Saturday, November 15, 2008

Mr. Euro-Islam Tariq Ramadan Capitulates

I reported last month that Tariq Ramadan had been invited to a panel discussion in Vienna sponsored by the Akademikerbund. A few days ago Mr. Ramadan withdrew from the event, and the residents of Vienna were denied the opportunity to ask questions of the silver-tongued grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Tariq Ramadan in J-P

Our Austrian correspondent ESW was present at “Is there a Euro-Islam?”, and has prepared a report for Gates of Vienna.


Mr. Euro-Islam Tariq Ramadan capitulates
by ESW


His visit to Vienna this past Tuesday should have been a showdown: Tariq Ramadan, the eloquent, good-looking salesman of Euro-Islam, at a podium discussion at the Political Academy of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP). Finally, questions would have been answered, questions that have been lingering for a while, questions that so far have not been answered at all or in an unsatisfactory way. But, alas, it was not possible. “Professor” Ramadan cancelled his appearance, providing no reason for his last-minute no-show. What are we to think of that?

Is there a Euro-Islam?

However, the event — titled “Is there a Euro-Islam?” — did turn out to be a success, not only because of the members at the podium, but also thanks to the wonderfully Muslim-acting Muslim ladies, who did not shy away from coming all the way to the Political Academy to praise “Islam as the solution” to us kuffar.

The Political Academy was successful in finding substitutes for Ramadan; however, I am reluctant to use to word “adequate” since there is no proper substitute for Ramadan himself. As a result, Euro-Islam and Ramadan’s views could not be discussed. However, the discussion was definitely a heated one.

It was obvious from the introductory statement by Franz Fiedler, the president of the Austrian Association of Academics, that this would not be a schmoozing event. He said, “Whoever sets foot into Austria must be aware that unlimited constitutional and freedom rights apply to him or her and that Quranic commands may not constitute an imperative instruction for action.” This statement caused a few colorfully clad Muslim girls to get up and leave.

Moderated by Peter Danich, the deputy director of the Political Academy, the discussion began with short statements by the members of the panel. Wolfram Eberhardt, a journalist at the German magazine FOCUS and a Middle East expert, demands that Muslims reform their religion. The West must continue to conduct an open and hard dialogue, including one with radical Islamic scholars. His words, “One must not demonize every visible sign of Islam. I also have no problem with mosques. It is essential (to know) what is said there.”
- - - - - - - - -
However knowledgeable Eberhardt may be about Islam and the Middle East, all of which is apparent in his latest book (Im Auftrag Allahs: Gläubiger, Fanatiker, Terroristen), he does not seem to be aware of the true function of a mosque. Perhaps he should consider reading Sam Solomon’s treatise “The Mosque and its role in society”. Eberhardt’s opinion is certainly not helpful.

Mouhanad Khorchide, an Islamic scholar at the University of Vienna, does not believe that religion is the problem. For most migrants (i.e. Muslims) religion is of little or no importance. There are social problems which make living together in harmony difficult. Second-generation Turks do not feel fully accepted in both Austria and Turkey, and some of them would then take shelter in religion. At the same time they are forced to choose between being a “European or a Muslim” The opportunity lies in being both. But this takes time.

“But we no longer have this time available to us,” says Christian Zeitz, member of board of the Vienna Association of Academics. “What are the results of 50 years of continuous dialogue?” Referring to the Islamization efforts that have already been successful during the course of history (i.e. the past 1,400 years), Zeitz turns to the Muslims in the audience: “Did you come to Austria to live out your religion or to Islamize this country?”

This statement angers Sirvan Ekici, in charge of integration matters for the ÖVP. She considers herself a devout Muslim who fasts during Ramadan and sends out invitation for Iftar-dinners, yet she also readily admits that she has no knowledge of Islam. “My parents definitely did not come to Austria to Islamize it.” Her parents were laborers.

Ekici is obviously well integrated: she speaks fluent German and is highly educated. She works tirelessly (her own words) for the integration of migrants and she is a member of the Vienna city council. And even though she demands absolute loyalty to the Austrian constitution and respect for the historically-grown cultural traditions, she does not tell the audience how this can work and how successful she has been so far. She also tells us that it is not a contradiction to feel fully European and Muslim at the same time. She fails to mention, however, that Islamic law prescribes something entirely different, that integration is simply not possible for Muslims. Is she really unaware of this, or is she lying to herself and us?

In Ekici’s opinion, dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims works wonders. She cites examples such as open mosque days and interreligious dialogue at Iftar-dinners. “It is necessary, though, to encourage (Muslim) interest in Austrian politics.” Currently, there are only four Muslim members of the regional parliament at the moment (and one Muslim MP).

Christian Zeitz says that Austrian Muslims must distance themselves from problematic suras such as the one legitimizing the beating of women (4,34). Ekici counters that it is a waste of time to cite the Bible or the Quran. Khordchide, in turn, accuses Zeitz of reading the Quran like the fundamentalists do. This also causes resistance in the audience. “The Quran is a book of revelations”, says one young Muslim girl from the Austrian Muslim Youth. “It was revealed during a time span of 23 years. Not every sentence can be considered an absolute.” It is telling that this opinion is not the one of the Muslim majority. In many, if not most, Muslim countries this young lady might not live to see the next day.

Let me finally note that the subsequent discussion with members of the audience was heated and emotional. Of course there were quite a few whiny comments from Muslim girls about how oppressed they are (by Austrian society) and that there no marriages between 50-year-old men and six-year-old girls. Interestingly, not one Muslim man in the audience asked a question.

Nevertheless, many of those in the audience left the event with a reality check: The chasm between the two “cultures” was all too obvious. We were successful in showing these differences. Now we must build on this foundation.

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

The Vienna Association of Academics demands the following from Muslims in Austria:

(Note: This is the first time these demands have been made public)


We demand the following:

1. Full disclosure of religious foundations, as required in the law on religion. A certified translation of the Qur’an and the Ahadith are to be deposited (in the Ministry of Interior).
2. All fatwas from imams preaching in Austria are to be translated into German and deposited in the Ministry of Interior.
3. Public Service: All Muslims entering public service must dissociate — in writing — from Koranic verses prohibiting subordination to the instructions of “infidel” officials and judgments from “infidel” judges.
4. School: Teachers, including Islamic religious instructors, must dissociate from those Koranic verses that propagate the disadvantage of women, corporal punishment and violence against members of other religions (and atheists and non-theists).
5. Friday prayers and Quran lessons in Quran schools (i.e. madrassas) must be held in German.
6. Ban on covering faces: Total ban of burqa and chador in public.
7. Mosques I: Adjustments to the building regulations so that the preservation of the Austrian Cultural heritage is guaranteed (no dome and minarets).
8. Mosques II: Prayer houses and rooms are often misused and thus viewed as conducive to setting up cells of Islamic parallel society. Mosque-affiliated businesses, restaurants, commercial areas are — unless correctly legally established — to close immediately.
9. Criteria for the awarding of citizenship: Knowledge about the Christian-humanist foundations of our social order is to be tested authoritatively.
10. Asylum applications: An applicant must show a commitment to our Christian-humanist values.
11. Forcing the headscarf on children is to be considered an act of violence on the part of the legal guardian and must be treated as child abuse.
12. Animal Cruelty: Ban on trade in and the sale of meat slaughtered according to Islamic rites.
13. Polygamy: As prescribed by law to religious groups in Austria, a ban on marriages in mosques without prior civil wedding must be enforced.
14. Immediate cessation of all public measures designed to encourage refusal of integration (separate cemeteries, special treatments in hospitals, offer of social services in the languages of the countries of origin of migrants, etc.).
15. Call on the Islamic Faith Community to focus efforts on enforcing building permits for Christian Churches in Islamic states.

