Mission Europa Netzwerk Karl Martell

  • ACT for America

    Photobucket
  • Support Ummat-al-Kuffar!

  • Participant at Counter Jihad Conferences

  • Counterjihad Brussels 2007

  • Counterjihad Vienna 2008

  • Counterjihad Copenhagen 2009

  • Photobucket
  • RSS International Civil Liberties Alliance

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

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

    Photobucket
  • International Free Press Society

    Photobucket
  • Religion of Peace

Archive for the ‘Must Read’ Category

Wie Nazis und CIA mit den Muslimbrüdern paktierten

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2011


WELT ONLINE  

20. März 2011, 08:12 Uhr
Autor: Günther Lachmann| 04.02.2011

Wie Nazis und CIA mit den Muslimbrüdern paktierten

In München ging jahrelang das Who’s who des politischen Islam ein und aus. Hier konnten die Muslimbrüder ungestört planen und andere Länder infiltrieren.

Deutschland ist seit Jahrzehnten Teil des engmaschigen, über die ganze Welt gespannten Netzes der islamistischen Muslimbrüder. Die ersten Kontakte zu den Islamisten knüpften die Nationalsozialisten, und für sie wiederum Abwehrchef Admiral Wilhelm Canaris. Sein Ziel war es Anfang der vierziger Jahre, den Aufstand in den arabischen Ländern gegen die Briten mit Waffen und Geld zu unterstützen. Während des Zweitens Weltkrieges bemühte er sich dann mit Hilfe des Großmuftis von Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, um Partisanenaktionen gegen die Briten. Es tauchen auch immer mal wieder Berichte auf, wonach al-Husseini (1893 bis 1974) auch den Gründer und damaligen Führer der Muslimbruderschaft, Hassan al-Banna (1906 bis 1949), in diese Pläne einbezogen haben soll.

Foto: picture alliance / dpa/EPA FILE Die Muslimbrüder – hier der oberste Führer Mohammed Badie – haben gute politische Verbindungen in alle Welt

Unstrittig ist, dass die Nationalsozialisten in den Arabern nützliche Helfer für ihre Zwecke sahen. Auf ihrem Ostfeldzug machte die Wehrmacht Hunderttausende muslimische Kriegsgefangene. Zehntausende von ihnen kämpften schon bald mit den deutschen Soldaten, um ihre Heimatländer „zu befreien“.

Diesen Widerstand gegen die Sowjets wollten später auch die USA und die Bundesrepublik nutzen, schreibt nun der US-Journalist Ian Johnson in seinem Buch „Die vierte Moschee“. Zu diesem Zweck sei versucht worden, die alten Nazi-Kontakte zu aktivieren. Der US-Geheimdienst CIA habe Hunderte Millionen Dollar dafür ausgegeben. Allerdings hätten die Sowjets diese Versuche dadurch unterlaufen, indem sie die Vergangenheit der muslimischen Nazi-Kämpfer veröffentlichten. Also änderte die CIA ihre Taktik.

„Die radikalen Muslimbrüder waren für diese Rolle viel besser geeignet: Sie waren jung, ehrgeizig, gut vernetzt mit der islamischen Welt und gut ausgebildet“, sagt Johnson nun in einem Interview mit der „Süddeutschen Zeitung“. Dies habe letztlich dazu geführt, dass in München eine Moschee gebaut wurde.

Bereits 1958 gründete sich die „Moscheebauinitiative München“. Mit ihm kam auch der damalige Generalsekretär des Islamischen Weltkongresses, Said Ramadan (1926 bis 1995), nach München. Kurz zuvor hatte der Jurist an der Universität Köln promoviert. Ramadan wurde zum Vorsitzenden der Moscheebau-Kommission gewählt. Sein Stellvertreter wurde Nurredin Namangani, der während des Russlandfeldzuges in einer SS-Einheit gedient hatte.

Damals wussten wohl nur die wenigsten in Deutschland, dass der junge Einser-Jurist der Schwiegersohn Hassan al-Bannas war. Ramadan galt damals als inoffizieller „Außenminister“ der Muslimbrüder.

An der Moschee wiederum schienen die Amerikaner kein Interesse zu haben. Denn für den Bau fehlte lange das Geld. So begannen die Bauarbeiten in München Freimann erst 1967. Am Ende sei die Moschee wesentlich von Libyen, also von Muammar al-Gaddafi finanziert worden, recherchierte Johnson.

Ägyptens Opposition

Der langjährige Chef der UN-Atomenergiebehörde (IAEA) blickt auf eine steile Diplomatenkarriere zurück, die ihm 2005 auch den Friedensnobelpreis bescherte. Der studierte Jurist kehrte 2010 nach Ägypten zurück und warf sich gleich in die politische Arena: Der 68-Jährige forderte noch vor Beginn der Proteste demokratische Reformen und ein Ende der vom Militär unterstützten autokratischen Herrschaft Mubaraks. Allerdings enttäuschte al-Baradei viele seiner Anhänger, weil er in den vergangenen Monaten die meiste Zeit im Ausland verbrachte. Mit Beginn der Proteste kehrte er nach Kairo zurück und kündigte an, er wolle sich an einer Übergangsregierung beteiligen. Beim „Marsch der Millionen“ forderte al-Baradei Mubarak auf, das Land sofort zu verlassen und den Weg für Demokratie freizumachen.

Der 66-jährige Konservative wurde im vergangenen Jahr Anführer der größten Oppositionsgruppe in Ägypten: der Muslimbruderschaft. Zwar verfügt die Bewegung über eine ganze Reihe von Führern, die im Namen der Bruderschaft sprechen – dazu zählen etwa auch Essam al-Erian und der im Londoner Exil lebende Kamel al-Helbawi. Sollte die Bruderschaft allerdings in Verhandlungen über eine Regierungsbeteiligung treten, so würde sie es nicht ohne die Zustimmung ihres „Murschid ‘aam“, also ihres allgemeinen Führers Badie machen. Aus Furcht vor Repressalien hatte Badie es zuletzt vermieden, Mubarak offen herauszufordern. Die Regierung hat die Muslimbruderschaft offiziell verboten, gestattet ihr aber politische Arbeit in engen Grenzen.

Der liberale Politiker und Anwalt trat bei der Präsidentenwahl 2005 gegen Mubarak an. Seine freche Wahlkampfrhetorik wurde ihm aber zum Verhängnis: Wegen des Vorwurfs der Dokumentenfälschung bei der Gründung seiner Partei „Ghad“ (Morgen) ließ ihn die Mubarak-Regierung zu fünf Jahren Gefängnis verurteilen, von denen Nur gut drei Jahre absaß. Im Anschluss erließ die politische Führung gegen ihn ein fünfjähriges Berufsverbot als Politiker. Damit dürfte Nur nicht erneut bei der Präsidentenwahl im September antreten, sollte das Berufsverbot aufrecht erhalten bleiben.

Der Generalsekretär der Arabischen Liga war unter Mubarak langjähriger Außenminister und erfreute sich wegen seiner israel-kritischen Rhetorik großer Beliebtheit in der Bevölkerung. Seitdem wird Mussa von vielen Ägyptern immer wieder als Mubarak-Nachfolger gehandelt. Seit dem Beginn der Proteste hat er sich wiederholt zu Wort gemeldet und ein Mehr-Parteien-System gefordert. Zuletzt erklärte Mussa auch seine Bereitschaft, sich nach einem Rückzug Mubaraks als Präsidentschaftskandidat aufstellen zu lassen.

Der Gewinner des Chemie-Nobelpreises 1999 hatte im vergangenen Jahr betont, keine politischen Ambitionen in seinem Heimatland zu verfolgen. Allerdings wird Sewail in ägyptischen Zeitungen immer wieder an prominenter Stelle erwähnt, wenn es um die Besetzung eines „Rats der Weisen“ geht, der Vorschläge für eine Verfassungsreform ausarbeiten soll.

Der nationalistische Politiker führt die Karama-Partei an, die von Mubarak als eine der wenigen politischen Bewegungen eine offizielle Zulassung erhalten hat. Er sitzt seit 2005 im Parlament und hat wiederholt mit dem Gedanken gespielt, für die Präsidentenwahl in diesem Jahr seinen Hut in den Ring zu werfen.

