Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 520

Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-settings.php on line 18

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Page::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1199

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_PageDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1244

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Category::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1391

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_CategoryDropdown::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/classes.php on line 1442

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class wpdb in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 306

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Object_Cache in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/cache.php on line 431

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::start_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_lvl() should be compatible with Walker::end_lvl(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::start_el() should be compatible with Walker::start_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Declaration of Walker_Comment::end_el() should be compatible with Walker::end_el(&$output) in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1266

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Dependencies in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/class.wp-dependencies.php on line 31

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class WP_Http in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-includes/http.php on line 61

Warning: explode() expects parameter 2 to be string, array given in /var/www/monokultur.dk/public_html/wp-content/plugins/bannage.php on line 15
Monokultur » Saudiarabien


Olympisk propaganda i Hijab

Det er spøjst, som muslimerne bruger de Olympiske Lege dette år til at promovere en ide om kvindefrigørelse overfor godtroende vesterlændinge. Amerikanerne stillede med den hijabkædte Ibtihaj Muhammad i sabelfægtning (ikke krumsabel dog og hun vandt bronze), der fortalte at hun følte sig utryg “all the time” ved at være muslim ‘hjemme’ i USA [En imam og hans assistent er til aften blevet likvideret i Queens, hvorfra Ibtihaj Muhammad bor]

“I want people to know that as hard as [these racist incidents] are on me, they don’t come even close to things we’ve seen like the shooting in North Carolina or the rhetoric around the Khan family at the DNC. It’s ridiculous and we as a country have to change and I feel like this is our moment.”

Vores øjeblik er muslimernes øjeblik, øjeblikket, hvor de præsenterer deres sag, som er islam, mens påstår at repræsentere hvad de kalder deres land, USA. Den bronzevindende atlet var rent faktisk tæt på at have den ære at bære Stars and Stripes ved åbningsceremonien, trods sin marginale sport. Og alligevel er USA hende imod, for alt er imod muslimerne. Og det er dette budskab, der skal masseres ind i den vestlige psyke.

Men det skal blive endnu mere plat. Den Olympiske Komite krævede ved forrige OL at Saudiarabien også stillede med kvindelige atleter, hvis ikke hele landet skulle udelukkes. Saudernes forfængelighed overvandt deres kvindehad, men de stillede også modbetingelser. Således skulle deres kvindelige judokæmper, der kun havde øvet denne disciplin i selvforsvar med sin far(host, host), have lov til at stille i hijab selv om det stred imod reglerne for sportens dresscode. Og hun skulle have lov til at optræde i det Sorte Bælte selv om hun højst kunne gøre sig fortjent til det Blå. Judoforbundet sagde først nej, men et kompromis blev fundet som der altid bliver fundet når det drejer sig om islamiske krav: Saudieren fik lov til at have hijab mod til gengæld også at få lov til at stille op i det Sorte Bælte.

Også en kvindelig saudisk 400 meter løber stillede op og selv om hun knap kunne løbe distancen blev hun behandlet som en stor helt for hendes brud på saudiske kønsroller. Og ikke et ord blev der nævnt om islam i de danske medier, næh, fænomenet var patriarkalsk kultur, der stadig var fremherskende i Saudiarabien. I år er der endnu flere hijabber med, der ikke kan vinde, knap nok konkurrere. Det er heller ikke meningen, de er med til ære for den vestlige verden, der åbenbart hungrer efter billeder af hvor frigjort man kan være når man aldrig kan optræde udenfor sin religiøse dresscode.

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061039

Og det ser så tåbeligt ud, som det lyder

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-061249

Fremvisningen af den muslimske klædedragt på verdenscenen handler på ingen måde om at emancipere, eller anden form for empowermentshalløj, kvinden hjemme i muslimland. Det er alene rettet mod vesten, at bilde os ind at kvinden i den muslimske verden er lige så fri til at løbe som den vestlige kvinde. Ironien i at saudiske hijabber ikke må køre bil, er indtil videre helt tabt for medierne, der stiller indlysende tåbelige spørgsmål

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-14-kl-062117

Svaret er lige for. Den undertrykte er den der ikke kan skifte klædedragt efter forgodtbefindende. Men ikke for de sludrende klasser

Signe Vahlun, næstforkvinde i Dansk Kvindesamfund, er en af dem, der faktisk ser noget positivt i billedet af de to kvinder i nærkamp ved nettet. »Et fantastisk billede, som viser to engagerede sportsudøvere,« siger hun og fortsætter:

»For mig viser det diversitet og mangfoldighed blandt de kvinder, som deltager i OL. Jeg er faktisk ret begejstret for det og finder påstandene om undertrykkelse i overkanten.«

(…)

Hun hæfter sig ved, at reglen om, at spilledragten i beachvolley indtil OL i London skulle være en bikini, også kan ses som undertrykkelse.

»Det bryder dette billede med. Det viser, at begge dele er muligt,« siger Signe Vahlun.

(…)

Lidt på samme hold er Khaterah Parwani, der ud over at blande sig i debatten også arbejder for at hjælpe kvinder fri af vold, undertrykkelse og religiøs social kontrol i Exitcirklen.

(…)

»Det er svært at forestille sig kvinder kaste sig frådende ud i en debat, hvor de kræver sportsmænd iført noget bestemt tøj. Enten tangatrusser, lange bukser eller noget helt tredje. Jeg kan blive stiktosset over, at mænd i den grad blander sig. Det gjorde de jo også, da kravet om bikini til beachvolleykampe blev ophævet,« siger hun, der ikke vil tage konkret stilling til, hvem af de to kvinder der er mest undertrykt. Eller fri.

»Det giver jo ingen mening, for jeg kender dem ikke. Det kan jo være, at kvinden med meget tøj på føler sig bedst tilpas sådan, og at kvinden i badedragt hader det. Det kan også være omvendt, men vi aner det ikke, og undertrykkelse handler om at gøre noget mod sin vilje,« siger Khaterah Parwani.

Hjemme i muslimland kunne billedet se således ud

skc3a6rmbillede-2016-08-13-kl-0613401

Men maskerne falder alligevel hos muslimerne, når det mindste pres melder sig. Den ægyptiske judokæmper Islam El Shahaby nægtede ikke blot at give hånd, men forlod helt sporten, efter at have tabt til en israeler, skrev Times of Israel

Some elements of the Egyptian media were furious Friday at the judoka for losing to an Israeli, Army Radio said. The outlets blamed Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi for El Shahaby’s appearance at the fight itself.

The 32-year-old Egyptian, a world championship medalist in 2010, had faced pressure on social media and from hardline Islamist groups in his homeland to withdraw from the match.

(…)

Messner said that the fact that the Egyptian actually turned up for the match signaled “a big improvement” in the Arab states’ attitude to Israeli athletes at the Olympics.

“In the past, it is not sure that a fight between those two athletes would have taken place. This is already a big improvement that Arabic countries accept to be opposed to Israel,” he said.

Islam lover muslimen herredømmet over den ydmygede jøde. At tabe til en jøde, der endda er herre i sit eget hus, Israel, er en smertelig kognitiv dissonans.

Post traumatisk negersyndrom

Eller slavesyndrom, men tanken er at hvide skal betale til negre selv om negre også holdt negre som slaver hjemme i Afrika. Og det er ikke noget at grine af: “We still feel that pain. We suffer discrimination, we suffer from racism…in every walk of life.” Jamen, så skal de da også ha’!

Faktisk var negre den foretrukne vare som negre i Afrika handlede i med og da europærerne kom til Afrika blev resultatet af dette kultursammenstød til en stor international eksportvare, hvad negrene i Afrika anså som ganske fair trade. Eller, der var allerede et arabisk marked før europærerne begyndte sine relationer til Afrika og det fortsatte efter europærerne havde fortrudt at lade sin økonomi basere sig på sort energi. I Frontpage Magazine kan man læse

Professor Black condemns the exclusive focus on the Atlantic—or transatlantic—slave trade to the exclusion of the robust slave trade conducted by Arabs across the Sahara Desert. Or, across the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to markets in the Middle East. This exclusive focus on westerners as slave owners and traders, notes Black, “fits with the [political] narrative of Western exploitation” of underdeveloped countries and their people.

The greatest development economist to live was Lord P.T. Bauer. As The Economist quipped, Bauer was to foreign aid what Friedrich Hayek was to socialism: a slayer. In his Dissent on Development (London, 1971), Bauer bolstered Black’s point well before the latter made it: “The slave trade between Africa and the Middle East antedated the Atlantic slave trade by centuries, and far outlasted it. Tens of millions of Africans were carried away—north through the Sahara, and from East Africa, by Arab and Muslim slave traders, well before Europeans took up the trade from West Africa.”

Arab affinity for slavery, ethnic prejudice and purges lives on today in the treatment, for example, of blacks in Darfur and Yazidi Kurds in Iraq.

Considering Europeans were not alone in the slave trade, Black, in particular, questions “the commonplace identification of slavery with racism,” given that, like serfdom, slavery was a device (albeit an inefficient one) “to ensure labor availability and control.”

At its most savage, child slavery still thrives in Haiti in the form of the “Restavec system.”

(noget om den ikke vestlige verdens primitivitet)

The cult of apology that has gripped America and Britain is uniquely Western. What other people would agonize over events they had no part in, personally, for damages they did not inflict?

Grievance is leveled at a collective, all whites, for infractions it did not commit: Africans who were not enslaved are seen as having an ineffable claim against Europeans who did not enslave them.

At its core, the argument against racism, at least as it works to further black interests, is an argument against collectivism. You’re meant to avoid judging an entire people based on the color of their epidermis or the conduct of a statistically significant number of them.

It is, however, deemed perfectly acceptable to malign and milk Europeans for all they’re worth, based on the lack of pigment in their skin and their overall better socio-economic performance.

Imens i Venezuela, prøver man nu om livegenskab kan redde den socialistiske drøm inden slaveriet bliver nødvendigt.

Balfour erklæringen er alle katastrofers moder

Det palæstinensiske selvstyre vil sagsøge briterne for alle de ulykker, palaraberne har bragt over sig selv. Det er Balfourerklæringen udstedt i 1917, som er de skyldiges forbrydelse, der ved at love jøderne et hjemland i jødernes eget land har gjort det helt umuligt for arabere i den ganske region at tage sig noget som helst fornuftigt til lige siden. En god ven ønskede dem held og lykke og mindede om at oprettelsen af Israel var unilateral og ikke noget Storbritannien stod bag

Om noget bør de sagsøge Nationernes Forbund og efterfølger-organisationen de Forenede Nationer - det er under dets charter, at jødernes ret til at vende hjem til deres hjemland er fastlagt. Så løber de bare ind i det problem, at det er FN der er deres stærkeste støtte…..og at at det er gennem FN-organisationen UNRWA, at de fleste palarabere lever på permanent bistand.

United With Israel havde spurgt en lokal ekspertise

Director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry Dr. Dore Gold derided the Palestinians announcement that they intend to sue the United Kingdom for the Balfour Declaration, a document written almost 100 years ago by then UK Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour which expressed support for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in the land of Israel.

Saying the move is “revealing,” Gold stated that “apart from the obvious lack of any legal basis” for the Palestinian lawsuit, the “initiative itself demonstrates yet again the continuing refusal of the Palestinian side to recognize the legitimate and indigenous connection of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland.”

He pointed out the legal significance of the Balfour Declaration emanated from the fact that it was incorporated by the League of Nations into the 1922 Mandate for Palestine. “That mandate recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people to that area and that it provided the grounds for them to reconstitute their national home there.

The League of Nations’ mandate transformed Balfour’s stated policy into an internationally recognized legal obligation to “give effect to the inherent right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their ancient homeland,” Gold added.

Rights that were recognized by the League of Nations in that period were preserved by its successor organization, the United Nations, through Article 80 of the UN Charter.

Den venstreorienterede engelske avis Guardian anser da også søgsmålet for “a symptom of desperation about the Palestinian cause” og “a cry of anger and despair” ifølge Elder og Ziyon, fordi fredsforhandlingerne går trægt. Måske er det desperat, men næppe på grund af de fredsforhandlinger som palaraberne aldrig har været interesseret i. Langt mere er det nok et symptom på dels det umulige i at skade Israel med våbenmagt og dels den manglende succes med at fravriste Israel sin legitimitet, så massivt muslimer fra hele verden godt assisteret af vestens venstreorientede forsøger.

En af metoderne man har haft store forhåbninger til var at isolere Israels økonomi og gøre landet til en international paria igennem BDS (Boykot, Divest, Sanction). Og det er seriøse metoder nede på mikroniveau der helt ublut viser sit antisemitiske ansigt. Israel Hayom beskriver en del af virkeligheden, som den ser ud på de notorisk hysteriske amerikanske campus

On a recent campus tour, members of the Reservists on Duty Israel advocacy organization discovered the extent of anti-Semitism displayed by BDS activists, who posted “eviction notices” on the dormitory doors of Jewish students, demanding that they evacuate in three days or have their property thrown out.

Students for Justice in Palestine, one of the better known campus BDS groups, is responsible for this type of anti-Semitic prosecution. The notices they posted went on to state that the Israeli military does the same thing to Palestinians.

SJP typically undertakes these types of activities during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual event during which activists screen films and organize protests, lectures and exhibitions that accuse Israel of apartheid, ethnic cleansing and war crimes.

(…)

These anti-Semitic tactics are common at a range of well-known American universities, particularly on the east coast. Jewish students have reported to Reservists on Duty about similar incidents at universities including New York University, the University of Pennsylvania, Connecticut College, Harvard University, the University of California, the University of Oklahoma, the Claremont Colleges, Vassar College and other schools.

In some cases, students approached the campus administration for help in dealing with the situation, but for the most part, the colleges avoided taking action to stop the phenomenon.

Men ak, ud over at være en gene for andre mennesker, som venstrefløjen mest er, så har de ikke formået at gøre en forskel for Israel. “Foreign investments in Israeli assets hit a record high last year of $285.12 billion, a near-tripling from 2005 when the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was started by a group of Palestinians, skrev Bloomberg og i New York går det endda modsat, hvor guvenør “Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order on Sunday, commanding government agencies to divest funds from, and refuse to do business with, companies and groups participating in the Palestinian-backed boycott of Israel.” En BDS-BDS med andre ord. Så palaraberne er efterladt med det eneste talent de har, at udnytte at alle andre, selv deres fjender, kerer sig mere for palarabernes børn, end de selv gør

Men måske palaraberne kunne sagsøge Kuwait for den etniske udrensning af pal-arabere i kølvandet på den Anden Golfkrig?