Let us wait and see whether and how the Faith Community will react to these demands. It is time to act on those demands.


Resources used in this report:

Wiener Zeitung
Die Presse
Politische Akademie

74 comments:

laine said...

Europeans should first have a discussion about takiya (including many Muslim authorities) and try to determine whether any list of requirements could be drawn up in such a way as to put Muslims in danger of their immortal soul if they lie when signing it.

Probably not. The instruction to overcome the infidel and use any means to do so is there for everyone to see in Islam's holy writings.

I particularly enjoyed the last requirement on the list, that Muslims start lobbying immediately for building permits for Christian churches in Islamic countries LOL. That might separate the sheep from the goats. Actually, it should be expressed as a (western) mosque for a church in any of the 61 Islamic countries. That would mean a moratorium on mosques until churches caught up to the mushroom crop in Europe i.e. when hell freezes over.

El said...

whoa, these are some hard-assed academics you have in austria. i thought it was going to be the typical nonsense. is this a 'right-wing' organization, or mainstream by austrian standards?

joeblough said...

I'll second that.

Hell, I'm impressed.

Elisabeth said...

I usually do not comment here. Not as a sign of disrespect, but due to lack of time.

However, a comment made here merits a reply.

el, of course we "academics" (which we really are, btw) are considered right-wingers. We are definitely not mainstream, not yet. Hopefully, one day this will change.

This event was certainly a break-through by any standard. No group has ever publicly made these demands. And they were made in a political context, at the ÖVP think tank. We have upped the ante. ÖVP must react to this. And they have. We will be able to hold seminars on Islam for ÖVP members of parliament, something that we have been promised for more than a year.

We will not give up. We may not have the money our enemy has at its disposal (no thanks to our sky-high tax rate and a mayor with a Turkish girlfriend), but we have the brains and the perseverance.

Watch out, you democracy and free speech haters!

Sebastian said...

Hello Everyone,
I am fairly new to this site and this is my second post. I am pleased to meet you all in this forum and enjoy the rational viewpoints and passions expressed.
I think that Muslim migration is a problem in itself because of Islam's peculiarly distinctive otherness and should be addressed on that basis. In that way, we, that is those of us who regardless of heritage and racial background agree that resistance towards alien cultural imposition is legitimate and rational,wouldn't have to resort to outlawing innocent cultural expressions as a burqua in public. I have to be honest, I find some of the things mentioned in the demands a bit disturbing. I am surpised at this, because I am one who wholehearteldy thinks Islam is a problem and believes we do not have the luxury of ignoring it. But no burquas,child abuse,animal cruelty? That is going too far and I believe is a dangerous double edged sword.
I do agree with a citizen loyalty test of some sort and with the genral intention of the demands. Where I disagree is where I see the consequence being a near equivalent of the rejection of religion according to godless , unbelieving secular, left wing standards.

Sebastian said...

A little clarification of my post above.
I think those demands are fine if they are demanded from a distinctly Christian perspective. Meaning Christianity will be completely unaffected and continue to enjoy its historical freedom while Islam would in this way be discriminated against(not without reason). That is because Christianity doesn't deserve to be discriminated against in that way.
If not, then the demands are dangerously secular and Christianity will come under attack even more in the name of Political Cowardice and a false equality.

Conservative Swede said...

Long live the Germans!

Elisabeth said...

Ahem, CS, you meant to include the Austrians, right?

Conservative Swede said...

Sebatian,

Welcome to the forum!

I understand your concern because in almost every case we see petitions, manifests and declarations that turn out as anti-religion in general. However, this declaration is very clear and precise in its formulations, and clearly directed at Islam. And I cannot find a single case of a slippery slope in the formulations then could be use to hit at Christianity. I think it's very well written, and well thought through.

Conservative Swede said...

Elisabeth,

Native Swedes living on the west coast of Finland hold Finnish citizenship, but they are most definitely Swedes; sharing our ethnicity and language.

People living in Austria hold Austrian citizenship, but what is your ethnicity? German of course.

Once upon a time there used to be even more German countries, principalities etc.

Regarding the declaration. There's something very German about it. It's is very systematically and carefully thought through, there are no lose ends. The way it is formulated is also very carefully thought through in every detail. The aim is set straight at the problem -- no BS, no shaking of the hands, no shifting of the gaze -- while at the same time being carefully balanced; enough to deal with the problem, but not more.

All the German virtues tied together in one beautiful and artful document. Therefore my exclamation.

It's logical that a German renaissance will start in Austria.

Elisabeth said...

CS, I don't want to get into an ethnicity discussion. I simply do not have the knowledge to argue any points. I for my part feel and breathe Austrian. I don't feel German at all. I speak German, but that's it. My husband will agree with you, though. He's in a "Corps", if you know what that is. It's similar to a "Schlagende Verbindung". And their members feel German. Which I resent (though not my husband).

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Elisabeth, I think he means you're Germanic, like most of north-west europe.

Conservative Swede said...

Elisabeth,

Interesting the difference between you and your husband.

I didn't intend to violate anybody's national identity here. But in spite of the differences, all German speakers are tied together by history and by culture, since far far back. Quite as all of us Germanics are tied together in the same manner.

It struck me however, that in one way it's unfortunate for the Austrians of your kind that you were not Protestants. Then you could have made your own Bible translation half a millennium ago, thereby creating your own language, quite as we have the many mini-languages in Scandinavia.

Conservative Swede said...

Elisabeth, I think he means you're Germanic

No Graham, I meant German.

Well, you are sort of a German too :-) Angeln and Sachsen and all that. But you mixed up your language with French.

like most of north-west europe

which once extended all the way down to Transylvania and up to the Baltic states.

Czechmade said...

CS or Afonso, why are you obssessed with something which gave raise to EU - the pattern of Bismarck extended further by Hitler?

Your German ethnicity is an enforced non-sense. Bismarck prussianized the nonAustrian German speaking territory and killed so a lot in the same way
like EU indends to do. The Bavarians furiously resist anything connected with the term Prussian. The Swiss German speakers currently complain of Germanisierung. Why? Pay more attention.

The points given above are consequent, not spec. German.

I met a Swede from Finland and was shocked how anti-finnish she was.
Saying just a bus driver was
Finnish in her area with sort of disdain.

Austrians are unable to impress Germans and Germans are unable to impress Austrians. Germans being however too different among themselves. Respect the reality on the ground. Someone wants to preserve his identity. It is exactly our "meaning of the life" on this web.

Conservative Swede said...

Anyway, Long live the Austrians!

(the Germans are still sound asleep)

Czechmade said...

