Thursday, February 10, 2011

A Dangerous Mindset

Below is an interview with Amina Baghajati, a prominent Muslima in Austria, from typischich.at. The topic under discussion is the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff.

One can learn a lot about the politically correct zeitgeist in Austria from the questions asked, and the responses by Ms. Baghajati provide insights into the strategies employed by Austrian Muslims when exploiting that zeitgeist.

The amount of disinformation contained in this interview makes it impossible for me to fisk it properly, given my time constraints. However, here are just a few of the brazen assertions served up for the readers of typischich.at:

  • [ESW] is suffering from selective perception.
  • A fringe group is spreading dangerously superficial knowledge about Islam.
  • No one knows what sharia really is.
  • It is not an Islamic law book that you can buy in the bookstore.
  • It has been chiefly the Muslims who have been massively attacked and insulted in Austria.
  • It came out that Aisha at the time of her marriage could not have been nine years old but was ten years older, that is 19.
  • We are against forced marriage in principle — all the more of children!
  • Only if someone were in mortal danger if revealed as a Muslim would he be allowed to lie and say: No, I am not a Muslim.

Readers are invited to deconstruct these and numerous other whoppers contained in the text below. Many thanks to JLH for the translation:

More Courage for Discourse About Islam

The trial against Islam critic, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for hate speech is going into its next round [on Tuesday February 15, 2011 — ed.]. A conversation with the spokeswoman for the Islamic religious community in Austria, Amina Baghajati, on the limits of freedom of expression, sharia and desirable Islam criticism.

Amina Baghajati

Mrs. Baghajati, where does freedom of speech end, in your opinion?

Where targeted misinformation or false information is used to arouse a majority against a minority.

This is what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the seminar leader of the Freedom Education Academy is being accused of. That is why she will be in court beginning January 18. What do you say to her philosophy?

She is suffering from selective perception. Only what agrees with her can be allowed into her view. Every positive contribution of Islam in the world could destroy her argument. So it is ignored.

What is your opinion of the trial?

She is abusing this trial as a forum for her hate speech, and to present a false interpretation of Islam as the truth.

This opportunity was given her by the court. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor seem to have prepared especially well for the trial. By his own account, the prosecutor listened to the audio tape of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s Islam seminar — the basis of the charge — “only in excerpts.” What do you think of that?

I find it disturbing. This incitement is a serious subject. I would hope the court would see it the same way.

Do you notice an increase in hostility toward Islam in Austria?

We notice above all that a fringe group is spreading dangerously superficial knowledge about Islam which is finding its way noticeably into the mainstream. When Maria Fekter says, tolerance is a “no-go” in Islam, then we know where she got that, even if it is a gaffe. For years an “enemy image” of Islam has been built up in political circles. The constantly repeated word “Islamization” nurtures a fear that Muslims want to force all others to their belief. Unfortunately, in this country, there is glaring ignorance about Islam. That is why those who argue against it have free play with their selective perception and propagandistic misinformation.

Can you give us an example?

Perhaps the contention that genital mutilation of girls is an Islamic tradition. That is just false.

Is the Islamic religious community making moves against female genital mutilation?

Of course. We of the IGGÖ (Islamic Religious Community in Austria) have made great strides in past years, in the area of massively halting it. Not just at home and in Europe, but internationally and above all in the affected areas of Africa.

Islam critics talk of wanting to prevent the establishment of sharia in Europe. What do you say to that?

You see, no one knows what sharia really is. It is not an Islamic law book that you can buy in the bookstore. Translated, sharia means “the way to the water.” So, something that you get, but also have to keep fetching: a collection of answers to questions about the religious way of life in Islam. Which also includes the freedom to follow these statements or not. You must continually renew the dialogue with the questions of Islamic life. Sharia is a dynamic process — not static or written in stone — and above all sharia is not a synonym for “corporal punishment.” I know no one who wants to change the law here in Austria.

A legal system based on religious doctrine is out-of-date in Europe. If an Eastern politician says he wants to introduce sharia, what does he mean by that?

He means the same as Western politicians when they promise to exercise “Law-and-Order Policies.” Order, clear rules, more security for citizens.

How do Muslims in Austria feel?