During the first hours of the Iraqi invasion, the Kuwaiti government left to Saudi Arabia. This encouraged Kuwaitis to leave the country, as well. They received financial aid from their government (in-exile) and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. No government offered Palestinians any help; therefore, they had no other alternative but to stay in Kuwait throughout the crisis, the war, and the stage of persecution that followed.

A terror campaign against Palestinians in Kuwait started during the Iraqi rule. They were the target of several explosions that also killed Iraqis and workers from other countries. In particular, the Kuwaiti resistance was responsible for four major explosions and several small explosions before the war. The explosions occurred in the predominantly-Palestinian neighborhoods of Al-Adasani, Al-Hassawi, Khitan, and Amman Street. They resulted in Killing 46 and injuring 99 people most of whom were Palestinians.

The first explosion was in October 1990 in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, which was inhabited by Palestinians and workers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan. The explosion resulted in killing twenty-two and wounding thirty-five people. There were five Palestinians and four Iraqis among the dead. The rest were from different nationalities. The Second explosion was also in October and occurred in Al-Adasani neighborhood, which was inhabited mainly by Palestinians. It resulted in killing three and wounding twenty-three Palestinians and one Indian. The third explosion was in November 1990, in Al-Hassawi neighborhood, killing seven and wounding thirty-seven people. While majority of the injured were Palestinians, the dead were four Iraqis, two Palestinians, and one Kuwaiti. The fourth explosion occurred in Khitan neighborhood, in December 1990. It resulted in killing eleven and wounding eighteen people. Among the dead were six Iraqis, three Palestinians, a Syrian, and an Asian worker. The wounded were eight Palestinians, three Bidoons (without citizenship), two Iraqis, and the rest were Asians. Finally, in January 1991, several small explosions targeted Palestinians in a commercial area known as Amman Street. Six people were killed and twenty were injured the vast majority of whom were Palestinians.

After the war

The terror campaign against Palestinians intensified after the war reaching a persecution stage. The Emir, the Crown Prince, and other senior members of Al-Sabah family led the campaign from the beginning. The Crown Prince reiterated his threats of vengeance against Palestinians of Kuwait in an interview with Robert Fisk of the London newspaper, The Independent, on February 21, 1991. He called for “cleansing” Kuwait of “fifth columnists.” On March 13, the Guardian cited government officials expressing the need to “clean out” the Palestinian neighborhoods. On April 3, a Kuwaiti army officer boasted to the American newspaper “USA Today” that the country was being “cleansed” of Palestinians. In his speech of April 8, 1991, the Emir also urged Kuwaitis to continue the campaign of “cleansing” Kuwait of the alleged “fifth columnists.” On May 8, 1991, the government newspaper, Sawt Al-Kuwait, claimed that Palestinians committed a collective crime during the crisis when they engaged in a “concerted attempt to cripple Kuwaiti civil disobedience against the Iraqis.” In the August 6, 1991 issue, the newspaper stated that Kuwait could not be secure as long as the fifth columnists are still inside the country. Apparently, the “fifth columnists” is a reference to Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Yemenis, and other Arabs whose countries supported the Iraqi position.

The terror campaign after the war started as early as the arrival of the Kuwaiti forces on February 26, 1991. Kuwaiti militants were quoted saying that they would shoot suspected Palestinians when they found them in their apartments. Four main militia groups and two state institutions participated in a concerted effort to terrorize and persecute Palestinians in Kuwait. Two of the militias were headed by the state security officers Adel Al-Gallaf and Hussain Al-Dishti. The third was headed by Amin Al-Hindi, a gangster who specialized in rape, torture, stealing, and killing. The fourth was the group known as August 2nd, which specialized in psychological warfare against Palestinians. The army and the police forces represented the two state institutions that were involved in this terror campaign.

Two Palestinians were shot dead near a traffic circle, on February 27. On March 2, Kuwaiti tanks and soldiers rolled into Palestinian communities, mainly Hawalli. House-to-house searches for weapons and alleged collaborators resulted in the arrest of hundreds of Palestinians. People were also arrested at checkpoints for no reason other than being Palestinians. Typically, they were beaten instantly then taken to police and detention centers where they were tortured for confessions.

Despite the military censorship, newspapers began to report a dramatic rise in the number of injured Palestinians in Mubarak Hospital. Scores of people were treated from severe beating and torture. Six Palestinians were brought to the Hospital shot dead in the head, execution style. By the third week of March, hundreds of people were treated from torture injuries and thousands stayed in detention centers for interrogation. Amnesty International reported that the torture of Palestinians was continuing in Kuwait by the third week of April. A 24-year-old Palestinian had been beaten for hours, had acid thrown over him, and had been subjected to electric shock torture.

The terror campaign continued throughout 1991 achieving its main objective: terrorizing Palestinians enough so that they would leave the country. To expedite the process, the government took several other measures to evict those who did not leave. First, Palestinians working for the government were fired or not rehired. Second, Palestinian children were kicked out of public schools and subsidies for their education in private schools were stopped. Third, new fees became required for health services. Fourth, housing rents increased and people were asked by Kuwaiti landlords to pay rent for the entire crisis-period.

More important were the feelings of injustice and insecurity Palestinians began to experience as a result of the terror campaign. It became unsafe to walk in streets or to stay at home. Rape stories functioned as a decisive pushing factor for the remaining Palestinian families. The “censored” Western media rarely reported on this part of the campaign. The CNN TV network covered one of these rape stories. Lubbadah told the same story together with many others. The Middle East Watch group also told several stories of rape.

On May 27, 1991, several members of a Kuwaiti militia group entered the apartment of a newly married Palestinian couple. They divided themselves into two groups. One group took the twenty-six year old bride, Najah Yusuf As’ad, to one room where they raped her one after the other then they shot her with nine bullets in the head. The other group took the thirty-year old groom, Muhammed Musa Mahmood Mustafa, to another room where they also raped him one after the other then they shot him with four bullets in his spine. When they finished committing their crimes, they sat in the apartment, drank tea, then called the bride’s family several times telling them what happened to their daughter. Another story was about A.M.M., an eighteen-year old Palestinian girl. She was kidnapped and gang-raped for two days then was brought to Mubarak Hospital on May 25, 1991. Her family said that she was kidnapped in front of her house by Kuwaiti young men. A third story was about S.M.A.D., a twelve-year old Palestinian girl, who was also kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Rumaithiyah, on June 6, 1991. She was also gang-raped for two days by a group of Kuwaitis. A fourth story was about F.M.A.F, a fifteen-years old Palestinian girl, who was kidnapped in front of her house in Al-Farwaniyah, on June 4, 1991. She was raped for two days then was brought to Al-Adan Hospital. Finally, a Palestinian woman in her fifties was kidnapped and raped by a group of Kuwaiti men about the same age. A Kuwaiti man approached her offering help. He gave her an address where she can receive social assistance. When she went to the address, she was kidnapped and raped for a week by several Kuwaiti men who then left her in a deserted area.

The government also intensified its efforts to evict the remaining Palestinians directly through deportation. Between the middle of June and the first week of July 1991, about 10,000 Palestinians were deported to the Iraqi border. On July 8, the Minister of Interior Affairs, Ahmed Hamoud Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, announced that there were about 1,000 more Palestinians in detention camps waiting for deportation. Actually, these deportations forced tens of thousands of other Palestinians to leave, mainly family members, because they could not practically stay when the head of the household or the main bread winner was deported.

The deportees were dumped at the Iraqi border near Safwan. Gradually, it became known as the Safwan Refugee Camp. Many of the deportees to this camp were tortured and brutally beaten by Kuwaiti troops. In most cases people were simply “dumped” there without any legal deportation procedures. Typically, people were arrested at checkpoints, then beaten and tortured to admit that they were collaborators. If they did not admit, they would be deported to Safwan Camp. One of the Camp deportees was Fayiz Nadir, a 23-year-old Palestinian. He was burned 10 times with an iron on his arms, feet, and head. Another one was Abdul Qadir, a 30-year-old Algerian. He was arrested together with Fayiz Nadir for two weeks. He saw 109 men in the detention center with their hands tied behind their backs, often blindfolded. When the men were brought to the interrogation, they were kicked and jabbed with gun butts. Electrical wires were put on their fingers and temples. They were given water twice a day and food once every four days. A Sudanese truck driver, Mustafa Hamzah, was arrested and blindfolded for two weeks in the Salmiya Girls’ Secondary School. He named the Kuwaiti 1st Lt. Abdul Latif Al-Anzi as the person who was in charge of that detention center. A Palestinian deportee told the New York Human Rights Group that he was tortured in that school. They burned him with a cattle brand, beat him, then dumped him by a roadside.

Se, det lugter lidt mere af Haag.

Obama: “Just because Iranian hardliners chant Death to America does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe”

Husker De det? Da Obama ikke lagde noget i at ledende kræfter i det iranske regime ønskede død over USA. Hans ræsonnement var at et flertal af iranere sikkert ikke ønskede, hvad lederne ønskede. Jo, og så slog han de, der advarede om truslen fra de dødstruende iranske hardlinere i hartkorn med de selv samme dødstruende iranske hardlinere. Derfor var det helt logisk at lade død-over-USA Iran starte deres eget atom-program og frigive de enorme summer, der havde været indefrosset i udenlandske banker siden Shahens fald.

Man kan håbe på at Hillary Clinton ikke vinder det amerikanske præsidentvalg i november. Og hvis den ulykke skulle være undgået, så kan man håbe at Trump holder noget af det han lover. I så fald vil USA, og det vil måske kunne trække det meste af Vesten med sig, skifte kurs fra Obamas farlige underdanighed overfor verdens tyranner i almindelighed og muslimer og deres månereligion i særdeleshed. Victor Davis Hansen, der altid er værd at læse, giver i Townhall på glimrende vis en forelæsning i konsekvenserne af eftergivenhed for bøller - at de tolker det som svaghed

When President Obama entered office, he dreamed that his hope-and-change messaging and his references to his familial Islamic roots would win over the Muslim world. The soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize laureate would make the U.S. liked in the Middle East. Then, terrorism would decrease.

But, as with his approach to racial relations, Obama’s remedies proved worse than the original illness.

Obama gave his first presidential interview to Al Arabiya, noting that he has Muslims in his family. He implicitly blamed America’s strained relations with many Middle Eastern countries on his supposedly insensitive predecessor, George W. Bush.

The new message of the Obama administration was that the Islamic world was understandably hostile because of what America had done rather than what it represented.

Accordingly, all mention of radical Islam, and even the word “terrorism,” was airbrushed from the new administration’s vocabulary. Words to describe terrorism or the fight against it were replaced by embarrassing euphemisms like “overseas contingency operations,” “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence.”

In apology tours and mythological speeches, Obama exaggerated Islamic history as often as he critiqued America. He backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He pushed America away from Israel, appeased Iran, and tried to piggyback on the Arab Spring by bombing Libya. He even lectured Christians on their past pathologies dating back to the Crusades.

Yet Obama’s outreach was still interpreted by Islamists as guilt and weakness to be exploited rather than magnanimity to be reciprocated. Terrorist attacks increased. Obama blamed them on a lack of gun control or generic “violent extremism.”

(…)

Radical Islam never had legitimate grievances against the West. America and Europe had welcomed in Muslim immigrants — even as Christians were persecuted and driven out of the Middle East.

Billions of dollars in American aid still flows to Islamic countries. The U.S. spent untold blood and treasure freeing Kuwait and later the Shiites of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. America tried to save Afghanistan from the Soviets and later from the Taliban.

For over a half-century, the West paid jacked-up prices for OPEC oil — even as the U.S. Navy protected Persian Gulf sea lanes to ensure lucrative oil profits for Gulf state monarchies.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, the original architects of al-Qaida, were so desperate to find grievances against the West that in their written diatribes they had to invent fantasies of Jews walking in Mecca. In Michael Moore fashion, they laughably whined about America’s lack of campaign finance reform and Western culpability for global warming.

The real problem is that Islamic terrorism feeds off the self-induced failures of the Middle East.

Som Churchill sagde om tyskerne (I en anden tid! I en anden tid!) “They are either at your feet or at your throat!”

Hegn, bånd eller burka, kvinder skal beskyttes

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Muslimer, Saudiarabien, Sharia, Sverigetanic, islam — Drokles on July 10, 2016 at 4:44 am

I Sverige skal kvinder hegnes ind til festivaller. Indtil videre kun festivaller. Og det er for deres eget bedste. Grunden er at synet på kvinder, kvinders beklædning og kvinders opførsel, er under forandring i Sverige, således at de har behov for deres egne safe spaces. Ellers er der altid det beskyttende arm, som fortæller ‘mænd’, at de ikke ønsker at bliver voldtaget.

Og nu til noget helt, helt andet. I Saudiarabien holder man i modsætning til det foranderlige Sverige, fast i sit syn på kvinder, deres beklædning og deres opførsel, skriver Your Newswire

According to Al-Saqaby, husbands should not immediately attack their wives, but should discipline them ‘properly’ first. He then makes it clear that in marriage, there is nothing like equality, and that men should take charge and rule the home – using violent force if necessary.

In the event of a woman disobeying her husband, Al-Saqaby teaches in the video that the men should follow the steps below in making sure that the woman is corrected.

The first step is to remind her of your rights and of her duties according to Allah. Then comes the second step – forsaking her in bed. The third step, beating, has to correspond with the necessary Islamic conditions” before taking action. The beating should not be performed with a rod, nor should it be a headband, or a sharp object. Instead, husbands should use a ‘tooth-cleaning twig or with a handkerchief’ to beat their wife. The wife will feel that she was wrong in the way she treated her husband,” says Al-Saqaby.

The Saudi government endorsed doctor says his teachings of how to beat wives is not exhaustive, and that sometimes men should beat their wives without following his steps if the women go to extreme lengths in disobeying their husbands.

He also blamed women for provoking their husbands, expressing shock that some women are ‘stubborn’ to the point that only beatings can bring them back into line.

In addition, sometimes a woman makes a mistake that may lead her husband to beat her. I’m sad to say there are some women who say ‘Go ahead, if you are a real man, beat me’ She provokes them,” he adds in the video.

Critics of the video say,although some of the teachings Al-Saqaby espoused in the video concerning how husbands should treat their wives are found in the Holy Quran, they were used in a context. They accuse Al-Saqaby and the Saudi government of being selective with the verses of the Holy Book in order to satisfy their own interest.

Det lyder mærkeligt at islam skulle have et på nogen måde misogynt indhold og mere troværdigt at muslimer flest blot har misforstået deres egen religion. De svenske kvinder har det jo også hårdt og Sverige er ikke et islamisk land, så islam kan på ingen måde være indblandet i et negativt syn på kvinder, deres beklædning og deres opførsel. Måske man skulle spørge  David Wood, der her giver lidt hjælp med 3 koran-vers enhver kvinde burde kende

Jo mere muslimsk, jo mere forsvinder kvinder ud af det offentlige rum.

