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 » Sharia


Pigen der råber hyrdehund

Fra Berlin til Bogota samledes feminister for at demonstrere mod at amerikanerne har valgt at indsætte en heteroseksuel mand som deres præsident. Bogota er lidt en sjælden by i, hvad der næsten er en liste over byer i USA, Australien og Europa. New York Times har dog samlet en flot billedserie, der viser en imponerende opbakning. Men synet bedrager, venstrefløjen tabte valget, de er ikke i flertal. Men de er gode til at gå på gaden.

trump-svarer-feministerne

Formanden for Concerned Women for America, en pro-life (anti-abort) organisation, Penny Nance havde på CNN bidt mærke i, at Women’s March on Washington ikke inkluderede kvindelige pro-life aktivister

“March for life, been going on for 43 years, will have about, 400,000, 500,000, next weekend,” she said. “[I] will need all of you back here to have the same conversation next weekend, because that [March for Life] is ignored on a regular basis. This is not new.”

“It’s not about women, it’s about liberalism” svarede CNNs analytiker Bakari Sellers. Og det er rigtigt, det handler om venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Og i den selvforståelse giver det god mening at skrue op for den identitetspolitik, der kostede Hillary Clinton valget. Her et billede fra Pajamas Media

womens-mach

En god ven sagde at der er noget “beroligende at se manglen på noget som helst relevant eller konkret kritiserbart hos Trump i de mange demonstrationers skiltning og grafik“, det er helt indforstået. Tag feministen Ashley Judds (ja, det er der åbenbart en feminist der hedder) opsang til folket

Negre er stadig slaver og stadig i lænker, men nu som indsatte i fængslerne, siger Judd og kvinder hujer i begejstring så højt at ingen kan høre om nogen indvender; Jamen, det giver jo ingen mening. Negerslaver arbejdede for at den hvide mand kunne blive rig, negrene i fængslerne er derimod en enorm udgift for den hvide mand.

Så Judd er fri til at føle Hitler i gaderne og inden nogen siger, ja de forbandede venstreradikale med deres politiske vold, understreger Judd at hun tænker på Trump; overskæg skiftet ud med en toupe. Trumps hår er nu hans eget, han klipper det endda selv. Hun er indigneret over at Scarlett Johanson ikke tjener endnu flere millioner på sine film, hendes løs er skåret af testosteronslebne knive, som også lønnen for latino- og negerkvinder er markant lavere end… hvide kvinder? Ikke helt, den hvide MANDS privilegerede datter.

Den muslimske kvinde i baggrunden er sharia og Hamas tilhænger og mange af arrangørerne bag Women’s March on Washington er sponseret af George Soros. Men her er arrangørernes egne ord, hvorfor de marcherer

En pige vil være tryg i skolen, en negermand er feminist, hvilket ikke er et skældsord ifølge en aldrene negerkvinde, mens to andre supplerer at deres liv har betydning førend en asiatisk kvinde peger på sin gravide mave og siger “And so does hers!”. Stop!

Var det ikke meningen at pro-life aktivister ikke måtte være med?

Men sådan fortsætter det. En udefinerbar person vil ikke defineres af et badeværelse. Diversitet er smuk, en kvinde er ud af en immigrantfamilie (altså ikke en indianer) og med gråd i stemmen kan ikke forstille sig, hvor hun ville være, hvis ikke hun havde fået den chance - at dømme efter hendes asiatiske træk sikkert ikke et sted, hvor man fik chancen for et frit valg med den risiko at ens favoritkandidat kan tabe. En kvinde i hijab mener USA handler om frihed, en lille hvid pige vil smadre glasloftet, en anden gør det for sine mødre - sejt, hun ikke er en hvid MANDS privilegerede datter! En kvinde vil marchere fremad og ikke tilbage og en vil have sin stemme hørt på den mest irriterende måde og en gammel negermand vil marchere fordi han ikke kan trække vejret.

Det kan jeg snart heller ikke. Mens kampen mod ethvert udtryk for maskulinitet antager mere hysteriske toner, står feminister i Tyskland og skriger Allahu Akbar, ikke for andet end at være i trods til deres beskyttere.  Der er intet andet end en forsværgelse af den hvide kristne mand og alle hans gerninger og alt hans væsen. Og der bliver hvidt sort og op bliver ned.

american-hijab

Berufsverbot… en overvejelse værd

Venstrefløjen ser ud til at lancere et voldsomt opgør med den hidtidige integrationspolitik. De kommer blot næppe til at erkende det. Information funderede “Kan en advokat forsvare udlændinge og samtidig være med i Pegida?”

Rasmus Paludan har været forsvarsadvokat for frihedsberøvede udlændinge. Samtidig er han stærkt udlændingekritisk og har i år deltaget i alle demonstrationer for ’For Frihed’ – det, der før hed Pegida. Det møder kritik, men Paludan selv kan ikke se problemet.