Unfortunately, there is no official research on that, which we regret, for such data would be important. Naturally, we get a feeling of the ambience from members of the community who talk to us and want to express their frustration. In the labor market, we experience open discrimination against women with head-scarves. We encourage women to tell us things like that, since we often do not know that their human rights are being abused here. And we notice an increasing hysteria and revulsion. Things that were previously handled humanely are now approached more crassly.

Please, an example.

For instance, the hotel management schools. Previously, Muslim students could agree with the teachers on an interpersonal level that they would not have to taste the pork they had just cooked or drink any wine. Now there are forms that students or guardians have to fill out where they state their willingness, in the context of training, to consume pork and wine. Everything is more extreme, more radical. The dialogue is giving way to more and more rigid stances.

Various reports do not help much in coming to an understanding. The German periodical “Bild” reported that a teacher was discharged because she accidentally served pork to Muslim students. The school now has a general ban on pork.

This story was completely different than in the magazine! Actually, the teacher was not discharged and pork was not removed from the menu. The Turkish parents accepted her apology and the case for the school administration was closed. This is just hyping to make people hysterical. Just recently, a woman in Upper Austria started an e-mail campaign because Muslims allegedly wanted to forbid the greeting “Grüß Gott.” There have never been such nonsensical demands from us — as there has never been a demand to remove the crucifixes from classrooms. On the contrary. We have spoken out in support of these symbols in schools. And “Grüß Gott.” is a lovely greeting and completely in conformance with Islam!

It does not further international understanding when Muammar Ghaddafi says: “Islam should become the definitive religion in all of Europe.”

Yes, Mr. Ghaddafi…That is his opinion. In the European area at the imam conferences, we set a common line which emphasizes common goals far removed from this rhetoric. That is what we want to be measured by. Aside from that, as we do not usually interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, we also do not tolerate interference. in ours.

There is the impression that anyone who says something against Islam can expect violence.

Because all you ever see in the TV is a howling mob that is burning national flags, like some kind of cartoon fight. But the very intensive, higher level discourse taking place — those pictures are not shown in the West. Or the business with the canceled opera “Idomeneo” in 2006 in which the cut-off heads of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and Poseidon were shown. In her seminar, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff gives the cancellation as an example of fear of Islam. What she did not say is that the Muslim central council in Germany quite clearly said “Perform the opera!” and representatives of the Islamic conference added their agreement, to make a point.

How do you feel about Islam criticism?

I hope to have more courage to practice discussing Islam. I find discussions important, even criticism. These are no soft-ball sessions. Different opinions should encounter one another; otherwise it is vapid and no one learns anything from it. For instance, when we talked about head-scarves, that was productive. Suddenly, people were concerned with the significance of self-determination; more than a piece of cloth was being discussed.

What bothers you most about contemporary Islam criticism?

Europe is at the point of giving up on the Enlightenment’s joy in rationality. No discourse takes place any more. Instead there is the broadcasting of populist slogans. Nobody questions any more. And that means a far worse cultural loss for Europe than a few more headscarves on the street.

Muslim groups in the Islam debate like to make comparisons with the anti-Semitism of the 1930s, which does not always encounter agreement.

But it is true. And if we wish to learn from history, then we need to be attentive to parallels in the construction of enemy stereotypes. We have the same hate rhetoric, the same polemics, the same ridicule of clothing and physical characteristics, the same mode of argumentation — that a certain religious group has instigated a world conspiracy for the takeover of power. We have seen all that before. So I consider the comparison with the anti-Semitism of the 1930s more than justified and vigilance is necessary. Otherwise, “Never again!”, which I support completely, sounds superficial.

Muslims in Austria put up with a lot: The demand for a minaret ban, internet games where you can shoot down clerics from a house of prayer, coarse election slogans. One could almost think that there is a conscious effort to provoke. Until now, the Muslim population has remained peaceful. How much longer?

It has been chiefly the Muslims who have been massively attacked and insulted in Austria. In the general fanning of panic, that is swept under the rug. But there are encouraging signs in the whole discussion which may help to prevent an escalation — for instance when Cardinal Schönborn visits a mosque with his Star Singers. Such signs make us very happy. And then there are many people during an emotionally charged election campaign who come up — shopping, in the subway — people I don’t know — and spontaneously assure me of their solidarity with me.

Critics complain that the Islamic community has not spoken out loudly enough on the terror attacks by fundamentalist groups. After the assassination attempt in Alexandria on January 1, the IGGÖ clearly expressed its revulsion. Is there a learning process among Islamic institutions?