Saudi Arabia Uncovered

Her er en dokumentar om livet i Saudiarabien. Optaget med skjult kamera får vi et indblik i muslimsk liv, som det leves hvor det tages alvorligt. Fra The Muslim Issue

Saudi Arabia spent over $70 billion from oil revenues between 1984 to 2004 to spread Wahhabi Islam and terrorism all over the world. Our own trade budget is recycled and used to expand terrorism. Islamic terrorism accoding to the laws and dictates of prophet Mohammed. The amount has now surpassed $100 billion.

So why is the world still engaged in trade with the Saudis and the Muslim world in general, so intolerant and hateful of ‘the other’? Why are they allowed to get visas, diplomatic immunity, purchase properties, invest and fly in and out of the West with special previleges? This is a criminal alliance that is treason to the people in the West, their future and their security. This international association with the Islamic world is funding and enabling the spread of terrorism worldwide. The oil trade is the foundation of that door that opens to Saudi terror initiatives.

The Saudis have worked for decades to establish their roots in Bosnia and Herzegovina where they feel they gain easier access to spread Wahhabism into Europe. There they operate entire plagiarism operations and education on forging official documents. When Merkel Muslims illegally arrived into the mediterranean pre-planned through fraudulant claims in need of asylum Saudis didn’t offer them any shelters of ‘protection’ in their mutual Ummah. The Saudis quickly offered to fund 200 mosques. 200 Wahhabi mosques of hatred to be spread across Europe. There is already 5,000 mosques across Europe.

Imamer og ørefigner

TV2 har lavet en dansk pendant til de engelske Undercover Mosque og Undercover Mosque - The Return, Moskeerne bag sløret. Kim Møllers Document.dk gennemgik essensen

Det blev ikke udpenslet, men de problematiske moskéer var de største, og mellem linjerne kom det frem, at det på ingen måde drejede sig om at et mindretal af herboende muslimer fra flere arabiske lande og Somalia. Det blev fortalt, at 80 procent af kvinder fra disse lande ikke var i arbejde, hvad til dels blev forklaret med islams holdning til kvinders ageren i det offentlige rum.

Og Kasper Støvring mindede om de sørgelige tal

Er det kun et lille mindretal, der støtter det? Det er tvivlsomt, hvis vi ser på den mest omfattende undersøgelse, der er lavet om europæiske muslimer, WZB-undersøgelsen. Her mener 75 procent af alle muslimer, at der kun findes én sand udlægning af Koranen, og 65 procent mener, at religiøse lov skal stå over sekulære love. I en undersøgelse fra sidste år, lavet af Wilke for Jyllands-Posten, så man en stigende tendens til islamisering blandt muslimer i Danmark. I 2006 mente 62 procent af danske muslimer, at Koranens anvisninger skal følges fuldt ud. Det tal er vokset til 77 procent i dag. Undersøgelsen viste også, at 50 procent beder mere end fem gange dagligt. Ved en tilsvarende måling i 2006 var det tal blot 37 procent, og andelen der ønsker, at kvinder skal være tilslørede i det offentlige rum, er vokset fra 28 procent til 42.

Ah ja, skjulte optagelser fra en moske sætter fokus på enkelte imamer og deres misforståede udlægning af islam - i hvert fald for vores politiske systems opfattelse. Venstres integrations- og udlændingeordfører Marcus Knuth “personlige reaktion er, at man bør rive moskéen ned og udvise imamerne“, skriver TV2. Og Konservative vil sammen med SF have en decideret dansk imamuddannelse, “et opgør med de selvbestaltede imamer, der kommer med grundlæggende anderledes samfundssyn end det, vi har i Danmark“, som integrationsordfører for Socialistisk Folkeparti Jacob Mark formulerede det ifølge Jyllands-Posten. Det er for socialister ikke et dansk samfundssyn vi har i Danmark, blot et samfundssyn i Danmark - og nu har vi altså et samfundssyn til. Alligevel “væmmes” Jacob Mark faktisk over de sydlandske

Som udgangspunkt er jeg villig til at gå ret langt for at få erstattet de radikale imamer, som får lov til at prædike i danske moskeer. Så hvis det handler om at finansiere de moskeer, der ikke har råd til sin egen imam, så synes jeg, det er det værd

Selvom vi kun har et samfundssyn i Danmark, så har vi dog noget, der er dansk, nemlig danske moskeer. Og de danske moskeer er af svingende kvalitet med hensyn til det i øjeblikket tilstedeværende samfundssynd, så vi må støtte de mindst ringe mod overmagten. Møller fangede pointen i at “de problematiske moskéer var de største“, største, som i mest populære, læggende sig mest op ad mainstream, mest på linie med muslimer flest, givende mest mening for en troende muslim, i størst overensstemmelse med islams væsen - sådan set ud fra et muslimsk perspektiv. TV2 citerede endvidere Venstres forrige integrations- og udlændingeordfører, den senere skatteminister Karsten Lauritzen, der sidste år ikke mente at man “løser problemet i Grimhøj ved at lukke lokalerne og jævne bygningen med jorden“, førend han fortsatte med en tom indsigt

For det er de mennesker, der prædiker og har deres daglige gang og holdninger, der er problemet. Dem bekæmper vi bedst ved at tage en debat omkring det og udfordre dem i offentligheden i stedet for at drive dem under jorden

Ja, absurditeterne bor i hjerterne og ikke i murstenene, men det er ikke et imamproblem at imamerne kender islam og prædiker for menigheden. Venstre er regeringen og trods deres bravaller vil ingen imam blive hældt ud af landet for at fortælle om islam, som ingen muslim vil blive stoppet ved grænsen. Og hvorfor også det da “vi har selv lukket den fanatiske imam, Oussama El-Saadi ind” som konstitueret præst i Stenstrup-Lunde pastorat Maria Høgh skriver i Berlingske Tidende

Og hvad gør vi så ved det? Ja, vi kunne begynde med at opgive troen på det gode i mennesket. Trangen til retfærdighed og godhed i mennesket er med Tom Kristensens udtryk »asiatisk i vælde«. Det er ikke bare en uskyldig og naiv tro – den er farlig for nationen, fordi trangen til godhed også bliver politisk.

Men politikerne vil ikke opgive illusionen. Vil de ikke se i øjnene, hvad vi har lukket ind i landet siden 1983? Skal det ikke snarere handle om inddæmningspolitik i stedet for integrationspolitik?

Hvis nogen bliver godt integreret i Danmark, er det ikke alene på grund af en eller anden politisk pakkeløsning, men fordi det enkelte menneske selv tager ansvar og gør op med sine patriarkalske familiemønstre og den islamiske ideologi. Selvfølgelig skal Grimhøj-moskeen lukkes, som Naser Khader straks udtalte søndag aften. Men hvad så?

Oussama El-Saadi kan vi vel smide ud af landet, men er problemet så løst? Nej, det ændrer ikke på islams DNA, og enhver muslim har frihed til at tro på ideologien. Det ændrer ikke på, at verden har brug for en reformation af islam. Eller, må Danmark en dag i nødværge tage skridt, som strider mod alt det, vi som et demokratisk folk er opdraget med?

Tja – forhåbentlig ikke. Men her til morgen (mandag) har SFs Özlem Cekic heldigvis løst problemet: »Så uddan for hulen imamerne i Danmark!« skriver hun på Facebook. Det vil sige, at småfuglene selv skal udruge gøgeungen frivilligt? Men det skal de vel med vores store tolerance have lov til?

Og Jaleh Tavakoli kalder imamernes opfordring til forældre om at tæske deres børn ind i islam for hadforbrydelser og opfordringer til racistisk vold. Hun mente at højrefløjen burde stoppe deres “symbolpolitik” og “spil for galleriet

Og hvorfor egentligt så al den larm, for de ting, der har været fremme om Grimhøjsmoskeen, er da islamisk teologi - som langt de fleste moskeer, også i Danmark, kan skrive under på.

(…)

Kære politi, retsvæsen og politikere, fortæl mig venligst, hvorfor imamer og islamister ikke retsforfølges for at tale for faktisk at bekrige jøder, dræbe for apostasi og blasfemi, og deltage i hellig krig?

Det er utilgiveligt, at imamer og islamister uden nogen konsekvenser kan fortsætte med at true og opfordre til vold, for det foregår, det findes på nettet, i lukkede kredse og i moskeerne.

(…)

En politisk kamp der strækker sig fra integration, til asylpolitik, til sikkerhedspolitik, til ulandsbistand, og til de militære konflikter, som vi deltager i.

I kan starte med i stedet at afskaffe de paragraffer, som tjener som appeasement, i en tid hvor fascismen truer os på ytringsfriheden, og det gælder både blasfemi- og racismeparagraffen.

(…)

Samtidigt ved jeg, at en del imamer på tværs af organisationer har valgt ikke at udtale sig. For teologisk er de på trods af uenigheder, enige om pisk, straffen for apostasi, blasfemi og stening med mere, så det siger jo sig selv.

Måske man kunne tæske islams væsen ind i vore politikere, som muslimerne skal tæske det ind i deres børn? Imens i Rusland har nogen hyret en barnepige med hijab

Det var et sidespring. Og apropos sidespring, Bettina Heltberg mente i Politiken, at kunne “se på Marie Krarups bittert nedadbøjede mundvige, at hun i Guds navn har fået mange små relevante ørefigner i sin opvækst“. “Hendes ansigt er bittert, træk for træk ligner hun sin far. Han var berygtet for at slå sine døtre…” skrev hun oplysende. At det er en løgn kommer ikke i vejen for Politikens faste klummeskriver, der selv levede med rygterne om sin tidligere mand, Svend Aukens udenomsægteskablige eskapader - ‘Lange Svend’ var altid dobbelttydigt. Men gad vide, hvad hvad Heltberg ser i muslimers ansigter?

- Frygt Allah, brødre og søstre, lær jeres børn Salah (at bede red.). Det er obligatorisk for jer at lære dem at bede, fra de er syv år. Og endda at slå dem, hvis de ikke laver Salah, når de er 10 år, siger imamen på de skjulte optagelser.

Og som Møller skriver i sit referat; “Vold var et gennemgående tema” i skabelsen af gode muslimer. Man hører det hele tiden.

Fri Debat uden ideologisk dagsorden

dsc02726

Fri Debats konference lørdag 6/2 stillede spørgsmålet, hvordan det er “kommet dertil, at blasfemi i dag betragtes som en sinister ideologi i kunst- og litteraturlivet, mens tavshed om den religiøse terror og tvang fremstår som progressiv blandt kunstnere og forfattere?” Til at besvare det spørgsmål havde man indbudt et panel bestående af færøske Heini i Skorini fra King’s College, Dennis Meyhoff Brink fra Københavns universitet og kunstnerne Lars Vilks fra Sverige og norske Thomas Knarvik til en næsten fyldt fællessal på Christiansborg.

I sin korte indledning sagde Henrik Dahl fra Liberal Alliance, at historien vil bedømme denne generation af politikere på hvor resolut de er i stand til at forsvare det liberale samfund. Som emnets alvor således blev placeret i historien var Niels Ivar Larsen manden for at motivere sin nylige afgang fra Lars Vilks Selskabet og positionere Fri Debat i “landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister”. Fri debat var nemlig den mest principfaste forsvarer af ytringsfriheden uden ‘men’, blottet for ideologiske dagsordner og påstande om ytringsfrihed som noget kulturelt betinget.

Et principfast forsvar for ytringsfriheden kræver altså at man ikke lader sig præge af kulturalistiske dagsordner når man diskuterer blasfemi, censur og selvcensur blandt kunstnere. Men ikke nok med det, det kræver også et sikkerhedsapparat med snifferhunde og politifolk med maskinpistoler kunne man erfare og det er ikke fordi man frygter alle kulturelle repræsentanter lige meget. Mangel på proportioner giver åbenbart den bedste position i landskabet af ytringsfrihedsaktivister.

Dennis Meyhoff Brink, der er ekstern lektor ved institut for kunst og kulturvidenskab, foretog i sit oplæg en analogi mellem det kristne Europas udvikling fra Oplysningen og et tilsvarende perspektiv for den islamiske verden. Europa var kendetegnet ved at have den ubestrideligt højeste grad af religionskritik og satire i nogen civilisation og det var da også i Europa demokratiet opstod og trivedes. Årsagensforbindelsen var klar; Oplysningens blasfemiske satire udhulede, som dryp på en sten, med et Webersk udtryk, den fortryllede verden og tog frygten fra folk. Med frygtens fald fulgte også æresfrygten for præsten, der nu kunne latterliggøres, ikke blot som repræsentant for kirkens hykleri, men for religionen i sig selv.

Lars Vilks forklarede derefter hvorledes opfattelsen af geniet fordrede at kunstneren selv blev den skabende og gennemgik en række blasfemiske kunstværker; film af bl.a Lois Bunuel og Ken Russel og billeder som Piss Christ. Netop Piss Christ er trukket meget ind i debatten om religiøs krænkelse og islam for skønt nogle dybere lag i værket - at selve værket er et fotografi af en installation af et krucifiks nedsænket i glas urin - så blev der ikke taget hensyn til kristnes krænkede følelser, som man er vant til, når emnet er udfordring af islam.

Den norske kunstner Knarviks første forelæser på kunstakademiet var netop Lars Vilks. Knarvik viste endnu flere billeder end sin ‘læremester’ og mange han selv havde kreeret, som han fortalte om, hvorledes han var blevet engageret i kampen om ytringsfrihed og blasfemi, og hvorledes det havde påvirket hans kunstneriske retning. Knarvik er, som de øvrige panelister, ingen skimlet konservativ kulturkæmper. Han har f.eks blandt andet bygget et kulturcenter for massaikvinder og skabt en forfatterpersona, en muslimsk teenagepige under navnet Miss Supression Figther. For ham er mange muslimer de største ofre for de jihadister, der har taget deres religion som gidsel og gjort den største karikatur af Muhammed.

Men han har også overhørt skrigene fra en pige, der blev omskåret og bevidnet hvorledes kvinderne, der forestod omskæringen, kom ud af hytten og smed det omskårne ud til naturen. Og hans interesse for islam, som en trussel mod ytringsfriheden, blev vakt da han hørte den norske statsminister undskylde for alverden, at den norske avis Dagbladet havde trykt Muhammedtegninger.