I would add, becoming probably CS German:

1) written signed condemnation of all violent or anti-kuffar passages in Quran, Ahadith, Sira. The list (probably 300 pages included)

2) written signed contract with a special police unit dealing with violent islam and propaganda

3) Regular financial contribution to a Fond for financing all losses and expenses due to surveillance or dammages caused by islam/muslims

Decrease or increase of the payment would be dependant on the behaviour of the muslims only

4) special visa for muslims for each EU country, since some EU country do not fulfill their security requirements

5) cancellation of asylum or acquired citizenship if any activity raises doubts about deep loayalty to the country

6) very restrictive visa policy with muslim countries where police does not fully cooperate with any European state

7) cancellation of asylum if the person visits his country of origin

8) capacity to explain the striking difference between European values and islamic values

My Austrian friend reports some Austrian Turks refuse to talk or meet with islamic Turks:
another case study for elaboration

It shows a number of Turks, Persians etc. would accept our strict rules with great pleasure and relief!!!!!!!!!

Conservative Swede said...

Czechmade,

Your German ethnicity is an enforced non-sense. Bismarck prussianized the nonAustrian German speaking territory and killed so a lot in the same way
like EU indends to do. The Bavarians furiously resist anything connected with the term Prussian.


Do you notice how you are contradicting yourself here: German ethnicity being enforced... by Bismarck inserting himself upon German speaking territory. But how did he manage to turn them into German speakers before he even entered? But aha! They were of course already Germans before. But to you ethnicity is all nonsense, no?

You mix up German ethnicity with the Prussian state. Your comment about Bavarians show that it took you just five seconds to forget what was really the issue.

I didn't refer to Austrians as Prussians!

Austrians are unable to impress Germans and Germans are unable to impress Austrians. Germans being however too different among themselves. Respect the reality on the ground. Someone wants to preserve his identity.

As usually you are a better expert on Austria then the Austrians themselves; quite as you are a on Ukraine etc.

Did you pay attention at all to the comment from Elisabeth about her husband? Obviously there are two possible perspectives for an Austrian here, and both are represented.

And your comparison with EU... EU is not even an empire-in-denial. It's a kindergarten for leftist/liberals. Under the protective wings of Pax Americana. It's a nothing. A house of cards.

And Hitler... Well well, you stick to your usual standard of your comments.

I met a Swede from Finland and was shocked how anti-finnish she was.

As long as she was anti-Muslim too, I would be sort of fine with that. Would beat the standard of 99% of the Swedes.

Conservative Swede said...

Czechmade,

Some of your suggestions are not practical. Some are not well balanced considering the situation at hand and the next logical strategic step on the "battlefield".

That's why the Austrians are Germans and you are not.

Conservative Swede said...

Czechmade,

...the pattern of Bismarck extended further by Hitler...

Bismarck ... killed so a lot


Your interpretation of history is inherently leftist. Listening to you speaking of Germany is like listening to Defiant Lion speaking of America.

Every political entity of significant power and importance can of course, through a leftist prism, be reduced to something that did nothing but killing a lot of people. The Roman Empire, the United States of America, Bismarck's Germany, etc. But this is a reading of history that could only make someone that is leftist at heart happy.

The defence of the Christian Europe at the gates of Vienna in 1683... oh, just a lot of killing of people.

A proper defence of Europe against Islamic warfare later in this century.. oh just a lot of killing... not worth it... would make us be just like... Hitler... As soon as they start waving their scimitars in our faces we should just give up. Fighting back in such a situation could be dangerous. We might end up killing someone...

Czechmade said...

CS, sorry I am more conservative than you, I protect old German values.
They are multiple, partly dying, partly flourishing. Pay attention.

For brevity reasons we use the code "German", but it is very unjust.
With my concept I protect the Germans from antiGerman bashing and restore their multiple identities, claiming they should close their irresponsible guilt running businesses and get fully responsible for what is going on now. Until recently your Germans did not understand each other.
Bismarck was a foreigner in Germany just like Hitler. Hitler was smuggled to Germany via Bavaria which percieved him as one of their own, since he was born on a exBavarian Austrian spot of land.
Trace his ancestors,you might be surprized, they did not come from Braunau. A sort of central european Obama not even looking "German".
Total stranger for Northern Germans.

What you propose is tour de force.
Austria would be helpless in dealing with islam .
- being part of Germany.

Czechmade said...

My term "killing" had nothing to do with the killing of people in the context.



"would make us be just like... Hitler"

or would make us be just like...Czechs...we killed Germans...in Royal british airforce..in spite of British betrayal...killing Heydrich...upstandings...Dukla...East front...

Also killing bolsheviks after WWI throughout Ukraine than fighting back home via Siberia.

Your comment makes no sense...

Czechmade said...

"That's why the Austrians are Germans and you are not."

I was for a while CS German, not German.

Czechmade said...

CS, "you decided to throw out the Germans"

You do not even read proprely my comments. How can you read whole books?

We did not. I repeat: It was an US-British-Czechoslovak-exile decision. US-British approach was much more tough. I went to more details.

"Full of Germans", many were Jews.
Who threw them out?
Many were germanized Czechs.

Austria is "full of german speaking Czechs". Can you sense the irony?

Lwow was accidently Austrian for a while, the city was mostly Polish.

Describe Sweden 370 years ago.

Study Jan Amos Comenius - he lived in Sweden in exile for a while - teaching.
Your Austrians did something very opposite to what you advocate here.
They devastated the high education standards here and you present them out of ignorance as a guarant of civilization. You must be staunch catholic as well. Very strange for a Swede. You advocate indirectly recatholization of Sweden and exiling of educated classes and those with property. What is good for us must be good for you. Agreed?

Afonso Henriques said...

All these efforts towards integration are nonesense. I honestly believe it is well intentioned but I also believe that integration will fail if it is not total. And integration cannot be total, never... it is impossible.

You can see this in the comments of many groups that consider themselves to be descriminated by the minimum things.

I think what we should do, or any other normal society, is to, as we did during the Reconquista to create Mourarias and such. Little Harlems... yes... ghettos.

Where a comunity can live according to their practices and specifical cultural traits without "taiting" the rest of the society.

I dont know if you have stopped to think about it but the worst you can do is to put two different minorities together: Hispanics and blacks in LA; blacks and gypsies here; Turks and Kurds in Brussels...

What made me support this with even more strenght was a movie I saw about black americans in the 60s and 70s in New York... how they lived somewhat happy in the "communities" and how the "black community" was broken with multiculturalism.

Integration will always lead to disaster.

Remember Jews in Germany, remember ex Yugoslavia...
Anbd ghettos will exist anyway.

Afonso Henriques said...

Czechmade,
"It shows a number of Turks, Persians etc. would accept our strict rules with great pleasure and relief!!!!!!!!!"

Remember talking about bridges?
Even you can understand the concept, you just do not want to face it. However a bridge between Europe and the... is not Europe, it's a bridge.

Erich said...

Ultimately, these kinds of measures are a waste of time and worthless, because they are essentially predicated upon the notion that we can distinguish between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims. That is nonsense. There is no way to make this distinction, because of unique features of Islamic psychology and culture, most notably

1) taqiyya;
2) their overriding loyalty to the Umma;
3) their "supremacy complex";
4) their fanatical sense of paranoia;
5) their unique sociological cohesion and flexibility of grapevine communications;
6) and their fanatical imperative to conquer the world.