The question is not whether we always condemn such bad and sorrowful events. We do. For many media, however, this is no longer “newsworthy” and is mostly reported only in specialized religious media or on our homepage (www.derisalm.at). Unfortunately, a long list can be read there, on Egypt as early as 2010.

But we must not forget that there are forces financed by millions of sources, which are establishing Islamic states and intend to drive Islam forward worldwide. What is your attitude to the political goals of these groups.

If you mean Al Qaida: I do not share these goals. I am disturbed by the human misery caused by terrorists and extremists for their own purposes. I am disturbed by how we Muslims are increasingly held hostage for that. And I am disturbed that such groups are completely indifferent to the bad image of Islam they are responsible for — it is even convenient for them. Because the Islamophobia directed at us confirms their enemy’s picture of the “evil West.” Here is where the Islam-haters and Islam-misusers shake hands — they seem to need each other. We must stop the mutual extremism.

Do you believe you are getting enough support from the Austrian political establishment?

I wish I could answer yes. But I cannot. My hope is in a broad, civil-social dialogue. “Nathan the Wise” was performed in Salzburg. There was also an invitation to a conversation about religion. Lessing wrote “Nathan” under the influence of the Koran, and I was happy to see that this was noted in the program. Lessing’s Ring Parable in the play is based on sura 5, verse 48: For each of you we have set out a law and a way of life. And if Allah had wished, he would have made you a community. But He wanted to test you in what he gave you. So compete with one another in good works. You will all return to Allah. Then he will tell you about what you are contesting.”

Who are you already getting support from and who would you like more from?

We get support from the churches. That makes us happy. When Strache was flourishing the cross, the Church reacted strongly. Bishop Bünker, a Protestant, defended our position in the minaret debate. Politically, the president supports us by urging measured speech. But otherwise? Hopefully politics today, where there is no election pending, is dealing more clearly with the subject.? Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff describes herself as a “mother and feminist.” Where is the comment from feminists on that? Do you really want to connect a person who spreads hate with feminism? And in Germany, we have Alice Schwarzer who plays the same tune as the right fringe. We still have the tender seedling of “interfeminist” dialogue. We should intensify conversations like that among women’s rights advocates of all backgrounds.

One of the main arguments of the opponents of Islam is the marriage — according to hadiths, one of the sacred writings of Islam — entered into with the six year-old Aisha and consummated when she was nine.

As far as this section about Aisha is concerned, there is new , scientific information. All of the historic references in the Koran and the hadiths were put into context. It came out that Aisha at the time of her marriage could not have been nine years old but was ten years older, that is 19. There was already some doubt about her age.

Why was the age given that way in the scriptures?

Anyone who gets involved in explaining Islam knows that the reports of a type which might supply role models out of the life of the Prophet are divided into categories: “correct.” “reputable” and “weak.” Contributory to that is consideration of the chain of transmission, whether there are many witnesses or one. The passage with Aisha’s marriage was passed on by one person — Hisham Ibn ‘Urwah, when he was in Iraq and already very old and his reports are considered unreliable. We cannot just say, what is there is law for every Muslim. Also, at the time the hadiths were written down, various interests were being pursued by various groups. A critical arrangement. to discover an evaluation with other religious sources in a larger context, is also necessary. Therefore, too, the division just mentioned, through which a revised arrangement in light of new information can be made.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff makes allegations like: “Muslims invoke the Koran, to abuse children” and gives as an example the Yemeni child bride Nujoud Ali.

As a European who claims the values of the Enlightenment, that makes me sick. I maintain: We are against forced marriage in principle — all the more of children! And in the Yemeni case, the (woman) lawyer who started the ball rolling, the judge who liberated Najoud from this dreadful marriage, the reporters who originally reported it — were all Muslims. Sabaditsch-Wolff does not mention that.

New subject: In Iran the age of marriage was raised to 13. However, it is still possible to marry a nine year-old girl with the permission of the father and a Muslim judge. Straight out: Is the Islamic community of Austria for or against the forced marriage of children?

Of course we are against it. Religious marriage arrangements with us in the IGGÖ are always done in conformance with the civil registry — as with the other recognized churches. What an Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will never tell you is that marriage law was already reformed in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century in the (reform period) tanzimat. Anyone under 17 who wanted to marry needed a special judicial permission. This is supposed to be the case in Yemen too, but obedience to the law was not overseen well enough. Information like that does not enter the world of the Islam haters, so it is ignored.