Knarvik udgav på 10-årsdagen for offentliggørelsen af Jyllands-Postens Muhammedtegninger en mere end 100 sider lang samling af blasfemiske tegninger rettet mod alle religioner. Et norsk forlag havde i første omgang trykt den i 2.500 eksemplarer og den lå klar på en europalle, da forlaget blev ængsteligt ved udsigten til endnu en Muhammedkrise og makulerede hele oplaget. Bogen er i stedet udkommet på Kåre Bluitgens forlag.

Men det var den første oplægsholder, Heine i Skorini, der leverede det mest almeninteressante oplæg, da han perspektiverede den islamiske trussel historisk. Han fortalte først om en Muhammedkrise i 1925, der blev udløst da den engelske morgenavis The Star havde trykt en tegning, hvor den tids legendariske cricketspiller Jack Hobbs ragede op som en kæmpe blandt andre historiske skikkelser, som Julius Cæsar, Columbus og så selvfølgelig muslimernes profet Muhammed. Muslimske organisationer protesterede højlydt og der var demonstrationer i Calcutta. Ingen døde dog, men episoden demonstrerede at ideen om at en nyopfunden islamisme adskilt fra en ægte, om ikke tolerant, så afdæmpet, islam ikke holder.

i Skorini fortalte hvorledes OIC (organisationen af islamiske lande), gennem FN har arbejdet målrettet på at gøre blasfemi til en krænkelse af menneskerettighederne. OIC ser den islamiske verden være under pres både udefra, ikke mindst fra Vesten, og indefra. I Kairo deklarationen fra 1990 hedder det således at formålet bl.a er ”cleanse our societys of moral laxity deviation” og dens artikel 22 slår fast at ytringsfriheden (og alt andet i øvrigt) skal underlægges den muslimske sharia lovgivning.

Bastante religiøse krav til en sekulær organisation, som FN er ikke effektivt og i 1999 skiftede organisationen taktik til en sekulær argumentation. Nu brugte man i stedet FNs egne artikler, som artikel 29, der betoner ansvar over frihed og artikel 22 om hadtale, til at få ytringsfriheden underlagt sharia. For OIC var religionskrænkelse, som grundlæggende blot betød krænkelse af islam jvf sharia-kravet ovenfor, en krænkelse af menneskerettigheder på linje med racisme, intolerance, islamofobi og ekstremisme. OICs nye argumentation var derfor også på linje med den vestlige venstrefløjs tankegang og det skabte en naturlig alliance af parallelinteresser.

Netop det sidste punkt, at se blasfemi som ekstremisme, er forklaringen på, hvorfor muslimske landes fordømmelser af islamisk terror, som Saudiarabiens fordømmelse af angrebet på Charlie Hebdo, altid ledsages af fordømmelser af ekstremisme i al almindelighed. De myrdede, som redaktionen på Charlie Hebdo, er nemlig lige så ekstreme i deres brug af ytringsfriheden, som deres mordere. Og det er en retorik som man hører ikke blot fra venstrefløjen men fra vestlige ledere.

Det var en journalist fra information, der stillede det første spørgsmål til panelet, om forskellen på satirens antiklerikale, politiske angreb og kunstens ikonografiske behandling af det blasfemiske, førend to tilhørere ville vide, hvad Saudiarabiens betydning for FNs Råd for Menneskerettigheder og OICs fremtid som Saudiarabiens økonomiske situation ser drastisk anderledes ud med de faldende oliepriser. Saudiarabien sponserer OIC og organiserer dagsordenen på de indre linjer, mens det er Pakistan der tegner organisationen i FN.  Skorini svarede at det dels udstiller FN for hvad det er, en samling af de regimer og regeringer i verden, der nu engang er og at Saudiarabiens betydning for OIC ikke vil ændre sig de første mange år, dertil er rollerne for satte. Og så svarede Vilks og Knarvik meget pædagogisk at satire er meget bundet i en konkret debat i tid og sted, mens kunst ikke søger et konkret politisk budskab og kan værdsættes ud over tid.

Først herefter var der en tilhører, der ville have svar på konferencens spørgsmål, nemlig, hvorfor kunstnere, og alle os andre såmænd, var mere optaget af selvkritik end af religionskritik, selv når vi blev konfronteret med en trussel. Spørgsmålet kom næsten bag på panelet, der dog hver for sig svarede at det traditionelt var lettere og moralsk mere acceptabelt at levere angreb på værdier inden for egen kulturkreds end at kritisere, hvad man kunne opfatte som udsatte minoriteter med kulturelt betingede problemer. Det handlede, med udgangspunkt i eksemplet Carsten Jensens jævnlig tirader, om hvem der havde ret til at kritisere andre. Og det var en god pointe, for ingen vil jo mistænkes for at have en ideologisk dagsorden.

Og det var der også en tilhører der heller ikke ville og mindede Meyhoff Brink om at satire ikke kun var forbeholdt vesten og fortalte om en irakisk ateistisk bevægelse der bedrev en ganske giftig satire. Desværre blev denne bevægelse slået hårdt ned beklagede han og besvarede således sit eget spørgsmål, inden islameksperten Tina Magaard tog ordet og sagde at hun faktisk havde skrevet om blasfemisk satire i den muslimske verden ikke mindst Iran. Det var Magaards pointe at netop Muhammed satire var et inkluderende redskab i integrationen i vores selvkritiske kultur og at man skulle vise skolebørn muhammedtegninger fra den muslimske verden, der almindeligvis var langt grovere end de tegninger Jyllands-Posten udgav.

Og så var det, at det sidste spørgsmål kom fra en tilhører, der ville høre panelet, hvorledes det ville se ud med ytringsfriheden om føje tid i et stadigt mindre demokratisk Europa “og med en stadig mere islamisk indflydelse”. Det er svært at holde en hel konference om “religiøs terror og tvang” og “blasfemi” uden at komme ind på noget ‘kulturelt betinget’, ideologisk dagsorden eller ej. Inden det skulle besvares syntes Meyhoff Brink at det var på sin plads med et fejlcitat og sagde “Jeg synes også det er racistisk når Hedegaard siger at ‘alle muslimske mænd, onkler og fædre, voldtager deres døtre…”. Men ytringsfrihedens fremtidsudsigter i et mere et mindre demokratisk og mere islamificeret Europa var et svært spørgsmål at forholde sig til på falderebet af konferencen, sagde Ivar Larsen og gav ordet til i Skorini.

Forholdene i Danmark var ikke nær så dårlige som i England, forklarede i Skorini og sagde at han selv måtte forberede sig ganske anderledes når han holdt foredrag i London end i Danmark. Og det var ikke blot kønsopdelte arrangementer, men også sikkerhedsproblemer fordi så mange kunne blive stødt og emnets indhold. Men han mindede om at de islamistiske grupper udgjorde en meget lille og ikke repræsentativ minoritet blandt de muslimske studerende, men realiteterne var deusagtet at det var svært for ham at bevare en optisme. Og med den kedelige udsigt var konferencen slut.

Uagtet hvor urepræsentative og lille en minoritet islamister udgør på campus, kan man alligevel konkludere, hvad i Skorini og Fri Debat helst vil tøve med, at jo flere kulturelt betingede muslimer vi ser på campus og i vores land, jo mere vil det være islamisternes dagsorden vi vil leve under. Men dyster som fremtiden ser ud kan man glæde sig over at vi i Danmark har et levende landskab af ytringsfrihedsaktivister med hele tre virile selskaber i Fri Debat, Trykkefrihedsselskabet og Lars Vilks Komiteen. At det til tider bærer lidt præg af positionering og nok også en snert af intern personrivalisering er en lille detalje og måske blot et bidrag til at holde konkurrencen skarp og landskabet frodigt. Fri Debats arrangement var så velafholdt og oplysende, som man er kommet til at forvente det i Danmark - men desværre med et tilhørende sikkerhedsopbud, selv for de, der ikke vil vedkende sig en ideologisk dagsorden.

Artikel skrevet for Document.dk

En verden af Fritzler

Slaveri og voldtægt er en del af islams krig mod sine omgivelser. På Memri kan man se en kvindelig muslimsk teolog fra Al-Azhar universitetet forklare den rette lære

In a September 12, 2014 Fatwa show, Al-Azhar Professor of Theology Suad Saleh discussed the Islamic concept of “those whom you own.” Speaking on Hayat TV, Professor Saleh said that Muslims who capture women in a legitimate war against their enemies may own them and have sex with them as slavegirls. “In order to humiliate them,” Prof. Saleh said, “they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.” The video has been circulating in social media in recent days.

Suad Saleh: “‘Those whom you own’ (slavery) existed before Islam. It existed among all nations and countries, not just among pre-Islam Arabs. Anyone could trade in freeborn men and women. This is called the selling of freeborn people. It’s like the selling of human organs and trafficking in freeborn humans today. But when Islam emerged, it put (slavery) into order, by limiting it to legitimate wars between Muslims and their enemies. If we fought Israel, which is plundering land, and is an aggressor against people and their faith… Obviously, it is impossible that we will fight Israel, even though Surat Al-Isra in the Quran foretells this, and nothing is beyond the power of Allah… The female prisoners of wars are ‘those whom you own.’ In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

[...]

“Some opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: ‘I will bring a woman from East Asia, as (a slavegirl) under the status of “those whom you own,” and with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slavegirl.’ This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slavegirl. Legitimately-owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war, which is waged against the Muslims, a war to plunder land, a war against our faith, and so on. What some people are doing now is an aggression against Allah and against Allah’s legal texts in the Quran, and we must not be influenced by this at all.”

Og der er også et par vers

Quran (33:50) - “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

Bukhari (41.598) - Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Daily Mail har nogle grufulde beretninger fra kvinder og piger der har overlevet Islamisk Stats sex-slavehandel. Tæsk, voldtægt, tortur, udsultning, mord, tvangskonverteringer var dagligdag i deres islamiske helvede. Blandt køberne er det især saudiarabiske ikke blot mænd, men hele familier. Men der er også købere fra Albanien, Syrien og USA, alle muslimer. Som en af de stakkels piger beskriver sin fangevogters hjem “The television was always on religious channels, reciting the Quran all the time.

We were in Tal Afar for two months then they brought us to Raqqa in Syria. There were about three hundred of us girls there, in a big hall. All the women had babies who cried because they were so hungry. The children were only given one egg a day.

The first night nine girls tried to flee. They tied their clothes together to make a rope and lowered themselves out of the window, but the ISIS fighters found them and brought them back. They hit all of us because we didn’t tell them about their escape.

They put us all in a big room, locked the door and didn’t give us any water. Then one day they brought us to another building. On the front was written something like ‘area for selling’ and there I was sold to a forty year-old man from Saudi Arabia.

He asked me to marry him and when I refused he pointed to three objects sitting on his table; a knife, a gun, and rope. He said he’d use all three if I didn’t say yes. I refused over and over again, so he beat me. He beat my niece, who is only 3 years-old.

I was sold again, this time to a single man who wanted to marry me. I refused with all my might and again was beaten, and again they beat my little niece. He tried to rape me and when he couldn’t he sold me again.

In the new house I did all the work: cleaning, cooking and washing. The man who bought me said that he had to sleep with me to make me a real Muslim. I told him that if he slept with me I would become his wife and then I would not be a slave any more. His wife threatened to leave if he slept with me.

She got very angry at my niece because she couldn’t speak Arabic: she put pepper in her mouth and locked her in a room without water; she beat her so much you can still see the wounds today.

They wouldn’t let me change her diapers for a week. We were only allowed to eat small portions of food because after all we were slaves and we shouldn’t expect to have much food.

muslimer-tager-slaver

They came to us and said that they would leave us alone. Then they came and told us we had to convert to Islam otherwise they would behead us. They gave us time to think and then they came back again saying that they would let us go, but instead they brought us to a school, took our money and our possessions. They separated the men from the women and left us inside. Then we heard the shooting. We thought they were killing animals not our men.

In Mosul sheiks and emirs came and looked at us. They were buying us. I was sold to a man who took me to Tal Afar. When we arrived I was forced into marriage. That night he tied my hands and legs and he blindfolded me. Then he raped me.

(…)

My whole family was taken at night except for one of my brothers. They brought us to a school and took our phones, money, gold; everything. They put the women and children on a bus and we were taken to Mosul at night, to be sold. I was sold to a man who came from Albania. He lived together with five other families and I became the group’s slave.

(…)

In Mosul we were inside a two-storey building, five hundred of us. A sheik came. He had a stick in one hand and a book in the other. He had come to convert us to Islam. We said the words he asked us to say and according to the man we were now Muslim and had to go with them. One morning at five they picked us up, forced us to put on black abayas, chained our hands, blindfolded us and forced us on to a bus.

Som Amal fortæller: “The saddest thing I remember, during those terrible months, was this little girl, 12 years old. They raped her without mercy.” Det er islam hele vejen. Hele familier tager slaver, som det naturligste i verden, fra hele verden kommer der muslimer for at være med i grusomhederne, lokket af grusomhederne selv (en pointe eksperterne helt overser), som Islamisk Stat stolt lægger på nettet i HD. Den islamiske verden er et samfund af Fritzler.

Shia mod sunni

Saudi-arabien har til Irans store fortrydelse henrettet en shiamuslimsk imam. Diplomatiske forbindelser er sløjfet og truslerne om hævn hænger stadigt tykkere i luften. Sunni mod Shia med Saudiarabien og Iran hovedaktørerne i dette seneste kapitel i denne snart 1.400 år gamle islamiske krig ser ud til at blusse op igen. Charles Krauthammer koncentrerer sin analyse i National Review om Obamas udenrigspolitik

Commenting on Saudi Arabia executing an Iranian cleric, Krauthammer said, “I can’t say the Saudi execution of this Shiite cleric was very wise, but they did see it as in their national interest, and I think they are acting fairly desperately. Because they look around and their protector since the 1930s when King Saud met with FDR, and they essentially established this relationship — ‘you supply us oil, we protect you’ — is deeply in jeopardy.”

“They look at the way Obama has abandoned them,” Krauthammer continued. “The nuclear deal is just the culmination of the process. Abandoned them in Syria, abandoning the red line, has done nothing since the signing of the nuclear agreement.”

Krauthammer said the Saudis now worry about encirclement: “Iran has become increasingly aggressive in Syria. In Yemen, which is, remember, is right on the doorstep of Saudi Arabia – it’s not removed the way Syria is – and they see serious encirclement.”

Også i Wall Street Journal kan man læse om den amerikanske eftergivenhedspolitiks fallit

President Obama imagined he could end his second term with an arms-control detente with Iran the way Ronald Reagan did with the Soviet Union. It looks instead that his nuclear deal has inspired Iran toward new military aggression and greater anti-American hostility.

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran.