Og for de læsere der måske er lidt forvirrede over, hvad det er for foreninger, der tales om præciserer Information “den højreradikale forening For Frihed, som nok bedst er kendt ved sit gamle navn, Pegida”. Passende dog at frihed er højreradikalt for en avis, der underholder tanker om tankekontrol.

gc3a6tteleg-1

Socialdemokratiets formand (ja det hedder igen officielt Socialdemokratiet. Og det har det altid heddet på Monokultur, der ikke har meget til overs for tidstypisk pjat) Mette Frederiksen har skrevet en ny bog, skriver Jyllands-Posten nemlig, og de referer dette stykke

»Jeg tror ikke, at en kunde hos en prostitueret bagefter kan gå ind og undervise en skoleklasse eller dømme i en retssal eller være politiker, politimand, eller hvad han er, på en måde, som er foreneligt med det, vi opfatter som ligestilling og respekt mellem kønnene,« siger Mette Frederiksen i bogen.

(…)

»Det sætter sig, når vi har relationer, der er helt skæve,« siger hun videre i bogen.

Så, kan man som muslim, der bekender sig til et had til; menneskeskabte love, ligestilling mellem køn, at kunne tale, tro og tænke frit, etc overhovedet være ansat i det offentlige? Kan man overhovedet have et dansk pas?

Berlingske Tidendes 80er propaganda

Sådan så Berlingske Tidendes, nu et par uger gamle kampagne ud og der medfulgte et interview med jordemoderen, der skulle uddybe nuanceringen af debatten. Er det en flygtning, islamist, eller jordemoder vi ser? Kasper Støvring spurgte på Facebook “Men hvad nu, hvis kvinden er alle tre ting? Det er da også en overraskende nuancering.”. For som det blev suppleret af flere, så er der ingen modsætning mellem islamisme, terrorisme og uddannelse og et eksempel blev hentet fra Uriasposten.

Men også et andet eksempel, som vi har været glade for på Monokultur, blev hentet frem. Douglas Murray beskrev nemlig for et par år siden, muslimen lidt mere nuanceret i forbindelse med nogle obligatoriske anti-israelske demonstrationer, han havde observeret i London, på baggrund af at Israel frækt igen-igen nægtede at lade sig ydmyge

I have watched them a bit in recent days, watched the contorted hatred on their faces as they scream at the embassy and then watched their friendly sociability as the headscarfed women are driven away by their menfolk, often with their children in tow — a family day outing in “diverse” modern London. Behind their smiles and the increasingly competent public relations that the pro-Hamas faction is managing in Britain, it is possible for some people to forget that what brings these people out is one simple thing: a hatred of the Jewish state and a desire to see it annihilated by the terrorists of Hamas or anyone else at hand.

Lene Kattrup havde mange gode indvendinger til dette stykke 80er propaganda, men jeg vil frem een, som ofte er fremdraget her på Monokultur, fordi det fremhæver den selvmodsigelse, der er indbygget i det multikulturelle narrativ

Overskriften (som er valgt af journalisten) er “Flygtning? Islamist? Jordemoder: »Selv om jeg ikke er streng, er jeg glad for mit tørklæde«.

Det synes jeg er en ”formindskende” og/eller misvisende omtale af hendes forhold til tørklædet og til den religion eller religiøse ideologi, som det islamiske tørklæde normalt er et symbol på, og som det sandsynligvis også repræsenterer for denne kvinde. For Soheila Azimi forklarer, at hvis hun havde skullet afføre sig det i arbejdstiden (men selvfølgelig kunne tage det på, straks hun fik fri), så ville hun have sagt sit job op. Dette fortæller os jo, at hun ikke kun er ” glad for tørklædet” som der står, og hun er jo så faktisk ”streng” på dette punkt. Det er en mulighed for, at hun bærer det for at vise, at hun går ind for sharialoven som lov. Lad læseren få lov til at tænke selv, ville jeg sige til journalisten og til Berlingske. Hvis journalisten var dygtig, kunne man jo have spurgt Soheila Azimi om det. Det ville have være klogt, men det tør journalisten måske ikke?

Nemlig. Der er ingen tvang i islam, men jeg skal have mit tørklæde på. Og hvad skal jeg mere…

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.

Paven ser tilsyneladende sig selv som leder af en morder-kult

Eller det må man i hvert fald formode, når han ikke kan skelne mellem islams og kristendommens forhold til vold. End ikke halshugningen af præsten Jacques Hamel, kunne få Paven til at forbinde islam med noget ifølge Breitbart

“If I speak of Islamic violence, I must speak of Catholic violence,” Francis said. “And no, not all Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent. It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

In his response, Pope Francis seemed to suggest that jihadists killing innocent people in the name of Allah is not significantly different from a Catholic who kills his girlfriend or mother-in-law, presumably for motives unrelated to the Christian religion.

Francis acknowledged that there are “violent persons of this religion [Islam],” immediately adding that “in pretty much every religion there is always a small group of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists. We have them.”

The Pope asserted moreover that he knows how Muslims think, and that deep down they desire peace and harmony just as Christians do.

“I had a long conversation with the imam, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar University, and I know how they think,” he said. “They seek peace, encounter.”