Islam opponents are gathered in politically influential groups, like the Wiener Akademikerbund (Federation of Viennese Academics) Does that worry you?

Naturally. Especially when you consider the manner of argument there. I was addressed at a meeting of representatives of the Akademikerbund. Pure hate radiated at me during the discussion. I was told: “This and this is in the Koran, so you have to believe exactly that.” I was half ordered what I had to believe! They explained what was in my head! It was incredible. And no matter what I said, it was brushed off, because Islam opponents do not believe us and always cry “taqiyya,” without even knowing what that means.

The concept “taqiyya” is described by Islam opponents as a mandate to lie to unbelievers, especially as concerns the true intentions of a Muslim in a non-Muslim society. Please define the word.

Lying is just as reprehensible in Islam as in any other culture. Only if someone were in mortal danger if revealed as a Muslim would he be allowed to lie and say: No, I am not a Muslim. That is what is called taqiyya. The Prophet Mohammed made this rule in the light of senseless martyr deaths, as they were customary in early Christianity, when people let themselves be executed, in order to gain entrance to heaven. With taqiyya, Mohammed wanted to prevent people senselessly becoming martyrs to the faith.

Again, about the Akademikerbund: the ÖVP expelled some of its members from the party.

Yes, but not until they demanded the removal of the National-Socialist Re-Engagement Clause. When it was only about Islam, they did not lift a finger. I was really frustrated in the most recent Viennese elections. Not one party openly opposed the FPÖ campaign. It was: Don’t touch it.

How does the Islamic religious community define “integration”?

The slogan of the IRGÖ is: “Integration through Participation.” But an Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff would give this slogan no chance and would replace the word “participation” with “infiltration.”

What would a conviction of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff bring?

It would be a good sign as a signal against hate and persecution. But her followers
would inflate her to a martyr. It is scurrilous, but for that very reason so transparent, that it might have no negative results in the general discourse.

Where do you think this conflict will be in 5 years?

That depends on economic development. There are numerous studies that confirm
that discrimination, the search for a scapegoat, hatred for everything different always get worse when people are afraid because of their economic circumstances.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff’s network reaches far beyond Austria. Does that worry you?

These little groups all intertwine and feed each others’ dangerous mindset. It makes you ask: What is the agenda? What is behind the actions?

There are observers who say it comes from fundamentalist Christianity or at least from the rightist conservative Christian circles in the USA.

That is also our suspicion. That goes along with the affectation of calling themselves “saviors of freedom of speech, defenders of women’s rights,” etc. And people who don’t want to see Christianity in power any more than Islam should know that.


Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009 Dec 5 Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
    11 Heckling the Counterjihad
    14 Whose Law?
    17 Defaming the Muslims of Pinkafeld
2010 Mar 11 A Mother and an Activist
    20 An Austrian “Hate School”
    22 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff at the Freedom Defense Initiative
    29 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff and the Wiener Akademikerbund
  Sep 9 “Islam is a Political Ideology Disguised as a Religion”
    16 “Justice Must Not Be Made the Handmaiden of Sharia”
    17 The Truth Does Not Matter
  Oct 11 Interview With Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    16 Is the Truth Illegal in Austria?
    20 A Court Date for Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    21 BPE Press Release on Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    22 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Appeal
    23 Elisabeth’s Voice: A Follow-Up
    24 Raising Our Voices
    25 Elisabeth’s Voice is Growing
    27 Elisabeth’s Voice: More Information
    27 A Bit More Media Attention?
    28 We Are Elisabeth’s Voice
    30 Elisabeth’s Voice in Amsterdam
    31 Mark Steyn Joins Elisabeth’s Voice
  Nov 2 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Target of Western Shariah
    6 Anatomy of a Discussion with a Leftist Journalist
    8 ESW in the WSJ
    10 “The Left is Very Much the New Far Right”
    11 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Versus the State of Denial
    17 Elisabeth’s Voice: An Update
    15 The New English Review Interviews Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff
    20 The ESW Defense File
    23 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 1
    27 The Time That is Given Us
    28 ESW at Trykkefrihedsselskabet
  Dec 5 An Oasis of Civilization in a Desert of Barbarism
    22 An Unusual Hobby
    23 In Demand Everywhere
2011 Jan 14 ESW: Thoughts Before a Trial
    14 Live-Blogging the Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Part Two
    16 ESW: A Submission to the Court in Vienna
    18 The Trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Day 2
    21 Elisabeth’s Voice, Phase Two
    28 Geert Wilders Supports Elisabeth’s Voice
  Feb 5 Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Luton

20 comments:

Pierre said...