Even if harmless Muslims exist, they are of no use to us because we cannot sufficiently determine their existence due to the 6 factors above, and the stakes are too high -- there is too much at risk due to the fanatical resolve of too many Muslims whom we cannot identify to assiduously and patiently plan horrific attacks against us -- attacks which require that innumerable Muslims be able to penetrate and insinuate themselves into the fabrics of our Western societies.

Thus, I say we try to re-orient ourselves to stop thinking in terms of somehow accomodating the "good Muslims" -- and reconfigure our paradigm to one of opposition to ALL Muslims and to Islam entirely.

Holistic analysis of the problem is the key, not the asymptotic analysis we get even from our fellow anti-jihadists.

In the article, they describe one Muslim participant, Sirvan Ekici, and ask a question:

She fails to mention, however, that Islamic law prescribes something entirely different, that integration is simply not possible for Muslims. Is she really unaware of this, or is she lying to herself and us?

We have to stop asking this question and simply answer it -- we must assume that any given Muslim, no matter how nice, no matter how moderate, no matter how Westernized they seem, ARE LYING TO US.

All Muslims are dangerous.

All Muslims are lying to us.

This is the only rational way to frame this problem. To do anything less will be at our extreme peril.

Afonso Henriques said...

"That's why the Austrians are Germans and you are not."

LOL. That resumes it all, does it not?

I think Czechmade has two problems: 1) He is Czech. Being Czech I'd bet he's not Slovak, are you? And, being so, "hoo, hoo, I am German, I am Westerner" it seems that you kind of despise Slovaks as you have shown you despise (Far) Eastern Europeans.
That being said, you being Czech you have - I guess - a very homegenious Nation. A very small Nation with very few intra-regional diversity.
2) You would like to be German, and I bet you feel somewhat German. And that can be okay if not taken to an absurd level. That's why I said Czech Republic is a bridge. It's not stupid for a Czech to feel somehow German but it is stupid for a Pole, for instance, to feel somewhat German. By the way, do you feel part of the Middle Age's Roman Empire?

You are struck by the great diversity that exists in Germany proper (Austria and Switzerland included) and because you are a Czech you hurry up and qualify the intra-regional diversity as if it was somewhat the product of different Nationalities. And then, to you, "Germany" ceases to be a Nation and starts becoming a "Civilisation". A Civilisation that even you can be part of. (Why can't I?) These is nonesense.

Thanks to the moors, and to geographic and climatic factors, Portugal, despite being a small Nation like "Czechia" has a considerable intra-regional diversity. Spain, on the other way has Nations inside of her...

You may find what I write hypocrital because of what appears to be my double standards: Defend a big German Nation and divide Spain simultaneously.

For you to understand it, do you recall speaking of "Mittel Europa", right. Hispania is not in Europe. If you analise our History, you will see it does not follow the fashions of Mittel or any other Europa. There is an Historical descripancy almost always present between the Spains and the rest of Europe. In one word: The Iberian Peninsula is a Sub-Continent on his own right (like India) and as such, it has it's very own diversity.

About books. In many books I've seen in Portuguese (not in English), books about post Roman Empire European History, there was always many different German kingdoms and principalities, an Empire and a red line which limited something called "Germanic Federation". Mind you, it included Bavaria, Prussia, Austria, but not Hungary, Poland, Croatia. It some times included Silesia, Burgogne, parts of North Italy and Czechia...

And about manana or mañana. I think you mean "o país do amanhã" (the country of tomorow). That is applied to Brazil. Brazil has always had what's needed to be a great power but it seems to be condemned to be the power of tomorrow for ever.

Afonso Henriques said...

Erich,

"Ultimately, these kinds of measures are a waste of time and worthless, because they are essentially predicated upon the notion that we can distinguish between dangerous Muslims and harmless Muslims. That is nonsense."

I'd say that we cannot treat individuals as groups or groups as individuals. We have to treat immigration as a movement of groups and dynamics between that, groups.
I believe that there are many honest good muslims. But being muslims, they are that, muslims. Any group that enters a different Nation must be seen as part of a foreign group and treated accordingly. Only when you tell the muslims - or any other group - BEHAVE! YOU ARE A FOREIGN HERE, you can startt to treat them as individuals. Because they will be individuals of a group and their individuality will lie in being part of the group.

That don't mean that you have to treat the muslim persons you enconter in the supermarket as muslims insteads of individuals that happen to belong to a different group.
This is on the personal side.

But the picture is that Nations are inviting other Nations (groups) in. Those groups simply happen to be composed of individuals. Thus, any goodness that one (even if everyone) individual may represent, is overlaped by the group, that forms the bigger picture.

That is our problem (does this even made any sense in English??).

El said...

erich,

how disappointing that such determined and unapologetic opposition to islamization is worthless to you! it appears that, no matter how often you post the same links to the same articles of yours, there remain, unaccountably, people in this world who refuse to read them and enjoy an erich-inspired road-to-damascus moment. it must be very frustrating.

the notion that muslims may be lying to us when they profess moderation is not original to your good self. indeed, it has surely occurred to just about everyone who has ever thought about the issue, including, no doubt, many of the austrian academics in question. there is an awful lot more to the list of demands in the article than the clumsy delusion about 'good muslims' (an expression not used, i don't think) that you project onto it. it is an exercise in a) bluff-calling, and b) stating an intention to push back against overt islamization, and presumably other things too.

you have a fine mind erich, but seem impatient with any approach that is not your own. do you really think the academics here come across as a bunch of deluded muslim-huggers? i cannot see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

Czechmade said...

I understand that giving us the bridge thing you want generously to
help us rise from our unimportance.

But at the moment it does not matter really.
Any German, French or British (to quote some from your collection) are utterly unimportant even at home.

My Turks and Persians in fact burnt their bridges here or back home. Or they refer to specific islands at home? Forget bridge, try islands.

We are a true island. We do not think about a specific relationship to anyone. We are bridge for refugees. We do not see them and they do not see us. They are locked in a camion or car or passing some airport with fake papers.

Jews in Germany were a success story. They contributed to the German culture more than anybody else given their number. The German Jews - very Western - were not happy about Eastern Jews coming.
The German film industry never recovered from their loss.

To give you more to think - they were the only Germans - being not linked to specific German ethnicity, place, creed and dialect.

Add as much irony as you want to my sentence. It is again the lingua franca thing.

Afonso Henriques said...

Czechmade,

"We are a true island. We do not think about a specific relationship to anyone."

I just think it is not realistic to think of islands in the long - or middle - term. We are in the European Union. No Nation can isolate itself. Not even Ireland or Iceland which are really islands...

Czechmade said...

I made a joke. CS said enthusiastically the Austrians are Germans listing some very consequent points above. I added more consequent points and became "ConSwede German". It is like Plato saying human is a two legged hairless creature and Diogenes bringing a cock with no feathers said Look, this is the human of Plato.

I do not need at all to be a Westerner. But look the first German University was founded in Prague, second in Vienna and third only in your Germany - in Heidelberg. I put it so on purpose to make you shout hapilly "Germaaaaaans"

If you say that in Germany it is true...however:

They were 4 nations to decide for the administration equally:
Czechs, Poles, Bavarians, Saxons

However from 1409 on the decision making shifted more in the favour of Czechs under Václav IV. This is the first university in Central Europe.

Now you can realize how silly is the Western mind moving someone at pleasure like stalin in different directions.

Buy the way how do you treat Luxembourg and Alsass-Lothringen?

Czechmade said...

Haha Afonso, I got you.

Blame Austrians, French and Germans. They decided to ban us from working in their countries to please the voter, we were accepted immediatelly in GB, Ireland, EU Scandinavia and Holland, later in Spain. Portugal I cannot remember.
We love also New Zealand.

HAHA They forced us to learn more English and Spanish. I mean young people. Now the love and job/business distribution is like this.

Afonso Henriques said...

Czechmade,
"Haha Afonso, I got you."

Your point being?

Lucille said...

9. Criteria for the awarding of citizenship: Knowledge about the Christian-humanist foundations of our social order is to be tested authoritatively.
10. Asylum applications: There must be a demand for the applicant’s commitment to our Christian-humanist values.


Has this group ever spelled out precisely what "Christian-humanist values" they are referring to?

Forcing the headscarf for children is to considered an act of violence on the part of the legal guardian and must be treated as child abuse.

I'm not sure what sort of reasoning can lead one to conclude that putting a bit of fabric on someone's head is "violence" per se.

Also, how do they expect to substantiate the "forcing" part of that language? Some children (whatever religion they were raised in) end up more religiously observant than their parents; will someone who starts veiling in her teenage years be considered the victim of "abuse" or "violence"?

Conservative Swede said...

Czechmade,

Many were germanized Czechs.

You mean Austrianized Czechs? :-)

Conservative Swede said...

Czechmade,

I never expected anyone to enter this forum that would make Afonso look cool-headed, balanced and disciplined. But indeed it has happened.

As for your rather far developed complex, where you are both fiercely anti-German, and at the same imagine that you are a better German the Germans themselves, is something for a Freudian to look at. I think you are seriously mad.

In your confused writings you are unable to uphold the distinction German ethnicity and German state, which makes virtually everything you write nonsense.

Zenster said...

The West must continue to conduct an open and hard dialogue, including one with radical Islamic scholars. His words, “One must not demonize every visible sign of Islam. I also have no problem with mosques. It is essential (to know) what is said there.”

Clearly, Eberhardt has an insufficient understanding of taqqiya.

Let us wait and see whether and how the Faith Community will react to these demands. It is time to act on those demands.

While it may seem mean-spirited of me to say this, every one of the foregoing and well-thought-out demands all can be circumvented by taqqiya and slow jihad. This is why I maintain that Islam must be crushed. It is entirely immiscible with modern civilization and has no redeeming features that justify its continuing existence.

laine: Europeans should first have a discussion about takiya (including many Muslim authorities) and try to determine whether any list of requirements could be drawn up in such a way as to put Muslims in danger of their immortal soul if they lie when signing it.

As you yourself concede, there is no way. Taqqiya irrevocably damns Islam. Muslims are permanently and indelibly tainted by their wholehearted embrace of such deceit.

Conservative Swede, congratulations upon your Herculean efforts to derail this thread by debating "Germnanity" with Czechmade. Your comments are not, dare I say, germane to this thread. I invite you to take such irrelevant nonsense offline.

If you need proof, I'd say that a sure sign of this is when Afonso appears to be more on topic than yourself. I've met Elisabeth personally and her personality bears little resemblance to those of the Germans whom I work with on a routine basis.

Erich: Thus, I say we try to re-orient ourselves to stop thinking in terms of somehow accomodating the "good Muslims" -- and reconfigure our paradigm to one of opposition to ALL Muslims and to Islam entirely.

Anyone who doubts this would be well advised to read Fjordnam's comprehensive essay on "Why We Cannot Rely Upon Moderate Muslims". While the Austrian resolutions are not "a waste of time and worthless", they focus somewhat inadequately upon the overarching issue of taqqiya.

We have to stop asking this question and simply answer it -- we must assume that any given Muslim, no matter how nice, no matter how moderate, no matter how Westernized they seem, ARE LYING TO US.

This is the only safe assumption that can be made about any Muslim. It is not any sort of choice on our own part but a fundamental conclusion that Muslims force upon all rational people who wish to survive Islam.

Lucille: ... will someone who starts veiling in her teenage years be considered the victim of "abuse" or "violence".

To give credit where credit is due, the Austrian resolutions are among the very few that finally begin to identify how shari'a law is one massive abuse of human rights, just as Islam is an ongoing crime against humanity.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

Conservative Swede, congratulations upon your Herculean efforts to derail this thread by debating "Germnanity" with Czechmade. Your comments are not, dare I say, germane to this thread. I invite you to take such irrelevant nonsense offline.

If you need proof, I'd say that a sure sign of this is when Afonso appears to be more on topic than yourself. I've met Elisabeth personally and her personality bears little resemblance to those of the Germans whom I work with on a routine basis.


As of my last comment I left this idiotic exchange with Czechmade behind me, since he's clearly deranged and able to generate his typical sort of nonsense eternally, there's no end to it.

But since you are so eager to bring the topic up again, Zenster, I will answer you. Through my work I meet many Germans and Austrians. And yes I have met Elisabeth too, whatever that has anything to do with anything (and so has her husband, btw). So I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Your thesis is that there is "little resemblance" between Austrians and Germans. Which are these great differences between Austrians and Germans that you so clearly see?

And why are you so keen on continuing this discussion if you do not consider it germane? The discussion started with a question posed to me by the author of this article. And I found it only polite to answer it. Then I tried to counter the flood of misconceptions coming from Czechmade, but had to give up. And now you want to continue this discussion?

I think the real issue here is that quite as with Russia, just the mentioning of the term "German" makes certain people freak out and lose their minds.

What does German mean when Czechmade writes "the first German University was founded in Prague, second in Vienna and third only in your Germany - in Heidelberg.". Or when he writes that the Czechs in the Austrian empire was germanized?

I find it ridiculous how grown up people make a big brouhaha based on (intentionally?) misunderstanding the distinction German as in citizen of Germany, and German as in German ethnicity.

There are several English speaking countries too. But for them there is the term Anglo-Saxon to tie together their ethnicity and culture. There are distinct terms for the language, ethnicity and country respectively. However, in the case of German the same word is used at all levels. But this overloading is typical of natural languages. However, in all situations any grown up person is perfectly able to uphold the distinction. It's the same with e.g. Swede; can refer to both citizen in Sweden, or of Swedish ethnicity. This is all very basic.

Czechmade said...

Zenster be patient.

Misunderstanding Russia and Germany/Austria is a serious flaw in this blog. Presenting political clown Haider here was absurd. I have enough non-leftist friends in Austria who would make me aware of any quality of this guy, if someone thinks i am biased.


Lucille

The way of dressing is half way military uniform. We can link it with violence. It implies military obedience to males and one war-god.

Dear CS

I write "from the German point of view"---and you might find
it a good example to view the thing the other way.

Czech-Polish-Bavarian-Saxon administration does not make it German. By the way Saxony and Bavaria are until today Freistaat.
It was a response tailored to Afonso, expecting more sense of humor.

Instead of learning a bit history you miss the point.

Interesting that I find more agreement with Germans and gather more facts from them, which I mention as well.

Germanized - since
the German-Czech border is the longest German border (seen from the German side) with another state. Which was even longer before Poland was moved westwards.

They were settlers here long before we had something in common with Austria. Same with Lwow, you noticed fleetingly Austrian administration in recent history, not the stable Polish presence.

Interesting that I find more agreement with Germans and gather more facts from them, which I mention as well.

The Austrians freak out when you start talking your way. Blame them, not me.

Zenster said...

Conservative Swede: Zenster, I will answer you. Through my work I meet many Germans and Austrians. And yes I have met Elisabeth too, whatever that has anything to do with anything (and so has her husband, btw). So I have some idea of what I'm talking about.

Except that you have just bloviated for almost four hundred words completely off topic. I am not pretending to make any sweeping generalizations about Austrians and Germans, while you are.

All I said was, "I've met Elisabeth personally and her personality bears little resemblance to those of the Germans whom I work with on a routine basis."

You then conflate my statement, which is specifically about Elisabeth with a blanket generalization, vis:

"Your thesis is that there is "little resemblance" between Austrians and Germans.

... and then proceed to go off on your merry and tiresome way, erecting straw man after straw man.

Conservative Swede said...

Zenster,

So your comment had no relevance whatsoever to anything that has been discussed in this thread at all. How clever...

Czechmade:
The Austrians freak out when you start talking your way.

You and Zenster freak out. No one else does.

It's tempting to reply to your new confused absurdities (you always manage to contradict yourself in the most self-defeating and funny way), but I'll resist this time.

Henrik R Clausen said...

On the issue of Taqiyya, I honest don't think it would be much of a concern on 15 points like these. Taqiyya works best in hiding, not in the clear light of publicity. Lying blatantly about points like these would simply expose Islamic leaders as liars, not make them look clever.

We can't let worry about Taqiyya make us back down from making clear and sensible demands like those above.

Sebastian said...

Eric said: "We have to stop asking this question and simply answer it -- we must assume that any given Muslim, no matter how nice, no matter how moderate, no matter how Westernized they seem, ARE LYING TO US.

All Muslims are dangerous.

All Muslims are lying to us.

This is the only rational way to frame this problem. To do anything less will be at our extreme peril".
-endquote.

I agree. It is the only thing that a people can humanly do to protect themselves from danger. We must take this guarded stance and take this rational practical approach and give the benefit of the doubt to our ourselves and count the risk of being wrong- while protecting oursleves and our children as something worth it.

Yet it seems the custom at present in most Western deballed cultures is to give the benefit of the doubt to our possible enemies at risk to oursleves,in the name of a precaution against being thought ill of,as if being thought racist was the greatest danger we faced,
rather than our own cultural suicide.

laine said...

"wouldn't have to resort to outlawing innocent cultural expressions as a burqua in public"

I have to second the notion expressed on this thread that none of the female drapings of Islam are "innocent" or merely cultural. They most often indicate the most militant female soldiers in the army of Islam whether conscripted by their lord and master husbands or choosing to veil independently. No less an authority than bin Laden's second in command, Al Zawahiri describes them as such:

"And I congratulate every Muslimah observant of her Hijab and chastity in the face of the fierce Crusade against the Hijab, which exposes their immorality, decline and degeneration. And she should know that the Hijab, symbol of her modesty and purity, tears them apart inside, because it exposes the depravity of their civilization. And I remind her that by holding fast to her Hijab and Deen, she is a soldier in the battle of Islam against the Zionist Crusade and its helpers, the traitorous idol-kings."
http://eteraz.org/story/2007/1/4/184251/0765

Equally importantly, young Muslim women who would like to adopt Western dress against the wishes of their families would be greatly helped by banning of the burka in schools and other public spaces as in France. It might avoid an "honor" killing such as one in Toronto by an irate Pakistani father and brother of a sixteen year old girl who doffed her hijab. As journalist Barbara Kay observed, if hijabs had been banned in Canadian public schools as they were in France, then this poor 16 year old girl would have had Canada on her side instead of leaving her hung out to dry and facing an ancient authoritarian system alone.

Sebastian said...

laine,
I can understand your concern and the connection you see between the veil and the Islamic threat but I think it would be better to simply ban Islam period than try to pick it apart in that way.
Becaue to pick it apart in that way and to tell people what they can and cannot wear on their heads, is actually more offensive and fascistic than simply making the case that Islam's fundamental difference from and antagonism towards Western liberties, makes it completely irreconcileable.

You might as well require Islam to be Christianity which is not possible and would simply foment more rebellion in the shadows. I see such a ban and its enforcement as actually infringing on natural liberties and freedom of thought, whereas we are not trying to control people or their dress but identifying vicious and threatening doctrines and ideaoligies incompatible with our own ideas.

Sebastian said...

laine,
Veils don't kill people and can be a true expression of modesty and conservatism that I can appreciate and respect. This I believe is a point, where while guarding against true Islam- not veils, we have to allow difference of opinions and expressions to exist.
What about the veil of nuns? Or is it only Muslim veils? Now I know nuns are different and do not deserve any such kind of ban and if we are strong enough to resist implenting such a ban universsaly and single out Islam as the offending worldview, then we might as well just ban Islam period, rather than have to humiliate and implement a sort of reverse dhimmitude

laine said...

As yet there is no parallel between nun's wimples and Muslims' veils until Christians run amok around the world for two decades attacking thousands of non-Christians, declaring that they will reign supreme and the leaders of the assassins declare all nuns soldiers of Christ or alternatively when it becomes common for relatives of nuns to kill the ones who refuse to wear a veil.

BTW veiling is not a religious requirement in Islam. It is a cultural practice that has so many negative aspects (vitamin D deficiency as in Afghanistan, uncovered Saudi girls herded back into a burning building by the religious police, refusal of female Muslim med students in England to follow proper surgical scrub techniques, Muslim terrorist suspects dressing in burkas to escape police, men in burkas robbing banks etc) that it should be left behind in Muslim states.

In fact many wealthy Muslims do just that. They dress in the regalia while in Arab states but doff it when flying to Paris to shop. If Western states simply declaring as France did that religious head coverings and paraphenalia of all kinds are out in the schools (there's your nun question answered) helps curb the migration of devout Muslims, that would be a very good thing. They have a choice whether to leave their Muslim state or not. I cannot see any practical way of banning all of Islam (the camel is in the tent) but discouraging them by insisting on westernization if they choose to come to a western country is doable as France proved. Turkey also still discourages the hijab thanks to Ataturk's secular legacy though 95% of Turks are Muslim.

Czechmade said...

Totally wrong. The veil is one of the most important tools in demonstrative re-islamization of the female population.

I repeate: re-islamization.

The more women wear the veil the more social pressure can be exercised on the rest of them to comply as well.

You need few women raped, attacked with acid etc. for not wearing veil and thousands will wear it as a sort of self-defense.

In the same way many ethnicities accepted formally islam - only to be spared. In self-defence. To "protect" their family and property. To find out later there is no way out.