“I do not believe it is right to identify Islam with violence. This is not right or true,” he said.

The Pope insisted that the Islamic State does not draw its ideology from the religion of Islam, but appeals rather to the emptiness of young people and a love for violence.

“How many young people, how many young people of our Europe, whom we have left empty of ideals, who do not have work… they take drugs, alcohol, or go there to enlist in fundamentalist groups,” he said. “One can say that the so-called ISIS, but it is an Islamic State which presents itself as violent . . . because when they show us their identity cards, they show us how on the Libyan coast they slit the Egyptians’ throats or other things.”

“But this is a fundamentalist group which is called ISIS… but you cannot say, I do not believe, that it is true or right that Islam is terrorist,” he said.

The Pope concluded by suggesting that Islamic terrorism does not stem from any violence inherent to Islam itself, but rather from other non-religious motives, such as poverty.

“Terrorism grows when there are no other options, and when the center of the global economy is the god of money and not the person,” Francis said. “You have cast out the wonder of creation — man and woman — and you have put money in its place. This is a basic terrorism against all of humanity! Think about it!” he said.

Dan McLaughlin kalder det farligt nonsens i National Review

First, there is no significant leadership in the modern Christian world – either religious or civil leadership – openly arguing for violence in the name of Christian doctrine, or providing it with a veneer of legitimacy. The leadership of the major denominations, from top to bottom, are foursquare against violence to enforce Christian morals, and the New Testament is notably short on violent punishments. “Yes,” I hear you say, “but Muslim leaders condemn violence too!” This is a debatable point in the specific case of violence against gays, as Andrew McCarthy has detailed, but even if you treat Islam-in-general as indistinguishable from Christianity-in-general in this regard, you still have to deal with radical Islam. Radical Islam is a significant, large-scale political movement around the world that is very much openly, proudly in favor of violence in service of the dictates of radical readings of Islamic law.

The radicals are not a small, isolated, fringe movement. They control territory, ISIS being the most extreme example, as well as Al Qaeda during its residencies in Afghanistan and Sudan. They have tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of volunteers, and larger numbers of sympathizers, such as the many people in Muslim countries who tell pollsters they support the death penalty for leaving Islam. (ThinkProgress touted a Pew study a few years ago finding that 57% of the population of 11 Muslim countries had a negative view of Al Qaeda - which means the people who didn’t have a negative view of Al Qaeda are a minority of the general population comparable to supporters of Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders in the United States.) They have varying degrees influence in any number of governments (e.g., Iran, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) – the ten countries where homosexuality is punishable by death are all Islamic, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. They are well-financed, including by wealthy donors and the Saudi government and religious establishments. They have major support from radical pulpits and extensive networks on the web, connections to which turn up regularly in “lone wolf” cases. It is true that most any belief system or creed, religious or secular, inspires some crackpots who turn it to violence. There are some radical Christians. But it is not realistic to suggest that Christianity, or most other religious or political causes around the world, has an active global movement of this prominence, influence, resources and infrastructure that endorses the use of violence for the cause.

Second, drawing these parallels completely ignores the scale of the problem. The State Department issues an annual report on terrorism around the globe, and the carnage is enormous: over the past ten years (2006-2015), the State Department reports 115,023 terrorist attacks, resulting in 190,008 people killed, 329,782 injured, 73,758 kidnapped or taken hostage. The pace is escalating: the past two years (even with State’s annual caveat of “conservative estimates of terrorism in Syria”) have seen an average of 12,619 attacks per year, 30,528 killed a year, 35,056 wounded and 10,809 kidnapped or taken hostage. And the attacks are heavily concentrated in nations with active radical Islamic movements (albeit, in a few cases, with counter-movements that commit their own atrocities).

omvendt

Og i The American Conservative spørger Rod Dreher “What’s wrong with Pope Francis?”

This — all of this — is not just stupid, it’s offensive. Or rather, it’s offensive because it’s so stupid, and does nothing but sow confusion.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the bit from Crux. The parallel between baptized Italian Catholics who kill family members and Muslim terrorists who slaughter Christians and others (including other Muslims they deem heretics) in the name of Allah is crazy. Guess what, Francis? All across the Islamic world, Muslim men steal, they beat their wives, they cheat their neighbor, and so on, not because Islam tells them to, but because they are human beings. Same in Christian countries, and in every society on earth. At issue is Muslim slaughtering priests at the altar, turning non-Muslim girls into sex slaves, blowing up churches, and carrying out all manner of barbaric evil explicitly and unapologetically in the name of their religion. You can call it a twisted interpretation of Islam, or condemn it for other reasons. In the cases of the baptized Catholic who kills his mother-in-law, or the believing Muslim who does the same, in neither instance is their religion a motivating factor in the crime. It is incidental to their violent acts. The terrorism that ISIS and its supporters carry out is done openly in the name of Islam, motivated by their interpretation of the religion.

I can’t decide whether it’s more disturbing if the Pope really cannot see the fallacy here, or if he is just saying what he figures is diplomatically correct.

Second, this idea of Francis’s that economics, not religion, is behind Islamic terrorism, is materialist claptrap that one would think a Pope is beyond falling for. The world is full of desperately poor people who do not slaughter priests. The world is also full of desperately poor Muslim people who do not slaughter priests, shoot up nightclubs, mow down people with trucks, and so forth. In fact, poverty is not much of a factor at all in who becomes radicalized by Salafi Islam.

Og førend han rammer en pæl igennem argumenter om at terrorister på nogen måde er motiveret af deres socioøkonomiske omstændigheder undrer han sig over at et religiøst overhoved vælger en marxistisk forklaringsmodel, frem for at se at religiøse værdier kan være vejledende for et menneskes handlinger. Robert Spencer skrev på sin Jihad Watch

The Pope is once again ignoring a simple distinction: while people of all faiths and backgrounds commit acts of violence, Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine, theology and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. Unless and until that is confronted, Muslims will continue to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims, including Christians. The Pope is betraying the Christians of the Middle East and the world, and all the victims of jihad violence, by repeating palpable falsehoods about the motivating ideology of attacks upon them, instead of confronting that ideology and calling upon Muslims to renounce and reform Islam’s doctrines of violence.

“The pope said that when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancé or his mother in law. ‘They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.’” Does Catholicism teach the murder of fiancés or mothers in law? No. Does Islam teach jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes.

“The pope said that in every religion there are violent people, ‘a small group of fundamentalists,’ including in Catholicism.” There have been 28,923 violent jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. How many violent attacks have there been in that span by violent Catholic “fundamentalists” doing violence in the name of Catholicism?

Og kalifatet selv tager også afstand fra Pavens naive læsning af islams essens, skriver Breitbart

In the most recent issue of Dabiq, the propaganda magazine of the Islamic State, ISIS criticizes Pope Francis for his naïveté in clinging to the conviction that Muslims want peace and that acts of Islamic terror are economically motivated.

“This is a divinely-warranted war between the Muslim nation and the nations of disbelief,” the authors state in an article titled “By the Sword.”

The Islamic State directly attacks Francis for claiming that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence,” saying that by doing this, “Francis continues to hide behind a deceptive veil of ‘good will,’ covering his actual intentions of pacifying the Muslim nation.”

Pope Francis “has struggled against reality” in his efforts to portray Islam as a religion of peace, the article insists, before going on to urge all Muslims to take up the sword of jihad, the “greatest obligation” of a true Muslim.

Despite the obviously religious nature of their attacks, the article states, “many people in Crusader countries express shock and even disgust that Islamic State leadership ‘uses religion to justify violence.’”

“Indeed, waging jihad – spreading the rule of Allah by the sword – is an obligation found in the Quran, the word of our Lord,” it reads.

“The blood of the disbelievers is obligatory to spill by default. The command is clear. Kill the disbelievers, as Allah said, ‘Then kill the polytheists wherever you find them.’”

The Islamic State also reacted to Pope Francis’s description of recent acts of Islamic terror as “senseless violence,” insisting that there is nothing senseless about it.

“The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality,” they declare, adding that their hatred for the Christian West is absolute and implacable.

Allerede sidste år leverede Trump den pointe, konfronteret netop med Pavens marxistiske syn på penge og menneskers motiver

ISIS wants to get you!

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.

Den vandrende muslim

Donald Trumps mådeholdende kommentarer til den islamiske invasion er blevet beskyldt for meget. Blandt andet at den opvigler had blandt muslimer til USA, hvor ISIS, der ikke har noget med islam at gøre, bruger Trumps udtalelser til at rekruttere muslimer. Det viste sig at ISIS ikke fandt Trump nævneværdig og i stedet koncentrerede sin vrede over de seneste amerikanske præsidenter, ‘horekarlen’ Bill Clinton og ‘løgneren’ George W Bush samt den siddende præsident Barak Hussein Obama.

Trump blev også beskyldt for at opvirgle had mod muslimer i USA og være årsag til hadforbrydelser. I modsætning til muslimsk terror, som ingen kan konkludere på da det ikke er tydeligt hvilke socialpsykologiske dynamikker, der skaber den slags frustrationer, så er negativ omtale af muslimsk terror med dil at skabe denne kunstige dikotomi mellem vestlig frihed og sharia, hvilket altså fører Johnny Redneck lige ud i et orgie af hadforbrydelser. En af disse had-forbrydelser blev tilsyneladen begået af den 35 årige Michael Scott Wolfe, der med en machette hakkede ind i en moske, hvor han efterlod bacon. En anden forbrydelse, der fik megen omtale, var ildspåsættelsen af en moske i Texas. Det viste sig at være en muslim, der stod bag.