This woman is an outright liar, a tiqiyya expert, or an incompetent boob. Nearly everything she has to say is misleading at best or a downright lie.

She is the epitome of brainwashed or brain dead believer in the cult of Mohammad.

Read:http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

Juniper in the Desert said...

Another would-be member of the Nazi party, if it existed in it's previous form.

Sagunto said...

If the face in the pic is anything to go by, I'm actually quite relieved that she's under cover.. ;-)

Sag.

goethechosemercy said...

ESW, a braver woman than Amina ever dreamed of being.

Hans Erling Jensen said...

I would really like questions about the sex-focusing sura 33.

Michael Servetus said...

This woman obviously earnestly wants to believe that Islam is something opther than what it really and historically is and has been. It would be one thing and gain a little sympathy and respect if she could admit that Islam was this and has been this but we cannot accept this and wish to change it and reform it, no matter how hopeless that may seem, but it is the will of the people to have a more peaceful religion. But even then there is the problem that the actual foundations of Islam have their own historc authority and therefore sway and are always there ready to be adopted at a convenient time when it doesn't suit a Muslima to be so docile or any true die hard at anytoime will always have these as an inspiration and justification to use force and terror. That ebing the case such force always has the ability to sway and hold mnay more in bondage unless confronted.

It is noteworthy that this Muslima has no problem throwing Christianity under the bus and vilifying it while decrying the treatment of Islam and caliming that it is being slandered, just showing evidence of Islamic thinking, it cannot ever be totally hidden. It is just this type o fthinking which leads to slaughter of HCristians in Muslim lands, what about that?
On the other hand we can look at her as a person who is genuinely desirous and wishful that Islam was other than what it truly is, like more rational, loving, merciful, liberal and all the good things that have made CHristianiy more amenable in society, for althgouh Christians believe fiercely in God and love the right and hate the evil, they are not called to take matters in their own hands and slaughter people, though historically when governemtn rule has been mixed with religion, it has resutled in a penal system which involves punishements for religious "heretcial" beliefs but it is rightly said that that is not a part of the religion itslef but of governemnt, law and order which is not the case with Islam which by its own charter combines the two.
Any person who can bring themsleves to such a state of deception is dangerous because you can never tell if they have a grasp on reality. A real Muslim who admits and has the courage to admit what real Islam is has mor ehonesty and theorefoe virtue than this seemingly peacemaker who lies and deceives in order to make "peace". This woman scares me because she can be living a fantsdsy because she wants and needs a religion and cant bring herself to accept what Islam is because it appears so gross and monstrous in light of modern sensibilities tha tshe feels compelled to lie about it, or if she just a straight up evil liar. Whats the difference? IN terms of what is said, nothing, both would say the same things, so that is the part that is so disturbing and this is the lie and condition that it seems all Muslims get caught in, this is the problem, none, ever admits the truth. I do believe that some of them wanbt to believe this and wish it were true because they do feel a bit of shame but they confuse their latent love for thew honor of religion , virtue and God with Islam because that is the vehicle it was handed odwn to them in.

Nick said...

Mrs. Baghajati, where does freedom of speech end, in your opinion?

Where targeted misinformation or false information is used to arouse a majority against a minority.

Which is exactly what she's doing here: trying to 'arouse a majority' against a lone person, and by extension any other individuals who dare to question Mrs. Baghajati's religion.

I feel sorry for Mr. Baghajati. Imagine waking up to that every morning! Yow! I'd rather get kicked in the balls.

Michael Servetus said...

He should have aksed her about the Jews.

Anonymous said...

"It came out that Aisha at the time of her marriage could not have been nine years old but was ten years older, that is 19."

A must read article with facts to refute Muslim apologetics for Mohammed's pedophilia:

Aisha's Age of Consummation or Mohammed was indeed a pedophile

Anonymous said...

"As a European who claims the values of the Enlightenment, that makes me sick. I maintain: We are against forced marriage in principle — all the more of children!"