The whole concept is islam in nucleus. Primitive as it is.

So banning it we protect efficiently all who would never come to the idea to display islam in public, being hostile, indifferent or ignorant of it.

Sebastian said...

laine,
I just do not think it is agreeable for any government to control these sorts of things,which is in effect secular sharia. If the government can get into the details of your life and outlaw beliefs nd tell you how to dress,then that is a problem equal to Islam trying to control others.

The solution is to first of all stop all Muslim migration period.

I think an examination of why we reject Islam is in order. For me it is not for left wing liberal reasons,because that is in essence fighting against conservatism albeit in another form and spreading the liberal corruption.

Though I wish to defeat all my enemies I do not wish to do it on the basis of left wing views of liberty or any sort of alignment with left wing policies, which I fear are latent in your views. Your views strike me as a form of left wing toughness, that while seemingly tough towards Islam would increase the left establishments power and further enable their social agenda.

Czechmade said...

Laine,

It is wise to stress that 25% of the Turks (i.e. citizens) in Turkey are alavite. These are not muslims by muslim standards and are banned just like Christians to exhibit their faith for ex. in form of building their mosques.

The fact that they worship Virgin Mary and keep pictures of her shows how deep this heresy is. Moreover the bulk of their faith is not easily accessible in form of religious books or dogmas.

Alavite are more secular/educated and not adverse to arts, music and dance, since it is a component of their faith.

Quoting 95% we help unknowingly the Turkish state in its hegemony aspiration, instead to weaken them let it be on the basis of human rights only or stressing Turkish "diversity". Diversity is a cowardly term, to avoid calling things by name.

We might also find out about Turkish idenity cards, whether religion gets mentioned. In Iraq the religion on IDs issued in many deaths. In Turkey it would be only harrassment.

Official islam in Turkey is not sunni only, it is some sufi variety. Does it mean some clashes with wahabis in future? Disillusion after islam was made an official fashion?

Whenever we get confronted with something monolithic we get scared without considering the ruptures.
We start acting out of fear and make mistakes.

Some get excited and want explicitly to create monoliths as well.

Politology simplified - clash of monoliths. EU loves it - a pretext to promote a centralistic EU gov.

asasas said...

I'm a Muslim theologian based in Ireland. I have read the demands you have listed. It reflects the dire need for a revolution of trust. Moreover, it is a clear practice of stereotyping and per-judging. in addition, it clearly does not differanciate between assimilation and integration. Colouring all the country with one brush is really boring. Diversity is enrichness.It is high time to think of integration which is based on mutual respect and not the concept of the big brother.

Lucille said...

"The concept of the Big Brother"? Explain. I'm not sure that means anything in this context.

Zenster said...

asasas: It is high time to think of integration which is based on mutual respect ...

Something that Islam lacks utterly and is long overdue. If Islam wishes to survive, it had best set about demonstrating some genuine respect for other cultures and reciprocating the religious freedom it so loudly clamors for in Western countries.

Moreover, if there is any "integration" to be done, it is most clearly that of Muslims authentically assimilating into Western cultures without the unstated intent of subverting their laws and doctrines. The real measure of Muslim integration will be seen when Islamic majority countries finally enshrine true freedom of religion and the protection of individual rights. Neither of which manifest in the least at present.

The monstrous hypocrisy of Muslim demands for Western accommodation even as Islam forbids all diversity of opinion, faith and expression would prove fatal to any organism less immune to reason or logic.

asasas said...

Yes, Lucille
The Concept of the big brother means that someone supervises another one and takes his decisions and basically tells him what to do and what not to do on the basis of the immaturity of the younger brother and the suspusions that always disturbe the mind of the big brother that his younger brother is missing somewhere and somehow and that he should interfere otherwise it might turn into a catastrophe.Sometimes this occurs because the big brother is worried about himself and sometimes about his brother. In either cases, there is no trust.

Cervantes Hand said...

next time you're auditioning for an American cop show make your you get in there before tariq taqiyaa ramadan because there's only room for one good cop and the double t man kicks every other muslim's ass in that role. Tell the Q man I was asking for him.

Czechmade said...

asasas

You had enough time to govern yourselves to our satisfaction (even with zero assimilation)

Now the Big brother of islamic origin is mentoring you from within and from abroad. Your Big brother requires our yet Bigger brother to constrain him.

And do not think we do not hold you responsible for installation of your Big brother. You are.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Czechmade:
The veil is one of the most important tools in demonstrative re-islamization of the female population.

Czechmade is absolutely on target here, as in the rest of his comment.

We have the acid attacks in Afghanistan these days applying some pretty tangible 'social pressure'.

The issue of the veil is pivotal, its importance cannot be overestimated. If Islam was to lose control of women, it would collapse.

asasas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Czechmade said...

Asasas,

be a nice dhimmi, start paying jizya. We want to protect you with our weapons and do not want to spend our money on it. Protected, you will feel very safe.

asasas said...

Czechmade
There is a dire need for education. Who paid the Jizia did not pay Zakah nor tax. Unemployed, the old people were exempted therefrom. In retun all enjoyed all the faclities equally

Erich said...

The comments of sebastian and zenster are heartening. Slowly but surely, I am noticing an increasing learning curve toward holistic analysis of the problem of Islam. The persistent presence of the PC MC mentality within the ranks of the anti-Islam movement, as reflected by people who think that the useless existence of nice Muslims is relevant to our safety needs, however, is most depressing.

The comment by "el" to me didn't advert to anything in the argument I articulated. "el" would have to do that first, before he provides anything of substance for me to actually respond to.

Provisionally, I would say that of course if I'm starving, a few crumbs like this Austrian list is better than nothing. However, in the long run, if we keep framing this problem according to this paradigm where we constantly expect Muslims to reform and therefore to be suddenly non-Islamic, it is going to be harmful and dangerous to us.

Again, to reiterate:

1) There are good harmless Muslims who exist out there.

2) Unfortunately, we cannot sufficiently distinguish them form the dangerous Muslims to make the existence of the good harmless Muslims useful for our protection against the dangerous ones.

3) Interaction with seemingly nice and friendly Muslims in the "supermarket" on an interpersonal level is a laughably asinine, ludicrously irrelevant, and more importantly, dangerously misleading point to bring up.

Henrik R Clausen said...

BTW, more material from the conference is up at JihadWatch.

Enjoy!

Czechmade said...

Asasas

Haha, obligatory folk tale. Jizya was much more heavy. Really bad deal for non-muslims. Even dead had to pay it sometimes. Even in times of natural disasters it was extorted from widows and sick people.

It had to be payed with "humiliation".

Are you ready to suffer slapping on the face, bowing to me, in case of "polytheists" - spitting in the mouth?

If you are not ready, you have something against islam.

And you are a polytheist. You worship a printed book, a stone, some Zamzam, some direction, some warlord, you worship yourself being superior and "pure". You are free to commit crimes just shouting "allahakbar". You are free to kill your fellow muslim shouting the same "on the path of allah". You are free to kill your kids according to a holy decree of your "scholars". You are free to make slaves and keep them, rape them or sell them. You get rewards from your wargod, if you convert someone or kill an apostate.

Amazing how much criminal freedoms you have within your faith! We keep you for the next 14 hundert years as a token of reconciliation. You are right, the divisive thing has to go.

Civilus Defendus said...

Bravo for the VAA 15 Demands.

I am drafting a Citizens' Declaration and Plea for Relief to post and send to all my elected officials.

This is basic self-defense for survival.

Sehr Gut!
Civilus Defendus
US Citizen

bogwraith said...

Liam "mujahid" Egan is that you?

El said...

erich:

very well, let's try that again. given that you dismissed the austrian efforts as worthless and then backtracked to acknowledging that they had at least some value, i will assume you were at least partly chastened.

your point, which you made without substantiation only to leap into a dreary recitation of a mind-numbingly obvious point, was that the efforts in austria were predicated upon the assumption that there were 'good muslims' (an expression you used, not them) who we could win over. but it does not seem to me that this claim is made explicitly in the article, nor implicitly in the list of demands. what reason is there, then, to believe that it has been made at all, other than your fevered attempts to project a certain analytical error onto all and sundry to display your own wisdom?

i see much value in the list of demands. to explain but a single point in detail: the demand that imams disavow portions of the koran is not an empty-headed kumbaya gesture. i read it as an attempt to call muslims' bluff, and make it clear to interested observers that muslims will not disavow anything in the koran, even when it calls for the killing and/or subjugation of non-muslims. it seems to be a tactical manoeuvre in a PR battle against islam, an attempt to educate. to dismiss such efforts as 'worthless' after falsely imputing certain motives to a group of people you have never met is ridiculous grandstanding in addition to being analytically confused. there is *strategy* and there are *tactics*. you see a *tactic* and make a blind guess as to the *strategy*. how edifying it is to observe the self-aggrandizing and mean-spirited guesses of a stranger! would that the austrians had access to your brilliant insights! muslims might be lying to us when they profess moderation! who could have guessed?

you accused me of not making the nature of my criticism clear enough in my earlier post. you were right, i did not. i thought you might be able to figure it out from the hint i gave you. clearly i gave you too much credit. to be blunt: provide some evidence that the group of austrian academics is motivated by a gullible desire to find the 'good muslims' and join hands with them, or retract your nonsensical claim, made against a group of people who seem to have as few illusions about islam as any i have encountered in polite company.

is that clear enough, sniper from the sidelines? i say again, how feeble your long-distance criticisms of those who seem to depart from your strict orthodoxy!

"el" (evidently it needs quote marks)

PS by the way, everybody - muslims might be lying to us when they profess moderation! pass it on! erich just figured it out!

PPS please provide yet more links to your essays. it would make my day.

Conservative Swede said...

Erich,

You are thrusting through open doors. Unlike what you think, you are not bringing any new awareness to this forum.

The point of this Austrian list of demands is not to reform Muslims, but to put so many obstacles in their way that it will make them leave. Making them leave is the goal. I believe you share this goal. If the items of this list would be fully implemented it would be a huge step forward, and surely a rivers of Muslims would no more feel welcome and leave (and the right ones). However, this is a war of many battles, and an implementation of this list would just mean victory at one of the battlefields. And the main problem is clearly not that this list would contain too little, but that we are so very far away from having anything like this implemented.

So why not simply just write a one-item-list saying "Make them leave" or "Deport them"? First of all there is a point in not always making every manifestation an issue of immigration. Our adversaries manages well to frame and kill this sort of approach. People's minds need to be confronted from many directions. Furthermore, the list is realistic in terms a foreseeable next step. Remember how this is a war of many battles. I'm pleased by your will and focus on winning the whole war at once. But if you think that this is all a matter of: i) doing the correct analysis and ii) then just present it to the people, then you are pretty naive. The Austrian list takes both the nature of Islam and the nature of the debate climate of the contemporary West in account, while you have disregarded the latter.

Any action must take both the nature of Islam and the nature of the West in account. We must hit the PC MC totalitarian tyranny from many directions, but at the same time not overreach the size and extension of the battles we are currently engaging in. Complete analyzes have their place here on the web, something which I engage in much myself, and in that taking many steps ahead (e.g. in pointing out how we'll need to destroy Mecca, conquer the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, and stop sending Western medicine etc. to the Third World). However, presenting complete analyzes to the general public is going make them shut their ears. What's you next move once they have shut their ears?

No, the way through is to say things that make them open their ears. This means that the message needs to be tailored and balanced in such a way. This is what I see in this list. And I see how this list has been made by people having high awareness of the nature of Islam. How you could come to a different conclusion is beyond me.

Conservative Swede said...

PS. Erich: Good luck with Auster.

PPS. For those interested, me and Erich have an ongoing discussion here too.

asasas said...

Zenster
I can compare like with like and cite hundreds of crimes perpetrated by non-Muslims and alocate blames on their faith. And I will talk about the present.But this is not the right aproach. Moreover, you want Muslims to be assimelated. In other words, you want to delete their Muslim identity. This is not a fair request.
As for freedom, Islam gives the highest level of freedom based on mutual respect. The Muslims were in spain for hundreds of years and the non-Muslims practiced their religions. When the table was turned upsidedown Muslims were slaughtered. The had no choice either to be converted or to be slaughterd and it happened. Still I do not blame their faiths but the culprets who perpetrated the crimes.
Any way, what is done cannot be undone. when people find themselves in the corner they behave and misbehave. But when they feel at home they always behave. And on every apple tree there is a rotten apple.

Timothy Moriarty said...

Obama appoints CTO for his administration

Is India ready for 2009 election?

http://india.ezcampaigns.com/

Unfrench Frenchman said...

"1. Full disclosure of religious foundations, as required in the law on religion. A certified translation of the Qur’an and the Ahadith are to be deposited (in the Ministry of Interior).
2. All fatwas from imams preaching in Austria are to be translated into German and deposited in the Ministry of Interior."

This is not nearly enough. All blog entries are to be screened by the Ministry of Interior before publication. Every conversation between consenting adults will require prior authorization from the Ministry of Interior. The contents of every conversation are to be provided by the Ministry of Truth. Conversions to any religion are to require approval of the Ministry of Love.

Deutsche Ordnung und einen starken Staat braucht Österreich.

Not.

Henrik Ræder said...

Unfrench, you can ditch your sarcasm. Those proposals make a ton of sense.

First, we need to know what scripture a religion really is based on. Did you read Al-Tabari? If they submit a truthful translation of that book - and English translations are readily available - the foundation of Islam will turn out to be so embarrassing that one can hardly find a decent human being willing to stand up for it.

Second, depositing translations of all fatwas makes sense, too. Fatwas are laws issued under the alternative legal system Sharia, which does not respect secular law or constitutions, but (in theory) apply to all Muslims anywhere. They are deeply disrupting for the Rule of Law in Western societies. We can't ban people from creating fatwa's, but we can at least demand that the contents of them be made clear for all.

The likely effect of such a demand is that radical preachers will give up on going to Austria entirely. Which is a Good Thing. What is proposed here isn't censorship, it's documentation and transparency. These are Good qualities, and your references to 1984 do not make sense.

We need to be clear and direct in order to fix this problem. Hippie-style lenience is a path to disaster.