(…)

The White House’s media allies are blaming all of this on Iranian “hard-liners” who are supposedly trying to undermine President Rouhani for having negotiated the nuclear deal. Memo to these amateur Tehranologists: The hard-liners run Iran.

Og for at tvære pointen helt ud “The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions”. “Change” var hvad folk ville have uden at vide hvad det rent faktisk indebar og så fik de forandring. En forandring til det værre fordi flertallet ikke kunne tænke.

Det hele er nu ikke Obamas skyld. Islam er en rådden verden og et kollaps eller endnu en krig er uundgåeligt uanset vestlig naivitet. Spengler tegner i Asia Times et dystert billede for Saudiarabien, som lider under faldende olipriser (hvilket Obama med sin anti-fracking politik ikke har hverken lod eller del i)

Worst of all, the collapse of Saudi oil revenues threatens to exhaust the kingdom’s $700 billion in financial reserves within five years, according to an October estimate by the International Monetary Fund (as I discussed here). The House of Saud relies on subsidies to buy the loyalty of the vast majority of its subjects, and its reduced spending power is the biggest threat to its rule. Last week Riyadh cut subsidies for water, electricity and gasoline. The timing of the executions may be more than coincidence: the royal family’s capacity to buy popular support is eroding just as its regional security policy has fallen apart.

For decades, Riyadh has presented itself as an ally of the West and a force for stability in the region, while providing financial support for Wahhabi fundamentalism around the world. China has been the kingdom’s largest customer as well as a provider of sophisticated weapons, including surface-to-surface missiles. But China also has lost patience with the monarchy’s support for Wahhabi Islamists in China and bordering countries.

According to a senior Chinese analyst, the Saudis are the main source of funding for Islamist madrassas in Western China, where the “East Turkistan Independence Movement” has launched several large-scale terror attacks. Although the Saudi government has reassured Beijing that it does not support the homegrown terrorists, it either can’t or won’t stop some members of the royal family from channeling funds to the local jihadis through informal financial channels. “Our biggest worry in the Middle East isn’t oil—it’s Saudi Arabia,” the analyst said.

China’s Muslims—mainly Uyghurs in Western China who speak a Turkish dialect—are Sunni rather than Shia.  Like Russia, China does not have to worry about Iranian agitation among Shia jihadis, and tends to prefer Iran to the Sunni powers. As a matter of form, Beijing wants to appear even-handed in its dealings with Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example in recent contacts between their respective navies. Chinese analysts emphasize that Beijing has sold weapons to both—more in absolute to terms to Iran but more sophisticated weapons to the Saudis.

More pertinent than public diplomacy, though, is where China is buying its oil.

Nonetheless, China’s oil import data show a significant shift away from Saudi Arabia towards Russia and Oman (which China considers part of the Iranian sphere of influence). Russia’s oil exports to China have grown fourfold since 2010 while Saudi exports have stagnated. Given the world oil glut, China can pick and choose its suppliers, and it is hard to avoid the inference that Beijing is buying more from Russia for strategic reasons.  According to Russian sources, China also has allowed Russian oil companies to delay physical delivery of oil due under existing contracts, permitting Russia to sell the oil on the open market for cash—the equivalent of a cash loan to Russia.

Det er alt sammen meget spændende og man kunne jo nyde sine popcorn til øllerne, hvis ikke det var således at den vestlige naivitet havde importeret nisserne. Ifølge BBC er der stigende bekymring for at “the sectarian divides so bitterly apparent in much of the Middle East” mellem sunnimuslimer og shiamuslimer udvikler sig yderligere i England. En shiamuslim fortæller

“Even at Soas, a university I love, Sunnis and Shias have big arguments all the time,” says Anahita.

“And elsewhere in London, we have the same problem - Sunni and Shia arguing. You can clearly see it when you walk in Edgware Road or Kilburn.

“If you have a green bracelet or anything that shows you are Shia, they look at you as if you are not even Muslim, or you don’t exist. It’s very disrespectful, and very sad.

“Islamic societies in general and especially in London are getting bigger all the time. But not in a good way.”

En tilflyttet shiamuslim mærker nu hvordan muslimer behandler ikke muslimer - og så er det lige pludselig ikke godt at der bliver flere af de andre muslimer i London. Hvor flygter muslimerne næste gang hen, når de bliver mange nok?

Gentagelse og fald

Mikael Jalving havde ikke mere at sige, om endnu et terrorangreb, det vi så i Paris, fortalte han sine læsere. Eller i hvert fald kunne han ikke sige, hvad han allerede har sagt bedre end han gjorde senest, da Charlie Hebdo og et jødisk supermarked var genstand for muslimernes vrede. Men Jalving er værd at genlæse og ellers kan man glæde sig over Snaphanens Steens fremragende skriv, med masser af links til andre gode skrifter.

For det er er svært at sige noget nyt om en verden der ser ud til at gentage sig selv når politikere, journalister og eksperter ikke tager ved lære. I Berlingske Tidende kunne man i kortform læse eksperterne demonstrere næsten hele paletten. 6-7 gengangerpunkter blev nævnt og kun et eneste var relevant for forståelsen af den terror der rammer os, for den flygtninge og migrationsstrøm på vej og årsagerne bagved. Da jeg aldrig har skrevet så godt som Jalving kan jeg godt tåle at gentage mig selv uden at risikere en antiklimaks. De radikaliserede islamisters bevæggrunde er som følger

»Der er en række spændinger mellem franskmændene og den muslimske befolkning, der føler, de bliver undertrykt. Det ser vi blandt andet i forhold til, at man har indført forbud mod at bære tørklæde i skoler, ligesom muslimerne ikke føler sig imødekommet i forhold til mulighederne for at undgå svinekød i offentlige køkkener og udøve deres religion på offentlige steder,« siger Henrik Prebensen.

1a) Tørklædeforbud. Det er egentligt et forbud mod religiøs beklædning og rammer alle religioner der hænger deres hat på tøjet.

1b) Mangel på svinekødsforbud. Denne anke mod øvrigheden hænger sammen med den første, da det er krav om islamisk levevis. Men her er det ikke som passiv muslim, men som den offentsive der har retten til at diktere vilkårene for kuffar. Muslimerne nægtes deres overhøjhed.

Parret med en generel skepsis blandt franskmændene over for den muslimske befolkning…

2) Franskmændene er dårlige, hvis ikke xenofobiske, værter.

…betyder det ifølge Henrik Prebensen, at en stor del af Frankrigs muslimske befolkning føler sig tilsidesat og forfulgt.

3) Generel tilstand af udenforskab.

Tidligere PET-chef Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen er enig i, at det ikke er tilfældigt, at radikaliserede islamister angriber Frankrig igen. Han peger på Frankrigs rolle i den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat i Syrien og Irak. Desuden kæmper Frankrig mod islamistiske oprørere i det afrikanske land Mali.

4) Frankrigs rolle mod ISIS og at de forhindrede folkemord i Mali.

Ifølge Bonnichsen kan timingen af terrorangrebene i Paris hænge sammen med, at Islamisk Stat oplever modgang på slagmarken

5) Islamisk stat er trængte. Hvis de havde fremgang ville det være en anden sag må vi forstå.

Og så har man også nogle voldsomme sociale spændinger…

6) Ikke nok bistandshjælp.

…der kan understøtte det had, som eksisterer i forvejen, når vi taler om islam og den vestlige verden,« siger Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen.

7) Hovedet på sømmet! Og det går vi så ikke mere ind i, for det indebærer den smertelige erkendelse at ingen fred er mulig og at så længe man anerkender muslimernes ret til være en del af Frankrig, som af noget vestligt land, så længe vil man befinde sig i en tilstand af krig. Ja, man kunne udtrykke det som at bo i krigens hus.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-11-19-kl-072249

Ovenfor lover X-Files artikel i Jyllandsposten klassikerne i endnu et mysterium for medier, politikere og eksperter. Hvorfor sprængte en muslim sig selv og en masse kuffar i luften? Og så en fredag aften? Og så var også han, som alle de andre en god og rolig fyr.

Obama og Kerrys svar er ord. That’s all thay have, words. De insisterer på at kalde ISIS for Daesh, fordi navnet er blevet forbudt i Islamisk Stat: “Part of the reason is because in Arabic the word “Daesh” can be taken as a play on words to mean something along the lines of “a bigot who imposes his view on others” or “to trample down and crush,” og ved at insistere på at minde terrorister fra Islamisk Stat om at de rent faktisk undertrykker andres tanker, så generer man dem måske på et personligt plan. Det har ikke den samme effekt som Assads tøndebomber, men det skulle til gengæld ikke gå ud over civile. Meeen formålet er nok snarere at forhindre at islam kommer sprogligt i forbindelse med islamisk aktivitet, en renvaskning er problemets stilling. Hmm, det kunne være man skulle kalde dem det, Islamisk Aktivitet? Det ville sikkert pisse en venstrefløjser af i ens omgangskreds.

NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, ja det er vel ækvivalensen til at Saudierne blev formænd for FNs råd for menneskerettigheder, mener det er på sin plads at nævne islam, selv om islam ikke har noget med noget at gøre, skriver Danmarks Radio

- Dette er ikke en kamp mellem den muslimske verden og den vestlige verden. Det er en kamp mellem ekstremister, kriminelle og mennesker, der tror på fundamentale værdier som frihed og respekt for menneskerettigheder, siger han ifølge nyhedsbureauet AFP.

“It was instructive that the moment President Hollande grasped the awful reality his first instinct was to close France’s borders.” skriver Simon Heffer i Telegraph. Det er sigende at Hollande, trods en overordnet politik om åbne grænser og næsten stålsat vilje mod at ville indrømme krigens realiteter - indtil nu? - alligevel afslører en erkendelse af problemets rod; muslimer der vælter over grænserne.

Hvad fortæller det om Danmarks politiske elite når alternativet til Løkke var Christian Jensen, der straks han hørte om de muslimske myrderier, tweetede en appel til danskerne om at stemme ja til EU? Ja, hvad fortæller det om intelligentsiaen i Venstre når Justitsminister Søren Pind mener at manglende grænsekontrol og konventioner ikke havde noget at spille med terrortruslen. “Vi betaler nu en høj pris for den passivitet, som Vesten har udøvet i Syrien.” siger han og mener alligevel at vi skulle have entreret Søvndals syriske jungle. For erfaringerne fra de irakiske og libyske regnskove demonstrerer virkeligt at vores ageren er problemets rod. Inger Støjberg fortsætte sin hard-liner løgn ved at lange verbalt ud efter studiegruppen og islamoplyserne Hizb ut-Tahrir. En “syg organisation som ikke hører til her”, kaldte hun dem og som en anden Villy Søvndal “forstår egentlig ikke, hvad det er, der afholder dem fra at flytte”. Men hvis hun lyttede efter, så handler det ikke om at der er noget der afholder dem fra noget, sådan er det jo med frihed. Der er derimod noget de,, som så mange andre tilvandrende muslimer vil, nemlig lave Danmark om til et kalifat. De er her på en mission, som det politiske Danmark afholder sig fra at forhindre. I stedet diskes der op med ord, ord, ord.

Denne regering, den værste regering nogensinde i dansk historie, har ophøjet politisk impotens til et kategorisk imperativ, som folket blot er i vejen for. Og Dansk Folkeparti ser ud til at have købt Løkkes rope-a-dope taktik og betalt med deres identitet. Og det er vel en forandring.

En kedelig forandring var iøvrigt også Søren Espersen, der tilsyneladende tænkte, at hvis terroren i Paris kunne være udgangspunktet for en konstruktiv debat om islam, indvandring af muslimer og hævdelse af dansk overhøjhed på dansk jord, som venstrefløjen vanskeligt kunne undslå sig, så ville det være bedre med en debat for og imod Søren Espersen selv. Vel vidende at når man indleder en argumentation om at gå hårdere til Islamisk Stat med “…vi er så gentlemen-agtige, at vi aldrig bomber, der hvor der er civile - også kvinder og børn.” så er der ingen der læser resten og Espersen spildte sine støtters tid og ressourcer på “Det Søren siger og mener er…” mens venstrefløjen og medierne fik sig lidt luft med historien om den moralske ækvivalens mellem islam og dens kritikere.

Venstrefløjen tænder et lys for revisionismen

Jeg har ikke regnet anti-semitismen som en egentligt fænomen blandt danskerne fordi man så sjældent, hvis nogensinde støder på egentlige jødefjendske ytringer. Jeg har haft den opfattelse, at så langt der er tale om egentlig anti-semitisme, som næsten udelukkende er begrænset til, venstrefløjen, så var den et udtryk for en ide om jøden og israelerene. At den anti-semitiske politik og retorik, er konsekvensen af en fortælling som venstrefløjen dyrker, måske mere af tradition. Jovist er venstrefløjen til tider ganske løssluppen med etnisk og religiøs essensialisme når man taler jøder og Israel med dem i trygge rammer, noget som offentligt mest skinner igennem som Israel-kritik, det enestående begreb der savner nationale modstykker som Saudiarabien-kritik og Gambia-kritik.  Men at der ikke i nævneværdig udstrækning (og Anne Grethe Holmsgaard er ikke nævneværdig) eksisterer noget personligt eller grundlæggende emotionelt motiv, som farver synet på jøder endsige den enkelte jøde.

Men som venstrefløjens dans med den muslimske indvandring de importere som et nyt proletariat synes deres kamp mod Israel at blive stadigt mere intens og blind. En lille del af det er at skrive jøden ud af historien om jødeforfølgelse. Et eksempel man kunne nævne var Fredsringen om synagogen i København. En muslimsk ung mand havde på baggrund af sin muslimske tro set sig bitter på jøderne, kontraktbrydende, ordombyttende aber og svin, og forsøgt sig med en massakre. En heltemodig vagt blev dræbt da han sikrede resten af forsamlingen kunne få fred. Men Fredsringen handlede om at sætte muslimerne i rollen som ofre for dårlig presse. Med kun en håndfuld muslimske piger i tørklæde med kraft nok til at simulere interesse for en løs ide om samhørighed agerede venstrefløjen potemkinkulisse så ringen kunne sluttes.

Åh, og så blev der lagt blomster for Omar, for han var jo også et menneske, skønt hans venner sparkede dem væk igen, da hans dødssted ikke skulle besudles af kuffar traditioner. Men det det handlede om for venstrefløjen var at bruge jødeforfølgelse til at pleje deres egen lille Hassan.

Og nu vil Enhedslisten og Radikale Venstre så skrive jøderne ud af deres egen historie, når de tænder et lys for flygtninge

aldrig-mere-krystalnat

Nazisterne forfølgelse af mennesker, der ikke passede ind i det ariske samfund må aldrig glemmes.