Men muslimer frygter back-lash, at de bliver straffet for, hvad enkelte af deres troende kammerater har fundet på. Selv efter to muslimers massemord på en firma-julefrokost i San Bernadino var frygten, hvad andre dog ikke måtte tænke om dem. A.J. Caschetta skrev om back-lash industrien 17 december i Middle East Forum

The history of the looming anti-Muslim backlash that never arrives is instructive. Logically, the original post-9/11 anti-Muslim backlash should have been the largest and most ferocious of the various backlashes, and indeed George W. Bush, members of his administration and members of Congress frequently warned Americans not to blame all Muslims for the acts committed by Al-Qaeda.

Even an anti-Israel leftist like Rachel Corrie Award recipient Delinda C. Hanley recognizes that there was no post-9/11 backlash. Writing in the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Hanley gushed: “As a result of the effective campaign undertaken by America’s leaders, non-governmental organizations and the media, a backlash that, in many nations, might have turned into a bloodbath was averted and, indeed, transformed into a celebration of diversity.”

The group known as Human Rights Watch however tells a different tale. It documents in the same era a series of attacks amounting to “a nationwide wave of hate crimes against persons and institutions believed to be Arab or Muslim.” The numbers are notable either for the “ferocity and extent” as HRW puts it, or for the remarkable calm they convey compared to the predicted carnage. For instance the 17-fold increase in anti-Muslim incidents sounds more alarming than the fact that there were 28 such events in 2000 compared with 481 in 2001.

It gets more interesting when one reads that these numbers include behavior ranging from “verbal taunts to employment discrimination to airport profiling to hate crimes.” Since no actual numbers are listed for specific “crimes” one might suspect that there are far more verbal taunts than hate crimes among the 481.

Men industrier kan ikke levere, hvis ikke nogen vil aftage deres produkter og det vil venstrefløjen hellere end gerne. På Gatestone Institute kan man læse, hvorledes arbejdet skrider frem med at forbyde islamkritik i USA

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

(…)

Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Så muslimer er en særlig følsom gruppe. Jøder, derimod, er anderledes robuste, hvis man skal følge Facebooks logik (set hos Elder of Ziyon)

Børnelæge i USA fyret for at anbefale omskæring af piger

Arabere, Etik, Forbrydelse og straf, Multikultur, Muslimer, Sharia, USA, islam, muhammed, venstrefløjen — Drokles on December 27, 2015 at 2:10 am

En børnelæge ved The Mayo Clinic er blevet fyret for at anbefale og forsvare kvindelige omskæring, skriver bloggen Medicine Men! (via Clarion Project). Som en lille julequiz kan man selv prøve gætte på det bagvedliggende livssyn

Hatem Elhagaly (AKA “Hatem Al Haj”), a medical doctor and fellow at the American Elhagely Academy of Pediatrics, ignores FGM’s detrimental effects on women’s health, and instead argues that it is ‘an honor’ for women. He justifies this position by referring repeatedly to the words of classical Islamic scholars from the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islamic thought, all of which attest to FGM’s legitimacy under Islam. He also refers to the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who reportedly counselled people in his day on how to perform FGM in a way that would be “more beautiful to behold and better for [the woman's] husband.”

Sikke en overraskelse ikke? For der står intet om kvindelig omskæring i koranen, som den medbragte venstrefløjser indvender. Og det er rigtigt, men der står noget om omskæring af piger i haditherne, de små fortællinger om Muhammeds myrden og hærgen, der beskriver hvorledes det daglige muslimske liv skulle udleves. Australian Islamist Monitor beskriver det således

Reliance of the Traveller, a classical manual of Islamic sacred law in Arabic with facing English text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (1994) re ‘circumcision’ we find the Arabic actually says -
“Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,
but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called HufaaD). “  (p59)  (Shafi’I jurisprudence)
(Note the English version is falsely translated as ‘prepuce ‘ of the clitoris!!)

The Arabic word bazr does not mean “prepuce of the clitoris”, it means the clitoris itself (cf. the entry in the Arabic-English Dictionary). The deceptive translation by Nuh Hah Mim Keller, made for Western consumption, obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This particular form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.  Note a comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi in the English ‘version’ notes “Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.” (answering-Islam.org)

This is supported by several hadiths eg
Abu-Dawud   Book 41, No.  5251: Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah:    A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina.  The prophet (peace be upon him) said to her:  Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
(Note:  The powerful Mohammad did NOT stop the procedure yet he did stop the Arab practise of adoption when he wished to marry his adopted son’s wife Zainab, regarded as incest by the Arabs because adopted sons were held as sons!)

En lidt mere grundig gennemgang af islams forhold til omskæring af piger kan læses HER.

Hvorfor?

Da det muslimske ægtepar, pakistanske Syed Farook og Tafsheen Malik, begik massemord på en amerikansk julefest i det firma, hvor Farook selv arbejde, skulle man finde en forklaring. CNNs Erin Burnett foreslog at den kvindelige muslim måske led af en fødselsdepression. Og CNNs Gary Tuchman foreslog en enke til et af terrorofrene at det måske var hans egen skyld, kristent missionerende som han var. Council on American Islamic Relations fortalte CNN at terrorangrebet også var USAs skyld, med den førte udenrigspolitik in mente. Og sådan gik det til at det var en muslim der ved at argumentere for gengæld afslørede forbindelsen til islam for CNNs seere. På den amerikanske venstrefløj og blandt amerikanske muslimer var der forargelse over at medierne ikke havde respekteret Farooks massemyrdende kone Tafsheen Malik ved at vise et fotografi af hende uden hijab. Og mens de amerikanske universiteter analyserede teorierne frygtede man naturligvis et backlash.