(Reuters)

Von nun aber war München eine wichtige Schaltstation der Muslimbrüder. „Das Führungsgremium war ein Who’s who des politischen Islams“, sagt Johnson. Sie kamen aus Ägypten, Syrien oder Pakistan. Die Muslimbrüder seien so dominant gewesen, dass sie die türkischen Migranten aus der Organisationsebene heraushalten konnten.

„Mahdy Akef, der bis 2010 die Bruderschaft angeführt hatte, war von 1984 bis 1987 Oberimam in Freimann. Die Moschee war sowohl ein sicheres Rückzugsgebiet als auch eine Drehscheibe, von der aus sie ungestört planen und andere Länder infiltrieren konnten“, sagt Johnson.

Ins Visier der Sicherheitsbehörden geriet die Moschee erst mit den neunziger Jahren. So wurde 1998 in München der al-Qaida-Finanzier Mamduh Mahmud Salim festgenommen und an die USA ausgeliefert. Angeblich soll sich auch einer der Drahtzieher des Bombenanschlags auf das World Trade Center im Jahr 1993, Mahmoud Aboulina, in der Münchener Moschee aufgehalten haben.

Prediger
Foto: picture-alliance / dpa/dpa Ahmad al-Khalifa

Prediger

Seit dem 11. September 2001 kam es wiederholt zu Razzien in Freimann. Unter anderem wurde der Prediger Ahmad al-Khalifa verdächtigt, Kontakte zu Terroristen zu unterhalten.

Allerdings ist München nicht das einzige Zentrum der Muslimbrüder in Deutschland. Auch die „Bilal Moschee“ in Aachen steht ihnen nahe. Sie orientiert sich am syrischen Zweig der Muslimbruderschaft. Insgesamt zählt der Verfassungsschutz rund 1300 Mitglieder der Bruderschaft in Deutschland, als deren mitgliedsstärkste Organisation die „Islamische Gemeinschaft in Deutschland e.V.“ (IGD) angesehen werden kann. Sie unterhält Zentren in Nürnberg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Köln, Marburg, Braunschweig und Münster. Angeblich koordiniert die IGD ihre Aktivitäten mit mehr als 50 weiteren Moscheevereinen in Deutschland.

„Die IGD ist zudem auch eng mit dem europaweiten Netzwerk der Muslimbruderschaft verbunden und Mitglied der FIOE“, schreibt der nordrhein-westfälische Verfassungsschutz.

Muslimbruder
Foto: Picture-Alliance / Photoshot/dpa / Photoshot Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Die FIOE ist die „Föderation Islamischer Organisationen in Europa“. Gegründet wurde der Dachverband 1989, seinen Sitz hat er in Brüssel. „Eine weitere einflussreiche, eng mit der Muslimbruderschaft verbundene Organisation, ist der ,Europäische Fatwarat’ mit Sitz in Dublin, dem mit Yusuf al-Qaradawi eine der herausragendsten geistigen Führungspersönlichkeiten der im Umfeld der Muslimbruderschaft zu verortenden islamischen Bewegung vorsteht“, schreiben die nordrhein-westfälischen Verfassungsschützer.

Vor einiger Zeit wurde an al-Qaradawi der Vorsitz der ägyptischen Muslimbruderschaft herangetragen, was er jedoch ablehnte. Qaradawis Rechtsauffassungen sind in den meisten Fällen nicht mit dem westlichen Verständnis einer freiheitlichen Demokratie vereinbar. So befürwortet er die „leichte Züchtigung“ der Ehefrau durch den Ehemann. In einer seiner in der arabischen Welt populären TV-Sendungen auf dem Nachrichtenkanal al-Dschasira rechtfertigte er Selbstmordattentate gegen Israel.


Auch einer der bedeutendsten Repräsentanten des Islam in Europa steht den Muslimbrüdern nahe. Es ist Tariq Ramadan, der Sohn von Said Ramadan, der die Münchener Moschee baute. Tariq Ramadan ist Professor für Islamstudien in Oxford. Er beteuert zwar, ideologisch nichts mit dem Muslimbrüdern zu tun zu haben. Aber seine Reden und Schriften sprechen oft die gleiche Sprache. Sein Bruder leitet heute das ebenfalls von ihrem Vater gegründete Islamische Zentrum in Genf.

Posted in Muslimbrüder, Must Read, Nationalsozialimus | Leave a Comment »

Wie Hitler sich mit den Muslim-Brüdern verbündete

Posted by paulipoldie on March 20, 2011

Welt Online

Wie Hitler sich mit den Muslim-Brüdern verbündete

In Ägypten könnte die Muslim-Bruderschaft wieder eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Wenig bekannt ist, dass schon Hitler die Islamisten protegierte.

Sommer 1942. Das Afrika-Korps von Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel stand nur noch 100 Kilometer vor dem ägyptischen Alexandria. Es bereitete sich darauf vor, die Briten aus dem damals nur formell unabhängigen Königreich Ägypten zu vertreiben. Dabei setzten die Deutschen auch auf die Mitwirkung der islamischen Muslimbruderschaft, der nach dem jetzigen Umsturz des Regimes von Husni Mubarak eine wichtige Rolle bei der Neuordnung Ägyptens zugeschrieben wird. Die Deutschen versuchten im vierten Jahr des Zweiten Weltkriegs, sich in Nordafrika als Befreier vom britischen Joch darzustellen und den ägyptischen Widerstand anzustacheln. Bereits seit einiger Zeit liefen Kontakte zu den Muslimbrüdern. Historiker berichten, dass die Nationalsozialisten schon vor dem Krieg Scheich Hassan al-Banna, der 1928 die Bruderschaft gegründet hatte, unterstützten. Die Gruppe, die damals rund 60.000 Mitglieder und eine eigene geheime militärische Organisation hatte, erhielt über das Deutschen Nachrichtenbüro (DNB) in Kairo finanzielle Hilfen.

Von Zeesen in der Nähe von Berlin aus wurden täglich Sendungen in arabischer Sprache ausgestrahlt, in denen unter anderen der in Deutschland im Exil lebende Großmufti von Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, zum Heiligen Krieg gegen die Briten aufrief. Außer Ägypten wurden damals noch die meisten Länder des Nahen Ostens von den Briten dominiert.

Um Rommels Offensive gegen Ägypten vorzubereiten, schickte die Abwehr nach diesen Berichten zwei Agenten nach Kairo, John Eppler und Peter Monkaster. Beide waren Arabien-Kenner und sprachen Arabisch. Hilfe bei der Mission mit dem Codenamen Kondor kam von dem ungarischen Grafen Laszlo Almasy, einer Figur, die durch den Roman „Der englische Patient“ von Michael Ondaatje bekannt wurde. Ziel war es, direkten Kontakt zur Muslimbruderschaft und zu dem Kreis der nationalistischen ägyptischen Offiziere um Anwar al-Sadat, dem späteren Präsidenten des Landes, aufzunehmen. Außerdem sollen die Agenten die britischen militärischen Positionen ausspionieren.

Eppler und Monkaster kamen im Mai 1942 in Kairo an und richteten sich mit ihrem Geheimsender auf einem Hausboot auf dem Nil ein. Tatsächlich kamen sie mit Scheich al-Banna und mit Sadat zusammen. Die Muslimbrüder sollten beim deutschen Einmarsch den Dschihad ausrufen, den Heiligen Krieg, und mit dem Aufstand beginnen. Die Leute um Sadat wollten sich ebenfalls erheben. Sadat hatte bereits eine Residenz für Rommel in der Nähe der Pyramiden vorbereitet.

Anfang Juli hatte sich die Lage so zugespitzt, dass die britische Botschaft in Kairo schon die Flucht plante und geheime Dokumente verbrannte. Doch dann wurde Sadat am 26. Juli verhaftet, und nach etwas über zwei Monaten flog die Mission Kondor im August 1942 auf. Eppler und Monkaster waren nach Erkennissen von Experten an eine britische Agentin geraten. Außerdem sollen sie auffällig viele Pfundnoten ausgegeben haben, die sich als deutsche Fälschungen erwiesen.

Die Verbindung zu Rommel riss ab. Rommel hatte Anfang Juli mit seiner Armee zum ersten Mal versucht, die britische Sperrlinie bei al-Alamein, dem letzten Bollwerk vor Alexandria, zu durchbrechen. Ein zweiter Versuch scheiterte Anfang September. Ende Oktober gingen die Briten unter Bernard Montgomery zur Gegenoffensive vor. Der deutsche Traum, über Ägypten zum Suez-Kanal und in den Nahen Osten vorzustoßen, war gescheitert. Die „Freien Offiziere“ unter Sadat und Gamal Abdel Nasser kamen 1952 durch einen Militärputsch an die Macht.

 

Posted in Muslimbrüder, Must Read | Leave a Comment »

Dubai plans to deport striking Asian workers

Posted by paulipoldie on February 1, 2011

New English Review

There doesn’t seem to be any problem with forcibly deporting Muslims … from Dubai

How many times have we seen a Muslim immigrant who makes speeches openly calling for the overthrow of our government, and who is not deported?  Or, is convicted of rape or other serious felonies, or spends their entire life here collecting welfare and health insurance, or in many other ways drains the resources of the kuffar while providing no concomitant benefit, and yet is immune to deportation?

We are told that the deportation of Muslim immigrants back to their ancestral homelands, to the lands where they spent their childhood, to the lands where the local language is their primary language and the local customs are their own familiar customs, would be a warcrime akin to genocide.  We are told that everyone has a right to come here, that our borders must remain open and immigration must remain unfettered.   To place any sensible limits on immigration is to be xenophobic and racist.

And yet…

In Dubai, Bangladeshi workers, who build those skyscrapers and scrub those toilets and drive those trucks and generally keep the place humming, went on strike.  They talked about organizing themselves and starting a union.  The government of Dubai responded by immediately starting deportation proceedings against them.

The fact that they are fellow Sunni Muslims is not as important as the fact that they are not ethnic Arabs.  In the eyes of their overlords, they are inferior and they are easily replaceable.  A dime a dozen, or more accurately $200 a month per worker on average.

The Bangladeshis had the temerity to ask for an additional $50 a month, and without even a “fine how do you do,” they will be immediately thrown out on the next flight.  Next!

There will be no enraged Muslims marching in protest.  There will be no denunciation from the UN or the “human rights organizations.”  There will be no case filed at the International Court of Justice at the Hague.  There will be no newspaper headlines, nor man-on-the-street interviews on television.

Arab News

By BRIAN MURPHY | AP

Published: Jan 26, 2011 22:11 Updated: Jan 26, 2011 22:11

DUBAI: Dubai authorities plan to deport more than 50 workers from Bangladesh who took part in a rare strike to demand higher wages in another sign of growing labor unrest in the former Gulf boomtown, a diplomat said Wednesday.

The expulsions highlight the strict measures used across the United Arab Emirates to discourage protests by laborers, mostly South Asians brought to build the skyscrapers, hotels and other mega-projects that have risen in the past decade. But workers have become increasingly outspoken as prices rise and companies cancel projects after Dubai’s property bubble burst in 2009.

An estimated 5,000 mostly South Asian workers staged a nearly two-week strike this month to press for a 200 dirham ($54) pay hike from Arabtec Holding, the biggest construction company in Dubai. The workers — who live in company-run camps — make between 700 and 800 dirhams ($190 and $220) a month for basic jobs and slightly more for more skilled positions.

The consul general for Bangladesh, Mohammed Abu Zafar, said police rounded up suspected strike leaders and were moving ahead with deportations.

“Intelligence people identified them and are being deported to Bangladesh,” Zafar said.

He said the other workers agreed to return to the job, but did not receive any promises for pay hikes.

Arabtec officials declined to comment.

Strikes and other labor protests are still uncommon in the UAE, where migrants workers fear arrest or deportation.

Emirati officials, meanwhile, have taken some steps to improve living conditions for workers and curb other abuses after complaints from rights groups.

At a news conference in Dubai, Human Rights Watch said that the situation for migrant workers in the UAE remained dire against the backdrop of a worsening economy. The New York-based group, however, acknowledged that the government has announced “positive labor reforms” such as more oversight of recruiting agencies.

Construction companies across the country “exploited or abused migrant workers in numerous ways,” the group said, citing unsafe working environment, movement restrictions and withholding workers’ travel documents among violations.

Hundreds of laid-off migrant workers have been stranded in labor camps without electricity or running water for months as construction work halted across debt-burdened Dubai, the group told reporters as part of its 2010 world report.

The UAE’s Labor Ministry — in a statement carried by the official news agency WAM — said the UAE “dealt with” the job losses due to the global economic downturn “in an orderly fashion and workers continue to enjoy wage protection.” Earlier this month, laborers at a Dubai labor camp staged a work stoppage after a melee with security guards, who they accused of abuses.

Posted in Dhimmitude, Human Rights - menschenrechte, Islam, Must Read, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

The Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance

Posted by paulipoldie on January 15, 2011

The Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance

January 14, 2011

There is a false dichotomy about Islam. Some think that only conservatives are critical about Islam and the liberal/progressives/Democrats/leftists are supportive of Islam. But there are very conservative Christians who admire Islam and stand up for it. There are left-of-center types who abhor Islam because of its doctrine and treatment of women. There are people from both camps who support and condemn Islam.

Islam has little to do with left/right and liberal/conservative split. Islam is another axis and does not share the normal political divisions. Now it is true that the Democrats are the current benefit of Islamic support, but during Bush’s first election, Muslims in Florida claimed it was their support that tipped the election to Bush. Muslims have voted for both parties.

Although there are more conservatives who are critical of Islam than liberals, the correlation is not so strong as to be useful. There is another political axis that predicts whether someone supports or criticizes Political Islam. That axis is knowledge, knowledge about the doctrine and history of Political Islam.

Whether a Kafir (non-Muslim) supports or criticizes Islam is not classical left/right politics, but knowledge. There are two separate Kafir parties—the Party of Knowledge and the Party of Ignorance.

The Party of Knowledge has learned about the political doctrine and political history of Islam and knows about words such as jihad, Sunna, dhimmi and Kafir. Members of the Party of Knowledge know that the Koran is a dualistic document and contains “good” and “bad” verses that are both true. The Party of Knowledge also knows that the biggest key to understanding Islam is knowing Mohammed, not the Allah of the Koran.

The Party of Ignorance draws its arguments from what Muslims say about Islam. They use the voice of Muslims to repeat apologies for Islam. The Party of Ignorance is always attacking the members of the Party of Knowledge with insults, put downs, mocking tones and allusions to the Party of Knowledge being bigots and hate-speechers. In short, the Party of Ignorance repeats what Muslims say and uses personal attacks against the members of the Party of Knowledge. Knowledge is evil; ignorance is good.

The true foundation of the Party of Ignorance is that they absolutely refuse to read any of the biography of Mohammed, the Sira, nor his traditions, the Hadith. The Party of Ignorance holds the Koran in high esteem, but no one in the Party of Ignorance has any understanding of it. Since it is impenetrable it must be profound. Since it is not understood, it can mean anything you want to project onto it.

What are we to call the members of these two parties? Derivative names such as Knowers and Know-nothings suggest themselves, but there is already a classical set of names taken from Islamic doctrine. Members of the Party of Knowledge are Kafirs and members of the Party of Ignorance are dhimmis. Naturally the Kafirs know who they are and the dhimmis have not clue as to what their name means. Poetic justice?

A dhimmi is a creature created by Mohammed when he subjugated the Jews of Khaybar. Dhimmis can live under Sharia law, because they have agreed to never publicly oppose Islam and practice their beliefs in private. Today, the name dhimmi refers to an uncritical apologist of Islam.

How does this play out in real life? Here is the language of the Kafirs: Koran, Sira, Hadith, and Sharia. Their language uses terms like Sunna and abrogation. Kafirs use details about the history of jihad and the dhimmi.

Dhimmis quote a Muslim or an apologist professor. But the favorite dhimmi talk is about how Kafirs are stupid and evil. Dhimmis always move away from the subject of Islam as soon as possible and start deprecating/trashing Christians and Western culture. Dhimmis tend to never use technical words such as jihad, but use words such as terrorist. Just as soon a terrorist is mentioned, then comes the example of that Christian terrorist, Timothy McVey. Of course, he was a self-avowed atheist, but that matters little to a dhimmi. The only Islamic history the dhimmi knows is a censored version of the Crusades and the fabricated Golden Age of Islam.

Analytic thought brings up the question of a Muslim being in the Party of Knowledge. There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge—Kafir and Muslim. How do we distinguish them from each other? Simple, how does a Muslim and a Kafir react to Kafir suffering? One fine day, Mohammed sat beside his 12 year old wife and watched as jihadist beheaded 800 male Jews. For a Muslim, this was as day of joy and triumph. The Kafir sees the deaths of 800 Kafir Jews as a war crime and an act of evil.

There are two types of people in the Party of Knowledge, but only one kind of person in the Party of Ignorance. If you are confused, then you are a member of the Party of Ignorance.


Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/the-party-of-knowledge-and-the-party-of-ignorance/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

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

No Comparison: Shariah and Jewish Religious Courts

Posted by paulipoldie on December 30, 2010

By Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Many stealth jihadists pushing to have Shariah law instead of American civil law govern American Islamic communities are making the preposterous claim that Shariah Courts are similar to Jewish religious courts that observant Jews often use to adjudicate intra-community disputes. This is entirely inaccurate given that Shariah has as its goal the replacement of American law with Shariah, whereas Beit Din, Jewish religious court, limits its purview and has no intent or desire to flout American law.

Over 1800 years ago, the Talmudic Rabbi Samuel set the tone of how Jews were to interact with the laws of Babylonia, which had become the primary residence of the Jewish People after its exile from Israel.  His statement and decision has guided the Jewish community throughout their dwellings in new lands: “The law of the land is the law.” Rabbi Samuel understood, as did all subsequent rabbinic figures, that dwelling in a land and being a good citizen meant living by its laws and standards.

Naturally, many aspects of Jewish religious life differed from that of the host culture, such as the requirement to eat kosher food, observe the Sabbath and abstain from bread on Passover, and Rabbi Samuel would have been the first to reject any attempt by the State to prohibit our core religious observances. In the spirit of Render unto Caesar that which is his and unto God that which is His, Rabbi Samuel demarcated between religious law and civil law. His intellectual honesty lay in not allowing the subterfuge of categorizing civil law as “religious” law, which would have effectively nullified the whole concept of “The law of the land is the law”.

Rabbi Samuel certainly wished to preserve Jewish culture and ethnicity. Nonetheless,
the Head of Babylon’s Jewish community imbibed a deep respect and loyalty to his new country and would not allow zealots and separatists to lurch into a mode of cultural supremacy by erecting autonomous communities within the nation, which is accomplished when the purview of religious law is inflated to include that which is essentially civil and criminal law, something to be decided by the general public.

Eight hundred years later, as the center of Jewish life shifted westward to Europe, Rabbi Gershom of Germany expanded on the theme of “The Law of the land is the law.” He declared that because something is permitted in religious law does not mean a Jew should exercise that religious right if it is contrary to a fundamental standard and custom of the country where he now resides. So that even though the ancient Bible did not limit a man to one wife, henceforth Jewish men living in Europe could not marry as was done in biblical days, since European/Christian mores had rejected the simultaneous taking of multiple wives. Though polygamy was already centuries earlier culturally taboo among western Jews, Rabbi Gershom took the opportunity to prohibit it officially and legally to underscore the point that no particular ethnic community stands above and beyond deep-rooted national moral and ethical mores and standards.

Contrast this philosophy with that of shariah compliance where, for example, in certain European countries Islamic clerics are asking that the State welfare system subsidize the multiple wives of a Pakistani-born Muslim, or that of New Jersey where a lower court judge agreed not to hold a man liable for raping his wife, “reasoning” that his culture permits a man to force himself on his wife even though she vehemently protests her subjugation. Or the case of an 18 year old Columbus, Ohio girl whose wish to convert to Christianity is causing a risk to her life from her parents who claim that shariah does not allow her to become Christian. Jewish law intrinsically deplores what shariah here espouses, and no Beit Din would kow-tow to such rejection of civilized American societal norms.

The three cases mentioned above, some even criminal, stand foursquare against our American principle that women and children are not simply a man’s property. This isn’t simply a legalism but fundamental to our identity and to who we are as a people and nation. Having two sets of laws, one of which extends to Muslims the right to do that which is forbidden to all other Americans is a breach of the bedrock principle of Due Process, wherein our laws are applied equally to all, be it our rights or our prohibitions. Should we suddenly make one group of citizens more privileged than all others? That is not American, nor western. Equality under the law must transcend fashionable and often silly notions of multi-culturalism. Too much multi-culturalism leads to no culture at all, a society denuded of standards.

It has always been understood here that no one can claim a religious exception to civil and criminal rules that govern all. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from living by the civilized laws that constitute us as a people. That is exactly what Rabbi Samuel had in mind 1800 years ago when warning against those who would abrogate their fealty to civil and criminal law by claiming a special dispensation under religious law.

There are two areas where from time-to-time a Jew invites a Beit Din into his life. One is marriage and divorce. But here the Beit Din does not supersede routine civil law, rather it embellishes these events with certain required rituals, none of which offend deep-rooted social morality nor contradict existing civil law. After the divorced couple arranges their divorce settlement — finances, child custody questions etc. — the Beit Din’s scribe quilts on parchment a divorce document according to an ancient Hebrew text. Marriage is similarly preceded by written documents and blessings. These additions do not abrogate any civil laws, rather fall under the rubric of rituals that adorn and enrich each particular group within humanity.

The second is the arbitration process where two Jewish litigants decide to forgo the expenses of lawyers and protracted civil court proceedings and opt to have the Beit Din arbitrate and decide their business or monetary conflict. Courts are often pleased by this choice since it relieves them of yet another case on their heavy dockets. But even here, the Beit Din cannot pull out of left field some wild form of insular reasoning whose logic could not stand up in secular court. Nor would it ever arbitrate on criminal matters.

And herein lays an essential difference between those advocating shariah for Islamic communities as opposed to Beit Din in highly observant Jewish communities. Whereas, a Jew finds himself at a Beit Din once or twice in life, and for many never at all, shariah will dominate the individual within the community. He will live under shariah. Shariah is comprehensive, and coercive. It is the ultimate balkanization, wherein a mini nation lives within a broader nation. It is a seceding from the Union – yet with all the privileges of being in that union.

For stealth jihadists, shariah is the most effective way to Islamize a country. Through its imposition, it telegraphs that a nation has no unique and binding set of laws, mores and standards. That’s why radical multiculturalists love it. It helps brings down America.

Islamic shariah has a completely different aspiration than Jewish law. Jewish law has no world-wide ambitions. We don’t even seek converts. There’s one Jewish state, and a small one at that. Islam’s stated goal is to have the world live under shariah. It yearns for a world-wide caliphate, bringing all under Islam, individuals and nations.

Shariah announces that Islam is above and beyond the law. It is above country. Once allowed and implemented in Islamic neighborhoods, it reaches beyond and extends to ever growing areas where its adherents migrate, so that neighborhoods once under American law now must forfeit their American way of life if they wish to do business or be shielded from harassment. Shariah does not believe in Live and let Live, which has been the sweet anthem that has guided America. It demands changes in our schools, work places, swimming pools, and every facet of public and commercial life.

In England , for example, whole school districts now forbid pork in school cafeterias where Christian children still constitute the majority, and some districts won’t even teach the Holocaust because it “offends” anti-Semitic Muslims. Liberals call this sensitivity and accommodation. But it is capitulation; capitulation by emasculated multi-culturalists who feel that the only way to validate our western culture is by forfeiting it and submitting to those who wish to destroy it. Any ideology whose demands and stranglehold on civic and public life are so extensive and unyielding is theocratic in nature and thus incompatible with and dangerous to western life.

At one time, North Africa was not Islamic. Neither was Turkey, southern Asia, Indonesia, Central Africa, Persia, nor most of Iraq and Lebanon; nor were vast lands west, east and north of India. Nor were the Balkans. They are now mostly Islamic. Some fell to the sword of Islam. Others decided to be “nice guys” and allow shariah law in their countries for those few who demanded it. Now, tens of millions of them and their children must live under shariah law. Their heritage is gone

Posted in Dhimmitude, Islam, Islamization, Must Read, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Bill Warner: Self-Taught

Posted by paulipoldie on November 12, 2010

Self-Taught

November 10, 2010

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

Posted in Fight back!, Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamization, Must Read | 1 Comment »

Playing Chess With the Imams

Posted by paulipoldie on September 23, 2010

Playing Chess With the Imams

by Baron Bodissey

As is often noted, political Islam — which is sometimes referred to as “radical Islam” or “Islamism” — is a totalitarian ideology. All four schools of Sunni Islamic law, along with Shi’a jurisprudence, affirm the orthodox political interpretations of the Koran and the hadith that justify the establishment of an all-powerful theocratic state by any and all means. These interpretations of Islam’s core scriptures are validated by traditional doctrine as taught by scholars at all major Islamic universities, especially the most prestigious of them all, al-Azhar University in Cairo.

For these reasons we may assert that Islam is inherently totalitarian. Muslims themselves may or may not have totalitarian tendencies — it’s certainly true that many millions of Muslims, whether they really believe in their religion or not, are politically apathetic and indifferent to any practical political application of their creed. But official Islamic doctrine promotes a totalitarian political philosophy.

Westerners who long for a “reform” of Islam — which they imagine will somehow purge Islamic theology of its violent tendencies — fail to realize that a reform is already well underway. The latest wave began in 1928 in Egypt with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al-Banna, and it continues to this day. Followers of al-Banna have returned to the core scriptures of Islam and studied the life and sayings of Mohammed. They take what is written in these texts and commentary seriously, and are thus driven to implement various totalitarian political practices, through violent means or otherwise.

John J. Dziak points out that political Islam, like other totalitarian systems such as those of China, Cuba, the U.S.S.R., and Nazi Germany, takes the form of a diffuse counterintelligence state, with its typical characteristics:

The residual influence of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia on Islamism may be seen precisely in the assimilated features of the counterintelligence state absorbed by both radical Islamic movements and radical Islamic regimes: the multiplicity and redundancy of intelligence and counterintelligence services with counterintelligence being the preferred tendency; fixation with conspiracies and incessant conspiratorial intrigue; provocation and associated deception; conspiracy-laced propaganda and very sophisticated information warfare campaigns; draconian police state tactics, this time justified by theocratic strictures vice party dogma. In its drive to nuclear power status Iran, especially, has shown adeptness at deception in masking the weapons side of its program, and in information warfare and propaganda with its bombast of military prowess aimed at strong anti-war sentiment in the U.S.

Many Westerners had trouble grasping the nature of the U.S.S.R., and they are no better at understanding the workings of the Islamic counterintelligence state. Iran is a good example: we treat it as if it were a Western democracy, with a parliament (the Majlis) as a legislative authority, a judiciary (the mullahs and ayatollahs) and an executive (President Ahmadinejad). However, there is at best a superficial resemblance between these structures and their Western counterparts. Politics in Iran is conducted quite differently from what we are used to. It is opaque to us because its operations proceed according to the internal logic inherent to a counterintelligence state.

As a made-up example, imagine that three American charity workers in Iran are arrested and detained by the Revolutionary Guards, and then later charged with being spies for the CIA. We’ll assume for the sake of argument that they are not really CIA spies.

So what is Iran up to?
It may be quite difficult to determine the motives for such an arrest. If talks on Iran’s nuclear program are about to begin, the act may constitute the first move in the chess game of those negotiations. When backdoor discussions about the hostages are initiated, Iran may discreetly hint that a relaxation in the IAEA inspection regime might just result in the release of the captives.

Or the arrest may be some other international gambit in a complex game — an effort to influence Russia, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia.

Or the real reason may be found within the internal politics of Iran itself. Political disagreement and maneuvering in a counterintelligence state generally proceed out of sight. Publicly staged political events simply ratify what has been decided by other means — that is, through the struggles between the factions that form the power structure of the state. In Iran, as in any other Third World country, Western hostages — particularly Americans — are very valuable. They function as a big bank deposit for the faction that holds them. Taking the three prisoners may well have given the Revolutionary Guards or their allies more leverage in ongoing internal factional struggles.

By the time the captives are released by a smiling Ahmadinejad during a carefully staged photo op, the political issues of their capture have already been settled. The tearful erstwhile prisoners thank the president for his gracious help, the cameras and the journalists depart, and the real game moves on to the next move, unnoticed and unrecognized by the vast majority of Western observers.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Moving beyond Iran, we leave the realm of state totalitarianism and enter the world of diffuse non-state Islamic radicalism. Non-state actors such as Al Qaeda and the various affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood display the same characteristics as the counterintelligence state, but they operate in a different context. Their goal is not to maintain internal control within a discrete political entity, but subversion: they aim to turn non-Muslims into dhimmis by stages, without the intended targets being aware of what is happening until it is too late.

To accomplish this goal, the Ikhwan uses all the techniques — provocation, penetration, diversion, disinformation, etc. — familiar to students of Soviet counterintelligence. These methods serve to undermine and subvert the targeted society below the level of public awareness.

One of the most successful counterintelligence operations yet mounted by the Muslim Brotherhood was the notorious “Flying Imams” affair. In November 2006 a handful of imams affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood front groups managed to paralyze the Transportation Security Agency (and through it the Department of Homeland Security) with an easy and inexpensive provocation at the Minneapolis airport. Their belligerence and litigiousness served to neutralize the already weak attempts by TSA officials to monitor and act upon specific behaviors that might be expected from potential Islamic terrorists.

The superficially apparent objective of the operation — to test security systems and procedures using a terrorist dry run — was accomplished. However, by drawing attention to their particular tactics, the imams compromised the future effectiveness of such methods. The subsequent out-of-court shakedown of USAirways could hardly suffice as a motivation for such an audacious public operation.

Understood from the point of view of the counterintelligence state, however, the Flying Imams were an enormous success. The incident was a probe, a diversion, and it neutered the capacity of domestic security agents to evaluate and react to evidence of Islamic terrorist behavior. By rewarding targeted lawfare, it ensured that no TSA or DHS official who values his career will ever take into consideration any obvious radical Muslim behavior until a bomb actually detonates.

The incident may accurately be labeled a “diversion” because the exact modus operandi of the probe — belligerent behavior, loud Arabic prayers, the demanding of seat belt extensions, etc. — is unlikely to be used again. What it accomplished instead was to restrict the scope of America’s available responses, so that the real attack, in whatever form it may take, will be impossible to deal with until dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Americans are already dead.

Seen from a counterintelligence standpoint, the Flying Imams gig was an enormous success achieved at almost no cost. The value of the operation was greatly enhanced by the fact that very few Americans are even aware of the scope of the Muslim Brotherhood’s achievement.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
This brings us to Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the proposed Ground Zero mosque.

References to Imam Rauf in the following discussion should be understood to encompass not just the imam himself — who, after all, is simply the oily-tongued spokesman for the Cordoba Initiative, chosen for his soothing glib demeanor as displayed on television — but also the more powerful movers and shakers of the international Ikhwan who put him in place to help the planned mosque come into being.

For a number of months the Park51 project flew mostly under the radar. Then, as news began to spread through patriotic anti-jihad networks, the protests and resistance began to emerge. All through the summer of 2010 the controversy grew hotter, to the point where it made headlines every day in the mainstream media.

The more prominent the news about the Ground Zero mosques, the more Americans who opposed it. Despite the best efforts of local, state, and federal officials — not to mention the media — to spin the issue as one of religious freedom involving an innocuous place of worship, ordinary citizens woke up to the fact that the building of the mosque would in fact be a celebration of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. The more they learned, the less they liked it.

The affair climaxed on September 11th during protests and demonstrations against the mosque that were staged at Ground Zero, across the rest of America, and all over the world.

There were rumors just before 9-11 that Imam Rauf was going to back down and announce at the last minute that the Park51 project would be moved to another location. When I read those reports, I thought, “Of course — what a brilliant move!”

By allowing the “Islamophobes” to gain public prominence, and then deflating their cause, Mr. Rauf would marginalize opposition to the mosque simply by moving the planned structure a few blocks away.

Members of the hard-core resistance to Park51 — including such people as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Andy McCarthy, and Brigitte Gabriel — insist that moving the mosque is not enough, that it must be stopped. But the vast majority of the opponents of Park51, probably more than 90% of them, would have been content with its being moved.

At one stroke Imam Rauf could have deflated the entire anti-mosque movement, fragmented the opposition to Park51, discredited its more strident opponents, and made it that much easier for the Muslim Brotherhood to build mosques elsewhere.

As icing on the cake, in the process of relocating it he could have taken up Donald Trump (or one of the other potential buyers) on his offer, sold the property, and made a fifty million dollar profit on the deal.

So why didn’t he do it?

Considering the affair as a counterintelligence chess game, relocating the mosque at the last minute was the obvious move — it was a pawn-takes-queen gambit. In order to work, however, it had to be a 9-11 moment — once the anniversary passed, the enormous propaganda impact of the move would have been diminished. The eve of 9-11 was the peak opportunity, but Imam Rauf and his handlers let it pass.

Why?

To understand why Islamic radicals sometimes fail to make certain moves that would otherwise serve their interests, we must examine the details of Islamic law. Although the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are totalitarians at heart, unlike their Soviet counterparts they are constrained by an internally recognized set of limits: sharia law.

Consider this passage from ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller). In Book O, “Justice”, o9.16, al-Misri has this to say concerning truces:

Truces are permissible, not obligatory … for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality, …

In other words, there must be an acceptable reason to halt a jihad, because Muslims are required to wage it if they possibly can. Reliance of the Traveller continues:

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah most high says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost.” (Koran 47:35).

If he is not engaging in deception, the only reason a Muslim fighter can call for a truce, according to Islamic law, is that he is too weak to fight. That is, once a jihad is launched, the mujahideen must continue it until victory is achieved, because to cease the jihad would be to acknowledge that they were too weak to fight it in the first place, and thus that Allah was not with them. This is tantamount to suicide — and not the sacred martyrdom kind.

This feeds into the core Islamic concept of jihad. Those fighting jihad in the cause of Allah may have setbacks, as Allah says in the Koran. But victory is guaranteed if it is in the cause of Allah. Continuous defeat in jihad is an indicator that the jihad was never sanctioned by Allah. In such circumstances, the Muslim community will turn against the jihadis.

So, if truce is denied them, the mujahideen will go out and fight as if their eternal souls depended on it. They have to throw everything into the battle.

This is exactly what happened in Iraq to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi put a bomb in a souk and killed a lot of women and children, but no Americans were present. The Salafists were outraged; they said this was the murder of innocents (where the “murder of innocents” means to kill Muslims without just cause).

Zarqawi managed to finish himself off not long afterwards when he detonated a bomb in an employment line and killed a number of men. This made the Salafists condemn him even more: they turned on him, gave his location up to the American military, and collected the bounty.

Zarqawi’s actions demonstrated that he had launched a jihad that he could not win, and also one that violated the tenets of Islamic law. This proved he had sinned against Allah, and his life was forfeit.

From this we can deduce that Jihad fighters do not respond to their own perceived weakness in the same way that a typical “insurgent” does. If the mujahideen ever concede that they are losing, then they have lost the entire jihad. Rather than withdraw, they will return to the fight with increased ferocity, otherwise they will have broken one of the core rules of Islam. They are well aware that the entire Muslim world treats such lawbreakers with utmost severity.

The Ground Zero mosque project is not a “hot” jihad, but it is jihad nonetheless. To pull back now from the Park51 jihad would be to admit that that Imam Rauf and the mosque’s backers were actually too weak to succeed in their stealth jihad. They would be discredited, and would be subject to sanction under Islamic law.

So the only possible response is to double down and push even harder to get the Ground Zero mosque built. And that is exactly what seems to be happening: as Phyllis Chesler reports, Muslim organizations are repeating their insistence that Park51 must go ahead as planned.

One can’t help but feel that the KGB would have handled the matter differently. As the undisputed masters of the greatest counterintelligence state in history, they would have calculated the odds, and then made the move that best served their interests.

But unlike Imam Rauf, they were not bound by the constraints of sharia (or anything else, for that matter). If Islam has an Achilles heel, it lies within the restrictions imposed by Islamic law itself.

This characteristic can be useful to us, but only if we study and understand Islamic law. Total immersion is required: we must learn to think like Salafists.

This is the only way we can win a chess game with the imams. Unfortunately, to our great detriment we are still playing checkers.

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

Giordanos zehn Thesen zur Integrationsdebatte

Posted by paulipoldie on September 19, 2010

Der Kölner Schriftsteller und Islamkritiker Ralph Giordano hat in der WELT zur Diskussion um Thilo Sarrazin in zehn Punkten Stellung genommen und dem ehemaligen Politiker recht gegeben. Der überlebende Holocaust-Verfolgte greift die regierenden Politiker und die Medien, die mit Vorzeigemoslems gegen herrschende Integrationsmängel argumentieren, an, und wirft den Politikern vor, bestehende Probleme mit dem Islam zu verharmlosen. Die WELT-Online-Redaktion hat es sich nicht nehmen lassen, in Giordanos hochinteressanten Beitrag ihre berüchtigte Grafik zu setzen, in der das eigentliche Problem, die Zuwanderung aus islamischen Ländern, einfach ausgeblendet wird.

1. Solange gebildete, berufsintegrierte und akzentfreies Deutsch sprechende Muslima in Talkshows mit wirklichkeitsfernen Sätzen wie „die Frage der Integration stellt sich gar nicht“ so tun, als sei ihr Typ exemplarisch für die muslimische Minderheit in Deutschland und die Gleichstellung muslimischer Frauen eben um die Ecke – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

2. Solange diese Vorzeige-Muslima sich lieber die Zunge abbeißen würden als einzugehen auf das, was kritische Muslima so authentisch wie erschütternd berichtet haben über den Alltag der Unterdrückung, Abschottung und Ausbeutung, der Zwangsehe und Gefangenschaft muslimischer Frauen und Mädchen bis hin zu der unsäglichen Perversion der „Ehrenmorde“ – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

3. Solange widerstandslos hingenommen wird, dass Moscheen in Deutschland nach Eroberern der türkisch-osmanischen Geschichte benannt werden, nach Sultan Selim I. oder, wie im Fall der sogenannten Fatih-Moscheen, nach Mehmet II., dem Eroberer von Konstantinopel – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

4. Solange höchste türkische Verbandsfunktionäre, wie der Generalsekretär des Zentralrats der Muslime in Deutschland, Aiman Mayzek, vor laufender Kamera und Millionen Zuschauern erklären können, Scharia und Grundgesetz seien miteinander vereinbar, ohne sofort des Landes verwiesen zu werden – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

5. Solange rosenkranzartig behauptet wird, der Islam sei eine friedliche Religion, und flapsig hinweggesehen wird über die zahlreichen Aufrufe des Koran, Ungläubige zu töten, besonders aber Juden, Juden, Juden – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

6. Solange die weitverbreitete Furcht vor schleichender Islamisierung in der Bevölkerung als bloßes Luftgebilde abgetan wird und nicht als demoskopische Realität ernst genommen – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

7. Solange von hiesigen Verbandsfunktionären und türkischen Politikern penetrant auf Religionsfreiheit gepocht wird, ohne jede parallele Bemühung um Religionsfreiheit in der Türkei – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

8. Solange nicht offen gesprochen wird über islamische Sitten, Gebräuche und Traditionen, die mit Demokratie, Menschenrechten, Meinungsfreiheit, Gleichstellung der Geschlechter und Pluralismus nicht vereinbar sind – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin Recht.

9. Solange die großen Themen der Parallelgesellschaften wie Gewaltkultur, überbordender Nationalismus, offener Fundamentalismus, ausgeprägter Antisemitismus und öffentliches Siegergebaren mit demografischer Drohung nicht zentrale Punkte des nationalen Diskurses sind – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

10. Solange Deutschlands Sozialromantiker, Gutmenschen vom Dienst, Pauschal-Umarmer und Beschwichtigungsapostel weiterhin so tun, als sei das Problem Migration/Integration eine multikulturelle Idylle mit kleinen Schönheitsfehlern, die durch sozialtherapeutische Maßnahmen behoben werden können – so lange hat Thilo Sarrazin recht.

Postskriptum.

Ein integrationsfördernder Vorschlag: Wenn denn das offene Haar der Frau die männliche Begierde weckt, wäre es da nicht besser, den Männern Handschellen anzulegen, als den Frauen das Kopftuch zu verordnen?

von Politically Incorrect

Posted in Islam, Islam - What can we do? Was können wir tun?, Islamisierung, Islamkritik, Must Read, Sharia | Leave a Comment »

Die Bunte Welt der Feuilletonisten und Leitartikler

Posted by paulipoldie on September 10, 2010

Von Politically Incorrect

„Endlich! Endlich! Endlich!“ So ist der subtile Unterton in Thomas Seiferts (Foto) jüngstem Artikel in der Österreichischen Tageszeitung Die Presse. Nachdem die europäischen Nachrichtenagenturen vor allem durch brüllendes Schweigen auf die Lage der Christen in der Welt aufmerksam machen, hat endlich wieder einmal ein radikaler christlicher Kleriker seinen Weg in die Schlagzeilen gefunden (PI berichtete).

(Von Don S.)

Da sich bisher alle Meldungen über angebliche Koranverbrennungen oder Koran-Spülungen als mediale Ente erwiesen haben, scheint die Armee der Gutmenschen endlich fündig geworden zu sein: Ein obskurer Pastor in Florida namens Terry Jones ruft dazu auf, am kommenden Jahrestag der Terrorangriffe des 11. Septembers gedruckte Versionen des Korans zu verbrennen. Verantwortungsbewusst wie die Medien in Bezug auf den Islam meist sind, wird diese Nachricht sofort über alle Kanäle verbreitet und endet nur kurz vor der Spekulation, ob nicht in Wirklichkeit eine Mehrheit der Amerikaner (oder in jedem Fall der Republikaner) eine solche Verbrennung nicht befürworten würden:

Ach, Amerika! Was ist bloß aus den Vereinigten Staaten geworden? Waren die USA nicht stets der Hort der religiösen Toleranz, jener Ort, an den die Europäer geflohen sind, um der religiösen Repression auf dem Alten Kontinent zu entgehen?

Hier versucht Seifert die Leser schlau hinters Licht zu führen: Von den Koranverbrennungen in Granada 1492 zu den Koranverbrennungen in Florida 2010 besteht laut Seifert ein Zusammenhang, welcher sich auch in der aktuellen Debatte um die Moschee in der Nähe des Ground Zero zeigt. Um diese Argumentation zu untermauern, werden alte Plattitüden und Halbwahrheiten bemüht:

Christliche Ritter unter Kardinal Mateo Ximenes de Cisneros verbrannten nach der Eroberung des spanischen Granada Koran-Ausgaben, die Araber wurden zurückgeschlagen, die spanischen Könige erließen auch das Alhambra-Edikt, in dem die Vertreibung der Juden aus allen Territorien der spanischen Krone angeordnet wurde.

Abgesehen davon, dass der Hinweis auf die Vertreibung der Juden nur ein weiterer geschmackloser Versuch ist, sämtliche Islamkritiker in ein antisemitisches Eck zu schieben (so wie aktuell Thilo Sarrazin), sieht sich Seifert offenbar nicht gezwungen, seine „Fakten“ zu überprüfen:

Von Granada nach Cordoba: Der Name der 202 Kilometer von Granada entfernten andalusischen Stadt taucht in der New Yorker Moscheenkontroverse wieder auf. In diesem Streit geht es darum, dass ein paar Blocks entfernt von jenem Ort, an dem bis zum 11. September 2001 das World Trade Center stand, eine Moschee errichtet werden soll – federführend dabei ist die Gruppe „Cordoba Initiative“.

Warum Cordoba? Als Andalusien von den Arabern beherrscht wurde, war Cordoba ein geistiges Zentrum, in dem Juden, Christen und Muslime friedlich koexistierten.

Eine einzelne Google-Suche hätte den werten „Journalisten“ darüber aufgeklärt, dass 1011 in Cordoba und 1066 in Granada massive Pogrome stattfanden – just in jenen Städten, die laut Seifert Stätten der Toleranz waren. Aber selbst wenn man diese Fakten verschweigt, bleibt von den blühenden Zeiten der Koexistenz in Al-Andalus nicht allzu viel über. Bernard Lewis, mit Sicherheit ein größerer Experte in Islamfragen als Thomas Seifert oder der Autor dieses Beitrages, trifft die folgende Feststellung (auf Seite 4): „The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy for Islam.”

Besonders lächerlich ist jedoch die Annahme, dass die Gruppierung hinter der „Cordoba-Initiative“ diesen Name gewählt hat, um eine fiktive Zeit der Harmonie der Religionen wiederaufleben zu lassen. Abgesehen davon, dass in den meisten (nicht allen, aber der überwiegenden Anzahl von Staaten) Ländern die Religionen friedlich zusammenleben, solange nicht eine davon mit I beginnt und auf –slam endet. Nur ist keine Ideologie so erfolgreich im Ausschlachten des westlichen Schuldkomplexes. Die Absurdität der Argumentation, dass gerade weil Muslime am meisten im Namen ihrer Religion morden, andere Religionen Gebetsstätten für eben jenen mörderischen Islam errichten müssen, ist nicht zu überbieten. Doch genau das fordert Thomas Seifert:

Sogar Karen Hughes, die der frühere Präsident George W. Bush während seiner Präsidentschaft eingesetzt hatte, um die Beziehungen Amerikas zur islamischen Welt zu verbessern, hat sich dafür ausgesprochen, die Moschee an einem anderen Platz zu bauen. Dabei sind längst mehr Muslime als Bürger der Vereinigten Staaten durch die Hand muslimischer Extremisten umgekommen. Die meisten Opfer von al-Qaida oder den Taliban heißen nicht John, Susan oder George, sondern Mohammed, Fatima oder Hussein.

Nimmt man diese Aussage wörtlich, bedeutet sie, dass je mehr Muslime durch al-Qaida getötet werden, umso mehr Moscheen müssen in westlichen Ländern errichtet werden. Und zwar am besten, der Seifert’schen Diktion folgend, an den Orten islamistischer Terroranschläge.

Während man diese Punkte noch als reine Meinungsverschiedenheiten abtun kann, gestaltet sich die Lage bei Seiferts Wissen mit Bezug auf den aktuellen Islam doch etwas problematischer:

Der Initiator der Cordoba-Initiative, Feisal Abdul Rauf, ist einer der wichtigsten Denker des Sufismus, einer mystischen Form des Islam, die die Gewalt von Bin Ladens al-Qaida aufs Schärfste ablehnt.

Rauf will seine Hand zu den nichtmuslimischen Amerikanern ausstrecken und Rauf ist jemand, der in seinem Buch „What’s right with Islam is what’s right with America“ Parallelen zwischen islamischen und amerikanischen Werten zieht. Der tolerante Imam steht auf der Abschussliste von al-Qaida.

Abgesehen davon, dass mich interessieren würde, woher Seifert die „Abschussliste“ der al-Qaida kennt (ist er ein Brieffreund Bin-Ladens oder Mitglied von Zawahiris Email-Verteiler?), hat sich der „Presse“ Journalist wieder einmal als besonders Fakten-resistent erwiesen. Darum hier zum Nachlesen in Kurzform:

• Richtig, der Sufismus ist eine mystische Form des Islam, die jedoch gerade von Seiten des orthodoxen Islams kaum wenn überhaupt anerkannt wird (daran ändert auch die „Amman Message“ nichts).

• In den Worten des Orientalisten Tilman Nagel: „Die Annahme, einem rigiden, unduldsamen ‚Gesetzesislam‘ stehe eine ‚tolerante‘ sufistische Strömung entgegen, gehört zu den Fiktionen der europäischen Islamschwärmerei und wird durch die historischen Fakten tausendfach widerlegt.“ (Zitat ist belegt, aber auch auf Wikipedia zu finden).

• Laut Seifert will Rauf „seine Hand zu den nichtmuslimischen Amerikanern ausstrecken.“ Ein ehrenwerter Plan, und der erste Schritt dazu ist auf einem religiösem Zentrum zu bestehen dessen Bauplatz (nicht das Recht auf ein religiöses Zentrum an sich) über 60% der wahrscheinlich „nichtmuslimischen Amerikaner“ ablehnen. Rauf verlangt dennoch die Errichtung auf dem ursprünglichen Baugrund, was für mich mehr nach einer Provokation als nach einer Versöhnungsgeste aussieht.

• Wer ist übrigens der Hauptkäufer von Raufs Buch „What‘s right with Islam is right with America?“ Das amerikanische State Department hat 2000 Kopien erworben und lässt diese nun von Botschaftsangestellten in der islamischen Welt verteilen. In anderen Worten, der amerikanische Steuerzahler finanziert die Büchertour eines Muslims in der Islamischen Welt (PI berichtete).

• Und über die politischen Ansichten des Imams mache sich jeder selbst ein Bild.

Zum Abschluss serviert Seifert noch das mühsamste aller Argumente:

Im Westen ist das Feindbild unserer Tage der Islam: Sarrazinismus und andere Simplifizierungen in Deutschland, Moscheenabschießspiele und andere Scheußlichkeiten in Österreich, Islam-Beschimpfungen durch Geert Wilders in den Niederlanden. Und nun eben Koran-Verbrennungen in Florida. Steuern wir auf ein neues „Zeitalter der Extreme“, wie der in Wien aufgewachsene Historiker Eric Hobsbawm das blutige 20. Jahrhundert und den Schrecken der großen Diktaturen genannt hat, zu?

Denn die Koran-Verbrennung eines durchgeknallten Pastors in Florida wird zu einer Gefahr für die nationale Sicherheit der USA. Davor warnt sogar der Oberbefehlshaber der US-Truppen in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus. Denn die islamischen Fundamentalisten warten nur darauf, den Ball, der ihnen von Leuten wie Pastor Terry Jones zugespielt wird, aufzunehmen.

Ahja, der arme Islam und die perfekt integrierten Muslime (wie beispielsweise die Londoner Tube-Bomber oder jene in den Vororten französischer Großstädte) sind völlig unschuldig zum Feindbild geworden und fallen Hetzern wie Sarrazin und Wilders zum Opfer. Und sollte der Aufruf des durchgeknallten Pastors zu einer weiteren Welle muslimischer Gewalt führen sind natürlich auch wir, die Nichtmuslime schuld. Denn während wir unsere „Fundamentalisten“ im Griff haben und im schlimmsten Falle einen Koran verbrennen, werden in vielen muslimischen Ländern wahrscheinlich tatsächlich Menschen brennen (einen Umstand, auf den Seifert uns mit einem Heine-Zitat aufmerksam macht). Warum jedoch die Minderheit der gewaltbereiten Muslime nicht ebenso gut in Schach gehalten werden kann wie in westlichen Staaten die Minderheit der Koranverbrenner, kann auch Seifert nicht beantworten.

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

Quran Burning: Two Opinions

Posted by paulipoldie on September 8, 2010

From Act! For America‘s President, Brigitte Gabriel

ACT! for America Denounces Koran Burning

A message from Brigitte Gabriel, President
and CEO of ACT! for America

We at ACT! for America denounce and condemn, in the strongest terms, the upcoming Koran burning event organized by Pastor Terry Jones and members of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. Their proposed event is ill-conceived, counter-productive and unwelcome in a world where ideas and philosophies are best debated in the context of the issues and the facts. We find this an archaic act that serves no useful purpose, and as such is a regrettable instance of an inability or unwillingness to discuss the issues facing us in a reasonable and constructive manner.

ACT! for America is, and has always been, committed to exposing the threat of the political ideology of radical Islam and its sharia law through constructive debate, illumination of the facts, and a reasoned analysis of the implications of the threat.

Pastor Jones and his congregation are stooping to the tactics of and joining the inarticulate who express their anger and opposition through destructive and spiteful acts of denigration. What is the difference between his actions and the actions of Islamists destroying synagogues in Gaza or churches and Bibles in Lebanon, Bosnia and Egypt? We are better than that as Americans.

Always devoted,


Brigitte Gabriel

From Gates of Vienna

Update: In an attempt to be more effective in making my point, I have approached the same topic from a different angle here.

Umma Iwo Jima
Most readers have probably heard of Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, who organized International Burn a Quran Day for September 11.

Although burning Korans is not to my taste, I’m glad I live in America, where a citizen has a right to burn a lawfully purchased copy of a book on his own property if he wants to.

However, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, doesn’t agree. He thinks the actions of Rev. Jones and his followers may cause the death of American troops in Afghanistan.

Here’s what ABC News has to say about it:

A Florida pastor’s plan to burn Qurans at his church on Sept. 11 ignited a protest today by hundreds of Afghans, who burned American flags and shouted “Death to America,” and the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the preacher could be increasing the threat to his troops.

The crowd in downtown Kabul reached nearly 500 today, with Afghan protesters chanting “Long live Islam “ and “Long live the Quran,” and burning an effigy of Terry Jones, senior pastor from the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is planning the event.

The protesters were well aware of the pastor’s inflammatory comments, such as the “Islam is an evil religion,” since they have been spread wide on the Internet. Jones has also authored a book, “Islam Is of the Devil.”

The protesters’ anger wasn’t limited to Jones, however. Chants of “Death to America” echoed through the crowd, and U.S. flags were set ablaze alongside the effigy of Jones.

America cannot eliminate Muslims from the world,” one Afghan man told ABC News.

The angry crowd pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with rocks.

Gen. David Petraeus said he is outraged by the pastor’s decision to burn the Quran, which he said could “endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort here.”

Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Jack Keane, an adviser to Petraeus, called it “outrageous” and “insulting to Muslims.”

“It’s also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Muslims in this country,” Keane told ABC News.

Now, I don’t want to debate the merits of burning Korans. That’s not the point of this post.

What I want to talk about is the presence of American troops in Afghanistan, and what they are there to do.

Are they fighting and dying to avoid “insulting Muslims”?

What does our military stand for? Does it stand for protecting Islam from insult? Or does it stand for protecting the rights and the well-being of American citizens?

Here’s what David Petraeus would have said if he were a real soldier in the mold of, say, General George Patton, rather than a lickspittle dhimmi appeaser of heroin-trafficking Afghan warlords:
– – – – – – – –

“I wouldn’t burn a Koran myself — but, then, that’s a matter of personal taste.

“Let me just say this: those people in Florida aren’t putting anyone at risk. The only people responsible for putting my troops at risk are those homicidal maniacs who froth at the mouth over what they call their ‘religion’.

“My boys are here to defend the American way of life, and they are fighting and dying to preserve the right of American citizens to burn any damn thing they feel like — except maybe the American flag.

“And as for those demonstrators on the streets of Kabul — they can go to hell.”

But we don’t have generals like that anymore.

Our generals don’t win wars. They build nations.

They are tasked to win the hearts and minds of whatever godforsaken lice-infested child-molesting goatherds their fool of a commander-in-chief sends them out to protect.

This is what our “national defense” has become.

This is what all those billions and billions of our tax dollars do for us nowadays.

God help us all.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Baron Bodissey added this:

Fear of the Nazi Street

by Baron Bodissey

Based on some recent comments, my point about Gen. David H. Petraeus is not getting across. It has nothing to do with whether anyone should or shouldn’t burn a Koran.

My point is that something has gone deeply, catastrophically wrong with the way our top political leaders and military commanders conceptualize and conduct the current war.

Perhaps a little historical analogy will help clarify matters:

Eisenhower Warns Against Planned Burning of Mein Kampf

LONDON, June 19, 1944 — The top American commander in Normandy has warned that plans by a small Florida church to burn copies of Mein Kampf on Tuesday, the anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Russia, could play into the hands of the very extremists at whom the church says it is directing that message.

Hitler in a turbanBurning copies of Mein Kampf, the founding document of Nazism, “would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Germany — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,” the commander, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a telegram to The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Echoing remarks the general made in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Friday, he said: “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the SS uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Nazi community.”

In 1943, violent and sometimes lethal riots were set off around the world by a mistaken report by Newsweek that a Pentagon investigation had found that military interrogators of detainees at a camp in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, tried to flush a copy of Mein Kampf down a toilet. The same year, a Canadian newspaper that printed cartoons portraying Adolf Hitler also led to riots across the Nazi world.

– – – – – – – –

Terry Jones, the pastor of the tiny Florida church that plans the Mein Kampf burning, says that as an American Christian he has a right to burn Mein Kampf because “it’s full of lies.”

Some of his prior attempts to incite anti-Nazi fervor have met with less public attention. Last year, he posted a sign at his church declaring “Nazism is of the devil.”

Nazi leaders in several countries, including Holland and Hungary, have formally condemned him and his church, the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, which has 50 members.

In Normandy, meanwhile, a district governor from Rouen was assassinated by Gestapo insurgents on Monday night along the Caen-Bayeux highway in the north of Normandy, officials said.

The real NYT article is here.

Is everything a little clearer now?

We’re not waging a war. We’re playing cute little games and being nicey-nicey to people who have declared themselves to be our implacable enemies.

Treating them kindly will not change their minds. Only our conversion to Islam or our surrender and submission to Islamic dominance — or our deaths — will make them feel differently about us.

Posted in ACT! for America, Dhimmitude, Fight back!, Freedom of Speech/Redefreiheit, Islamization, Must Read, Sharia | 5 Comments »