Derimod må jødeforfølgelsen som et specifikt fænomen gerne glemmes. For anden tolkning kan man ikke komme til. Krystalnatten handlede KUN om jøder.Og som Krystalnatten kun handlede om jøder skal det måske lige med, at ildsjæl og næstforkvinde i Exitcirklen Khaterah Parwanis arbejde med afradikalisering af unge KUN handler om muslimer.

Hvis jeg må give et godt råd til det yderste venstre; hvis i vil markere forfølgelse af alle de af os, der ikke passer ind i en eller anden overordnet ideologi, så lav en Gulag-dag eller en sharia-dag, hvor alle demokrater kan blæse tyranniet den lange march. Og insister på ytringsfriheden og afskaf blasfemi- og racisme paragrafferne.

Flytningestrømmen: “Den danske familie sad komfortabelt på første klasse og bemærkede ikke togets nye passagerer”

Overskriften til denne lille stemningspost om det Danmark og Europa du ikke vil genkende er ikke en stavefejl, men min nevøs præcise ord. Flytningene, eller migranterne, eller 2. bølge, ankerbørn har mange navne. Jeg beskæftiger mig ikke så meget med denne katastrofe i sin begyndelse for Europa, dertil er det dels for overvældende, dels leverer de social medier de flydende opdateringer, der står som nødvendig modvægt til de etablerede og skatte-underholdte mediers følelsesporno. Men der er gået hul på bylden og pudset rammer nu også Danmark og det skal markeres Ekstra Bladet

Flere flygtninge og migranter, de fleste fra Syrien, er søndag aften stormet ind over den danske grænse ved Rødby.

Ifølge Sydsjællands- og Lolland-Falsters Politi er der indtil videre kommet 270 flygtninge og migranter ind over de danske grænser ved Rødby.

- Vi er dernede for at registrere dem og få et overblik over, hvem de er, og hvorfra de kommer. Det er den almindelige asylbehandling, der starter der, siger vagtchef Stefan Jensen.

flygtninge-i-danmark

(Foto: Per Rasmussen)

Politiken ser det som en etnisk udrensning. Heh, nej, ikke af os, der ser ud til at blive befolkningsudskiftet, men af flygtningene der kommer hertil. “Den danske familie sad komfortabelt på første klasse og bemærkede ikke togets nye passagerer” hedder det i en voldsomt symbolladet sætning, der fortjener sit eget liv - men det er der ikke tid til

»Vi kan se, at politiet er ved at brække toiletdørene op, og ud vælter omkring 20 mennesker - voksne og små børn. De bliver gennet ud ad toget - næsten som en etnisk udrensning, og vi kan bagefter se, at toiletgulvet flyder med pomfritter og ketchup og børnelegetøj«.

Politiet var rolige og smilende

Claus Godskesen fortæller, at politiet var rolige og smilende - men dog bestemte i deres ordrer.

»Ude på perronen kan vi se, at børn og kvinder står og græder. De er tydeligvis langt fra bekvemme ved situationen. Det var virkeligt bizart at være vidne til«, siger han.

»Det er mennesker, som vi indtil i dag kun har set i nyhederne. Og pludseligt sad de altså i et dansk IC-1 tog! Nu er de her. Og ikke et andet sted, langt væk«.

Ja, nu er de her. Politiet synes selv de har “styr på de fleste” og lod derfor resten løbe deres vej. 29% af dem vil være kriminelle allerede i deres første år som asyl-ansøgere. Sidste afgang for første klasse, hvis man skal tro den polske blogger Kamil Bulonis, som han beskriver sværmen for The New Observer

With all solidarity with people in difficult circumstances I have to say that what I saw arouses horror … This huge mass of people – sorry, that I’ll write this – but these are absolute savages … Vulgar, throwing bottles, shouting loudly “We want to Germany!” – and is Germany a paradise now?

I saw how they surrounded a car of an elderly Italian woman, pulled her by her hair out of the car and wanted to drive away in the car. They tried to overturn the bus in I travelled myself with a group of others. They were throwing faeces at us, banging on the doors to force the driver to open them, spat at the windscreen … I ask for what purpose? How is this savagery to assimilate in Germany?

I felt for a moment like in a war … I really feel sorry for these people, but if they reached Poland – I do not think that they would get any understanding from us … We were waiting three hours at the border which ultimately could not cross.

(…)

Among them there were virtually no women, no children—the vast majority were aggressive young men … Just yesterday, while reading about them on all the websites I subconsciously felt compassion, worried about their fate but today after what I saw I am just afraid and yet I am happy that they did not choose our country as their destination. We Poles are simply not ready to accept these people – neither culturally nor financially.

I do not know if anyone is ready. To the EU a pathology is marching which we had not yet a chance to ever see, and I am sorry if anyone gets offended by his entry …

I can add that cars arrived with humanitarian aid – mainly food and water and they were just overturning those cars …

Det er ikke blot polakkerne der næppe vil finde sig i, hvad os patologisk selvdestruktive vesterlændinge lægger vores børns fremtid til. På Sicilien hævner de lokale unge sig på invasionen. Paven vil tage sin del af flygtningestrømmen. To (2!) familier, kan det blive når plads til i Vatikanet, der i forvejen er proppet med guld, røgelse og hjerterum.

the-tide

Svenskerne arrangerer godhedsdemoner ved siden af broderskabets moske. I Rotherham i Holland tørnede muslimer sammen med poltiet, skriver Breitbart, men når Danmarks Radio beskriver lignende sammenstød på Lesbos er flygtningene desperate.

Og desperate mennesker kalder på venligboere (via Uriasposten)

Some French leftists decided to hand out food to illegal immigrants in Calais. Illegals quickly took over the distribution of the food and stormed the van, trying to get in and grab all they could. Afterwards the woman visited a camp and the illegal immigrants were complaining to her that ”the food is not good”. The ungrateful illegals then took the food and threw it on the ground. Illegal immigrants in Europe expect to be placed in 5 star hotels when they arrive, when their expectations aren’t met they get aggressive. How long will we tolerate these demanders?

Et gutmensch klapper ad muslimen, der takker Allah.

De tyske scheiss millionaires gutmenschparade burde spejles i Premier League skriver Andy Kelly ansvarligt i Daily Mirror

Bayern Munich pledged 1m euros to the cause and to set up a training camp for young refugees. Bayern’s youth academy will provide regular training, meals and German language classes for the children.

Club chief executive Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said in a statement: “FC Bayern see it as its social responsibility to help those fleeing and suffering children, women and men, to support them and accompany them in Germany.”

Midfielder Javi Martinez yesterday went to Munich train station to welcome people at one of the key arrival points in Germany, distributing clothes, footballs and shirts.

And it’s not just in Munich.

Borussia Dortmund invited more than 200 refugees to their Europa League game last Thursday to help them settle into the city.

Many football fans from England are already planning to follow the lead of their German counterparts as public pressure has seen David Cameron pledge to accept more of those in need.

Yet from most of our football clubs, the silence has been deafening.

Ungarske fodboldfans savner ikke socialt ansvarlige klubber, skriver Russia Times

Clashes have broken out between refugees and football hooligans as the latter pelted smoke bombs and fireworks at the asylum seekers at the Keleti train station in Budapest. At least one person was injured before riot police intervened.

The refugees responded with plastic bottles and shoes, RT’s correspondent Daniel Hawkins reported from the scene on Friday.

Vand bliver smidt demonstrativt væk, en fyr holder med Real Madrid, der råder ham ‘Fly Emirates’. Der er forskel på børnefamilier og de vrede unge mænd. De sidste er i flertal

Orban og Bibi væger for sig på deres elskede landes vegne, mens tysk-franske Airbus værger Saudiaraberne fra deres arabiske brødre og og sikrer at presset koncentreres nordpå

german-saudi-fence

Er det drømme om de muligheder, der gør at et flertal af englænderne vil helt ud af EU, mens de endnu er i flertal?

befolkningstilvc3a6kst

Sverige oplever at multikultur er modsætninger

”Sverige provocerar inte bara Saudiarabien, utan muslimer över hela världen eftersom kungadömet Saudiarabien följer Sharialagarna.”

Arab News skriver om de krænkedes følelser

Sweden and other Western countries have adopted double standards while dealing with human rights as they ignore the killing of thousands in Iraq, Syria and Palestine, and highlight the flogging of an individual in Saudi Arabia as a big issue, said Dr. Mohammed Badahdah, assistant secretary general of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY).

Speaking to Arab News, he emphasized that Saudi Arabia’s rules and regulations as well as its judicial system are based on the Qur’an and Sunnah or Shariah. “Shariah laws are not made by Parliament or people’s representatives. They are divine laws given by the Almighty for the welfare and security of the whole humanity,” he explained.

“It’s the duty of all countries and societies to respect religious faiths, beliefs and cultures of different communities in order to promote peace and stability in the world,” Badahdah said while denouncing Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom’s anti-Saudi tirade.

“We are not imposing Shariah on others. Why do then Sweden and other Western countries criticize the Kingdom when we are implementing Shariah in accordance with our faith? This is clear interference in our internal affairs and Saudi Arabia will not tolerate such attacks,” he said.

Tolerance er godt, ubetinget godt. Det er holdningen på den værdimæssige venstrefløj og i Sverige. Men de overser selvfølgelig at tolerance er betinget. Betinget af at vi er enige om, hvad tolerance er. Den værdimæssige venstrefløj og svenskerne har tilpasset der opfattelse muslimernes, således at det er tolerance ikke at krænke. For islam bliver så let krænket. Vi andre fastholder tolerance som ikke at lade sig krænke. At man vender den anden kind til. På den måde kan vi udnytte vores intellekt i åndsfrihed og en masse andet spændende.

Det store problem med at definere tolerance som pligten til ikke at krænke er at alle bliver krænkede over et eller andet. ikke mindst muslimer, som finder alle andre end dem selv og deres indskrænkede levevis krænkende. Men også andre salonfähige subgruperinger finder både dette og hint krænkende som homser, kvinder, negre og katolikker, så det er uundgåeligt at alle kommer til at krænke alle. Ikke mindst med muslimerne, som jo som sagt finder homser, kvinder, negre og katolikker krænkende. Så grundlæggende kan man ikke længere være salonfähig på den værdimæssige venstrefløj eller i Sverige længere, ikke bare fordi hyldesten af den ene perversion er krænkende for den næste, men fordi islam finder alt og alle krænkende. Jacob McHangama skriver på sin Facebook profil

Sveriges diplomatiske konflikt med Saudi Arabien er et glimrende eksempel på, hvorfor det er afgørende at kunne kritisere og gøre grin med religion. Margot Wallstrøm rejste en helt berettiget men sæt for sjælden kritik af Saudi Arabiens brutale diktatur. Men da Saudi Arabiens retssystem er baseret på Sharia forsøger Saudi Arabien nu at udlægge den svenske kritik som et angreb mod islam og muslimer, og har fået både OIC og Den Arabiske Liga med på galejen.

Det giver visse mindelser om tidligere konflikter med et lille skandinavisk land. Udenrigsministeren i dette unavngivne skandinaviske land har dog lært lektien og vil ikke “eskalere konflikten”, som det hedder, ved at kalde Saudi Arabien for et diktatur eller kritisere landets krænkelse af menneskerettigheder. Dertil er landet for vigtig en partner i kampen mod Islamisk Stat, der ligesom Saudi Arabien, henretter kvinder, blasfemikere og homoseksuelle, men uden forudgående retssag baseret på alle Shariaens grundlæggende retsprincipper.

Accepterer vi at religiøse følelser skal skrønes mod krænkende ytringer, risikerer vi også at skærme religiøse diktaturer.

Længe har man kunnet dække over denne indre modsigelse ved at angribe nationen og nationalisterne som bigoter. At købe sig goodwill hos alle de små minoriteter og muslimerne især ved at sælge bid for bid af nationen, indtil der ikke synes at være noget tilbage. Og nu ser Sverige ud til at være så udhulet at der ikke er noget der står imellem de mange minoriteter. Nu er hr og fru Sverige der ikke længere længere til at sælge ud for at betale for de indre selvmodsigelser. Nu skraber de krænkede hinandens manchetter. Det var kun et spørgsmål om tid. Ingrid Carlqvist skriver i Dispatch International

Saudiarabien är islams allra heligaste land. Här ligger Mecka med världens största moské, Al-Masjid al-?ar?m, som omsluter den heliga stenen Kaba. Området är svindlande stort, hela 356 800 kvadratmeter och rymmer mer än fyra miljoner tillbedjare under hajj (vallfärden). Hit får icke-muslimer inte komma – Mecka är rena apartheid-staden och religionsfrihet är ett okänt begrepp.

Det var detta land Margot Wallström kallade en diktatur med “medeltida” straff (exempelvis piskning av uppstudsiga bloggare) och kvinnoförtryckande (exempelvis att kvinnor inte får köra bil). Bra där, Margot!

Hennes uttalanden har nu satt hela den arabiska världen i brand. Nu är det inte bara Arabförbundet som fördömt hennes uttalanden, utan alla de 57 länderna i OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). Saudiarabien och Förenade Arabemiraten har tagit hem sina ambassadörer från Stockholm, och Saudiarabien har meddelat att inga nya svenska affärsmän kommer att få visum till deras land.

Nu vrider sig utrikesministern som en mask i sina försök att påstå att hon inte kritiserade islam med sina uttalanden. Hennes pressekreterare Erik Boman säger i dag till Dagens Nyheter:

“Vi har den största respekt för islam. Sverige värdesätter goda relationer med den muslimska världen.”

Men kritiserade islam var just vad Wallström gjorde, i och för sig utan att begripa det. Sharialagarna är en del av islam, och det var Allah själv som meddelade Muhammed hur han skulle straffa sina undersåtar. Att påstå att sharia är ”medeltida” och att Saudiarabien med dessa lagar förtrycker sin befolkning är en total sågning av islam.

Det Margot Wallström uppenbarligen inte heller kände till är att Saudiarabien aldrig har skrivit under FNs deklaration om de mänskliga rättigheterna. Saudi har däremot skrivit under Kairodeklarationen (liksom de övriga 56 länderna i OIC), som är själva motsatsen till det vi kallar mänskliga rättigheter. Kairodeklarationen slår nämligen fast att sharia övertrumfar de mänskliga rättigheter som FN listar, vilket är liktydigt med alla.

Att Sverige har en utrikesminister som inte vet detta är naturligtvis pinsamt. Men låt oss skänka en tacksamhetens tanke till Margot Wallström och hennes medarbetare. Genom sina uttalanden har Wallström satt fingret på just det budskap som vi islamkritiker länge försökt tränga igenom med: Islam är en totalitär ideologi som förvägrar människor mänskliga rättigheter och håller sina undersåtar fast i ett barbariskt system utan hopp.

