Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

  • 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

  • International Free Press Society

  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Must Read’ Category

Freedom and Truth: Geert Wilders’ Final Remarks to the Court

Posted by paulipoldie on June 1, 2011

Afbeelding (Metabestand)

Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam , June 1st, 2011


Mister President, members of the Court,


I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh , and not I.


I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.


All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.


Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call upon to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.


We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.


That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.


The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.


Mister President, members of the Court,


I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honour. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.


Every day the armoured cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honourably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.


I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.


That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.


Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.


I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.


Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.


This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.


My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.


Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands


Franz Kafka said: “one sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”


Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands .

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.


Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.


Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.


Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands . That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms , I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”


That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.


Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.


Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”


Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.


I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.


Thank you.

thanks to Kitman for youtubing and subtitling

Posted in Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Geert Wilders, Islam, Islamization, Must Read | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

Five Interesting Historical Facts About Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on May 28, 2011

Five Interesting Historical Facts About Islam

Thanks to Citizen Warrior

WHILE READING about things totally unrelated to the counterjihad movement, I have occasionally come across some interesting historical facts about Islam. I was surprised to discover that Islam had a hand in many important historical events I already knew about without ever knowing Islam had anything to do with them. Here are a few of the most interesting:

1. The creation of the U.S. Marine Corps was initiated in response to Islamic warriors. The Barbary Coast pirates were following in Mohammad’s footsteps, raiding caravans (in this case, oceangoing ships), taking slaves, capturing people to hold for ransom, and demanding “protection money” from any kafirs who didn’t want to be raided. This had been going on for centuries along the North African Mediterranean coastline.

Any ships that wanted to do business in the Mediterranean were at risk. Many European countries did the easy thing and paid the protection money to the Muslims to avoid being raided, which, of course, helped fund their operations against anyone who wasn’t paying. The U.S. did not have enough military resources to protect its ships, so it paid the protection money too. This bothered Thomas Jefferson. Before he was president, when he was an ambassador to France, Jefferson had a chance to meet with an ambassador from Tripoli, and he asked why Tripoli did this. The Muslim explained it was written in the Koran.

So Thomas Jefferson did something every leader of the free world should do: He bought himself a Koran and read it. Then when he became president, he knew what he needed to do: He formed the United States Navy, created the Marine Corps, and sent them to the shores of Tripoli, where they soundly defeated the Muslim warriors.

This was the first foreign war fought by the United States. America’s victory was the beginning of the end of the “Barbary Coast Pirates.” The military aggressiveness of Islamic countries remained contained and weakened for over a century.

Read more about that here: Why Did President Jefferson Read the Quran?

2. The New World was discovered because of Islam. Christopher Columbus was looking for a new trade route to the East. But why was he looking for a trade route?

During the Second Jihad, Islam invaded Central Asia and defeated Constantinople in 1453, cutting off the overland route for Europeans. Islamic armies continued their jihad northward, and conquered much of what is now Eastern Europe, until they were finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Read more: The Second Major Wave of Jihad: the Turks, 1071-1683.

Europe had been trading with the Far East for centuries, and their old overland route now went through territory that was hostile and dangerous to anybody but Muslims. The economy of Europe was threatened.

So, in 1492, the year Islam was finally defeated in Spain, ending Islam’s 780-year occupation, Columbus set off to find a passage to the Far East by boldly sailing West into the unknown. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

3. The .45 caliber 1911 semiautomatic pistol was created to stop Islamic warriors. From 1902 until 1913, the United States fought a war with the “Moro Warriors” in the Philippines. These Islamic warriors were named “Moros” by the Spanish. Their unstoppability was legendary. “In one instance,” writes Robert Boatman, “a Moro warrior received 14 bullet wounds in five minutes, three of which penetrated his brain, and yet he fought on.”

At the time the army was using .38 caliber guns, which were unable to stop the Moros, so in 1906, they began testing different guns to find something better. In 1911, they chose the .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol. It had enough stopping power to kill even a Moro warrior with one shot. Read more about this interesting piece of history here, here and here.

4. The Great Pyramid of Giza looks unfinished because of Muslims. The pyramid was once covered by a smooth, beautifully polished layer of white stone. This outer layer was removed by Muslims, who used the white stone for mosques and palaces, leaving the ancient pyramids with their somewhat unfinished appearance.

The physicist, John Zajac, wrote: “This protective covering was made up of…hard, white limestone, similar to marble but superior in hardness and in durability against the elements…The casing stones, 144,000 in all, were so brilliant that they could literally be seen from the mountains of Israel hundreds of miles away…The people of the area had viewed the pyramid and its polished stones with awe for centuries. But when a 13th century earthquake loosened some of these casing stones, the Arabs recognized a great quarry of precut stones that could be used to finish off palaces and mosques. For instance, the casing stones were used to rebuild the new city of El Kaherah plus Cairo mosques and palaces, including the Mosque of Sultan Hasan.”

Historically, this is Islamic standard operating procedure. Wherever Islam established itself throughout the world, it destroyed or defaced monuments that represented the previous (conquered) culture and replaced it with Islamic structures and mosques. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist. Turkey used to be Christian. Pakistan used to be Hindu. The former cultures and any symbols of them were annihilated and replaced by Islam.

5. The Crusades were a limp, late, defensive response to four hundred years of Islamic war against what was then largely Christian lands (the Middle East, Northern Africa, and Europe). Four of the five main centers of Christianity, including the Byzantium and Constantiople, were eventually conquered by the Islamic warriors’ relentless conquests, and the countries were forcibly converted into Islamic states. But before the Crusades, Byzantium was still fighting to defend itself, and repeatedly appealed to Rome for help.

The different nations of Europe were largely competitors with each other. They were not a united force — far from it — but the Pope thought he could unify Europeans if he made it a matter of “defending Christians,” so that’s how he made his appeal. It helped unite Europeans against a common threat, and it may have saved Europe from the forcible Islamization suffered by the nations of the Middle East, part of India, and North Africa. Read more: What About the Crusades?

Here’s another interesting historical tidbit about Islam’s influence: The defense of Europe during the Crusades was devastatingly expensive, and the Church of Rome tried many ways to raise funds. Some of these fundraising efforts were deeply offensive to Martin Luther, so he intitiated the Protestant Reformation.

Islam has had a profound impact on important historical events throughout its history, and it is still being felt today.

Posted in Islam, Islamization, Must Read | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Must-Read-Book: The Martyr’s Prize: Inspired by True Events

Posted by paulipoldie on May 27, 2011

The Martyr’s Prize: Inspired by True Events

Citizen Warrior

I DON’T USUALLY read fiction, but someone I respect recommended The Martyr’s Prize to me, and I just finished it. I liked it a lot. And oddly enough, I felt that the book brought to life the reality of our situation better than dry factual data has ever done.

One “scene” in the story especially affected me; a conversation between a Saudi prince and a young mujahadeen. Their conversation actually kept me awake late into the night, thinking about it.
The mujahadeen only knew about and understood the “hard jihad.” But the prince sat him down and laid out the full picture — the carrot and stick of Islamization. On the one side, “life must be made impossible” for the non-Muslims, and they must be in constant fear of their lives; and on the other side, give them a path to peace — submitting to the rule of Islam.

The invasion must be simultaneous on all fronts, explains the prince. Speak publicly of peace, but attack anyone who even implies you have “unsavory associations.” Buy friends at the newspapers. Use the courts to harass. Make trouble for criticizers.

“At that moment something clicked,” and the young mujahadeen “suddenly understood the brilliance of the plan. A jihad that could never be defeated because it would be all encompassing; everywhere at once. No focal point to attack with Western military might. Immune, because the West would never engage in genocide; would never outlaw a religion; would never take the steps necessary to defeat such an ideology…”

This conversation occurs near the end of the book, and the reader is ready to fully understand it by then.

The book starts out with an interesting and provocative premise: Two supervisors at a university IT department find an online video giving instructions in Arabic showing step by step exactly how to make a bomb. It was a tutorial. They trace it and discover to their dismay the video was posted by someone at their university! And in the comments on the video, it said, “Brothers. I have posted this vid in the hopes that someone can translate it into English. Holy Jihad will not wait and we need to prepare. The materials are available and waiting as we speak.”

These two supervisors were not counterjihadists. They didn’t know anything about Islam or jihad. But the idea of someone showing Americans how to build bombs within the country to kill Americans really got under their skin. The more they thought about it, the more they felt motivated to do something about it. But what?

They eventually come up with the idea of making a video just like it, except for one small change: To alter the instructions so the bomb detonates while the bomb maker is constructing it!

I marked a huge number of passages in the book that I wanted to share, but now I don’t want to give them away and spoil the story for you. I would like to quote this little bit, however, to give you an idea of how the author weaves good, valid information into the narrative:

While the bomb tutorial had undeniably been the initial spark, the true turning point was the sniper video. Like a wormhole, it had sucked them in, transporting Jason and himself to another world. Within the week, an embedded link in an online article about a beating in Paris had led to another web site, this one tracking jihadist activity worldwide. He’d been amazed by the sheer number of attacks occurring on a daily basis. For that week alone there’d been thirty-six in various countries, with a body count of 221. For the month, 185 with 943 dead and 1,223 critically injured. The total since 9/11 had crested 14,000 in mid 2009. What would that be? — roughly? 71,000 dead and 92,000 seriously wounded? Digging deeper, it occurred to them that all over the world people were being killed in staggering numbers. And the West just couldn’t come to grips with it. The fact that The Religion of Perpetual Outrage claimed religious and minority status gave them immunity, at least as far as the major media and various governmental bodies were concerned.

According to the reports, Islam was misunderstood. Islamic scholars themselves clearly couldn’t articulate the actual peaceful words of the Prophet. The passages that exhorted coexistence with others — on a permanent basis — were assumed by all to be there, but the subject always seemed to get switched at the last moment, just as the question was about to be raised…

You can read The Martyr’s Prize for your own enjoyment. But I think we can also use it to help us educate our fellow non-Muslims. Reading it is like watching a good action movie; it grips your attention and won’t let go.

Some people don’t read much nonfiction, but they’ll read a good story, and this is fast-paced with a contemporary storyline and plot-propelling dialog — but it also delivers a motherload of information, and makes many good points. It may be a way to help educate a certain kind of people.

Read it yourself first, and then see who in your life might be interested in reading a story like this, and talk it up to those people. Loan your copy to them. It could help people really come to grips with what jihad is really about and what we’re up against.

In the preface, the author, Brooks William Kelley writes: “The concept of this book was a simple one really — to take stories ignored by the Western media and weave them together to form the plot of this book…”

He says, “In my writing, I’ve made it a point to use actual incidents as a basis for the story. Specifically, the ‘workplace accidents’ of 2008 and 2009 were instrumental in inspiring one of the main storylines of the book. For those who wonder whether such events in fact occurred, simply pick one and Google it.”

Kelley has done something really good here: He has given us a new way to reach people, and a way for all of us to more fully come to terms with our situation as non-Muslims.

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

Islam’s Apartheid

Posted by paulipoldie on May 20, 2011


Amil Imani

Contributing Editor

The dictionary defines apartheid as: An official policy of racial segregation promulgated in the Republic of South Africa with a view to promoting and maintaining white ascendancy.

In 1973, the General Assembly of the United Nations opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as:

“Inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial [religious] group of persons over any other racial [religious] group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”[Italics are mine]
The declaration prohibits,
“Acts such as murder, infringement on freedom or dignity, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, imposition of inhumane living conditions, forced labor, or enacting measures calculated to prevent a racial [religious] group from ‘participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country’ such as denying them ‘basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.’”
Islamic member countries of the time, such as Egypt, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are signatories to the above declaration condemning the barbaric practices of apartheid. Yet, these same countries, as well as other Islamic nations, are the most blatant violators of the declaration.

It is the discriminatory Islamic teachings that condone and even promote wanton practices in violation of the United Nations declaration. Islam is a primitive barbaric ideology for the benefit of the male believer.

Islam, by fiat, discriminates against women. Qur’an 4:11

“Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”
There are many many more “directives” that for all intents and purposes make women chattel of men. Here are some of the shameful rules and practices of Islamic misogyny.
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

In this case Allah is half right. Women do menstruate. But He is also wrong. Extensive studies by impartial psychologists provide unequivocal documentation of the fact that women are equal in intelligence to men.

But don’t contradict Allah and his beloved unerring mouthpiece, Muhammad. Sadly enough, even many Muslim women prefer to be treated like “domestic animals” who “possess nothing themselves,” and are “stupid.”

Thus, life goes on for the Muslim women with all the trappings of the Islamic misogyny. Here are some rules that keep women in their Muhammad-stipulated place.

·         If a Muslim woman is murdered, her beneficiary is entitled to one-half dyyeh—blood money, or compensation—as that of a murdered Muslim male.
·         A woman’s testimony in the court of law is worth one-half that of a man.
·         A woman must provide four witnesses to substantiate her claim of being raped.
·         A man can divorce his wife by simply saying to her, “I divorce you,” three times.
·         A divorced woman is entitled to a miserly compensation and automatically forfeits her rights to her children.
·         Women are barred from the lucrative and powerful cast of clergy.
·         Husbands are entitled to punish their wives corporally.
·         Men are allowed to have four wives at any one time and as many concubines as they desire and can afford.
·         Saudi Arabia, the custodian of “true Islam” imposes a raft of restrictions on women such as: women are not allowed to drive; they are not permitted to leave the country without accompaniment or explicit permission of their male kin; they are barred from most government jobs and much much more.
·         Among other Muslims, such as the Taliban and the Pashtune of Afghanistan-Pakistan region, women are barred from education and not even allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male kin.
·         Since education, particularly professional education, is often denied to women in many Islamic societies, there is scarcity of women physicians and male doctors are often forbidden to treat women patients.
Such is the plight of women under Islam. There is hardly the need to provide an exhaustive list of Islamic misogyny to qualify it as a shameful, discriminatory and oppressive religious apartheid.

Will Muslim women ever break out of their bondage and claim their rightful place among emancipated non-Muslim women? It is the long sub-humanized Muslim women who must discard Islam and claim their equal human rights. Muslim men will resort to every means to maintain their privileged position and their cruel dominance over women, citing the Quran as justification. Any document that consigns one half of the human race to second class status is null and void.

Its constitutional sub-humanization of women aside, Islam has a raft of beliefs and practices that violate fundamental human rights of non-Muslims in general. A few cases should suffice to fully substantiate the contention that Islam is religious apartheid. And there is no need to draw cases from the repugnant “extremist” Islamic groups such as the Taliban to make the case. Even the most “mainstream” and “peaceful” Islam is guilty of systemic apartheid. Just a couple of examples should suffice for now.

·         On December 16, 2006, Egypt’s Highest Administrative Court decreed that in order to receive an Identity Card, only Islam, Judaism, or Christianity must be entered on the application. No one of any other religion or no religion at all is permitted to list his belief or even leave it blank. Without the identity card, just about all the rights of citizenship are denied to minorities such as Baha’is, Hindus, and Buddhists. People are forced to choose between falsely claiming an approved religion and depriving themselves of just about all rights of citizenship such as jobs, education and medical care.
·         In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Islamic law denies dyyeh to any and all people who are not Muslims or members of the only other three recognized religions. Every one of the 500,000 members of the Baha’i Faith can be murdered without the family receiving justice or compensation. As a matter of fact, the Islamic government itself has executed Baha’is for the sole “crime” of being Baha’is and has demanded that the innocently murdered person’s family reimburse it for the bullets they used to execute him.
·         The Islamic Republic of Iran’s President’s repeated threat to wipe out Israel from the map is ignored by some as an empty rhetoric of an unhinged fanatic. Yet, Ahmadinejad’s threats are far from the baseless saber-rattling of a zealot. Ahamadinejad’s government has recently ordered the comprehensive gathering of data regarding the Baha’is and all their activities. This order is deeply troubling, since it is almost a replica of what another fascist, Hitler, did before launching the genocide of six million Jews and some four million other “undesirables”. Ahamadinejad is an Islamofascist whose aim is to have a practice run on the Iranian Baha’is before embarking on destroying the Jews and other “undesirables,” following in the footsteps of the German fuehrer.
Islamic societies shamelessly practice all the sanctioned injustices listed in the U.N. charter on apartheid (see paragraphs 2 and 3, above). Islam is religious apartheid. And apartheid, by universal agreement, is an inhumane, unjust and condemned practice.

Islam cruelly practices its oppressive dogma on minorities in its lands; it is in clear violation of the provisions of Universal Human Rights. Ominously, Islam is encroaching in the traditionally non-Islamic parts of the world and doing all it can to impose its horrid doctrine on others.

It is for this present and imminent danger that the free people of the world must rise and do all they can to preserve their birthright of liberty. Muslims in the non-Islamic lands may seem harmless, and many of them indeed are harmless. Yet, Islam compels its leaders to uphold and promote its tenets at any and all costs to anyone. It is for this reason that on the one hand the Islamic governments sign the U.N. Charter that condemns apartheid, and on the other hand, these governments violate every provision of it when they are in power.

Islamofascism, the enemy of liberty, is inside the gate. It is the duty of every free human to defend freedom by defeating the enemy.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

Posted in Diskriminierung/Discrimination, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Islamization, Must Read, Sharia | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Amil Imani: Islam is Misunderstood

Posted by paulipoldie on May 12, 2011

Everybody just relax. Islam is badly misunderstood. The negative stereotype of Islam is the usual evil-doings of Zionists in America and their foolish fellow travelers, fundamentalist Christians. Please don’t listen to what these hatemongers say about Islam and hear us out. So implies the nationally-launched campaign of Muslim organizations in the United States.

Ads are popping up in newspapers and magazines proclaiming the magnificence of Islam and aiming to refute the “false allegations” of Islam’s ill-wishers.

Huge billboards are festooning major highways, such as the one along Highway 101 and Tully Road in San Jose, California, with crafty messages. Bold letters on the billboard proclaim: Islam You Deserve to Know. A toll-free number, 1-877-WhyIslam and website, WhyIslam.org beckon the public to get the real scoop about the religion of peace.

The billboard sneakily reminds the viewers about their kinship with Muslims. “Islam: The message of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad.”

Well folks—Christians and Jews—the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States, you need to relax about Islam. Muslims are family. They are your kindred through your shared progenitor, Abraham.

Having Abraham as an ancestor would demand that the “children” be loving siblings. That’s the message the American Muslims try to convey. And that’s the way they aim to keep us in the deadly slumber of complacency and the delusion of multiculturalism.

For one, multiculturalism and multi-religionism are not interchangeable and are not one and the same. Muslims and their frequently well-paid apologists use the multiculturalism umbrella only in non-Islamic lands to shield themselves from the torrent of legitimate criticisms that those who know Islam better shower on this cult of violence peddled as the religion of peace.

Don’t listen to me and don’t listen to these conniving dissimulators. Find out for yourself. See if the euphemism of multiculturalism is ever even mentioned by any Islamic leader, ever printed in the Islamic press, or ever appears in any form anywhere in Muslim countries. This multiculturalism gambit is Islam manufactured wool to pull over the eyes of the non-Muslims while the Muslims carry on with their unrelenting campaign of eradicating anything or anyone non-Islamic anywhere in the world.

Those of us, through reason and tremendous act of will, who have freed ourselves from the enslaving yoke of Islam placed around our necks from birth, know about all the heinous inside dirt of this plague of humanity. We hardly need to call a toll-free number to hear a phony canned message of deceptions and lies.

We have experienced Islam first-hand and up close from the inside. We have studied the Quran, the Hadith, and the Sunna. We have seen Islam in action where it wields sway. Some of us even tried desperately to cling to this security blanket that was wrapped around us from birth. Yet, the more we studied and the more we experienced Islam, the more our effort to remain in the fold became untenable.

We broke away from Islamic slavery and found it to be our solemn duty to expose this fraud of a religion, help other Muslims to free themselves from it, and warn the good-hearted and gullible non-Muslims against falling prey to it.

The Muslim organizations in America, generously financed by the oil-rich Muslim government and sheikhs, are directed to sell Islam Lite for long enough until the cult runs deep roots and the Real Islam is introduced. One can see how the scheme played out in Europe. Much of Europe is already past the stage of Islam Lite and knee deep into the quagmire of Real Islam. And that’s exactly where things are headed in America.

For a starter, remember the Somali Muslim cabbies of the Minneapolis airport and their refusal of blind fares with seeing-eye dogs, because dogs are unclean according to their belief? The same cabbies that had a virtual monopoly at the airport also rejected passengers who had alcoholic beverages in their possession. And the recent campaign of Muslims in New York to force the city to officially recognize Islamic holidays. These chosen people of Allah have more holidays than working days. No wonder they are among the most backward and unproductive in the world.

These “annoyances” aside, one has to be more than daft not to see for himself and not be sickened by the horrors Muslims in power and Muslim governments commit, wherever they reign in the world. Their barbaric acts are not isolated behaviors of some deranged individuals that one can find within any group. They are, in fact, mandated by the authoritative teachings of Islam and those who practice them proudly proclaim their actions as an implementation of Islamic teachings.

And they are correct in this claim. Let’s just see a sampling of the Islamic teachings that mandate the beastly treatment of women, human slaves, and all non-Muslims, including those that the Islamic Softsell in the West aims to bunch itself with as kin—Jews and Christians.

[Quran 4.34] Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme.

[Q uran16.75] Allah sets forth a parable: (consider) a slave, the property of another, (who) has no power over anything, and one whom We have granted from ourselves a goodly sustenance so he spends from it secretly and openly; are the two alike? (All) praise is due to Allah!

[Quran 5:51] O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.

You may say that you know Muslims and you find them to be decent people, family people, hard-working people who are no different than any other group of people. However, these people are the Bad Muslims. Why so? Because they do not live the life the Quran commands them to lead. It is the Good Muslims that you don’t ever want to meet. These are the diehard jihadists, the terrible killers who spare no torture on infidels before decapitating them or hanging them while intoning Allah’s praise. These are the ones that don’t show the slightest mercy to their very own people who fail to toe the line.

These Real Muslims viciously and repeatedly rape women, and even men, arrested without even arrest warrants. One “lucky” victim who managed to escape the claws of these evils is Maryam Sabri arrested on phony charges and repeatedly raped in Iran’s Evin prison.

Acts of horrors committed in Islamic lands aside, it is disturbing to see Muslims dissimulate, sweet-talk and use any and all means in free non-Islamic societies to convert people to their cult. Yet, if a Muslim, on his own free will decides to leave Islam he is condemned as apostate and automatically sentenced to death. And right here in America the suffocating tentacles of Islamic bigotry are beginning to reach out to people. Just the other day, for instance, a teen-age girl had to run away from her Muslim family fearing being killed by her own father for having become Christian.

This Islamic Softsell is a replay of Muhammad’s own life example. He was peaceful and humble in Mecca among his powerful detractors. Once in Medina and with power, Muhammad slaughtered the Jews of Medina as easily as if they were sheep, plundered their belongings, and took the “sellable” women and children as slaves.

It is said that truthfulness is the foundation of all virtues. Islam not only condones, it encourages, lying and dissimulation—Taqqyeh—in dealing with non-Muslims. Hence the ads, the billboards and the claims of these liars are little more than packs of crafty propaganda.

No, there is no misunderstanding. No, it is not the Zionists and fundamentalist Christians who are misrepresenting Islam. It is Muslims and Muslim organizations who are guilty of dissimulation and fraud. Muslims act meekly when they lack sufficient power. Once in power, the Real Islam emerges from its shell of dissimulation and puts free people and their way of life to the sword.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and a pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a columnist, literary translator, novelist and essayist who has been writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land, Iran. He maintains a website at www.amilimani.com. Amil Imani is the author of the smashing book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad.

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

Osama Is Dead

Posted by paulipoldie on May 2, 2011

Osama in hell

But: There are many Osamas out there. He was the perfect Muslim.

Posted in Islam, Must Read, News, Videos | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Is it Racist to Criticize Islam?

Posted by paulipoldie on April 29, 2011

Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a racist? She was born in Somalia, from which she escaped to avoid an arranged marriage, and she eventually became a member of Parliament in the Netherlands.

She helped produce a film with Theo Van Gogh which criticized Islam’s treatment of women. Van Gogh was shot to death by a Muslim in retaliation, and a note was pinned to his chest with a knife — a note that threatened Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

She made her way to the United States, and has since written two books critical of Islam: Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

Is Wafa Sultan a racist? She was born and raised in Syria, and was trained as a psychiatrist.

On February 21, 2006, she took part in an Al Jazeera discussion program, arguing with the hosts about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six-minute composite video of her response was widely circulated on blogs and through email. The New York Times estimated it was seen at least one million times. In the video she criticized Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently, and for not recognizing the accomplishments of Jews and other non-Muslims. The video was the most-discussed video of all time with over 260,000 comments on YouTube.

Is Ibn Warraq a racist? Warraq was born in India to Muslim parents who migrated to Pakistan after the partitioning of British Indian Empire.

Warraq founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry, focusing on Quranic criticism.

Warraq is the author of seven books, including Why I Am Not a Muslim and Leaving Islam. He has spoken at the United Nations “Victims of Jihad” conference organized by the International Humanist and Ethical Union alongside speakers such as Bat Ye’or, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Simon Deng.

Is Tapan Ghosh a racist? The president of Hindu Samhati, he speaks all over India and the United States about the ongoing Islamic invasion of West Bengal.

In an article about him, a correspondent wrote, “A life of 25 years of relentless service has strengthened the resolve of Tapan Ghosh to unite Hindu masses to fight against injustice and the oppressive attitude of the authorities in the face of ever-increasing Islamist aggression.”

Ghosh said, “As someone who has suffered enormously from the Islamist onslaught in eastern India, both after the partition of India as well as the partition of erstwhile Pakistan to form Bangladesh, Islamic terrorism has deeply affected my life and the life of millions in the Indian subcontinent. The horrific events of 1971 where nearly 3 million Bengalis, mostly Hindus were exterminated by the Pakistani military regime left an everlasting impression on me. Since then, I have worked relentlessly for the service and upliftment of people reeling under the scourge of radical Islam.”

Is Seyran Ates a racist? Born in Turkey of Kurdish parents, and now working as a lawyer in Germany, Atest is highly critical of an immigrant Muslim society that is often more orthodox than its counterpart in Turkey, and her criticisms have put her at risk.

Her book, “Islam Needs a Sexual Revolution,” was scheduled for publication in Germany in 2009. In an interview in January 2008 on National Public Radio, Ates stated that she was in hiding and would not be working on Muslim women’s behalf publicly (including in court) due to the threats against her.

Ates is the author of the article, Human Rights Before Religion: Have we forgotten to protect women in our bid to accommodate practices carried out in the name of Islam?

Is Francis Bok a racist? Francis Piol Bol Bok, born in Sudan, was a slave for ten years but is now an abolitionist and author living in the United States.

On May 15, 1986, Bok was captured and enslaved at age seven during an Islamic militia raid on the village of Nymlal. Slavery is a standard feature of orthodox Islam. Bok lived in bondage for ten years before escaping imprisonment in Kurdufan, followed by a journey to the United States by way of Cairo, Egypt. Read more of his story here.

Bok’s autobiography, Escape from Slavery, chronicles his life from his early youth and his years in captivity, to his work in the United States as an abolitionist.

Is Nonie Darwish a racist? Now an American, she grew up a Muslim in Egypt, the daughter of an Egyptian general whose family was part of President Nasser’s inner circle.

Darwish founded Former Muslims United with Ibn Warraq, an organization dedicated, in part, to helping Muslims reject the inherent intolerance, violence, and supremacism in their doctrine.

Darwish is the author of two books critical of Islam, Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, and Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror.

And she is an outspoken critic of Sharia law.

Is Brigitte Gabriel a racist? She’s an Arab, born in Lebanon. Gabriel watched her country become an Islamic state. Lebanon was a Christian country and “the jewel of the Middle East” when she was young. But the Muslims in Lebanon, supported by Syria and Iran, slowly became more militant until they turned the country into a war zone.

She made her way to America only to find, to her horror, the Muslim Brotherhood here in her newly adopted country, going down the same road. She decided to warn her fellow Americans about the dire results you can expect from appeasing orthodox Muslims, so she founded ACT! for America, a grassroots organization dedicated to educating the public about Islam’s prime directive.

Gabriel is the author of two books, They Must Be Stopped: Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We Can Do It, and Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America.

Is Mark Gabriel a racist? Born in Egypt, he became an Islamic scholar in the Muslim world’s most prestigious university. Early fears by relatives that Gabriel would grow up a Christian because he had been breastfed by a Christian woman resulted in him being given a thorough Islamic education. So he grew up immersed in Islamic culture and was sent to Al Azhar school at the age of six.

By the time Gabriel was twelve years old he had memorized the Quran completely. After graduating from Al-Azhar University with a Master’s degree, he was offered a position as a lecturer at the university. During his research, which involved travel to Eastern and Western countries, Gabriel became more distant from Islam, finding its history, “from its commencement to date, to be filled with violence and bloodshed without any worthwhile ideology or sense of decency. I asked myself ‘What religion would condone such destruction of human life?’ Based on that, I began to see that the Muslim people and their leaders were perpetrators of violence.”

On hearing that Gabriel had “forsaken Islamic teachings” the authorities of Al Azhar expelled him from the University on 17 December, 1991 and asked for him to be released from the post of Imam in the mosque of Amas Ebn Malek in Giza city. The Egyptian secret police then seized Gabriel and placed him in a cell without food and water for three days, after which he was tortured and interrogated for four days before being transferred to Calipha prison in Cairo and released without charge a week later. He escaped Egypt and has since written several books, including, Islam and Terrorism.

Is Walid Shoebat a racist? He’s a Palestinian immigrant to the United States and a former PLO militant. Shoebat was born in Bethlehem, the grandson of the Mukhtar of Beit Sahour, an associate of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In 1993, Shoebat converted to Christianity after studying the Jewish Bible for six months in response to a challenge from his wife, initially trying to persuade her to convert to Islam.

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Shoebat began to criticize Islam publicly. He has appeared on mainstream media around the world and has been an expert witness on a number of documentaries on orthodox Islam.

Shoebat argues that parallels exist between radical Islam and Nazism. He says, “Secular dogma like Nazism is less dangerous than Islamofascism that we see today…because Islamofascism has a religious twist to it; it says ‘God the Almighty ordered you to do this’…It is trying to grow itself in fifty-five Muslim states. So potentially, you could have a success rate of several Nazi Germanys, if these people get their way.”

Is Simon Deng a racist? He was born in southern Sudan. His village of Tonga was a peaceful farming community, despite frequent raids by the Islamic Sudanese army where they burned huts and scattered livestock. “One of the first things I was told as a child — if the Arab men come, just run for your life,” Deng recalls. The history of Arab colonization of Africa is one of Islamization, wholesale slave trading, and genocide. One day the Muslims came, and Deng was captured and enslaved.

At the age of 12, he noticed a man from his village due to the man’s “shilluk” — a series of raised welts across the forehead. It’s a tribal marking Deng has also. The man summoned a distant relative of Deng’s who happened to be nearby. With his kinsman’s help, the boy was able to escape.

Having escaped slavery and emigrated to the United States, Deng travels the country addressing audiences which range from the United Nations to middle school students. His speeches focus on education and the anti-slavery movement. Deng is now a warner of the horrors of unchecked Islam and Sharia. “I was victimized in the name of Islam,” he says.

Is Babu Suseelan a racist? Born in India, Professor Babu Suseelan is a Hindu leader, a human rights activist, a university professor, and a psychologist. He is also the Director of Indian American Intellectuals Forum, New York.

Suseelan is the author of several published articles on jihadi terrorism and cognitive psychology. He has been an invited speaker at international conferences on Islamic militancy.

He speaks around the world, trying to educate people about orthodox Islam and the danger it poses to the free world.

Is Walid Phares a racist? Phares was born in Lebanon, where he earned degrees in law, political science and sociology. He then earned a Master’s degree in International Law from the Université de Lyon in France and a Ph.D. in international relations and strategic studies from the University of Miami. He emigrated to the United States in 1990.

Phares has testified before committees of the U.S. State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security Departments, the United States Congress, the European Parliament, the United Nations Security Council.

His writings expose the political nature embedded in Islamic doctrine, and seeks to find solutions to the problems that presents the West. His books include, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, and The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy.

Is Zeyno Baran a racist? Baran is a Turkish-American scholar and Director of the Center for Eurasian Policy.

One of Baran’s key areas of specialization is countering the spread of radical Turkish Islamist ideology in Europe and Eurasia.

Baran has criticized European and American governments for working too closely with groups or individuals that espouse an Islamist ideology. She argues that such engagement actually works against U.S. and European interests.

Baran recently wrote an article for The Weekly Standard on this very subject. In it, she advocates a kind of “litmus test” for deciding who and what type of Muslim groups the U.S. government should engage with. Baran argues that “the deciding factor must be ideology: Is the group Islamist or not?” She believes that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbullah, and Hizb ut-Tahrir fail her test.

Is M. Zuhdi Jasser a racist? He’s the President and Founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy. A devout Muslim, Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Consitution, liberty and freedom, and the separation of mosque and state.

A former Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy, Jasser served 11 years as a medical officer. He is a nationally recognized expert in the contest of ideas against Political Islam and American Islamist organizations. On October 1, 2009, Jasser briefed members of Congress on the threat of Political Islam. He regularly briefs members of the House and Senate congressional anti-terror caucuses.

Is Magdi Allam a racist? Allam was born in Egypt and raised by Muslim parents. His mother Safeya was a believing and practicing Muslim, whereas his father Muhammad was “completely secular.” He became a journalist and outspoken critic of “Islamic extremism.”

In 2005, Allam published an article calling for a ban on building mosques in Italy. In a piece accusing mosques of fostering hate, he claimed Italy is suffering from “mosque-mania.”

In a public letter to the editor, Allam stated that Islam was inseparable from Islamic extremism. Criticising Islam itself, rather than Islamic extremism, Allam argued: “I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a ‘moderate Islam,’ assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Quran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive.”

Is Farshad Kholghi a racist? Born in Iran, he remembers the time before the Islamic Revolution, when Shah Reza Palahvi reigned supreme and the country was on a staunch Western direction, with extensive developments in infrastructure, industry, education, and health care.

Farshad Kholghi is a well known figure from public debates in Denmark. As is the case for most everyone debating Islam, he has been accused of racism (which, given his ethnicity, is ironic), and of presenting “right-wing” political views. Farshad rhetorically inquired: “Is it ‘right-wing’ to stand for womens’ rights? Is it ‘right-wing’ to criticize religion? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend freedom of expression? Is it ‘right-wing’ to defend the right of the individual over that of the ideology? If so, then yes, I present right-wing political views.”

Farshad strongly encourages participating in public debate, to not fear religious fanaticism, but rather to ridicule them and their abuse of power through the application of the best of Western values, including open discussion, scrutiny of Islamic organizations and the healthy tradition of satire and ridicule of hypocritical, corrupt and exploitative religious leaders.

Is Bassam Tibi a racist? Born in Syria, Tibi is now a German citizen. He is a Muslim and a political scientist and Professor of International Relations. Tibi is a staunch critic of Islamism and an advocate of reforming Islam itself. In academia, he is known for his analysis of international relations and the introduction of Islam to the study of international conflict and of civilization.

Tibi had eighteen visiting professorships in all continents. Tibi was visiting senior fellow at Yale University when he retired in 2009. The same year, he published his life’s work, a book entitled, Islam’s Predicament with Cultural Modernity.

Is Khaled Abu Toameh a racist? Toameh was born in the West Bank in 1963 to an Israeli Arab father and a Palestinian Arab mother. He received his BA in English Literature from the Hebrew University and lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three children.

Toameh was formerly a senior reporter for The Jerusalem Report, and a correspondent for Al-Fajr, which he describes as a mouthpiece for the PLO. He has produced several documentaries on the Palestinians for the BBC, Channel 4, Australian, Danish and Swedish TV, including ones that exposed the connection between Arafat and payments to the armed wing of Fatah, as well as the financial corruption within the Palestinian Authority.

He was the first journalist to report about the sex scandal that rocked the Palestinian Authority in early 2010 and which led to the firing of Rafiq Husseini, Chief of Staff for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The scandal was revealed by former Palestinian intelligence official Fahmi Shabaneh in an exclusive interview with Toameh in The Jerusalem Post. One of Toameh’s more famous articles is, Where Are the Voices of “Moderate” Muslims?

Is Tawfik Hamid a racist? He was born in Egypt and became a member of the militant Islamic organization, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya. After a change of heart, Hamid started to preach in mosques to promote a message of peace, which made him a target of Islamic militants who threatened his life. Hamid then migrated to the West where he has lectured at UCLA, Stanford University, University of Miami and Georgetown University against Islamic fundamentalism.

In a 2009 Wall Street Journal article, Hamid said that Islam should prove it’s a religion of peace, and called Islamic scholars and clerics, “to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and that killing apostates is a crime.”

Hamid has written opinion pieces for The Wall Street Journal, including Islam Needs To Prove It’s A Religion Of Peace, How to End Islamophobia and The Trouble with Islam.

This list of prominent criticizers of Islam could go on indefinitely. If you think criticizing Islam is racist, can you tell me exactly what race they are all criticizing? Of course not. Calling criticism of Islam “racist” is a manipulative, underhanded slander. The accurate name is “critic.” All the people above are engaged in religious criticism, criticism of an ideology, and political commentary, all of which are desirable, necessary, vital components of a free society.

Some people who criticize Islam are racists. That does not mean criticizing Islam is racism. It’s also true that some people who criticize Islam are socialists, but it would be foolish to say criticizing Islam is socialism.

Islam is not a race. There are Muslims of every race. The largest Muslim country is Indonesia. There are more non-Arab Muslims than Arab Muslims. Criticism of Islam is not racism.

Most people trying to silence criticism of Islam know full well Islam is not a race. But the slander is effective in the free world. The mere implication can ruin a political career or get someone fired. So while it’s not true — and most people saying it know it’s not true — it is an effective weapon of censorship nontheless.

I hope this list, once and for all, will make anyone who says “criticizing Islam is racist” look ridiculous. I hope this removes that absurd slur from public conversation forevermore. Am I hoping for too much? Every time you read or hear anyone using “racism” to silence criticism of Islam, respond with this list and see what happens.

Source: Citizen Warrior

Posted in ACT! for America, Islam, Islamkritik, Must Read | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

God Does Not Speak Arabic! — Part 1

Posted by paulipoldie on April 5, 2011

From Gates of Vienna

Our guest-essayist El Cid returns with the first installment of a three-part account of the linguistic origins of the Koran. According to his analysis, not only is the Koran not quite what everybody thinks it is, but it is also written in a different language than is commonly assumed.

Bismi-llāhi r-rahmāni r-rahīm #2
God Does Not Speak Arabic!
The Evolution and Origin of the Language of the Koran

Part One: Love Me Because I Am Arab

By El Cid

I remember many years ago, when I started to learn Arabic at university, our professor wrote on the blackboard this famous Hadith, attributed to Mohammed the Prophet of Islam. It was one of the first phrases I learned to read and write in Arabic, and my first encounter with Muslim attitudes of supremacy, linguistic dominance, and the crucial link between the purity of Arabic and the claim of a superior origin for Islam.

احبوا العرب لثلاث، لاني عربي، ولان القران عربي، وكلام اهل الجنة عربي

“Love the Arabs for three reasons:
because I am Arab,
because the Qur’an is in Arabic
and because the inhabitants of Paradise speak Arabic.”

This Hadith, collected by the esteemed Islamic Scholar Al-Tabrizi, neatly expresses the roots of Arab supremacy. To Muslims, Islam is a gift in the form of a revelation from God’s lips, that commands non-believers to love and submit. No other faith is so intertwined with a sacred language. No other faith is so linked to a holy book in just one tongue. No other faith rests so much authority upon linking its language to the a claim that it is the language of God.

Koranic Arabic is the cement that holds Islam together, and is both its strength and its fatal weakness. A weakness, because according to Christoph Luxenberg, once the flaws and inconsistencies of the strange Arabic of the Koran are revealed, the Muslims’ false claim that it is God’s perfect and incorruptible language is exposed to reveal the truth that it is not. Not only is it not perfect, it is of human and not divine origin. The overwhelming evidence suggests that it is not even pure Arabic, but a “patois” or a mixture of Aramaic and the Arabic dialect of Mecca!

I have several copies of the Koran in my library, a few in English, some in Spanish, but most in Arabic. One very ornate Koran with the following words on its cover written in a complicated enigmatic Arabic script boldly and confidently proclaims that it is “The Guidance for Mankind.”

For Muslims the Koran is truly an enigma, and when read in prayer the rhythm and cadence of its words have a narcotic effect on their senses and mind. A recitation of the Koran rolls off one’s tongue with the rhythmic simplicity of modern a day “rap” song. For millions of Muslims who have no clue about its language and memorize it word for word, this is all they have. Its narcotic affect permeates the believer in much the same way a child is comforted with repetitive and familiar sounds he does not understand.

The first line of the Koran is a good example of this. This and hundreds of other lines are read over and over again by young Muslims who don’t even understand their meaning, and many of whom are illiterate in their own native tongues. Such is the grip that these so-called “God words” have on a quarter of humanity.

Bismi-llāhi r-rahmāni r-rahīm #1

bismi-llāhi r-rahmāni r-rahīm

“In the name of Allah (the Muslim God) the most gracious the most kind”
The reliance upon simple rhythmic cadence and the intimate effect it has on Muslim ears indicates that the Koran was conceived as oratory, meant to be heard first and explained later. This was the oratory that Mohammed recited to his followers. This is also the reason why even in his lifetime there was great confusion about what was said and how to recite it. So much reverence for something of such dubious pedigree and murky origin!

Islamic scholars cannot show with clarity its origin and evolution. For most of its history they have not even cared to ask the most basic questions. Where did it come from? When was it written? These are things that Muslims cannot explain. The standard answer is that it is the literal word of God in his language, pure and uncontaminated by man, and any further questions will be settled by my sword.

To find out in the language in which it was first uttered and later written, there is no better source than the pages of the Koran itself. Clues are everywhere; they are embedded in the very words and language of the Koran, even in the signs of error and mistranslation. They point conclusively not to some supposed pure proto-Arabic from the time of the Islamic Prophet, but instead amazingly to the language of the conquered Aramaic speaking “peoples of the Book.” These same people helped Muslims gain legitimacy with a book of their own and gave the then illiterate and nomadic faith an existing language in which to settle.

Traces of these first Aramaic scribes are present only as a ghostly layer of etymology and meaning. They hint of a Koran less violent then the one we know today. This Aramaic Koran is at times very different from what Muslims venerate. Unlocking this true Koran can liberate millions of Muslims from the worst of their faith and give the Counterjihad a powerful new tool with which to fight. In his erudite and bold book The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A contribution to the decoding of the language of the Koran, Christoph Luxenberg shatters the myth of Koranic purity and reveals what we know as the Koran to be a book fraught with linguistic confusion and errors.

Muslims have preached since the beginning of their faith that their holy book is written/spoken/recited in the actual words of God, and that he communicated them through the Angel Gabriel to his Prophet Mohammed in God’s only language, Arabic. They further claim that the Koran can not be understood in any other language but Arabic. They tell us confidently that it is “God’s final communication to mankind.”

No other religious book, especially one that makes such grandiose declarations, has received so little scrutiny and critical study until now. Considering the fear of violent retribution, this is understandable. This has been the norm in the Muslim world for most of its history, and except for a brief period of analysis and critical thought by a few Greek-influenced Koranic Scholars in the first centuries of the Muslim epoch, no one has dared state the obvious: much of the Koran makes no sense! If one accepts that the Koran is the literal word of God, as most Muslims do, then reading Mr. Luxenberg’s book will convince all but the strongest believers in Islamic Dogma that this God of the Koran does not speak pure Arabic, but a confused speech permeated with Aramaic words instead.

Until recently few have put their scholarly expertise behind an open and critical analysis of the legitimacy and origins of the Koran. Mr. Luxenberg, an expert in both ancient Arabic and Aramaic, has done just that. He has scrutinized the Arabic texts of the Koran itself and compared its words and grammatical structure with the only existing common language in universal use among Semitic speakers — including Jews, Christians and the then-illiterate Arab tribes — of the time. This lingua franca was the Aramaic language. He found that the confused language of the Koran with its garbled words, nonsensical sentences, and strange non-Arabic verbs suddenly became clear and understandable when read with the knowledge of Aramaic. This is clear proof that much of what Muslims accept as their holy book was either put into written form by Aramaic-speaking scribes, or that a text originally written in a kind of Aramaic-Arabic hybrid was later transcribed into the accepted Koran that Muslims blindly venerate today.

Mr. Luxenberg published his book under a pen name for fear that the Islamic world would seek his death. His legitimate concerns for the potential of violence seem prophetic, and even more so since his great work appeared just one year before 9-11. No other work has such a potential to demolish the accepted Islamic belief about the purity of the Koran’s language. It has left many renowned Muslim scholars dumbfounded and still struggling to find a way to refute it. It has the potential to shake Islam to its very foundations by exposing with conclusive evidence that much of the Koran is not in Arabic, and much of it is incomprehensible, not because it contains some deep inscrutable meaning, but because it simply is written in a language other then pure Arabic.

This knowledge together with an analysis and forensic study of two ancient copies of the Koran, one found by an archeologist in the Sana’a mosque, allows the myths and origins of the Koran to finally be exposed.

If, according to Muslim belief and the Koran, God communicated to Mohammed his words in Arabic, then why is this message partially written in Aramaic? If, as Arabs believe, God only speaks Arabic, then why are the majority of the words in the Koran non-Arabic words? According to professor Luxenberg, up to 70% of the words are from an Syriac-Aramaic lexicon and are close to the language of the Christian Palestinians from the times of the Islamic conquest.

As a student of Arabic, one of the first things that I encountered when I began my studies was the variety and types of Arabic one could learn. When I asked which was the real version of Arabic, the Arabic found in the Koran, the Arabic taught in school and used for educated writing and speech, or the Amiya or local Arabic in actual use by people in their daily lives, I was told to look at the Koran. It is amazing that even Rosetta Stone uses a version of Koranic Arabic, not Basic Standard, in the Arabic version of its popular software. In daily life Arabs must speak three languages, the language of everyday life, the language of the academy, and the one in the Koran.

In most world languages the gap between the language of everyday use and the language of the academy is small. Learning book Spanish with a little effort, for instance, perfectly allows one to understand the language of the street.

Not so with Arabic! In addition to Modern Standard Arabic, a student must learn one of over a dozen different local dialects. The distance between the so-called dialects and Modern Standard is large, but the distance between them and Koranic Arabic is even greater. While early on in my studies I was told by my professors that the roots of proper Arabic are in the Koran, I soon came to realize the this Arabic was the most inconsistent of them all. Luxenberg explains that Arabic linguists have been aware of the odd Arabic in the Koran since the Koran took its present form, with its current cursive script, sometime in 10th century.

“Generations of renowned Koran scholars have devoted their lives to the meritorious exercise of clarifying the text of the Koran grammatically and semantically, word for word. In spite of all these efforts one would not be far from the truth if one were to estimate the proportion of the Koran that is still considered unexplained today at about a quarter.”

But what is so odd about the Arabic in the Koran? What are the words and phrases that cannot be explained, and why in spite of its inconsistent spellings and grammar do many Arabic linguists still insist that it is the fountainhead of pure Arabic? The Muslim world believes that it is the first book written in Arabic — the Arabic that the Angel Gabriel forced Mohammed to recite. Islamic Arabic scholars believe it is where the language of Allah was preserved. It exists in heaven in a pure state, and its words cannot be altered under the pain of death. If this is to be believed then one can understand their sensitivity to any thought that its language is flawed, as indeed it is.

Upon discovery of the one of the oldest copies of the Koran in a Mosque in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, H.-C. Graf von Bothmer, one of the scholars studying the text, said, “So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God’s unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history, too”

Where did written Arabic come from? Arabian culture in the time of Mohammed was illiterate. No written forms of Arabic existed except for a few grave markers in the Nabatean script. Not only could Mohammed not read or write in his own Qurays dialect spoken by his clan from Mecca, but Arab society as whole could not either; it relied on an oral tradition of storytelling and recitations. For this reason there exists not one book or testimony in written form from the Islamic conquest. Arabic literacy would have to wait two hundred years or more for its alphabet to be invented and grammars to be fixed.

According to Muslim traditions, the prophet of Islam knew the Koran by heart, hundreds and hundreds of suras (chapters). He could recite them in his own language, the Arabic dialect of his tribe. The Koran tells as much. Sura 14:41: “We have never sent an apostle except in the language of his people.” Of course, this means that since God sent an angel only to the Qurays tribe of Mohammed and not any other group, then God could only communicate in the language they spoke.

This was very lucky indeed for Mohammed, but what if his tribe did not speak proper Arabic but a variant heavy influenced by Aramaic? Could the messenger of Allah still be able to receive the sacred message?

Nicholas Ostler, who studied at Oxford and has a PhD in Linguistics, says, “This caused some philological problems, since Mohammed’s dialect of Arabic was slightly nonstandard : it lacked the (all-important) glottal stop known as the Hamza.” The Hamza is an important consonant in the Arabic alphabet and key to the comprehension of words. It is common in Arabic but less so in Aramaic, which is interesting, considering that the city of Mecca may have been founded by Aramaic speakers based on the linguistic origin of its name — the word “Mecca” comes from the Syro-Aramaic root “ma-ch-ta”( low-lying area or valley). If, as Mr. Luxenberg contends, the people of Mecca spoke a language that was a hybrid of Aramaic and Arabic, perhaps it was more than “slightly nonstandard.” Whatever it was, it was not what even modern-day Arabic scholars would call pure Arabic. While Arabs may not have been literate in their own language — more properly dialects of Arabic — living among them were many settled peoples, both Jews and Christians, who were. These same Arabs were surrounded by other literate peoples, most of whom spoke the related Semitic language and lingua franca of its day, Syro-Aramaic.

Muslims explain the origin of the Koran in this fashion: Allah sent the Angel Gabriel to command Mohammed to speak or recite the words with which Allah had filled his head. Not all at once, but over a span of twenty-two years in dribs and drabs of one sura after another. These groups of suras (chapters) remained in his memory throughout his life. Different pieces of this “Koran” were also memorized and written down by his companions.

What language would they have been written in? Muslims don’t say, but since written Arabic did not exist yet, they must have been written in one of the existing languages of the day. Of these, the closest would have been Aramaic, which happened to be the most popular written language in Arabia. In addition to what they claim was written down on many pieces of paper, bone and parchments, many of the companions also memorized portions of it. Eventually the Caliph Uthman gathered all of this and had Christian and Jewish scribes write it down. It was he who would decide what would be accepted as the true Koran.

It is assumed by most Arabs that Mohammed spoke something close to the language that is contained in the Koran. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mohammed is known to have spoken a dialect of Arabic, that of his ancestral home, the city of Mecca. Did a standard form of Arabic exist at the dawn of the Islamic age in the Hijaz — the group of settlements along central Arabian coast facing the Red Sea? Considering that the Arab tribes of the area lived independently of one another with no written language or cultural base to fix a set of standard rules, it is not surprising that in fact there were many types of Arabic, all with common characteristics, but with widely varying pronunciations and grammars.

Even in Mohammed’s lifetime there was disagreement about over the correct way to write the Koran. Al-Tabrizi reveals the level of disagreement about how to recite the Koran among the Companions. Mohammed’s strange and aloof approach to resolving these disputes and differences in reading is highlighted in this Hadith by Al-Tabrizi:

Ubayy and two other companions approached Mohammed with this argument.

“Prophet of God, we are in disagreement over a verse in the Koran and each of us maintains that you taught us to read it so and so. ”

Whereupon he spoke to one of them:

“Read it out to me,” and this one read it out to him. Whereupon the Prophet of God said; “Correct!”

Then he asked the other to read it out to him, and this one read it out differently than his friend had read it out. To this the Prophet said: “Correct!”

Then he spoke to Ubayy : “Read it out yourself as well,” and Ubayy read it out differently than both. Yet to him too the Prophet said; “Correct!”

Ubayy reported : “This gave rise to such a doubt in me with regard to the messenger of God as that of heathens!” And he continued : “However, because the messenger of God noticed from my face what was occurring in me, he raised his hand and struck me on the breast and said: ‘Pray to God for protection from the accursed Satan!’” At this Ubayy broke into a sweat.

This rather confused response by the Prophet is understandable if one considers that as a merchant who had traveled to Syria he may have spoken several dialects of Arabic as well as Aramaic. The three different interpretations would have been correct if one concludes that Mohammed had spoken to each man not in God’s language but in the individual varieties that they spoke. Oral preservation of the Koranic recitations by his companions would have been in their native variety of Arabic, and a source of the disagreement.

These disagreements over how to recite the Koran were clearly evident even in Mohammed’s lifetime. There was considerable confusion about the different meanings of the different recitations. The Muslim claim of a perfect oral conservation of Allah’s words is flawed indeed. No doubt the different followers of Islam, speaking not one standard Arabic, but many different variants of Arabic, would come into conflict, as the Prophet’s words would have different meanings and pronunciations for people who may have had difficulty understanding among themselves. The Hadiths tell of seven different readings that the Caliph Uthman shrewdly consolidated into one. Fear that the new faith, without scriptures or a book of its own, would descend into civil war over the reciting of Allah’s words motivated Uthman to fix the Koran in writing.

Between the revelation in the desert by the Angel Gabriel to the claim of guidance to mankind is the strange evolutionary path of the Koran. Scholars can prove the following forensic trail: Mecca and Medina were Aramaic settlements with a mixed population of Arabs, Jews, and a few Christians. Mecca’s language, the language of the Qureshy, Mohammed’s tribe, was a mixture of an Aramaic and an Arabic tongue. The surrounding Bedouin Arab tribes from which the companions came spoke various different types of Arabic, and their memories of the prophet Mohammed’s revelations would have been preserved in the Aramaic script, the only means of writing at the time. All these varied sources would have been combined by the third Caliph and again written with Aramaic characters in a combination of Arabic dialects.

The reform of the Muslim world, the liberation of its people, especially its women, and the start of the path towards prosperity for the Middle East, can only begin when Muslims realize that there are errors in the Koran. Scattered among the incomprehensible words, mistranslations, and errors is much truth. Commingled with the war verses and opportunistic revelations uttered by the Prophet of Islam is a message of peace from the sacred texts of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.

The Aramaic-speaking scribes who were commanded by the third Caliph Uthman, years after Mohammed’s death, to give his new faith legitimacy and respect among the more literate conquered peoples, added to the prophet’s words an earlier message of peace from the pages of the Old and New testaments.

Perhaps Muslims have been right all along in their assertion that they share much with the traditions and beliefs of Jews and Christians, except with one tremendous error: they are the ones who have confused the message. In reality the messenger of Allah was the one who received the wrong transmission, and it is the Koran that has mistranslated the truth out of sheer ignorance, and because of the Arab people’s initial inability to read and write.

Posted in Islam, Must Read | 1 Comment »

Psychologist: Western Quran schools are “terrorist factories”

Posted by paulipoldie on March 26, 2011

EuropeNews 23 February 2011
By Dr. Nicolai Sennels, psychologist and author

How to turn normal human beings into murderous and hateful psychopaths who blindly obey their totalitarian systems and its authorities suppressing and killing innocent people? In short: How to create a terrorist?

Violent and murderous political, ethnic and religious regimes have used the same effective methods throughout history all over the world. The procedure consists of two simple steps that are repeated again and again:

1) You force a person to repeat the system’s doctrine again and again for months and years until he or she knows every word by heart and it pervades his or her whole way of thinking and it is the only truth they believe in.

2) You beat and scare the person (best if this is done randomly and severely), thus forcing him or her to become insensitive and unempathic in order to be able to bare the physical and psychological suffering and in order to increase feelings of anger, frustration and fear – feelings that are then directed against the system’s enemies.

In this way you will create a person whose whole being is pervaded by the system’s doctrine and who has lost the ability to feel both his own and others’ pain. You will have an emotionally cold person that blindly follows his authorities and their political or religious doctrine. If you use this method on a child who is in the process of developing its personality, the learned doctrine will simply become a part of the child’s personality. The psychological impact of the physical abuse will also be deeper. As children and youth are dependent on acceptance from adults, they are easier to influence.

Being a child psychologist I was shocked to realise that this is exactly what is done to millions of Muslim children in both the Muslim world and the West. Tens of thousand of madrassas and Quranic schools all over the world are making their students repeat the Quran and the Hadiths again and again, until they know them by heart. They are told to believe every word and never to question neither the way nor the goal.

It is normal in these schools that the defenceless and innocent children are randomly beaten and humiliated by the teachers and older students – who themselves are emotionally destroyed beings who have been abused the same way as they now use against their pupils. They personify the goal: The abused becomes the abuser.

Britain has more than 2,000 madrassas, where more than 200,000 children aged from four to their mid-teens are taught the Quran on weekday evenings.

Investigations show that extreme violence is common in the British madrassas: “Students have been slapped, punched and had their ears twisted, according to an unpublished report by an imam based on interviews with victims in the north of England. One was “picked up by one leg and spun around” while another said a madrassa teacher was “kicking my head – like a football” … Hiba, 7, was slapped across the face so hard by her madrassa teacher that her ear was cut. It later became inflamed and she had to have emergency medical treatment.” The teachers are reported to punish the children whenever they mispronounce a word or forget a verse of the Quran. One private investigator reported that “the victims had grown to accept the abuse. ‘They all joked about it. There’s a culture that accepts it.’”

Another investigation disclosed that the children are taught to hate non-Muslims: “‘You’re not like the non-Muslims out there,’ the teacher says, gesturing towards the window. ‘All that evil you see in the streets, people not wearing the hijab properly, people smoking . . . you should hate it, you should hate walking down that street.’” The same investigation reports that during less than three hours of lessons the teacher beat children as young as six at least ten times. In one occasion during the secret filming one child is held down by an elder student while another elder student threatens to beat him with a small table.

These reports are from the West, where thousands of madrassas exist and millions of Muslim children are learning the traditional Islamic teachings by heart, many of them being physically and psychologically traumatized. Research show that in Muslim culture “moral education seems to be neglected in favour of punishment” which may explain the wide acceptance of the abuse by the childrens parents. Everybody is welcome to look for videos on e.g. YouTube about madrassas in Muslim countries, where the conditions and are even worse.

Seen from the perspective of a child psychologist, the many thousands of madrassas and Quran schools, are literally terrorist factories creating an army-like Muslim population of youths and adults inside the Western countries. From early age they have been brainwashed to think that every word of the Quran should be taken literally and they have been made hateful and emotionally cold by the physical and psychological punishments. Making the schools non-violent will include emmense amounts of year long of control.

This also includes changing a central pattern of the Muslim culture – child raising – and the Muslim cultures massive failing of integration into non-Islamic cultures has proven that changing basic cultural values and behavior within the Muslim communities are almost impossible. Should we in spite of the emmense challenges be able to remove the wide spread abuse, the children are still learning the Quran by heart and are taught to take every word at face value, which is exactly what Islamic terrorists do. Millions of children attend the madrassas and when they and their subsequent generations grow up, the consequences will be big.

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

Demokratie und Islam

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2011

Demokratie und Islam

Islamkenner sieht darin eine Kombination mit vielen Fragezeichen

Hans-Peter Raddatz im Gespräch mit Jürgen Liminski

Auf dem Reißbrett können sich die Demokratie im Orient nicht entwickeln, meint Islam-Experte Hans-Peter Raddatz. Das islamische Gesetz reguliere das Leben bis ins kleinste Detail – damit sei kein Raum für demokratische Entwicklungen.

Jürgen Liminski: Die Demonstrationen in der Region halten an und in ihnen fokussieren sich wie in einem Brennglas die Hoffnungen vieler Menschen in Ägypten, im Maghreb und darüber hinaus im ganzen vorderen Orient. Es sind Hoffnungen auf Freiheit und Demokratie, und die Demonstranten sind in ihrer großen Mehrheit Leute mit Handys, jung, interneterfahren und weltoffen. Ein repräsentativer Querschnitt durch die jeweilige Bevölkerung ist es nicht. Wie immer: Sie fordern Demokratie, auch in den islamischen Ländern, und die große Frage ist: Wie demokratiefähig ist der Islam? Welche Staatsform entspricht am ehesten den Vorstellungen des Koran oder der islamischen Tradition? Kann es eine dauerhafte Säkularisierung islamischer Staaten überhaupt geben?

Zu diesen Fragen begrüße ich den Islam-Experten und mehrfachen Buchautor Hans-Peter Raddatz. Guten Morgen, Herr Raddatz.

Hans-Peter Raddatz: Guten Morgen, Herr Liminski.

Liminski: Herr Raddatz, der Ruf nach Demokratie klingt heute etwas verhaltener als noch vor ein paar Wochen, aber er ist deutlich vernehmbar. Kann es in einem islamisch geprägten Land wie Ägypten oder Libyen eine Demokratie nach westlichen Vorstellungen geben?

Raddatz: Das ist die Frage, die wir seit vielen Jahren stellen und die bisher von dem sogenannten interreligiösen beziehungsweise interkulturellen Dialog, der ja seit vielen Jahren auch betrieben wird zwischen dem Westen und den Muslimen, nicht beantwortet worden ist. Und um direkt auf den Kern Ihrer Frage zuzusteuern: Der Islam hat keine Geschichte, die demokratische Strukturen hätte erzeugen können.

Die Umstürze, die wir heute erleben, orientweit, sind natürlich die Antwort auf das Wissen über Fernsehen und sonstige Medien, dass es im Westen anders zugeht als im Islam selbst. Sie haben gerade die junge Generation angesprochen; die ist natürlich am meisten betroffen davon und die ist auch am offensten diesen westlichen zivilisatorischen Erscheinungsformen gegenüber. Aber der Islam selbst gründet auf Koran und der sogenannten Propheten-Tradition, daraus ergibt sich das islamische Gesetz, und das islamische Gesetz reguliert das tägliche Leben bis ins letzte Detail und da ist kein Raum für demokratische Entwicklungen. Wenn wir Parlamente bisher im Orient hatten, dann waren das aufgesetzte oder sind auch aufgesetzte Strukturen, die aber letztendlich ihre Verfassung in der Scharia beziehungsweise im Koran haben, und insofern ist das Gerede von demokratischen Entwicklungen in Ägypten und anderswo ein Politikum. Aber so einfach auf dem Reißbrett können sie die Demokratie im Orient nicht entwickeln, das geht nicht.

Liminski: Grundsätzlich gehören zur Demokratie Gewaltenteilung mit einer unabhängigen Justiz, Pressefreiheit, Versammlungsfreiheit, Pluralismus bei den Parteien. Ist das denn nicht mit islamischen Vorstellungen vereinbar? In Ägypten scheint, es ja ein bisschen in diese Richtung zu gehen.

Raddatz: Da haben Sie erneut ein weiteres, sehr wichtiges Stichwort genannt, nämlich die Beherrschung der Justiz, und da bringen Sie unfreiwillig wahrscheinlich das Stichwort der Muslimbrüder ins Gespräch. Die Muslimbrüder sind mit Abstand die größte und machtvollste Organisation islamweit, die einen sozialen Arm hat mit allerlei Aktivitäten für Frauen, Studenten, Arbeiter und so weiter, auf der anderen Seite aber einen glasklaren Arm, der die Orthodoxie, die islamische Orthodoxie, damit auch die Scharia und das islamische Gesetz bewahren wollen. Und die Muslimbrüder haben nun insbesondere in Ägypten und in Saudi-Arabien die Vormacht, was das Recht betrifft, die Einflüsse auf die Anwaltschaft, Richterschaft und so weiter, an sich gerissen. Die haben einen Marsch durch die Institutionen hinter sich. Insofern kann man nur es als eine Frage der Zeit bezeichnen, bis die Muslimbrüder in der Regierung in Ägypten sitzen.

Liminski: In islamischen Ländern, Herr Raddatz, gilt die Einheit von Staat und Religion. Din wa Daula ist der Fachbegriff. Ist eine Säkularisierung, wie Europa sie erlebt hat, möglich, ohne das Wesen des Islam zu zerstören? In der Türkei scheint, es ja auf den ersten Blick gelungen zu sein. Jedenfalls hat Premier Erdogan gestern Abend in Düsseldorf die demokratischen Verhältnisse der Türkei gelobt.

Raddatz: Na ja, also Herr Erdogan ist in der jüngeren Vergangenheit mit allerlei Äußerungen an die Öffentlichkeit getreten, die das Gegenteil zeigen. Er hat vor gar nicht so langer Zeit die Demokratie als eine barbarische Staatsform bezeichnet und allerlei Dinge mehr in dieser Richtung. Also ich würde Herrn Erdogans Aussagen immer wieder nur als Feigenblatt für die jeweils erforderliche Situation betrachten.

Aber vergessen wir nicht, dass auch in der Türkei eine deutliche Re-Islamisierung stattgefunden hat. Die letzten 20 Jahre sind geprägt von einer solchen, und Herr Erdogan führt eine islamistische Partei an, das dürfen wir nicht vergessen. Auf der anderen Seite haben wir natürlich auch in Europa eine Entfernungsbewegung von der Demokratie selbst festzustellen. Wir brauchen nur auf die EU zu gucken. Die Abgabe von Souveränität der EU-Staaten an Brüssel, an eine Ebene, die nicht gewählt ist, ist allein schon Beweis genug dafür, abgesehen von den parteienstaatlichen Strukturen, die wir in den EU-Staaten, insbesondere auch um Deutschland haben, ist allein Beweis dafür, dass wir selbst uns in einem nicht gerade Auflösungsprozess, aber in einem Vorgang befinden, der ernsthaft an den Spielregeln der Demokratie kratzt, sodass also, wenn die Rede ist von Ägypten, das auf dem Wege in die Demokratie ist, sein soll, dann wir immer diesen, unseren eigenen oder politisch propagierten Demokratiebegriff im Auge haben müssen, der eben nicht mehr das ist, was die Verfassung sagt. Die praktisch gelebte Demokratie bei uns hat immer weniger mit den Erfordernissen zu tun, die in der Verfassung schriftlich festgelegt sind.

Liminski: Aber wir haben eine Säkularisierung in Europa erlebt. Ist diese Säkularisierung in islamischen Ländern möglich?

Raddatz: Entschuldigen Sie, wenn ich da noch nicht drauf eingegangen bin, aber die Frage hängt natürlich damit unmittelbar zusammen, denn Säkularisierung heißt primär Wissenschaft. Die Säkularisierung in Europa ist aus der Wissenschaft heraus angetrieben worden bis auf den heutigen Tag und so eine Bewegung kann, konnte es und wird es bis auf weiteres im Islam nicht geben, weil Wissenschaft diametral dem islamischen Gesetz der Vereinnahmung des einzelnen Menschen durch die Vorschriften des Koran und der Tradition entgegenstehen. Das ist ja auch der Hauptgrund, weshalb die Wissenschaft danieder liegt die ganze Zeit schon. Es wird immer geredet, ohne den Islam hätte Europa eigentlich gar nicht sein können aufgrund der wissenschaftlichen Errungenschaften der Muslime. Die hat es gegeben, aber die haben im 12., 13. Jahrhundert aufgehört, während sich also in der Renaissance bei uns die wissenschaftliche Bewegung in Gang gesetzt hat. Wir haben das Phänomen, dass wir vor 700 Jahren sozusagen eine diametrale Umkehrbewegung vollzogen haben, und in diesen 700 Jahren ist die wissenschaftliche Entwicklung und das heißt damit auch die Säkularisierung im Islam blockiert worden, während wir uns in der bekannten Weise entwickelt haben.

Also insofern ist auch hier die geschichtliche Entwicklung ganz klar gegen eine Säkularisierung, und wenn sie überhaupt stattfinden soll, dann kann sie nur harmonisch, sozusagen organisch, wenn ich diesen etwas abwegigen Ausdruck mal benutzen darf, vollzogen werden, aber nicht über Nacht in der Retorte gezüchtet werden. Das ist völlig ausgeschlossen.

Liminski: Demokratie und Islam, eine Kombination mit vielen Fragezeichen. Das war hier im Deutschlandfunk der Islam-Experte und mehrfache Buchautor Hans-Peter Raddatz. Besten Dank für das Gespräch, Herr Raddatz.

Raddatz: Nichts zu danken.

Quelle: Deutschlandradio

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