Yes. Unfortunately, you are against forced child marriage - in principle - but NOT in practice. Forced child marriage occurs throughout the Muslim world with the full blessing of Sharia Law spouting men who are imitating their ideal pedophile prophet Mohammed.

Anonymous said...

She looks Euro, and a cursory Google search reveals her first name is Carla. I couldn't find any more than that, and rather than reinvent the wheel, does anyone know her bio? I'd guess, based on her appearance, and the fact that she's a leader, that she's a convert. She must have an interesting life story, that would help us understand what type of person would get involved in Islam, when she probably had all the opportunities available to any other intelligent and articulate European woman. (Child abuse, disorganised family, Arab boyfriend, etc.?)

Anonymous said...

On thinking more about this, I realized the worst example of her hypocrisy is that, as a Euro, she must be aware that her upbringing in an egalitarian culture is what enabled her to become a leader. She knows perfectly well that real, born Muslimas don't have the education and self-confidence to become spokespersons.

She is deeply misogynistic, not only in attacking ESW and criticizing other women and feminists for their "right-wing" associations, but even more, for shilling for a system that would literally prevent girls from growing up to be public figures like her.

This can only come from a disturbed home environment. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see her childhood, full of incest, substance abuse, domestic violence and the requirement to keep up appearances and protect the guilty.

Ruby said...

What does this woman's opinion of the right to free speech have to do with anything? Aren't there objective legal standards for such things? Unfortunately they may not be much in Austria, but this question illustrates perfectly how sickening this whole situation is.

Who believes there aren't forced marriages, honor killings, and much more? How about the stonings of 'heretic' sect members in Indonesia in the last week, or their government's capitulation to new blasphemy laws under the threat of violence? This happens anywhere you get more than a certain percentage.

Unfortunately Indonesia is 80% Muslim. Their constitutional tradition of freedom of religion is under serious threat, along with many other rights. Look at Bosnia. Not all Muslims are bad, but Islam is different. There may be many reasons why, but it is not within our ability to make people stop being fanatics. It is within our ability to stop mass immigration for this and many other reasons, and deport those who behave criminally (according to our law) when they come here.

Sagunto said...

Ruby -

"Not all Muslims are bad, but Islam is different."

True. And all practising Muslims are part of Islam. So I'm afraid your guess about the "bad"-factor among Muslims is inconsequential anyway.

I agree with the rest of your comment.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

gsw said...

I hate to say it - but she if right about one thing:
Austrians are becoming less tolerant of islam - at last.

Speaking from the town of 'yodelling-offends-muslims', the case of ESW on top of the utter contempt shown by the Turkish ambassador and the increasing violence in Europe's Cultural City of 2006, is it any wonder that our willingness to put up with it is wearing thin?

Of course, she was lying about the shari'ah - why else would people be arrested in Austria for criticising a fascist ideology?

syntec said...

".... Religious marriage arrangements with us in the IGGÖ are always done in conformance with the civil registry — as with the other recognized churches. What an Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff will never tell you is that marriage law was already reformed in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century in the (reform period) tanzimat. Anyone under 17 who wanted to marry needed a special judicial permission. This is supposed to be the case in Yemen too, but obedience to the law was not overseen well enough. Information like that does not enter the world of the Islam haters, so it is ignored."

It's true to say there is indeed a growing movement of contemporary Islamic reformers to be found in the more advanced and prosperous Muslim countries especially those that have been exposed to Western influences. However, it's the fundamentalist groupings that seem to be the ones which ultimately succeed in acquiring the most influence and this is because it's they who are, in actual fact, following the teachings of pure Islam which Muslims in general recognize and accordingly strive to protect against the slights of the Infidel.

In the opposite camp, Muslim reformers themselves know in their hearts that theirs' is effectively a hopeless cause and that in order to decisively overcome the perpetual gross excesses of this theocracy, they would have to begin proscribing it in their own lands, an action which is most unlikely to ever transpire.

In the meantime, we are witnessing the extremely satanic AND traitorous axis of Marxist Liberals, Zionists AND Islamists attempting to banish tolerant, compassionate and forgiving Christianity, the foundation rock of the West itself, not just from out of the West, but from the world as a whole and for the increasingly apparent purpose of enabling Islamic conquest.

Pure Islam does not recognize the concept of rights for man or beast nor that of free will. The death penalty is mandatory for simply criticizing Islam and for being judged as not being sufficiently zealous enough in one's inward and outward religious expression.