När nu Pandoras ask är öppnad blir det spännande att se hur Wallström ska agera i fortsättningen. Antingen får hon stå fast vid sina uttalanden och därmed erkänna att islam är barbariskt och kvinnoförtryckande. Eller så får hon göra en hel pudel och säga att hon inte visste att sharialagarna är Allahs lagar, och att hon givetvis inte har rätt att kritisera islams gud.

Det var kun et spørgsmål om tid.

Alle krænkelsers moder

Lars Vilks betegnes ofte ret vildledende som Muhammedtegner, som var det hans levevej. Vilks er blot kunstner (som man nu definerer kunst i disse tider) og laver i den forbindelse næsten alt andet end Muhammedtegninger. Alligevel er det hans begrænsede produktion af kunst der omhandler sagnfiguren Muhammed der oftest definerer ham.

At tegne sagnfiguren Muhammed ophidser en ukendt antal muslimer. Nogen gange hører man at det er mange muslimer hvis følelser krænkes af at en udtrykker sig, andre gange er det kun få muslimer. Det er få muslimer der bliver stødt på manchetterne når det handler om at afvise islamkritikernes alarmisme og derfor fremhæves muslimerne som moderne mennesker, der leder efter en fremtid ligesom vores. Men når det handler om at anklage de der som Vilks udtrykker sig for at bringe ulykke med sig, er det mange muslimer der bliver stødt på manchetterne .

Dette hænger også sammen med den forvirring der er om ytringsfriheden og om folk som Vilks egentligt er truede. Når man skal underminere deres troværdighed er de ikke reelt truede (en parallel til den principielle ytringsfrihedsdebat) og skal derfor ikke tages alvorligt. Der var længe tvivl om Hedegaard overhovedet var udsat for et attentat og en venstreradikal pøbels overfald på Pia Kjærsgaard blev affærdiget som hendes ønsketænkning. Men når truslen så nærmer sig eller volden er en realitet er det selvindlysende at kritikerne har bragt det på dem selv og ganske egoistisk endda udsat andre for farer. En nabo til Krudttønden udtrykte på Danmarks Radio netop den tanke; “når man så inviterer en så kontroversiel person som Vilks, hvad havde man ellers forestillet sig ville ske?” (citeret frit efter hukommelsen)

Udtrykket er sigende for den diskussion, fordi naboen sikkert ellers ikke mener at der er en trussel mod ytringsfriheden ved at mennesker der rent faktisk har noget interessant at sige søges myrdet af mange grupper og ensomme ulve (lad os nu se om ikke den seneste drabs ikke fik lidt hjælp og støtte). For ville hun da ikke støtte op om et ædelt ideal, hvis det var truet? Men alligevel er det logisk for hende, at sådan noget som et skudattentat bare sker. For det er, hvad skudattentater gør - de sker. Der er ikke nogen der udfører dem, de sker og det der sker er en logisk konsekvens af noget alle kan sige sig selv. Hvis man bare kender reglerne. Og fordi det er selvindlysende skal man ikke udfordre det, for det er at gå imod den selvindlysende virkelighed og så er man selv skyld i at man bliver forsøgt myrdet - undskyld at man bliver dræbt, selvfølgelig. Det var ikke min mening at antyde at morderen grundlæggende kunne have ladet være og have været mere kræsen med hvilke kunstudstillinger han besøgte.

Så det rigtige tal må være at mange muslimer bliver stødt, når alle til syvende og sidst er enige om at Vilks er enten truet, som folk som jeg mener han er, eller selv er ude om den uundgåelige vold, som den værdimæssige venstrefløj mener at han er. Og det hænger sammen med Muhammedtegnerens andet suffix, nemlig kontroversiel. Kontroversiel er et ofte benyttet ord for kritikere af islam, også om Vilks, både i medier og blandt folk flest og som vi så det ovenfor med Krudttøndens klarsynede nabo. En kontroversiel person er måske selv skyld i ulykken. Kontroversen har vel trods alt udgangspunkt i personen ifølge udtrykket ‘kontroversiel person’. Et lidt mindre eufemistisk udtryk kunne være ‘konfliktskabende’. Den der lever ved sværdet og du kunne jo blot have ladet være og hvad forestillede du dig ellers ville ’ske’? Osv.

Men konflikten er vel ikke personen? Nej, det er, hvad personen har gjort. Han har i dette og lignende tilfælde tegnet, tegnet som han syntes det skulle se ud. Kan det virkeligt skabe konflikt? En tegning? Ville man selv skyde Hergé eller Picasso? Nej, hvis ikke man kan lide Tintin, kantede mennesker og rundkørselshunde kan man lade være med at købe den slags skilderier. Men nogen mener alligevel at tegninger er værd at myrde løs på andre mennesker for. De mennesker er ikke kontroversielle. De mennesker der myrder løs er ‘hvad der sker’.

Jo, attentatmanden er jo selvfølgelig værre en tegneren, det bliver indrømmet lige før det obligatoriske ‘men’. Med mindre selvfølgelig, attentatmanden er et psykosocialt offer for tonen i debatten, for så er det nemlig vi skal til at se indad. For i Danmark bliver der sagt mange kontroversielle ting hele tiden. Det gør man ikke i USA fortalte Steinmetz på News. Derovre havde man en langt større forståelse for folks religiøse følelser, de fineste følelser i menneskets følelsesregister åbenbart, og mindre forståelse for hvorfor nogen dog ville tegne sagnfiguren Muhammed som en hund. I USA havde man en fundamentalt anden tilgang til ytringsfrihed en den grove danske, konkluderede han uden hensyn til at ytringsfrihed og almindelig social konduite ikke er det samme. Men pærer og bananer blandes gerne når vi ser indad - ellers kommer vil vel ikke frem til at skamme os. Og ikke et ord om terror mod amerikanske mål, der kunne forvirre årsagssammenhængen.

Så derfor: ‘Men’ selv om attentatmanden er værre end den kontroversielle, behøver man jo ikke at sige eller tegne dumme ting når nu nogen bliver kede af det. Man kunne jo lade være. Vi har jo ikke ytringspligt, som Uffe Ellemann Jensen slog fast i sin faste klumme på Berlingske Tidende, en klumme hvor han selv fortsatte det ene indlæg efter det andet til han fik sit faste TV-program sammen med Mogens Lykketoft til at forklare hvordan det hele hænger sammen. De to statsmænd har måske ikke ytringspligt, men de ytrer sig alligevel flittigt “fordi DE kender Verden” (eller kender de bare værten?). Med andre ord, så er der ingen grund til at udtrykke sin mening hvis den går imod Ellemanns mening, for det er andres mening Ellemann i udgangspunktet altid finder dumt.

Men stadigvæk, ytringsfrihed, kan vi alligevel ikke moderere den lidt? Kan vi ikke yde mådehold? Behøver vi at være så grove? Behøver vi ligefrem at vifte med en rød klud? Behøver vi ligefrem lede efter fjender? Ja til det hele; ja fordi vi er frie mennesker helt ned til tæerne, ja fordi vores meninger er vores natur så meget at uartige tegninger og skrifter altid “vil ske” uanset hvem der måtte hade selve ideen om den frie tanke, ja og hvis ikke du kan håndtere friheden så flyt til Saudiarabien, Nordkorea eller Sverige, der mere og mere ligner en blanding af Nordkorea og Saudiarabien. Men lad retorikken ligge og lad os istedet se på to andre aspekter ved vores aktuelle attentatmand.

I Ekstrabladet husker ‘Victor’ terroristen som en tidligere skolekammerat fra VUC - ‘Victor’ ville gerne vil være anonym for selvom attentatmanden nu er død mener han at vide, hvad der “kan ske” - hvorledes vores attentatmand kunne blive agressiv når han talte om sit yndlingsemne, islam. Dengang hævdede attentatmanden for eksempel, at man ikke skulle drikke øl foran muslimer fordi det var krænkende. Hånden op alle der betragter Vilks som kontroversiel, men ikke er for fine til at sidde på en fortovscafe på Nørrebro og drikke en kold fadbamse! Og nu er grønlænderne også advaret - nej vent, de blev jaget ud af Volsmose for flere år siden af selv samme grund. Det ser ud til at være mere end en enkelt ulvs mening.

Det er altså ikke nogle bestemte tegninger, der er problemet. Tegningerne står blot først på listen fordi de er symboltunge. På krænkelseslisten står altså også øldrikning. Og hvis man tager til Saudiarabien som turist, mens man overvejer om det er noget for een med et permanent ophold, så kan man jo se, hvad der ellers er på listen over krænkende ting. Kvinder må f.eks ikke køre i bil, være alene uden opsyn eller vise bar hud. Og der er klare grænser for, hvor de overhovedet må være i det offentlige rum. Den tendens kan man også se herhjemme f.eks på påklædningen på Nørrebro. Man kan se den når de populære Outlandish fandt det outrageous med en norsk sangerindes nøgne arme. Man kan se det når Asmaa og en gymnasiecensor ikke vil give hånd til det modsatte køn. Man kan se det i alle de små forskelle, udlandsturisten ser som eksotiske og hjemlandsturisten ser som mangfoldige og som kræver svinet, det urene dyr, ud.

Men der var en tredie ting på terroristens krænkelsesliste, som endda stod højere end øl og nøgne arme. Nemlig det at være jøde. Dan Uzan, der blev skudt gennem hovedet, var arveligt betinget en kontroversiel person fra et arveligt betinget kontroversielt folkeslag, der nok burde vide hvad der ‘ville og kommer til at ske’. Jødens blotte eksistens som fri og driftig frem for underkuet er endnu en dødelig krænkelse, så når man er igang med at skyde svinger man selvfølgelig forbi Krystalgade. Fik jeg nævnt det er ulovligt for jøder at være i Saudiarabien? Hvis det er et problem at være nabo til Krudttønden, hvorledes skal vi tænke om at være nabo til jøder?

Man må tage hele pakken, sagde Abdul Wahid Pedersen om islam og hele pakken vil sige både det at tegne, være kvinde, jøde, vantro, at drikke øl, være klædt efter forholdene og at tænke selv. Hele pakken blev givet af sagnfiguren Muhammed og kritik af og satire over Muhammed er derfor kritik af hvert et punkt på krænkelseslisten, som den blevet givet i de forbandede skrifter. Intet punkt på krænkelseslisten kan hverken intellektuelt eller moralsk legitimeres og det eneste alternativ til refleksion er vold og terror, så meget desto mindre den samlede pakke. Og tegninger af pakkens sagnophav er alle krænkelsers moder.

At ‘frame’ en historie

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Muslimer, Pressen, Racisme, Saudiarabien, Sharia, islam — Drokles on February 5, 2015 at 2:43 am

3 februar skrev Daily Mail om hvorledes et muslimsk slagteri England halalslagter dyr. Det er sørgelig læsning og den medfølgende video giver mindelser om ISIS og Saudiarabien og andre steder i den muslimske verden, hvor liv intet betyder andet end som et afsæt til perversioner og sadisme. Alle ser den sammenligning, men de fleste er for pæne til at påpege det. Og dyreværnsforeningen, der afslørede grusomhederne, havde også sine betænkeligheder på den konto

Campaigners said they recognised the risks of stirring up anti-Muslim feeling but ‘witholding release of the footage would be a betrayal of our key mission to expose and combat animal cruelty’.

Det bliver derfor meget vigtigt at understrege, at den overdådige og allestedsnærværende brutalitet blandt muslimer intet har med islam at gøre

Under the halal code, animals are supposed to be killed quickly, with a single sweep of a surgically-sharp knife. They should not see the knife before they are slaughtered, or witness the death of other animals.

Jyllands-Posten valgte en anden metode til bevaring af pænheden. De indlejrede den i selve fortællingens struktur, der under overskriften “Skandale i England: Slagteriarbejdere tæsker dyrene” i kortfom lyder

- “Slagteriarbejdere fra et slagteri i North Yorkshire (…) er blevet afsløret i grov dyremishandling”.

- “ Flere muslimske talsmænd været ude at fordømme forholdene på halal-slagteriet, som bliver skarpt kritiseret for ikke at leve op til de muslimske standarder om ordentlig behandling af levende dyr”

Dyremishandlingen bliver sat sammen med England, mens islams høje standarder fremhæves som modsætningen.

Muslimerkongen er død

Kong Abdullah af Saudiarabien er død og verdens statsledere har udtalt deres sorg over den store mand. Her nogle reaktioner samlet af den venstreorienterede Think Progress

King Abdullah, 90, who died early Friday morning, is being hailed as a reformer, despite condoning human rights abuses and forwarding only very measured efforts to promote democracy in his oil-rich nation.

One of the most scrutinized aspects of the Saudi Arabia’s rights’ record is its so-called “male guardianship system,” women are not allowed to travel, obtain a passport, marry, or continue their education without the approval of a male relative.

The King’s own daughters are hardly an exception to the harsh rule. Four of his daughters claim that the are being forcibly held in a dilapidated palace with little in the way of food and water. “Our father said that we had no way out,” Sahar Al Saud, 42, wrote in an email to the British broadcast network Channel 4, “And that after his death our brothers will continue detaining us.”

“We are just an example of so many families, of what so many women, go through. Just a tiny, tiny example,” the princess who once enjoyed international skiing and shopping trips said.

(…)

President Barack Obama praised the king for having “the courage of his convictions,” and for promoting security in the region, but steered clear of commenting on Saudi Arabian social policies.

“In a very discreet way, he was a strong advocate of women,” Christine Lagarde the head of the International Monetary Fund said from the Davos Economic Forum in Switzerland.

Even news reports heralded King Abdullah’s track record on civil rights, though the laudatory language was often followed by only vague or contradictory examples from his 9-year tenure as the head of Saudi Arabia.

CNN called him “a cautious reformer” citing “steps toward broader freedoms” without giving clear examples. The New York Times Douglas Martin and Ben Hubbard referred to the autocratic ruler as a “force of moderation,” although the already tempered phrase was followed by examples in which the King failed to carry out the reforms he publicly vowed to carry out.

(…)

On Friday, Saudi authorities again postponed the flogging of the progressive blogger Raif Badawi. Although the British foreign secretary raised concerns about brutal sentence awaiting the blogger with the Saudi ambassador to Britain prime minister was among those praising King Abdullah’s commitment to his people.

