Bowing to the Islamists

Last Thursday, a group of 80 people from 15 European countries, plus Israel, Canada and the United States, convened in a conference room on the seventh floor of the European Parliament building in Brussels for a “counterjihad” meeting.They listened to speakers such as the Egyptian-born scholar Bat Ye’or, author of the book “Eurabia,” who explained how the European Union (EU) has become a vehicle for the Islamization of Europe and how the EU has promoted “a massive Muslim immigration […] hoping that the Euro-Arab symbiosis through economic development, soft diplomacy and multiculturalism would guarantee [Europe] peace, markets and oil.”

The citizens of Europe are extremely worried by this Islamization process, but their political leaders impose it on them against their wish. Europe is in worse shape than America because European democracies lack two pillars of freedom that America still has – solidly enshrined in the first and second amendments of its Constitution. In many European countries, freedom of speech no longer exists. It has been restricted by laws intended to curb so-called “hate speech.” These laws forbid people to express their worries about massive immigration and about the Islamization of their nations.

Europe, with few exceptions, such as Switzerland, is also unfamiliar with the second pillar of free societies: the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. In countries such as Belgium even pepper spray is an illegal weapon. The result is that the law-abiding citizens are at the mercy of criminals, many of them of foreign extraction.

While the delegates at the counterjihad meeting, who had been invited to the European Parliament by one of Europe’s so-called far-right parties, discussed strategies to counter the spread of Islamism, EU bureaucrats convened in a meeting room two floors below. On the fifth floor of the parliament building, they discussed the “harmonization” of self-defense legislation in the 27 EU member states. This means that, if the EU gets its way, the citizens of all member states will soon be submitted to Belgium’s strict rules and that pepper sprays will be banned everywhere.

Meanwhile, as became clear from the country reports given at the counterjihad meeting, Europe’s no-go zones are multiplying. These are areas where the police no longer dare to venture and where Islamists hold sway. Every night since the beginning of last week, immigrant youths have been torching cars and clashing with police in Amsterdam’s Slotervaart district. The incidents started Oct. 14 when a policewoman shot dead a 22-year old ethnic Moroccan while he was stabbing her and a colleague with a knife. Senior police officers compare the current situation in Amsterdam to the 2005 Ramadan riots in Paris. Media outside the Netherlands, however, hardly mention the riots, which aim to drive the police from Slotervaart and turn the neighborhood into a new no-go area – yet another pocket of Eurabia on Europe’s soil.

Similar events are currently taking place in Brussels, the capital of neighboring Belgium and of the EU. Last Sunday, demonstrating Turkish youths ransacked an Armenian pub in the Sint-Joost-ten-Node borough. According to the pub owner, police were present at the scene but did not interfere while his pub was being demolished. The Armenian owner, who by Belgian law is not allowed to possess pepper spray, had to flee for his life. The situation in Brussels remains tense.

 

takuan-2.jpg

Fortunately, there is some good news as well. Last Sunday, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) won 29 percent of the votes and 62 of the 200 seats in Switzerland’s federal parliament, the National Council. This is the largest number of seats that any Swiss party has ever won since 1919.

During its campaign the SVP used a controversial poster, showing three white sheep standing on the Swiss flag. One of the white sheep kicked a black sheep off the flag. The caption read: “Bringing safety.” The SVP poster wanted to emphasize that foreigners commit four times as many crimes as the Swiss do and that this situation will no longer be tolerated. Everyone knows which segment of the foreign population the term “black sheep” refers to.

Even law-abiding foreigners living in Switzerland realize what the SVP’s true message is: Get rid of those aliens who perpetrate crimes. Parties in the rest of Europe would be persecuted for using similar posters because people are not allowed to contemplate the issue, but the Swiss are able to raise their voices. It is no coincidence that the freedom-loving Alpine republic consistently refuses to join the EU.

This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on October 24, 2007 .

“Dialog”

Snaphaner på efterårsferie

snaphaner.jpg

 

Foto AL

Studentikos, overfladepolitisk boganmeldelse

– af en bog, som kunne være skrevet af Thøger Seidenfaden eller Simon-Emil Ammitzbøl… Læs, og grin (eller græd) – og gæt hvad gamle ’68-beton-kommunister lærer unge, ubefæstede sjæle på humaniora-studierne:

jan_guillou_155581c.jpgmetroXpress – 23.10.2007

Guillou udfordrer terrorkrigen

Ny roman er kritisk over for de vestlige samfunds terrorbekæmpelse

Boganmeldelse. Jan Guillous nye bog ‘Fjenden i os selv’ får fire ud af seks glober.

Jan Guillou er ikke i tvivl: Menneskerettighederne i de vestlige demokratier er på vej ned i sækken.

I Guillous nye roman ‘Fjenden i os selv’ beskriver han det skråplan, som terrorlovgivningen har vist sig at være for de demokratiske rettigheder. Når magtfulde efterretnings-organisationer kan foretage alskens former for aflytning og hemmelige ransagninger uden godkendelse eller domstolskontrol, benytte provokatører og køre retssager igennem med hemmelige vidner og ditto beviser, der ikke bliver forelagt eller diskuteret i åbne retssager og samtidig give forsvarerne mundkurv på, så er det tid til at slå koldt vand i blodet og endnu en gang tænke på, hvilket slags samfund man ønsker at leve i.

Det er netop dette skrå-plans konsekvenser, som Guillou vil demonstrere for læserne. Med afsæt i stærkt oppustede ‘terrorsager’ fra Danmark og Sverige, der skal identificere den skjulte og især manglende fjende, tegner han et billede af over-greb og justitsmord mod en udsat minoritet af indvandrere og muslimer med en villig presse, som i sagens tjeneste assisterer myndighederne med at udpege ‘den dødsensfarlige muslimske fjende’.

Efter Guillous opfattelse er den såkaldte krig mod terror en pseudo-krig. En selvskabt illusion om en vestlig civilisation på randen af kaos, en verden ved at bukke under for en islamisk ekspansion, som gennem skånselsløse massemord vil skabe et verdensomspændende kalifat og indføre sharialovgivning i Stockholm og København.

Men i virkelighedens verden er den kristne euro-amerikanske kultur overhovedet ikke truet på sin eksistens. Krigen mod terror har skjulte dagsordener; den er en kamp om penge og magt.
For Guillou er det mest uhyggelige ved terrorlovene, at de netop undergraver den frihed og den demokratiske kultur, som politikerne foregiver at beskytte.

Guillou mener, at der kun skal minimale skridt til for at gøre hans skrækscenarier om retfærdighedens fallit til virkelighed, og han lægger bestemt ikke fingrene imellem med en razzia mod et tidsskrift og fængsling af redaktionen.

‘Fjenden i os selv’ er både spædende og interessant læsning, og samtidig er den et frygtindgydende indlæg i debatten om den nye hellige krig mod ‘den verdensomspændende muslimske terror’.

Guillou stiller væsentlige spørgsmål: Skaber vi med vores terrorkrig i virkeligheden den fjende, som vi forestiller os at bekæmpe? Er vi vores egne værste fjender?

Jan Vandall, Litteraturstuderende

Spencer: Islam is Peace for Britain?

070121stranerthan-x.gif

“Who are we? We are Islam is peace. We want to eradicate Islamophobia. Our home is Britain. And we represent peace.”

It’s a new ad campaign in Britain: Islam is Peace. Buses and trains are sporting the legend, “Islam is Peace,” and an array of images, including that of a Muslim policewoman, a Muslim scout group, and a Muslim chef, attempt to show that Muslims in Britain are ordinary citizens, and should not be regarded with suspicion.

The group’s website derides as a “misconception” the idea that “jihad means holy war.” It speaks about jihad as involving a “struggle to improve the quality of life in society and the struggle against injustice, oppression and tyranny,” but says nothing about armed struggle. It leaves unexplained how innumerable thousands of Muslims worldwide could have gotten the idea that jihad had something to do with violence. The site also dismisses the idea that “terrorism is supported in Islam,” saying, “this misconception is one of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam today,” and quoting the Qur’an to show that “it is clearly Islamically unlawful to murder an innocent person.” However, it doesn’t specify what qualifies a person as innocent, and thus does not answer the jihadist claim that no non-Muslim can be innocent.

The British jihadist leader Anjem Chaudary articulated this view several years ago on British television, when he told an incredulous interviewer that “as far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim.”

So if you condemn attacks on innocents, you’ve done nothing — absolutely nothing — to condemn the actual jihadist point of view.

The Islam is Peace campaign centers around a five-point plan:

1. To monitor and fight Islamophobia wherever it occurs.
2. To create permanent channels of dialogue and debate between the Muslim community and the rest of Britain, ensuring that your voice is always in the mainstream media. To partner with business and government to ensure that our concerns such as racism and social exclusion are understood.
3. To call upon our government to work towards a just and lasting peace in areas of conflict around the world, helping eliminate the injustices that foment division and nurture violence.
4. To be creative. To ensure that we have our finger on the pulse of the British mainstream. To understand what our community wants the world to hear.
5. To create friendships. To create a culture of understanding. To create a future of dialogue and a lot of new friendships.

Did you have a sense of déjà vu reading those points? They are, not accidentally, quite similar to the goals of the 1960s civil rights movement in America. But the difference between this campaign and a real civil rights campaign is the same as the difference between Rooseveltian reformers and Leninesque revolutionaries.

A few things are glaringly absent from these five points. There is not one word about fighting against the jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism within English mosques and Islamic schools. Instead, point one of the campaign is to fight against undefined Islamophobia, as if the only reason why anyone regarded Muslims with suspicion was because of bigotry and hatred by non-Muslims.

Well, I’ve got news for you. If “Islamophobia” actually exists at all, it is a result of the over nine thousand violent attacks committed by Muslims in the name of Islam since 9/11. If the Islam is Peace organizers really want to end “Islamophobia,” here is a simple five-point plan of my own. To end “Islamophobia,” Muslims should:

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just “terrorism,” but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

If Muslims do those five things, voila! “Islamophobia” will vanish. No slick PR campaigns will be needed.

Link

Kun islamister er uskyldige

British Muslim leader: Only Muslims are innocent

AnjumChaudry.jpg

I am a bit late with this, and you have probably already seen it, but I thought it was worth commenting on anyway. Anjem Choudhury of the Omar Bakri group of jihadists in Britain here appears on the BBC’s Hard Talk (thanks to Hana). He is entirely ready to condemn attacks on innocent civilians, but he notes that because non-Muslims have rejected Islam, none of them are innocent. Therefore attacks like 9/11 and 7/7 are perfectly justified.

Choudhury can and no doubt does easily support his view from the Qur’an, in which Jews and Christians are under Allah’s curse (9:30) and unbelievers are the “vilest of creatures” (98:6). In the face of this kind of thinking, we have seen British Muslim leaders condemn the killing of “innocent civilians.” And in the U.S., we have received the much-publicized fatwa against terrorism issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, which declares: “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.”

Why isn’t any law enforcement official asking Muslim leaders (in both the U.S. and Britain) to denounce in clear terms the statement by Anjem Choudhury, that no non-Muslim is innocent? And to follow up that denunciation with nationwide programs in mosques, teaching against the ideology enunciated here by Anjem Choudhury in unambiguous terms?

UPDATE: Daniel Pipes has an illuminating discussion of this concept here.

Why Muslim Women Can’t Marry Non-Muslim Men

Memri.org via FrontPage Magazine
– and a link to RAWA

begon2.jpg

To everyone, who wants a non-muslim man: Remember, that one of you have to change religion for this to be possible, and remember, that religion is mainly used to oppress people. I know why you do not want to marry muslim men, and I feel with you! Good luck!

A fatwa issued in August 2007 by the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America (AMJA), Dr. Sheikh Salah Al-Sawy, states that marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man is forbidden and invalid, and that children born of such a union are illegitimate.

The following are excerpts from the fatwa, which was posted on the website http://www.islamonline.net:

“Marriage between a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim [man] is forbidden and invalid – that is a consensus among Muslims. A [Muslim] woman who has taken the liberty [of marrying a non-Muslim man] has removed herself from the fold of the Muslim community – and one who has done so knowing that it is wrong, has done something strictly forbidden, and has committed an open [act of] abomination that may hurl her into the abyss of heresy and apostasy.

“Some clerics hold that [a Muslim woman who marries a non-Muslim man] is considered a heretic from the very beginning [i.e. from the moment she marries], since the bond of marriage allows her to have sexual relations and intercourse [with her husband], and to take pleasure [in this], and it is inconceivable that she should commit the crime [of having intercourse] without the sanction [of a valid marriage].

Læs resten

Venstrefløjen og islam

Jeg har via mail modtaget nedenstående:

Die Linke und der Islam

Geschrieben von Helge Hasselmann

13.10.2007

Was haben die politische Linke und der ebenso politische Islam gemein? Inwiefern existieren Konvergenzen bezüglich der Zielvorstellungen und Utopien beider Ideologien? Zunächst einmal scheint der Islam in seinen Auffassungen diametral zu linken Vorstellungen der Moderne zu stehen: Individualität und Selbstverwirklichung, oftmals Irreligiosität und Gleichheit aller Menschen. Dem hält der Koran, Quelle der muslimischen Ethik und Moral, Bigotterie, Weltherrschaftsphantasien und Kollektivismus entgegen. So lautet es in Sure 9, 29 symptomatisch: „Kämpft mit Waffen gegen diejenigen, die nicht an Allah glauben, noch an den jüngsten Tag glauben, und die nicht für verboten erklären, was Allah und sein Gesandter Mohammed für verboten erklärt haben, und die sich nicht nach der rechten Religion (dem Islam) richten – von denen, die die Schrift erhalten haben (d. h. Juden und Christen, Anm. d. V.) – kämpft mit der Waffe gegen diese, bis sie die Minderheitensteuer abgeben als Erniedrigte!”

Muslime in aller Regel links der Mitte

Trotz dieser fundamentalen Differenzen kommt es jedoch in der Regel zu einer Verbrüderung mit dem linken Lager respektive dem Eintritt in linke Parteien. Im Brüsseler Regionalparlament entstammt die Hälfte der sozialistischen PS-Abgeordneten dem islamischen Kulturkreis, während lediglich drei der elf Parlamentarier der konservativen cdH jenem zuzuordnen sind. Wie in Belgien verhält es sich auch in anderen europäischen Ländern, Muslime sind meist auf den Wahllisten von sozialistischen respektive alternativ-grünen Parteien zu finden. Eine gewisse Affinität existiert de facto. Nun, betrachtet man die ökonomischen Vorstellungen beider Seiten, wird der Zusammenhang schon deutlicher. Sozialismus steht für protektionistische Planwirtschaft und Staatsmonopol auf bedeutende Wirtschaftsbereiche. In dieser Vorstellung sind Globalisierung und Industrialisierung Gift, weil sie konsequent zur Unterdrückung und Ausbeutung der besitzlosen Schichten, dem Proletariat führen. Hier stechen frappierende Analogien zu islamischen Zielen ins Auge. Linke und Islamisten lehnen die Industrialisierung und die Globalisierung ab, weil Schwellenländer und Länder der Dritten Welt dann amerikanisiert werden würden. Linke ebenso wie Islamisten lehnen die USA in fundamentaler Art und Weise ab. Wie unter Europas Linken dominiert in islamischen Staaten ein glühender Anti-Amerikanismus wie Anti-Zionismus. Die USA, „der große Satan“, und sein zionistischer Schoßhund Israel beuten angeblich die Welt durch ihre Finanzmacht aus.

Schnittmengen zwischen politischem Islam und linker Träumerei

Die wohl wichtigsten Parallelen existieren in Bezug auf Immigration und Zuwanderung. In aller Regel berufen sich Linke auf „humanistische“ Werte und verfechten infolgedessen eine möglichst generöse Einwanderungspolitik. Die freie Wahl des Domizils, sprich die Auflösung des Nationalstaates, soll zu einem Menschenanrecht erhoben werden, ganz egal, aus welchen Beweggründen Migration stattfindet. Muslime teilen diese Einschätzung apodiktisch, obgleich auch aus anderen Motiven heraus. Islamisten wollen dafür sorgen, dass das eigene ethnische Bevölkerungselement rasch anwächst, um infolgedessen eine Konsolidierung und Ausweitung politischen Einflusses zu erreichen. Aus eben diesem Kalkül werden „offene“ Grenzen, der Familiennachzug und „Brautimport“ gefordert. Dies hat nichts mit den gutmenschlich-naiven Forderungen, derer man sich auf der Linken bedient, zu tun. Pures Machtinteresse ist der ausschlaggebende Beweggrund.

Islam und Linke – mehr Gemeinsamkeiten, als man glaubt.

In letzter Zeit wurden insbesondere linkerseits die Rufe nach einer Etablierung des Islams als dritte bedeutende Religion in Deutschland neben dem Christen- und Judentum laut. Wieder sind es Gutmenschen, die versuchen, ihr neues Adoptivkind Islam rechtlich zu stärken. Aber was man sich diesmal für ein Kind ins Haus geholt hat, wird sich noch früh genug zeigen. Denn Islam als rein spirituelle Religion, die jedermann per Säkularisierung zähmen könne, zu verstehen, ist ein gefährlicher Trugschluss. Eine islamische Spiritualität existiert natürlich, jedoch hat diese auch eine äußerst virulente politische Seite. Und tötet sie (d.h. die heidnischen Gegner), wo (immer) ihr sie zu fassen bekommt, und vertreibt sie, von wo sie euch vertrieben haben! Der Versuch (Gläubige zum Abfall vom Islam) zu verführen ist schlimmer als Töten. Jedoch kämpft nicht bei der heiligen Kultstätte (von Mekka) gegen sie, solange sie nicht (ihrerseits) dort gegen euch kämpfen! Aber wenn sie (dort) gegen euch kämpfen, dann tötet sie! Derart ist der Lohn der Ungläubigen.“ (Sure 2, Vers 191). Ob solcher Textstellen sollte sich jeder ernsthaft fragen, inwiefern man hier noch von einer friedlichen Religion sprechen kann. Es handelt sich bei zitiertem Vers um islamische Weltherrschaftsansprüche, die mit dem absoluten Willen verbunden sind, alle Menschen, die andere Vorstellungen pflegen, zu töten. Der niederländische Politiker Geert Wilders zog jüngst die Parallele zu Mein Kampf und forderte ein Verbot des Korans. Eine genauere Beschäftigung mit beiden „Werken“ gibt dieser, zugegebenermaßen waghalsigen, These eine solide Wahrheit an die Hand. Wie ironisch mutet da Schützenhilfe für den Islam ausgerechnet von linker Seite an.

Der Islam – die dritte Form des Sozialismus

Nach grausamen Arten des linken und rechten Sozialismus des 20. Jahrhunderts erwacht eine neue Bedrohung für die Welt. Ebenso wie der „Sozialismus mit menschlichem Antlitz“ porträtiert sich der Islam als Sprachrohr der Armen und Unterdrückten, als ein Opfer des westlichen Imperialismus und neoliberaler Globalisierung. Aber es handelt sich mitnichten um einen zahnlosen Tiger, denn der Islam ist Europa und der westlichen Welt demographisch deutlich überlegen. Der Islam verfügt über vitale youth bulges, Europa hingegen muss zusehen, dass sich für seine Idee überhaupt irgendwo Krieger finden. Wenn der Westen seine eigene Freiheit langfristig erfolgreich behaupten will, muss er sofort damit anfangen, sich von politisch-korrekter Selbstgeißelung loszusagen und die akute Gefahr als solche zu erkennen.