The leaders of secular Muslim nations are never going to contemplate the proscribing of Islam in order to eradicate Islamic extremism, but it must urgently become a priority for Western societies to do so in their own domains on the grounds that Islam is primarily a political movement whose adherents are commanded under pain of death, to overthrow non Muslim political systems which thus renders them already guilty of the crimes of Treason, Sedition and Subversion.

Hesperado said...

Michael Servetus in his comment hit the nail on the head:

Any person who can bring themselves to such a state of deception is dangerous because you can never tell if they have a grasp on reality.

Only to add that it's not merely deception in general that is the problem, but specifically deception about an ultra-violent supremacist ideology of which this dowdy white hausfrau has become a fanatical slave.

syntec said...

"She is suffering from selective perception. Only what agrees with her can be allowed into her view. Every positive contribution of Islam in the world could destroy her argument. So it is ignored."

Mrs Baghajati, the White Christian apostate, needs to engage less in typical Islamic takiyya and study the following:

http://www.islam-watch.org/M.Hussain/myth_islams_contribution.htm

syntec said...

"That depends on economic development. There are numerous studies that confirm
that discrimination, the search for a scapegoat, hatred for everything different always get worse when people are afraid because of their economic circumstances."


The manifestation of communal uneasiness and actual disquiet in any host nation is absolutely natural AND healthy. In fact, there would be something psychologically amiss with and extremely lacking in a host nation which exhibited no concerns and/or hostility at all towards uninvited gate-crashers into its ancestral homelands even more especially, markedly alien gate-crashers bearing no resemblance in the first place either racially or culturally to the indigenous inhabitants of the invaded host nation.

It's, in fact, extremely frightening to witness one's ancestral homeland becoming increasingly overrun with totally alien races and their desparate cultures, all prepared to assert their illegal demands stemming from illegitimate claims to victimhood and associated entitlements such as social benefits ranging from welfare to housing, education and medicare, not necessarily contributed to by them to begin with, followed by ongoing unwarranted demands for the awarding of positions of authority, influence and power across both the social and infrastructural stratas of the invaded host nation.

A host nation has no moral or legal obligation to tolerate such criminal trespass and usurpation upon its territory almost always accompanied by proportionate levels of racially motivated attacks including murder, in tandum with the ever increasing size of such alien invasions since they actually herald the gradual and systematic genocide both racially and culturally, of the host nation itself.

Now, the non-White world besides the White world is perfectly aware that this genocidal imposition, ie, mass invasion otherwise known as (immigration/asylum), is being directed at White nations and White nations only.

This being so, indigenous White inhabitants of such host nations have EVERY right to repel and reverse this politically orchestrated genocidal agenda by

EVERY and ALL means at their disposal.

None would argue were the circumstances transposed, ie, non-White nations being the recipients of White mass invasion, that non-White host populations would have an inalienable right to take the necessary steps to repel and reverse such a demographic tide of destruction upon them and their ancestral homelands.

syntec said...

"We get support from the churches. That makes us happy. When Strache was flourishing the cross, the Church reacted strongly. Bishop Bünker, a Protestant, defended our position in the minaret debate. Politically, the president supports us by urging measured speech."

Of course, this female knows fine well that the likes of Bishop Bunker is simply just another of those Marxist- indoctrinated useful idiots who don't properly comprehend the real contextual meaning of the biblical phrase, 'turn the other cheek'. The great tragedy is, that it's his likes who have taken whole swathes of the Christian church with them into the Marxist/Zionist fold.

"Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff describes herself as a “mother and feminist.” Where is the comment from feminists on that? Do you really want to connect a person who spreads hate with feminism? "

What utter nonsense.

Are not feminists supposed to speak out about the maltreatment of women at the hands of religiously-driven misogynistic zealots such as the kind to be found within the Cult of Muhammed? Furthermore, aren't they also supposed to be fulfilling the role of educators in this field, ie, misogyny?

Why then, have the strident feminists of the Western feminist camp suddenly all lost their tongues when it comes to Muslims?

Oh'aah they're willing, ready and able when it comes to renouncing the White male! But then again, the White male allowed himself to be psychologically neutered AND screwed by these she-men.

What, if the hated White male decides to start looking at getting his own back via the Cult of Muhammed!

That would be some turn-out for the books, just wouldn't it now!!! LOL