“He will be remembered for his long years of service to the kingdom, for his commitment to peace and for strengthening understanding between faiths,” David Cameron said.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-01-27-kl-074444

Flere og overlappende reaktioner her. Også tidligere præsident George Bush var ked af den store mands død, som han skrev på Facebook

“Laura and I are saddened by the death of a man I admire and with whom I was honored to work. I have very fond memories of my visits to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and of the King’s visit to our ranch in Crawford. He was an important and able ally and a force for modernization in his country. King Abdullah served his nation honorably with strength and vision. We send our heartfelt condolences to the King’s family and all who will miss him.”

bush-og-kong-abdullah

Islam opstod, som bekendt, på den arabiske halvø som en kodificering af arabisk kultur og moral. Som islam spredte sig udvikledes et væld af variationer, så man hurtigt ikke længere kunne tale om et islam. Seneste skud på stammen er islamisk stat, hvis forskelle og ligheder i forhold til den saudiske variant gør enhver islamofob til skamme. Washington Post stiller det pædagogisk op

b7z1hcscuaelirf

Disses væsensforskellige forskel i samfundsindretning kommer af den fleksibilitet, der er i islams lære, her i sammenligning med koranen

comparingquranis
Og i praksis er der da også milevid forskel på Islamisk stat og kalifatet. Daily Telegraph skriver om lov og orden i den nye Islamisk Stat

On January 15, 2015, the Islamic State (ISIS) released a collection of images showing the enforcement of the hudud (Koranic punishment) in Ninawa, Iraq. The images show the execution of two men convicted of homosexuality by throwing them from a tall building; the crucifixion of two men convicted of armed theft; and the stoning of a woman convicted of adultery.

g

i

Således holdes der også orden i Saudiarabien på åben gade

Som man kan se, helt forskellige straffemetoder, der vidner om islams mange ansigter. Men det er den samme folkelige deltagelse, der vidner om islam som fredens religion

Muslimerkongens famile

Arabere, Muslimer, Saudiarabien, Ytringsfrihed, islam — Drokles on January 27, 2015 at 12:59 pm

Mutaf.org har gennemført et email interview, med afdøde Kong Abdullahs fængslede døtre

Firstly, can you describe the situation you are facing?

It’s a battle for survival…we’re literally facing a vicious army: the Saudi National Guard, headed by our half-brother Mitab. He along with our half-brother AbdulAziz, Deputy Foreign Minister, have been issuing orders to abuse us along the years. Both men are in the government and should not be allowed to evade justice simply because they occupy such positions. Civilised countries should not allow them to continue their crimes without holding them to account. The silence of the world is deafening, as they issued orders to starve us. We were prevented from going out to buy food and water on March 17th, our heavily guarded bimonthly outing. They prohibited home delivery as well; the person trying to deliver food and water was threatened to be jailed should he attempt to return. Food will soon run out. We are on one meal a day, surviving on some expired food and distilled seawater.

My sister Jawaher suffers from asthma and is denied her medication. I cannot watch her health deteriorating. She needs medical help, in fact we all do. We suffer excruciating headaches and backaches. We have been calling on the Red Cross and they are trying to communicate with the Red Crescent, but seems that they are under Saudi control, so we haven’t received a reply yet. We have the right to choose where to seek medical help. We will never seek the help of the Royal Clinic since they have played a big role in our abuse, nor will we ever ask our captors for food and water since they have been drugging it. We also need to save our pets, our two dogs Gala and Gracia as well as Jade the cat. The situation is getting worse, while Saudis continue their crimes with impunity.

Why do you think you have been placed under effective house arrest?

We, along with our mother, have always been vocal all our lives about poverty, women’s rights and other causes that are dear to our hearts. We often discussed them with our father. It did not sit well with him and his sons Mitab and AbdelAziz and their entourage. We have been the targets ever since. We have been treated abysmally all our lives, but it got worse during the past 15 years. When Hala began to work as an intern at a hospital in Riyadh, she discovered political prisoners thrown in psychiatric wards, drugged and shamed to discredit them. She complained to her superiors and got reprimanded. She began to receive threatening messages if she didn’t back off. The situation deteriorated, and we discovered that she was also being drugged. She was kidnapped from the house, left in the desert, then thrown in Olaysha’s Women’s Jail, Riyadh. She soon became yet another victim of the system, as were the so-called patients (political prisoners) she was trying to help. Maha, Jawaher and I have all been drugged at some point. Jawaher and I have resisted and we were able to protect ourselves.

We have been told to lose all hope of ever having a normal life. A chance to study, work, and raise a family have been denied us. They wanted us to be hopeless and helpless, to give up like many have in this country. After years of hopelessness, forced sedation, physical and psychological abuse, we managed Jawaher and I to fight back, thanks to our mum who has raised us to be independent, to fight for what we believe and stand for our rights. She left to London in 2003. She did not flee as some media has been saying, fabricating lies for sensationalism. In fact, they had tried to push her away to separate us, and to prevent her from supervising my sisters’ treatment. She decided to leave so that she could fight for our freedom. We have been saved from a worst fate thanks to her leaving. Alas, many human rights organisations, journalists, and lawyers have not helped. Some have even hindered her efforts, while others ignored our plight altogether. Her attempts throughout the past 10 years have failed despite her constant fight to free us from captivity and seek medical help for my sisters Maha and Hala. Our mother means everything to us. She is the light that shines through all this darkness.

Olien presser ondskaben

Olieprisen falder i disse tider “not by any action (or inaction) of the Saudis” skriver Peter Coy og Matthew PhilipsBusiness Week “but by the American shale producers, who are simply producing all the oil they can to maximize their profits”.

The world’s biggest oil companies faced ruin in the summer of 1931. Crude prices had plummeted. Wildcatters were selling oil from the bonanza East Texas field for a nickel a barrel, cheaper than a bowl of chili. On Aug. 17, Governor Ross Sterling declared a state of insurrection in four counties and sent 1,100 National Guard troops to shut down the fields and bring order to the market. A month later the Railroad Commission of Texas handed out strict production quotas.

That heavy-handed intervention in the free market was remarkable enough. Even more remarkable was who pulled it off. The person in charge of shutting down the wildcatters, National Guard Brigadier General Jacob Wolters, was the general counsel of Texas Co., an ancestor of Chevron (CVX). And the Texas governor who ordered Wolters in was a past president of Humble Oil and Refining, a forerunner of ExxonMobil (XOM). Big Oil played hardball in those days.

Russell Gold beskriver i Wall Street Journal hvad der “has set up a battle for market share that could reshape the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and fundamentally change the global market for oil”

Vikas Dwivedi, energy strategist with Macquarie Research, says a widespread deceleration of global economic growth sapped some demand. At the same time, several Asian currencies weakened against the U.S. dollar.

The cost of filling up a gas tank in Indonesia, Thailand, India and Malaysia rose, just as these countries were phasing out fuel subsidies. In Jakarta and Mumbai, drivers cut back.

“The fact that supply growth was strong shouldn’t have taken anybody by surprise,” Mr. Dwivedi says. But demand for oil “just fell off a cliff. And bear markets are fed by negative surprises.”

Rising supply and falling demand both put downward pressure on prices. Throughout the summer, however, fears of violence in Iraq kept oil prices high as traders worried Islamic State fighters could cut the countrys oil output.

Then two events tipped the market. In late June, The Wall Street Journal reported the U.S. government had given permission for the first exports of U.S. oil in a generation. While the ruling was limited in scope, the market saw it as the first crack in a long-standing ban on crude exports. Not only was the U.S. importing fewer barrels of oil, it could soon begin exporting some, too. This news jolted oil markets; prices began to edge down from their summer peaks.

On July 1, Libyan rebels agreed to open Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, two key oil-export terminals that had been closed for a year. Libyan oil sailed across the Mediterranean Sea into Europe. Already displaced from the U.S. Gulf Coast and eastern Canada, Nigerian oil was soon replaced in Europe, too. Increasingly, shipments of Nigerian crude headed toward China.

Oil prices began to decline.

Og det er dårligt nyt for mange fjendtlige regimer og ideologier, hvis magt bygger på høje oliepriser. De små fracking firmaer i Texas ændrer vilkårerne

The stressed-out giants of today are Saudi Arabia and its fellows in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The descendants of the 1930s wildcatters are today’s producers of oil from shale, who are driving down the world price of crude by flooding the market with millions of barrels of new oil each day. At $64 a barrel, Brent crude is down 44 percent since June. The twist is that today’s upstarts aren’t draining oil from neighbors’ plots, as happened in the 1930s. And OPEC can’t call in the National Guard against them. All it can do is gape at the falling price of crude and contemplate the destruction of their cartel at the hands of the Americans, whom they thought they had supplanted for good 40 years ago. Energy economist Philip Verleger says shale is to OPEC what the Apple II (AAPL) was to the IBM(IBM) mainframe.

(….)

Collectively, their breakneck production is breaking OPEC’s neck. This is the remorseless, leaderless free market at work.

OPEC used to be something to reckon with. For a brief period in the 1970s its influence was so strong, it could set prices to the penny for scores of crudes, says Bhushan Bahree, senior director for OPEC Middle East research at market researcher IHS (IHS). Its power has waned considerably, but until this year Saudi Arabia could still be counted on to cut output for the good of the cartel when gluts emerged. The Saudis’ refusal last month to take one for the team is historic, says Michael Wittner, head of oil research at Société Générale (GLE:FP) in New York. “That is such a tremendous, dramatic change,” he says. “It’s hard to think of a way to exaggerate how fundamental it is.”

Men det er ikke blot Rusland og regimerne i OPEC, der mærkes af den økonomiske nedtur og amerikansk driftighed. Også den grønne mafia går svære tider i møde, skriver The Independent

A new “era of cheap oil” would be good news for consumers and motorists – but analysts say the consequences for politics, industry and the climate could be even more radical.

(…)

“Renewable energy subsidies have been mostly sold to the public on the basis of the economic benefits,” said Peter Atherton, an energy analyst with Liberum Capital. “But the economic arguments hinged on the idea that fossil fuel prices would get more expensive, while expensive renewable subsidies would be able to come down over time. That’s looking doubtful now.”

Anne Robinson, director of consumer policy at the uSwitch price comparison website, said: “More subsidies are likely to be needed [for green power] as the gap between the cost of fossil fuel power and renewable power gets bigger.” The extra subsidies would be borne by households in the form of higher energy bills.

Green energy technologies such as solar and wind had been banking on sharp increases in fossil fuel prices to make them increasingly competitive and help to attract the huge amount of investment required to build renewable power plants. But that “economic case” is now in danger of being lost, with the environmental argument seen by many as being insufficient to drive through high levels of green energy investment.

Så der er da andet end Julen at glæde sig over.

Mere om muslimernes profet Muhammeds manglende eksistens

Akademia, Arabere, Bent Jensen, Diverse, Historie, Muslimer, Saudiarabien, Sharia, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on October 6, 2014 at 11:46 am

Forleden henviste jeg her på Monokultur til et indlæg af Bent Jensen, hvor han kaldte på den samme videnskabelige tilgang til islam og Muhammeds manglende eksistens, som man underkaster alle andre religioner for (jødedom og Kristendom). En god ven sendte mig prompte et link til denne glimrende dokumentar.

Islams skriftkloge er næppe i tvivl om Muhammeds eksistens. Men de aner nok at historiens renhed ikke tåler et videnskabeligt eftersyn. i hvert fald har man travlt i Saudiarabien med at slette alle spor efter Muhammed bl.a ud fra en devise om at artefakter fra Muhammed ville blive gjort til relikvier og blive genstand for afgudsdyrkelse. New York Times skriver om det store byggeprojekt i Mekka

WHEN Malcolm X visited Mecca in 1964, he was enchanted. He found the city “as ancient as time itself,” and wrote that the partly constructed extension to the Sacred Mosque “will surpass the architectural beauty of India’s Taj Mahal.”

Fifty years on, no one could possibly describe Mecca as ancient, or associate beauty with Islam’s holiest city. Pilgrims performing the hajj this week will search in vain for Mecca’s history.

The dominant architectural site in the city is not the Sacred Mosque, where the Kaaba, the symbolic focus of Muslims everywhere, is. It is the obnoxious Makkah Royal Clock Tower hotel, which, at 1,972 feet, is among the world’s tallest buildings. It is part of a mammoth development of skyscrapers that includes luxury shopping malls and hotels catering to the superrich. The skyline is no longer dominated by the rugged outline of encircling peaks. Ancient mountains have been flattened. The city is now surrounded by the brutalism of rectangular steel and concrete structures — an amalgam of Disneyland and Las Vegas.

The “guardians” of the Holy City, the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the clerics, have a deep hatred of history. They want everything to look brand-new. Meanwhile, the sites are expanding to accommodate the rising number of pilgrims, up to almost three million today from 200,000 in the 1960s.

The initial phase of Mecca’s destruction began in the mid-1970s, and I was there to witness it. Innumerable ancient buildings, including the Bilal mosque, dating from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, were bulldozed. The old Ottoman houses, with their elegant mashrabiyas — latticework windows — and elaborately carved doors, were replaced with hideous modern ones. Within a few years, Mecca was transformed into a “modern” city with large multilane roads, spaghetti junctions, gaudy hotels and shopping malls.

The few remaining buildings and sites of religious and cultural significance were erased more recently. The Makkah Royal Clock Tower, completed in 2012, was built on the graves of an estimated 400 sites of cultural and historical significance, including the city’s few remaining millennium-old buildings. Bulldozers arrived in the middle of the night, displacing families that had lived there for centuries. The complex stands on top of Ajyad Fortress, built around 1780, to protect Mecca from bandits and invaders. The house of Khadijah, the first wife of the Prophet Muhammad, has been turned into a block of toilets. The Makkah Hilton is built over the house of Abu Bakr, the closest companion of the prophet and the first caliph.

Apart from the Kaaba itself, only the inner core of the Sacred Mosque retains a fragment of history. It consists of intricately carved marble columns, adorned with calligraphy of the names of the prophet’s companions. Built by a succession of Ottoman sultans, the columns date from the early 16th century. And yet plans are afoot to demolish them, along with the whole of the interior of the Sacred Mosque, and to replace it with an ultramodern doughnut-shaped building.

The only other building of religious significance in the city is the house where the Prophet Muhammad lived. During most of the Saudi era it was used first as a cattle market, then turned into a library, which is not open to the people. But even this is too much for the radical Saudi clerics who have repeatedly called for its demolition. The clerics fear that, once inside, pilgrims would pray to the prophet, rather than to God — an unpardonable sin. It is only a matter of time before it is razed and turned, probably, into a parking lot.

Og sådan ser det ud.

mideast-saudi-remakin_horo-2-965x543

Virker det ikke bekendt?

isengard1

Og sjovt nok ligner Orthanc i Isengard Germasolar anlægget i Andalusien

germasolar-power-plantAesthetica totalitarianism.

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress