Middle East and South Asia — have been scrutinized at airports more than elderly women of Norwegian extraction, but does that really amount to Islamophobia, given the dangers and complexities of the war on terror?

For 10 years we’ve been subjected to news stories about the Muslim backlash that’s always around the corner. It didn’t start with President Obama or with the “ground zero mosque.” President George W. Bush was his most condescending when he explained, in the cadences of a guest reader at kindergarten story time, that “Islam is peace.”

But he was right to emphasize America’s tolerance and to draw a sharp line between Muslim terrorists and their law-abiding co-religionists.

Meanwhile, to listen to Obama — say in his famous Cairo address — you’d think America has been at war with Islam for 30 years and only now, thanks to him, can we heal the rift. It’s an odd argument given that Americans have shed a lot of blood for Muslims over the last three decades: to end the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans, to feed Somalis and to liberate Kuwaitis, Iraqis and Afghans. Millions of Muslims around the world would desperately like to move to the U.S., this supposed land of intolerance.

Conversely, nowhere is there more open, honest and intentional intolerance — in words and deeds — than from certain prominent Muslim leaders around the world. And yet, Americans are the bigots.

And when Muslim fanatics kill Americans — after, say, the Ft. Hood slaughter — a reflexive response from the Obama administration is to fret over an anti-Islamic backlash. It’s fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?

And now, thanks to the “ground zero mosque” story, we are again discussing America’s Islamophobia, which, according to Time magazine, is just another chapter in America’s history of intolerance.

When, pray tell, will Time magazine devote an issue to its, and this administration’s, intolerance of the American people?

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

Bon Jovi Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on July 20, 2010

Senator Lieberman is livin’ on a prayer

by Andrew C. McCarthy

We’ve tried “radical Islam,” “extremist Islam,” “fundamentalist Islam,” and “sharia Islam.” Inevitably, political correctness gave us “political Islam.” Now, ironically, under the guise of correcting an even worse case of political correctness, comes what we might call “Bon Jovi Islam.” Its proponent, Sen. Joe Lieberman, is halfway there and livin’ on a prayer.

Sen. Lieberman’s Wall Street Journal essay “Who’s the Enemy in the War on Terror?” gets it halfway right. He is justifiably dismayed over the Obama administration’s whitewashing of the Islamist part of Islamist terror. The president, he elaborates, “rightly reaffirms that America remains a nation at war,” but self-defeatingly “refuses to identify our enemy.” For Lieberman, the administration’s preferred claim that we are at war with “violent extremism,” is absurd. Our foe, in truth, is a particular, identifiable component of the Muslim world.

All exactly right . . . except that Lieberman proceeds to do the very thing he accuses Obama of doing: miniaturizing the threat. The enemy, he pronounces, is “violent Islamist extremism.” He diagnoses its cause to be “a terrorist political ideology” that “exploits” what most Muslims, according to Lieberman, understand to be “the enormous difference between their faith” and this ideology’s tenets.

“Exploits” is a telling choice of words. Lieberman mines it from the Bush administration’s 2006 National Security Strategy — the framework Obama has rejected because it dared utter the I-word. The senator recounts that President Bush identified the enemy as “the transnational terrorists [who] exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision.”

Yet the Bush administration didn’t always frame it that way. Bush officials were wont to say that those wily terrorists were “perverting” or “twisting” or outright “lying” about Muslim scripture in order to justify their atrocities. The apotheosis of this relentlessly optimistic vision came in 2008, when the dreamy side of the Bush house elbowed aside more clear-eyed critics and declared a jihad on “jihad” — the word. Admonishing us that we must no longer invoke “jihad” to describe jihadist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security rationalized that “many so-called ‘Islamic’ terrorist groups [so-called?] twist and exploit the tenets of Islam to justify violence.” As I countered at the time (and rehearse in my new book, The Grand Jihad):

The Koran . . . commands, in Sura 9:123 (to take just one of many examples), “O ye who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty unto him.” What part of that does DHS suppose needs to be “twisted” by terrorists in order to gull fellow Muslims into believing Islam commands Muslims to “fight those of the disbelievers who are near you, and let them find harshness in you”?

I was far from the only one who complained. Since then, “twist,” “pervert,” and “lie” have faded from government’s Islamophilic vocabulary. So we’re left with “exploit.” Except there’s a problem for Senator Lieberman: You can only exploit something that’s actually there. It only made sense for the Islamophiles to use “exploit” when they were also alleging that Islamist claims about Muslim doctrine were fabrications. But those claims are real. If, as Lieberman maintains, terrorists are able to “exploit . . . Islam to serve a violent political vision,” it is because Islamic doctrine does, in fact, support a violent political vision. This doesn’t mean there can’t be competing interpretations. Jihadists, however, are not making theirs up — it’s in the scriptures.

More significantly, violence is not the principal concern here, though it is certainly the immediate one. Our real challenge is that, violent or not, Islamic doctrine constitutes a political vision. That is, Islam is not a mere religion as we understand the concept in the West — a set of spiritual guidelines that are denied governing authority in what is a separate, secular realm. Mainstream Islam calls for a comprehensive political, economic, legal, and social theocracy. Its spiritual elements are only a small part of the system, and it rejects the concept of divisibility between mosque and state.

Nor is it only terrorists who construe Islam this way — not by a long shot. Islamists have the full-throated support of Islam’s most influential clerical and jurisprudential authorities. These include the leading faculty at Egypt’s al-Azhar University, the seat of learning for Sunnis, who compose the vast majority of the world’s Muslims. To be sure, there is a vibrant debate in the ummah about terrorism, as such. That, in reality, is a debate about tactics. There is broad consensus about the strategic goal: Non-terrorist Muslims substantially agree with the terrorists that Islam commands the establishment of sharia societies.

Senator Lieberman claims that, for most Muslims, there is an “enormous difference between their faith and the terrorist political ideology that has exploited it.” That is not true. There are differences about terrorism, but there is a broad accord when it comes to the political ideology. The mainstream of Islam — by no means all Muslims, but many Muslims, including many of the most influential — is convinced that America is the problem in the world. A great number of Muslims in America — again not all, but many — believes that the U.S. should be a sharia society, notwithstanding sharia’s core differences with our culture of freedom based on individual liberty.

Even with respect to terrorism, it is not accurate to say there is “enormous” disagreement between the mass of Muslims and the terrorists. The difference is narrow and nuanced. The argument is over whether terrorism in America, as opposed to outside America, is counterproductive.

The Muslim Brotherhood, backed by billions of Saudi petrodollars, has spent half a century building an aggressive Islamist infrastructure here. It is led by the Muslim Students Associations (more than 600 chapters in the U.S. and Canada), the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim American Society, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and similar groups. It is making ample progress marching sharia through our institutions. Hence, the argument: Many Muslims — including many who’ve lionized Osama bin Laden in the past, or rationalized his atrocities as being, in the final analysis, America’s fault — now think violence in the United States is unnecessary. They see it as objectionable, because it has killed Muslims indiscriminately, and as unproductive, because it is apt to rouse Americans to roll back sharia’s gains. These Muslims agree that America deserves its comeuppance, but they believe there are more effective ways than terrorism to bring that about.

The primary threat this cabal poses in our homeland is not violence, as Lieberman posits. It is sabotage. Don’t take my word for it: The Muslim Brotherhood itself put the matter bluntly in a 1991 internal memorandum: The organization and its satellites are engaged in a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” Theirs is not only, or even principally, a “violent political ideology.” It is a political ideology aiming to supplant us, by hook or by crook. The question of violent or non-violent means is tactical, and it is secondary.

Moreover, outside the United States, there is broad Muslim support — not unanimous, but broad — for terrorism against Israel and against Americans operating in Muslim countries. Taking their cues from al-Azhar and other influential centers, millions of Muslims deny that those mass murders are “terrorism” at all; they call it “resistance.” That’s why they can look you in the eye and say they “condemn terrorism,” though you can never get them to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah by name. Those terrorist organizations now claim democratic legitimacy because Muslims — not just terrorists, but rank-and-file Muslims — flocked to the polls in Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories to vote for them, just as millions of Muslims in Iraq have voted for the Islamist parties that canoodle with Iran and Hezbollah while slamming us and ostracizing Israel.

Senator Lieberman is to be applauded for criticizing the Obama administration’s refusal to come to terms with the Islamist enemy. Still, despite chastising the president for violating Sun Tzu’s axiom that “the first rule in war is to know your enemy so you can defeat it,” Lieberman, too, is in violation when he fails to acknowledge that violence isn’t the half of the civilizational challenge we face.

The senator, furthermore, is livin’ on a prayer in insisting that there is a thriving, preponderant, moderate Islam. He declares:

There is no question that violent Islamist extremists seek to provoke a “clash of civilizations,” and that we must discredit this hateful lie. We must encourage and empower the non-violent Muslim majority to raise their voices to condemn the Islamist extremist ideology as a desecration of Islam, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and people of other faiths. How can we expect those Muslims to have the courage to stand and do that if we are unwilling to define and describe the enemy as dramatically different from them?

If only wishing could make it so. Though there is a non-violent Muslim majority, in the sense that most Muslims would not commit terrorist acts, that majority does not condemn what Lieberman calls “the Islamist extremist ideology.” Far from thinking it a “desecration of Islam,” they agree with it. They don’t agree with the violence in America. But maybe we should ask Israel — a state made a pariah for defending itself against a ceaseless terrorist onslaught — if the world’s Muslims are condemning Hamas or rising up in its support. Maybe we should ask the al-Azhar faculty what its response was when Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and the world’s most influential Sunni cleric, issued fatwas approving suicide bombings in Israel and the killing of American troops in Iraq.

In the real world, with the real Islam, Israel is isolated because Muslims globally support Hamas’s cause and increasingly goad the West into going along. The al-Azhar faculty rallied behind Qaradawi because mainstream Islam views efforts to implant Western notions and institutions in Muslim countries as affronts that must be met with violence until the Westerners leave, even if the Westerners believe they are doing humanitarian work to help Muslims. One senses that Senator Lieberman understands these unhappy truths. Why else would he take pains to note that terrorists have murdered “innocent Muslims”? The sad fact is that the murder of innocent non-Muslims is not enough to move the ummah.

Halfway there and livin’ on a prayer won’t work. A dominant, Westernized, post-sharia Islamic ideology will not suddenly emerge just because we’d like it to. As might have been said by Dean Acheson, whom Senator Lieberman admiringly quotes, pretending otherwise won’t make us inoffensive to our enemies or able to protect our freedom.

Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

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

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

Posted by paulipoldie on May 27, 2010

Danke an den Patriot für diese Analyse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is an Anti-Islam Wave Hitting Europe?

Posted by paulipoldie on April 23, 2010

Is an Anti-Islam Wave Hitting Europe?

by FiveThirtyEight.com

After the Dutch coalition government of Jan Peter Balkenende collapsed abruptly last February, a new election has been scheduled for June 9th. While it is unclear which party will take the most seats, all eyes are on far-right, anti-Islamic Party for Freedom (PVV, in Dutch) and its flamboyant, bombastic leader Geert Wilders. Wilders produced the inflammatory film Fitna, which denounces Islam as a terrorist religion. Some polls show the PVV in the lead–taking a plurality of 18% — though Wilders would probably rather remain in the opposition in parliament than attempt to form a governing coalition. (The Netherlands uses a system of proportional representation under which it is very rare for any one party to gain an absolute majority.)

The rise of Wilders has alarmed many political observers, and has been cited as yet another point of evidence of a new tide of European anti-Islamism. (Though Wilders specifically rejects comparisons to far-right politicians Jean-Marie Le Pen and Jörg Haider.) Bolstering this “trend” are Switzerland’s referendum against minarets, the French ban on headscarves in public buildings, and anti-immigration parties making headway in other countries. But is pure Islamophobia (e.g., the number of people who fear or dislike Islam) the driving factor in the PVV’s rise in support? And why are anti-Islam/anti-immigration parties such a force in the Netherlands, but not in countries like Spain? Is it simply a matter of integration of a new immigrant group, rather than cultural or political characteristics specific to Muslims?

To begin with, it seems — understandably — that the countries with the highest percentage of Muslims are where tensions have come to a head first.

The three countries where anti-Muslim sentiment has reached a peak in recent years, France, Netherlands and Switzerland, have the highest percentage of Muslims in western Europe. Germany and the UK also have high Muslim populations, though more centralized in a few urban locations.
Possible factors at play:

• Anti-globalization and Euroskepticism in general.
• Nativism stemming from poor economic conditions.
• Fractures within internal welfare state coalition.
• Anxiety over/of aging population.
• Increased concern about crime.
• Increased concern about terrorism.
• Rapidly growing muslim populations in particular European countries and cities

The Netherlands

There are nearly one million Muslims living in the Netherlands, making up 5.8% of the country’s population. According to a 2005 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, non-Muslim Dutch people have decidedly mixed opinions of their Muslim neighbors: 45% view Muslims favorably while 51% view them unfavorably. 65% say they wish to remain distinct from Dutch society, and 76% are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about Islamic extremism in the Netherlands.

The past decade saw the high profile murders of filmmaker Theo van Gogh and anti-Islam politician Pim Fortuyn (though Fortuyn was not murdered by a Muslim). Fortuyn was hard to peg on the traditional left-right spectrum. Openly gay, he believed that immigration from conservative, Muslim countries was threatening other aspects of liberal, open society: gender equality, sexual freedom and free expression. Wilders has attempted to appeal to the same coalition of voters as Fortuyn, and his support makes sense given the context of high-profile assassinations.

Considering other factors, the Netherlands has done relatively well economically. Its unemployment rate was 4% in February 2010, and the anti-Islam trend predates the 2008-09 global economic crisis. Its fertility rate is 1.66, and its median age is 40.4. The Netherlands has troops in Afghanistan—a controversial policy that led to the Balkenende government’s collapse in February.

France

France has between 3.5 and 5 million Muslims, which would constitute 6.5-8% of the overall population. According to the Pew survey, 64% of French people see Muslims favorably, and only 34% see them unfavorably. 59% say Muslims wish to remain distinct, while 74% are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about Islamic extremism in France. 50% associate Muslims with being fanatical.

France has long had a troubled relationship with its own multicultural and multiethnic population. It was a colonial empire, and maintained the philosophy that everyone from Algiers to Cayenne was a Frenchman. At the same time, immigrants to France were expected take on a certain Gallic identity—far different from the “melting pot” or “salad bowl” metaphors. A 1905 law instituted an official policy of laïcité, a concept of un-religiosity that goes beyond simple secularism. While intended to promote social harmony by completely divorcing religion from national identity, laïcité has led to the controversial headscarf ban. In recent regional elections, Jean Marie Le Pen’s far-right National Front party won 17.8% of the vote in the regions it contested. In 2002, Le Pen finished ahead of “mainstream” Socialist candidates to go on to a runoff against Jacques Chirac. In the end, Le Pen was resoundingly defeated in the runoff, and the fact that he made it there at all was largely due to a vote-split among several center-left candidates.

February unemployment in France was 10.1%, and its fertility rate is fairly high for Europe at 1.98. The median age is 39.4. France has experienced some high-profile crime and social unrest in the past decade. Widespread riots occurred in the banlieues surrounding Paris in 2005, with then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy advocating a tough response with a metaphorical Kärcher hose.

Switzerland

Switzerland has 400,000 Muslims, or 5% of the country’s population. Switzerland was historically quite isolationist and less welcoming of immigrants than other European countries, but since the 1970s has had a growing population of foreigners — reaching 22% in 2009. It has a relatively low unemployment rate of 4.1%, and low fertility at 1.45.

Spain

Spain has the distinction of being the largest EU country to have once been under Muslim rule. Today, it has a Muslim population of about one million, or 1-2% of the country. 68% of Spaniards say Muslims want to remain distinct from mainstream society. 46% of Spaniards view Muslims favorably, while 37% view them unfavorably. (This means that 17% either had no opinion or were unsure—a much higher percent age than in France or the Netherlands.) A June 2004 poll, coming shortly after the March 11th terrorist attacks, showed that 80% of Spaniards believed Islam was “authoritarian,” and 57% believed it was violent.

Spain is suffering from a popped housing bubble, and has an unemployment rate of 19%. Its fertility rate of 1.31 is one of the lowest in Europe, and its median age is 41.1. It had troops in Iraq—despite widespread popular opposition—and withdrew them only after José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero’s Socialists won the 2004 elections.

Despite having seemingly ripe conditions, Spain does not have a significant anti-Islam political movement. This is due in part to the unique nature of Spain’s political paradigm, which is still greatly shaped by the Franco era. The left is very socially progressive, pushing for greater women’s, LGBT, and reproductive rights. The right, while not overtly Francoist, is still highly connected with old, Catholic military institutions. The center-right party is right enough to pick up conservative traditionalists, while its left is cutting-edge enough not to be outflanked.

At the same time, Spain’s Muslim population remains relatively small — around a million people. With other minority groups like the separatist Basques playing a higher profile culturally and politically insurgent role in society, Muslims immigrants are simply less of an issue than the previous three countries.

All told, the data are murky. The greater traction of anti-Islam parties in some countries appears to be more connected with country-specific factors— high-profile murders in the Netherlands, a situation of social unrest in France, high Muslim populations in all three—than with any Europe-wide causes.

On the other hand, countries that have moderate but quite centralized populations of Muslims, like the UK, Germany and Austria, may begin to see the issue become politicized further. Each of these three countries has had political strife over the issue, but without the most polarizing anti-Muslim polemics as in France, the Netherlands or Switzerland. This could be in part due to political systems, where Germany and Austria have strongly anti-extreme party controls, and the UK has first-past-the-post voting, which marginalizes fringe parties.

However, the growing strength of the British National Party in the UK (which is competing hard for two House of Commons constituencies) and the National Democratic Party in Germany (which survived a banning attempt in the early 2000s), and the success of the far right Freedom Party in Austria in the last decade must be accounted for. While they have so far not taken the overtly anti-Muslim route as firmly as Wilders, Le Pen or Switzerland’s UDC, they are likely the next in line to do so.

In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence to say that as Muslim populations have grown in European countries, anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric have increased among the right and far-right. In addition, we are likely to see them increase, especially as more Muslims settle in Europe. The length and strength of this “wave” will be largely dependent on how the current conflicts are resolved — perhaps by increased integration by Muslim immigrants and additional social rights for self-determination allowed by European countries — and whether Muslim populations continue to grow.


This article was authored by research assistant Thomas Dollar and international affairs columnist Renard Sexton. Please send comments or suggestions to sexton538@gmail.com

Posted in E.U., Islamization, Islamophobia | 7 Comments »

Die andere Seite: “Vom Einzelfall auf den ganzen Islam schließen”

Posted by paulipoldie on March 19, 2010

Man soll auch der anderen Seite die Chance zur Stellungnahme geben. Jeder möge sich sein eigenes Urteil bilden.

Über Islamkritiker, Islamhasser und die Islamkonferenz-Kritik. Von Aiman A. Mazyek

(islam.de) Die Allermeisten tun sich leicht mit der Kritik an Muslimen, doch wenn diese ihrerseits kritisieren ist das für einige unerhört – Warum? Will einer allen Ernstes behaupten, an der chronischen Arbeitslosigkeit, der Zunahme globaler Konflikte und nicht zuletzt an der Finanz- und Klimakatastrophe sei alleine El-Kaida Schuld? Nur ein Narr würde dies (im Rahmen einer kabarettistischen Einlage) behaupten. Wie erfolgreich man damit dennoch sein kann, zeigt der jüngste Wahlerfolg des Muslimhassers Geert Wilders in den Niederlanden, der mit seinem imaginären Plakat „Schuld an allem ist der Islam“ Politik macht.
Eine überaus wirksame Methode dieser Leute besteht darin, Islam und Terror in einem Atemzug zu nennen und die sowohl sachlich wie intellektuell gebotene Trennschärfe beider Themen einfach zu unterlaufen. Mit Meinungsfreiheit hat das bedingt zu tun. Es ist billige Polemik und dient allenfalls der radikalen Rechten als Argumentationsfutter für ihre Hetze gegen die Muslime.

Dabei scheint nur noch wenige wirklich zu interessieren, was die die Muslime tatsächlich denken und glauben. Und wenn, dann beantworten diese Fragen meist so genannte Islamkritiker mit ihrer schrillen Überzeichnung eines Muslims als Scharia-Monster. Dahinter steckt eine ideologische auf pauschale Abrechnung mit dem Islam ausgehende Haltung und zahlreiche Vorurteile, welche den Muslim als potentiell gefährlich und rückständig erklärt.

Vom Einzelfall auf den ganzen Islam schließen – Wie die Tricks von Muslim-Bashing funktionieren

Die verwendeten Tricks, wie sie z.B. die Islamkritikerin Necla Kelek einsetzt und einer wissenschaftlichen Überprüfung folglich nicht standhalten, gehen so: Themen wie Zwangsehe oder die sog. Ehrenmorde werden zwangsislamisiert und die Singularität dieser abscheulichen Taten einfach abgestritten, um sie schließlich generell auf Muslime und den Islam zu übertragen. Das ist so, als würde man den jetzt bekannt gewordenen sexuellen Kindesmissbrauch einiger Priester den Christen als ganzes anlasten oder sogar mit der christlichen Lehre zu begründen versuchen. Eine absurde Konstruktion. Eine aber von Islamkritikern oft angewandte Analogie im Kontext des Islam, für die sie nicht selten Beifall und Aufmerksamkeit erfahren.

Aus Kreisen einer deutschen großen politischen Stiftung ist einmal der Satz gefallen: „Der Islam ist viel zu wichtig, als dass wir ihn den Muslimen alleine überlassen sollten“. Die Folge davon ist, dass die Lautesten und Schrillsten ihre Deutungsmacht reklamieren und Definitionshoheit in Sachen Islam beanspruchen. Dazu gehört übrigens auch eine Al-Kaida. Und so ergibt sich ein abstruses Bild über „Den Islam“ in der Öffentlichkeit, welches weitestgehend von zwei Extremen bestimmt wird: Auf der eine Seite die Islamhasser mit ihren furchteinflößenden Bildern und auf der anderen Seite die fanatischen Terror-Aufrufe à la Bin Laden mit seinen Mordgesellen. Beide Seiten profitieren voneinander und sind alleine kaum überlebensfähig, weil das jeweilige andere Extrem als Folie für die eigenen Vorurteile dient. Die Mitte bleibt einmal mehr auf der Strecke. Die Haltung derer, die mehrheitlich auf beide Extreme pfeift und einen selbstverständlichen Glauben und damit einen moderat ausgerichteten Islam tagtäglich leben und praktizieren, fällt weitgehend unterm Tisch.

Sollte lieber nächste Weltwirtschaftskrise als Banker in Griff kriegen. Muslime als Sündenböcke

Und wenn die Muslime dann, nicht zuletzt auch wegen der oben beschriebenen extremem Gemengelage, die Zunahme des Altagsrassismus, den Hass gegen die wachsende Islamfeindlichkeit offen beklagen, wird ihnen entgegnet: Es gibt keine Islamfeindlichkeit, es gibt nur Islamisten.

Angesichts der Schieflage dieser Debatte beschleicht einen hierzulande das Gefühl, dass diese Art der Auseinandersetzung auch taktischer Natur sein könnte, vielleicht auch, um von wirklich existentiellen Problemen abzulenken. Ein Theo Sarrazin schäumt über Hartz IV Empfänger und verunglimpft Gemüsehändler in Berlin/Kreuzberg. Was haben der Banker und seine Zunft an Lösungen zur Abwendung der nächsten Weltwirtschaftskrise zu bieten? Wird hier Türken- und Araberbashing betrieben, um von Versäumnissen der Hohen Priester des Finanz-Kapitals abzulenken?

Deutsche Islamkonferenz grundlegend überarbeiten

Doch wen kümmert´s? Solange dies nur die Betroffenen alleine bemerken, glaubt man, unentdeckt zu bleiben. Und so meint heute kaum ein Streitgespräch oder Fernsehtalk zum Thema Islam ohne diese Islamkritiker mehr auskommen zu können Auch in der neuen Runde der Deutschen Islamkonferenz (DIK) werden sie nicht fehlen, so als ob unsere Verfassung und die Spielregeln unserer Demokratie nicht ausreichend Korrektiv solcher Gespräche sind.

Doch das angebliche Korrektiv dieser Islamkritiker wird vor allem zu einem führen: zum Erstickungstod jedes konstruktiver Gesprächs zwischen Muslimen und staatlichen Stellen. Dem Islam ablehnend eingestellte Personen erhalten bei einer Neuauflage der DIK zusätzlich Aufwertung durch das staatliche Protokoll. Dadurch werden die Religionsgemeinschaften nicht nur relativiert, sondern schlussendlich werden Gespräche auf Augenhöhe zwischen islamischer Gemeinde und Staat ad absurdum geführt. Die islamischen Religionsgemeinschaften gehen aber vom Gedanke der Gleichberechtigung und Gleichstellung zu den christlichen Konfession und der jüdischen Gemeinschaft aus. Sie wollen weder eine Sonderrolle zugewiesen bekommen noch Extrawurst spielen, sondern wollen ausschließlich auf ihre vom Grundgesetz verbrieften Rechte nicht verzichten.

Der Koordinierungsrat der Muslime (KRM), der knapp 80 Prozent der Moscheegemeinden in Deutschland vertritt, würde gerne die Chance der Islamkonferenz nutzen, um mit den restlichen 20 Prozent Einvernehmen zu erzielen und endlich nach so vielen Jahren vergeblichen Mühens die ersten Schritte einer institutionellen Integration des Islam auf der Basis des deutschen Religionsverfassungsrechts gehen.

Bundesinnenminister Thomas de Maizière (CDU) scheint bis jetzt dazu nicht bereit zu sein. Er will ein vom Staat organisiertes Diskussionsspektakel und die Themen und Spielregeln dieses Spektakels alleine bestimmen, die oft kulturalistische Ansätze verfolgen (siehe Wertedebatte). Dabei hievt er Einzelpersonen und Islamkritiker in den Stand von Islamvertretern und lädt einfach ganze Moscheegruppen aus. Beide Konzepte sind schwer miteinander vereinbar. Darum geht es auch im Kern im gegenwärtigen Streit zwischen dem KRM und dem Bundesinnenministerium. Inwieweit dabei die Neutralität des Staates Schiffbruch erleidet, steht dabei noch auf einem anderen Blatt.

Quelle: Islam.de / Dies ist eine leicht überarbeite und längere Version, die ursprünglich gestern (18.03.10) in der Süddeutschen Zeitung erschienen ist

http://www.islamische-zeitung.de/?id=13120

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

Keine Kritik mehr am Islam?

Posted by paulipoldie on March 13, 2010

Zur Debatte um „Islamophobie“: Wenn Maulkörbe verteilt werden – Ein Kommentar von Albrecht Hauser
München (kath.net/idea)
Ein schillerndes Schlagwort – die sogenannte „Islamophobie“ (die Angst vor dem Islam) – geistert durch die Medien. Selbst in den deutschen Feuilletons und in Talkshows wird damit versucht, Kritik am Islam durch absurde Vergleiche unmöglich zu machen.

Maulkörbe werden verteilt und Islamkritiker in die Ecke von Hasspredigern, Rassisten und Antisemiten gestellt. Da „Phobien“ etwas mit krankhafter Wahrnehmung und angstbesetzter Einbildung zu tun haben müssen, soll wohl angenommen werden, dass alle, denen dieser Makel der „Islamophobie“ angehaftet wird, nicht ganz normal sein können und einer nachhaltigen Therapie bedürfen. In was für einer Welt aber würden wir heute noch leben, wenn nicht wahrheitsliebende Männer und Frauen, von Sokrates bis Bonhoeffer, den Mut aufgebracht hätten, konstruktive Religions- und Ideologiekritik zu üben?

Islamophobie gleich Antisemitismus?

Der Begriff „Islamophobie“ wird kontrovers diskutiert. Er wird aber schon länger von islamischen Organisationen und Interessenvertretern als Mittel zur Tabuisierung von Kritik am Islam überhaupt eingesetzt. So hat der türkische Ministerpräsident schon 2005 sich im Europarat bemüht, Islamophobie in gleicher Weise wie Antisemitismus zu ächten. Nach dem Schweizer Minarett-Referendum vom November sagte er, Islamophobie sei wie Antisemitismus „ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit“. Bei einem Treffen der Außenminister der Organisation der islamischen Konferenz im Mai 2007 in Islamabad haben sich diese erdreistet, „Islamophobie“ als die „schlimmste Form des Terrorismus“ zu bezeichnen. Hohe islamische Geistliche meinen sogar, wer den Islam kritisiere, gefährde den Weltfrieden.

Weder Feindbild noch Wunschbild

Wo aber eine solche Haltung propagiert wird, ist der Weg in eine freiheitliche demokratische Zivilgesellschaft noch recht lang und steinig. Gerade aber, weil dieses geschichtlich hart erkämpfte Gut nicht verloren gehen darf und die Würde jedes einzelnen Menschen unantastbar bleiben muss, können und dürfen wir nicht darauf verzichten, auch kritische Fragen an den real existierenden Islam in Geschichte und Gegenwart zu stellen. Gleichzeitig ist darauf zu achten, dass wir weder einem „Feindbild Islam“ noch einem „Wunschbild Islam“ erliegen.

Zeitgeistbedingt geht der moderne Mensch aber wohl von der Annahme aus, alle Religionen seien mehr oder weniger nur kulturell bedingte „Blaupausen“ ein und derselben Grundstruktur des Religiösen, so dass auch der Islam mit etwas verständnisvoll entgegenkommendem Dialog und mit gutem Willen sich bald den europäischen Gegebenheiten anpasse. Islamkritik wird in diesem erhofften multikulturellen „Kulturbiotop“ als Störfaktor empfunden. Manchen tut wohl auch noch leid, dass angesichts der global vernetzen Medienlandschaft es nicht mehr so gut wie früher gelingt, mangelnde Religionsfreiheit und die Situation vom Minderheiten in islamischen Ländern als ein Phänomen darzustellen, das eigentlich nichts direkt mit dem Islam zu tun habe und darüber auch möglichst nicht viel berichtet werden sollte, um den Dialog nicht zu stören.

Wie der Islam mit Kritikern umgeht

Kann man aber in einer globalisierten Welt ausblenden, was da geschieht, wo der Islam das Sagen hat, und wie er dort mit Minderheiten, Abweichlern und Kritikern in den eigenen Reihen umgeht? Wie ehrlich sind wir eigentlich? Nicht die „political correctness“, sondern die Wahrheit in Liebe macht uns frei. Dies sollten wir in der Passionszeit nicht vergessen.

(Der Autor, Kirchenrat i. R. Albrecht Hauser (Korntal bei Stuttgart), ist 2. Vorsitzender des Instituts für Islamfragen der Deutschen Evangelischen Allianz.)

http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=25953

Posted in Islamkritik, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »

More Speech, More Freedom

Posted by paulipoldie on January 31, 2010

by Baron Bodissey

Our Austrian correspondent AMT, moved by such recent events as the legal actions against Geert Wilders and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, has written an essay about the parlous state of free speech in Europe.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

by AMT

As many of us are aware — some more than others — freedom of speech has been changing. Those of us who believe in and fight to protect the concept of democracy can clearly recognize the gradual erosion of this noble and important freedom. There is growing concern that freedom of speech and its provisions in the law are being used more and more to do stifle opinions, and — even more worrying — truths.

Wikipedia informs us that

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on “hate speech.”

Yes, the dreaded hate speech. The “killer phrase” of political correctness, which is threatening the physical freedom of freedom lovers and defenders like Geert Wilders, Ezra Levant, and Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. All three use their right to free speech to speak about Islam. All three have been summoned — and Geert Wilders even prosecuted — by the state.

The main problem with the charge of hate speech is that it includes nearly everything under the sun:

Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

Now take this concept in conjunction with what the elites of the European Union impose on their population:

Council Framework Decision 2008/913/Jha
of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law
Has Adopted This Framework Decision:
Article 1
Offences concerning racism and xenophobia
1. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:
(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;

The careful reader and defender of democracy immediately asks: What is the definition of racism? What is the definition of xenophobia? None is given. However, one concept is clearly defined: Islam is considered not only a religion, but also a race, which transforms any criticism of Islam into racism, the worst charge of all.

What is more, racism and xenophobia can also be applied to “a group of people” who define themselves as members of a religion. One must thus come to the conclusion that statements criticizing the teachings of a religion can be considered racist and xenophobic.

Already back in 2005, the Council of Europe pleaded insanity by equating Islamophobia with anti-Semitism. Ali Sina sums it up:
– – – – – – – –

The Council has reached the following decisions regarding the issue: Condemnation of any kind of intolerance and discrimination based on gender, race and religious beliefs in particular, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the fight against these within the framework of the Council of Europe and the use of effective mechanisms and rules to combat these problems.

Thus, anti-Islamism as well as anti-Semitism will be dealt with within the framework of legal proceedings. The Council reports will include anti-Islamist movements. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) will closely monitor these movements. The Commission will record in which country anti-Islamism increases or how it is reflected.”

This is the beginning of the fall of Europe. Anti-Islamism is not the same as anti-Semitism. Islam is a belief system, Semites are a race. We can’t equate a race to a doctrine. Racism is sheer evil. Apart from the fact that no race is better or worse than other races, unless one is Michael Jackson, one can’t change his race. Instigating hate against a race is instigating hate against mankind. Doctrines that instigate racial hate must be condemned and those who engage in racial slurs must be brought to justice.

Prohibiting criticism of Islam is like prohibiting criticism of Judaism or Christianity. No one in his right mind would suggest criticism of these religions should be banned. The very fact that these religions have reformed and have adapted to modern times is because they were criticized. Only during the inquisition, criticism of Christianity was against the law. Are we trying to introduce Islamic inquisition to appease Muslims? Are we trying to institute the blasphemy law that is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran to make Muslims happy? This is insane!

One wonders who exactly is fomenting extremism. Consider Turkish prime minister Erdogan who is on the record reacting to the Swiss minaret ban:

“[This is a] sign of an increasing racist and fascist stance in Europe,” Turkish television Channel 7 reported on Tuesday. Islamophobia was a “crime against humanity,” just like anti-Semitism.

Turkish president Abdullah Gül said the vote was a “disgrace” for the people of Switzerland and showed how far Islamophobia had advanced in the Western world.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
If a “citizen” of the EU may timidly make a suggestion to those in charge — whoever that might be — it would be the following:

1. Prosecute racism by Muslims against non-Muslims;
2. Define freedom of religion as an individual right and not a collective one.

Islam considers freedom of religion as a collective right of the Muslim community to live according to Islamic rules, even if these rules contradict secular laws. Non-Muslims consider it an individual right to live according to their beliefs within the private sphere, but in accordance with secular laws.

In light of the EU Framework Decision, the Austrian government is in the process of introducing a new law, which according to Andreas Unterberger, “will mimic China’s approach to freedom of speech.”

“Whoever publicly incites to hate against a group [detailed in a long list], shall be punished with a maximum of two years of imprisonment.” The same is valid for those who “insult or disparage” a group. This is what it says in a new law which is about to be passed without any public outcry.

All this in the name of “combating terror”. Unterberger adds,

Do not misunderstand me: I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who hate or insult. But terms that are not precisely defined may be used extensively by the judiciary to restrict freedom of speech. These terms [hate and insulting] belong to good upbringing, to religious education, but not in the claws of a government which, if need be, may use brutal force. […] In the future, one just has to say or write, with a slightly critical undertone, that nationals of X are involved in a significantly higher degree in the drug trade or that national of Y dominate the burglary “business”, or that members of sexual orientation Z are prone to certain transmittable diseases. […] And right away one is confronted with criminal proceedings.

[…]

It is unbelievable that no one in this country rises to the defense of freedom of expression protesting against this attack on the most important principle of the Enlightenment, namely freedom of opinion.

Similarly, but not surprisingly, the lack of interest in these measures appears generally manifested in American and European public opinion. Writes Paul Belien:

“… [This] is apparent with regard to the semi-legal initiatives taken at the level of the United Nations. On October 2nd, the UN Human Rights Council approved a free speech resolution, co-sponsored by the US and Egypt, which criticizes “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” […] Though the resolution has no immediate effect in law, it provides Muslim extremists with moral ammunition the next time they feel that central tenets of Islam are being treated disrespectfully through the creation of what they perceive to be an ‘offensive environment.’“

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Lesson Plans for Teaching the First Amendment tells us the following:

In the “marketplace of ideas,” we may choose which views to support and which ones to reject. When all ideas are allowed to flourish, we — as individuals — may decide what ideas and concepts to question, embrace or reject.

The antidote to distasteful or hateful speech is not censorship, but more speech.

Geert Wilders will not stop criticizing Islam, neither will Sabaditsch-Wolff or others. One may assume there will be more speech, rather than less.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-speech-more-freedom.html#readfurther

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

Peinlicher Aufklärungsunterricht

Posted by paulipoldie on January 24, 2010

Von Reinhard Mohr

Mehr Selbstverachtung und Realitätsverlust war selten: In deutschen Feuilletons tobt eine neue Debatte über den richtigen Dialog mit dem Islam. Kurioserweise werden dabei ausgerechnet jene Publizisten als “Hassprediger” bezeichnet, die auf westliche Werte wie Aufklärung und Menschenrechte pochen.

Und ewig grüßt das Murmeltier. “Es muss nur irgend etwas geschehen, ein missglücktes Attentat wie zu Anfang des Monats zum Beispiel, und schon geht die Debatte wieder los” – so beklagte der Journalist Thomas Steinfeld am Donnerstag im Feuilleton der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” die jüngste Auseinandersetzung über Islam, “Islamophobie” und die Werte des Westens. Ja, es muss nur gerade wieder mal ein 400-facher Massenmord durch einen islamistischen Terroristen mit knapper Not verhindert worden sein, schon kommen sie wieder aus ihren Löchern, die Islamkritiker, Kulturkämpfer und “heiligen Krieger” des Westens, wie Claudius Seidl, Feuilletonchef der “Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung”, formulierte. In Steinfelds Worten: “die Hassprediger” der westlichen Werte.

Der Direktor des “Zentrums für Antisemitismusforschung”, Wolfgang Benz, sieht sogar strukturelle Ähnlichkeiten zwischen Antisemitismus und einer “Islamkritik”, der er ebenfalls in einem Artikel für die “Süddeutsche Zeitung” islamophobe, also irgendwie rassistische Motive unterstellt. Die Muslime, so könnte man glauben, seien die verfolgten Juden des 21. Jahrhunderts.

Und schon ist sie fertig, die steile These: Die Kritiker des militanten Islam sind ihrerseits radikal gläubige Fundamentalisten. Steinfelds Logik ist bestechend: “Wenn man aber mit den ‘westlichen Werten’ ebenso kämpferisch umgeht, wie es der radikale Islam mit seinen heiligen Schriften tut, dann verhält man sich wie der, den man sich zum Feind erkoren hat”, schreibt er. Schlimmer noch: “Man zerstört die sozialen und moralischen Einrichtungen, die man zu verteidigen sucht.”

Um es recht zu verstehen: Publizistische Kritiker des aggressiv politisierten Islams wie Henryk M. Broder und Necla Kelek verteidigen demnach die – in der Uno-Charta festgelegten – Menschenrechte ebenso fanatisch wie überzeugte Muslime den Koran und die Scharia.

Quasireligiöser Furor

Mehr noch: Mit ihrem quasireligiösen Furor unterminierten sie den Kern ihres eigenen Glaubensbekenntnisses: die demokratischen Institutionen und Werte, zuvörderst Meinungsfreiheit, Toleranz und das Gebot von Gleichheit und Menschenwürde. Die Islamkritiker seien also die eigentlichen Verfassungsfeinde, die mit ihrem “grundsätzlich gedankenfeindlichen, bedingungslosen” Vorgehen “alle Debatten, alle Argumente, alle Zweifel, womöglich auch die an sich selbst, ersticken”. Steinfelds Resümee: “Gewiss, der Islam ist, anders als das Christentum, entstanden als eine Religion von Siegern, in einer Parallele von religiöser und politischer Macht. Mit einer Siegerreligion der westlichen Werte dürfte dennoch nichts zu gewinnen sein.”

Darf schon das hübsche Wort von der “Parallele” religiöser und politischer Macht, siehe etwa Ahmadinedschads Islamische Republik Iran, die Anwartschaft auf einen Preis für den Euphemismus des Jahres beanspruchen, so macht die sensationelle Umkehrung von Worten und Werten beinahe sprachlos. Man könnte, um im Bild zu bleiben, glatt vom Glauben abfallen: Aufklärung ist also Religion geworden!

Was aber ist dann mit der Religion? Wird sie nun wenigstens, gleichsam im Umkehrschluss, zur Aufklärung?

Man erfährt es nicht, denn die Opfer des westlich-abendländischen Kulturkampfs kommen in dieser Feuilleton-Debatte nur als Schimäre vor, als westlich-negative (Angst-)Projektion, Gestalten ferner Ereignisse dort drunten, wo die Völker scheinbar grundlos aufeinanderschlagen. Islam, Islamismus und Terror sind da nicht mehr als eine feuilletonistische Duftmarke. So verwundert es keineswegs, dass die seit Jahren geführte Diskussion über die Vereinbarkeit eines korantreuen, gläubig-militanten Islam mit Demokratie und Menschenrechten bei Steinfeld auf die Gegenüberstellung einer “stark idealisierten Fassung freiheitlicher Werte” mit “abweichenden religiösen Sitten” zusammenschnurrt.

Verleugnung der Realität

In dieser geradezu phantastischen Verharmlosung stehen die Dinge endgültig auf dem Kopf, und die Wirklichkeit kommt gar nicht mehr vor. Es scheint, als solle die globale, asymmetrische Bedrohung durch den islamistischen Terror mit einer scheinbaren Symmetrie weggezaubert werden. Motto: Die einen sind so schlimm wie die anderen.

Andersherum gilt die gleiche Äquilibristik: Die historischen Errungenschaften von Humanismus, Aufklärung und Säkularisierung werden ebenso grotesk kleingeredet wie die weltweiten Freiheitsbedrohungen, die von den vielfältigen Strömungen eines radikalisierten Islam ausgehen.

Geradezu einer Verleugnung der Realität kommt es nahe, wenn Steinfeld schlussfolgert, dass die Integration des Islam in die demokratischen Gesellschaften des Westens nach dem Willen der publizistischen “Hassprediger” nur über eine autoritäre “Zwangsmodernisierung” à la Atatürk denkbar sei.

Mal abgesehen davon, dass der Münchener Feuilletonist damit die moderne Türkei als historisch abschreckendes Beispiel präsentiert; statt von Zwangsehen und “Ehrenmorden”, von einem reaktionären Frauenbild und einer voraufklärerischen Fixierung auf Jahrtausende alte “heilige” Worte (bis zur legitimen Verfolgung und Tötung von “Ungläubigen”) zu reden, attackiert er die Polemiker jener Freiheit, die er selbst tagtäglich genießt.

Schon die einfachste intellektuelle Unterscheidung fällt hier unter den Tisch: Anders als das Christentum, dessen aggressives Wüten seit der Französischen Revolution gebändigt werden konnte, kennt der Islam bis heute keine echte Aufklärung, keine wirkliche Trennung von Religion, Staat und Gesellschaft, keine unveräußerlichen Rechte des frei geborenen Individuums, schon gar nicht von Mädchen und Frauen, ob mit oder ohne Kopftuch.

So ist es auch nur folgerichtig, dass offizielle Repräsentanten und Verbandsvertreter des Islam in Deutschland an Debatten dieser Art praktisch gar nicht teilnehmen, denn es geht in diesen ja nicht um religiöse, sondern um gesellschaftliche und politische Fragen. Zu ihnen haben sie – außerhalb der üblichen Interessenvertretung – ganz offenbar nichts zu sagen. Es sei denn, sie wären in der Lage, ihr religiöses Bekenntnis gleichsam von außen und damit eben kritisch-historisch zu betrachten, mit räsonierendem Abstand, in einem tatsächlich “herrschaftsfreien Diskurs”.

Genau deshalb auch braucht es wohl die selbsternannten Gouvernanten des Feuilletons, die gar nicht merken, dass ihr ideologischer Paternalismus einer Entmündigung all jener Muslime gleichkommt, die selbst das Wort ergreifen sollten – frei, selbstbewusst und gerne auch polemisch, wenn’s der Wahrheitsfindung dient.

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,672117,00.html

Posted in Islamisierung, Islamkritik, Islamophobia | Leave a Comment »