Herhjemme advarede Poul Høi om ikke at være hurtig til at komme folk i “kasser og båse” og foreslog uden ironi at Syed Farook blev massemorder fordi hans barndom var ulykkelig med en drikfældig og voldelig far. Sammenhængen der viser at børn af alkoholiserede og voldelige fædre begår massemord antages blot at være sand fordi det er fra den samme kasse man forklarer al anden ondskab man ikke vil forholde sig til, og så var det vist konen Tafsheen Malik der fik ham til det. Med alle de børn af voldelige alkoholikere har Malik virkelig ramt en sekundær rekrutteringsåre.

Og så garnerer han sofisstisk med moralske betragtninger i psykologiske klæder som “Ingen massedrabsmænd er mentalt sunde”. Terror med politiske, religiøse, seperatistiske og sekteriske formål eksisterer altså ikke i Høis univers, hvis vi forstår mental sundhed i en klinisk forstand. Det giver ingen mening og sætningen er da også hentet i kassen for ondskab man ikke ønsker at erkende. Det er et moralsk udsagn som vi bruger om SS bødler, ISIS og lignende, men den tjener sproglig til at bakke Høis ide op. En tese han skyder i foden  når han som eksempel på Farooks integration i the american way of life skriver

Det følgende år indrykkede han [Syed Farook] en lignende annonce på et datingsite i Dubai, hvor han skrev, at han ledte efter en kvinde mellem 18 og 22 år, og hendes nationalitet og religion var underordnet.

Høi læser “nationalitet og religion var underordnet”, men overser at Farook ikke finder en kone i USA, men på et datingsite i Dubai! Med andre ord kan vi have en almindelig stærk formodning om at han ledte efter en araber som pakistaner og med religion mente at han ikke ville hænge sig i om hun foretrak Hamas frem for ISIS. Farrok havde fundet hjem førend han mødte konen.

Carsten Jensen mener modsat Høi ikke at Farook og Malik myrdede på grund af Farooks fars druk og vold. Han har sin egen kasse af forklaringer og den er fyldt med os andre end ham. Vi, som nationer, fører krige mod dem og det var os der startede. Mikkel Anderson leverer en anbefalelsesværdig nedsabling af Jensens realitetsforladte moralfortælling. Andersons centrale pointe begrænser sig ikke til Jensen, men er kardinal for hele venstrefløjens tænkning og skyld og ansvar

Dernæst fremsætter Jensen en af de sørgeligste travere, der altid hives af stalden, når vestlige venstreintellektuelle skal forsvare ikke-vestlig terror: ”Terroren har altid været den militært svage parts svar,” erklærer han.

Som nævnt udøver IS også rigelig terror, hvor de står stærkt. Men terror er et valg, ikke den nødvendighed, som Jensen vil have os til at tro.  Det er et valg, som intet har at gøre med, hvorvidt man er ”stærk” eller ”svag”. Den vilkårlige terror mod civile har altid været de totalitære og skruppelløses ”svar”, der så rigeligt også er blevet udført af ”de stærke”, hvilket Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler og en perlerække af andre fra verdenshistoriens rædselskabinet demonstrerer. Der er ingen automatik i, at en militært ”svag” part massakrerer tilfældige civile.

Desværre er de fleste af Jensens udsagn genfortalt af journalisten og jeg vil være varsom med at udlægge dem bogstaveligt, selvom om de er klassisk Carsten Jensen, som at anderkende ISIS ‘deres territorium’ uden at nævne folkemordene på de oprindelige indbyggere. Og fordi Jensen i store dele ses gennem artiklen fremgår de ikke klart hvor “vi” startede, da Jensen eksempelvis nævner Frankrigs for længst overståede Algier-krig uden at det fremgår som var der en direkte sammenhæng med nutidens civilisationskrig eller om det bare vare et eksempel på at det altid var “os” der starter.

Men et par enkelte af Jensens citerede udsagn fortjener måske et par kommentarer som overflødigt supplement til Andersons Jensenmassakre. For der er så mange besynderlige antagelser i venstrefløejens kasser så Informations journalist slet ikke mener at der skal følges op på et udsagn som “Islamisk Stat giver de unge mænds kamp en retning og et mål”, siger Jensen, som vælter danske unge mænd rundt i gaderne og uden mål og med halshugger tilfældige fodgængere. Eller, hvis det kun er logisk for muslimske unge mænd bare at være i kamp, var det så nu også os der startede? Hvem der startede bliver endnu mere forvirrende da Jensen fortsætter “Ekstremisternes våde drøm er, at typer som Søren Espersen får magten. Så har vi konfrontationen…”.

Men tilbage til San Bernadino og hvorfor det muslimsk-pakistanske ægtepar dog kunne finde på at kaste deres karrierer ud ad vinduet. Victor Davis Hanson leverer en fremragende diagnose i National Review af den næsten perfekte storm som muslimsk aggression og almindeligt kulturelt selvhad skaber

Why, then, is radical Islamism, so antithetical to Western values, still preached in American and European mosques? Do radical Muslims in the U.S. and Europe realize that if they had had their way, they would not have wished to emigrate to the U.S., given that it would resemble the homelands they abandoned? The worldview of Tashfeen Malik, if enacted, would eventually have turned San Bernardino into Islamabad; would Ms. Malik then have left it for Portland?

Why is ISIS apparently attractive to hundreds, if not thousands, of Western Muslim youth? Why is the FBI supposedly busy tracking down radical Muslims residing in America, who presumably came here of their own free will? Is it because the FBI is Islamophobic?

One obvious reason for these anomalies is a sort of paradox. The more a Muslim youth enjoys casual sexual hook-ups, easy access to liquor and drugs, and unapologetic secular indulgence, all the more the voluptuary feels he has betrayed his culture, religion, and very identity — and the more his eventual return to Islamic purity is likely to become extreme. No one forced Mohamed Atta and his band of killers to become Western sybarites. What made them slaves to their appetites was their very Islamic Puritanism, which turned what was commonly available into forbidden obsessions: the more taboo, all the more to be indulged in, and all the more to be regretted post facto and the indulgence blamed on others when passions are drained and probity returns.

Second, in many cases, the immigrant immediately asks upon arrival, “Why do they have so much here, while we have so little back home?” Do not expect him to cite everything from religious tolerance to consensual government to freedom and market capitalism — not when there is an accessible American dictionary of victimization, ranging from colonialism and imperialism to oil and Israel. The new arrival from the Middle East need not turn on Al Jazeera to be spoon-fed grievances, when he can listen to President Obama’s apology tours or Cairo speech or breakfast sermons about high-horse Christians and their millennium-old Crusades.

Third, we in America ask almost nothing of immigrants any more. We do not care whether they come legally and will obey the law once they’re here. We have no concern whether they can support themselves, or whether they will become wards of the state. One need only review the careers of Obama’s own immigrant aunt and uncle. We have no worries about whether they learn English. They can hate or love America, as is their wont. If an immigrant commits a crime against his hosts, we feel that we would commit a greater crime by sending our ungracious guest home. Is that why ICE released 36,000 alien lawbreakers in 2013 alone, preempting their deportation hearings, or why 347,000 criminal aliens are believed to be at large in the United States?

Citizenship as a cherished privilege has utterly vanished. So has any idea of gratitude. A hallowed notion of legality, of being more law-abiding even than native-born Americans, has disappeared among immigrants. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez — the five-times-deported illegal alien and seven times repeat felon who shot Kate Steinle to death in San Francisco — was only the most extreme example of what is possible under current immigration law and practice.

At no time did Lopez-Sanchez thank the United States for offering him a better chance than Mexico had — at least if repeatedly committing felonies can be see as a form of not offering thanks. We deduce that he believed things were better here than in Mexico or he would not have reentered the country illegally so many times. Lopez-Sanchez, like the Tsarnaevs, knew that the U.S. leaves immigrants alone, or perhaps, better yet, romanticizes their difference, and provides, if not a legal amnesty for their crimes, a psychosocial one.

Fourth, immigrants sense an identity-obsessed culture, where diversity, not unity, brings career dividends. A teen can cross illegally from the oppression of Oaxaca and almost instantly qualify for victim status and affirmative action on the bizarre theory that American oppressions have earned him compensation and reparations, as if he were psychologically damaged by America while he was in Oaxaca or will be in America if he was not in Oaxaca.

Hyphenation, not conformity, is preferred — and wisely so. Poor George Zimmerman’s “white Hispanic” troubles arose from his Americanizing his mixed-race identity rather than emphasizing a constructed otherness by calling himself the more authentic-sounding Jorge Mesa. A fight between Trayvon Martin and Jorge Mesa does not reach the White House, because it furthers no particular agenda; it’s analogous to the weekend toll in Chicago rather than a Ferguson teachable moment. Apparently, Zimmerman did not learn the lesson that an upper-middle-class prep-schooler named Barry Dunham, whose conniving African father had abandoned him, would have been a mere statistic. But as Barack Hussein Obama he became a unique example of diversity, with all its resonance.

At best, if a Muslim immigrant fully assimilates, to the point where, as is true of most Americans, he cannot easily be identified by his religion, or if his religion becomes incidental rather than essential to his public persona, then he is rendered just an ordinary American. Perhaps he even is in some danger of joining the unattractive majority not subject to special dispensation. At worst, he can become a sellout in the eyes of his local mosque and immigrant enclave. Emphasizing identity to its logical extreme wins rewards in today’s America. We saw to what insane lengths this has gone in the cases of the fabulists Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, Shaun King, and Ward Churchill.

Finally, the Muslim shooter understands that so many of his hosts are naïve, ashamed of their own culture, unsure of their heritage, and prone to apologize rather than criticize. They would likely not call the authorities even if they spied preparations for terrorist activities — believing that being called a racist is worse than possibly allowing violence to ensue against the innocent. Note that Ms. Malik never thought that she might have to tone down her suspicious activities, because her neighbors quite magnanimously did not call the police.

Appeasement is a psychological disorder that affects both the appeaser and the appeased. The more exemptions are granted the offender, the more the grantor feels good about himself, and the more the offender loses respect for someone seen as weak rather than magnanimous.

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.

Tom Holland om muslimenernes forhold til pædofili i islam

Akademia, Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Historie, Iran, Muslimer, Politiken, Sharia, islam — Drokles on September 6, 2015 at 1:52 am

Politikens læsere konfronteres med islamisk nomalitet

Beretningerne fra Islamisk Stat afslører ifølge New York Times, at småpiger ned til 11-årsalderen er blevet ofre for systematiske voldtægter, og at adgangen til kvinder og piger bruges til at lokke mænd fra andre muslimske samfund til området ved løfterne om, at de som belønning fik adgang til at misbruge ofrene.

»Det er tilladt at have samleje med en kvindelig slave, der ikke er kommet i puberteten, hvis det kan lade sig gøre«, hedder det i en af den sunnimuslimske organisations instrukser, der blev offentliggjort i december.

Det er bemærkelsesværdigt at Politiken ikke skriver islamistiske, men sunnimuslimske. De kunne roligt have skrevet ‘islams instrukser’ da 90% af verdens muslimer er sunnimuslimer. Men fordi islam er så herlig entydig, så er de resterende 10% shiamuslimer på bølgelængde med grusomheder og depravering af mennesker, også når det handler om pædofili. Dr. Majid Rafizadeh skriver i Frontpage Magazine om de stadigt flere børne-ægteskaber i Iran

Although Muslim scholars argue that marrying a 9-year-old girl was only completely acceptable more than 1000 years ago during the time of Prophet Muhammad, still tens of thousands of underage girls are being forced to get married in Iran and the number expands to hundreds of thousands in the entire Islamic world.

The Islamic Republic is only one country among dozens of other Islamic countries which have legalized and even encouraged under age marriages. This trend is reportedly on the rise instead of declining.  For example, there was a 59 percent increase in under-10 year old marriages in Iran in one year. Several parts of the Islamic Republic have experienced a dramatic growth in under-age marriages.

According to the Islamic Republic civil code, Iran’s constitution set the legal marriage age for girls at 13 and boys at 15. But the Iranian parliament’s legal affairs committee made several statements arguing that the Islamic Republic is attempting to lower the girl marriage age to 9. So, even though the above-mentioned marriage is illegal based on Iran’s civil code, the religious authorities allowed it.

Why is the government trying to lower the legal age of a girl to 9, rather than increase it? Isn’t age 9 even well before the child reaches puberty? All of these marriages are happening under the eyes of the so-called moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, whom President Obama seems to admire.

Even more abhorrent, the Islamic Republic previously passed a law that permitted men to marry their young adopted daughters.

Men, som Politikens læsere konfronteres drypvis, men stigende med krakkeleringen af deres idyliserede udsyn, så bliver det også stadigt sværere for muslimer at se deres religion i øjnene. Tom Holland forklarer her om pædofili i islam og muslimerne i vestens stigende problemer med kognitiv dissonans (starter ved 17:06

Arbejdsløs tandlæge nægtes ligestilling med andre muslimer

Det har vakt en del røre at en arbejdsløs muslimsk tandlæge har takket nej til en række jobs under hensyn til sin religion. Ifølge Jyllands-Posten ‘rasede’ integrationsminister Inger Støjberg, dog ikke mere end at hun opfordrede ham til at “blive en del af Danmark”. Ja, så stor var opstandelsen over tandlægens muslimske krav at selveste Københavns Kommunes beskæftigelses- og integrationsborgmester, Anna Mee Allerslev udtalte at muslimen både “misbruger systemet og trækker racismekortet”. Dansk Folkepartis Martin Henriksen mente at manden var islamist qua sine rene linier.

Der eksisterer dog ingen definition på en islamist andet end det er en muslim, hvis religion man helt ind i de allermeest pæneste stuer gerne må give en sviner. Intet tyder på at den kræsne tandlæge er islamist og intet han gør er ude af zeitgeist. Der tages i forvejen allehånde hensyn til muslimer, der ikke behøver at smage på den mad de tilbereder på kokkeskolen, der ikke behøver at underlægge sig arbejdsgivers beklædningskrav, der får alenetid i offentligt ejede svømmehaller for at blive fri for beskidte kuffar, får bederum, særlig buffet og krav om sænkede adgangskrav. Nej, den muslimske tandlæge har helt ret: Ifølge islam er der ting og mennesker du ikke må beskæftige dig med endsige beskæftige dig med på et ligeværdigt grundlag. Og i Danmark er der præcedens for at tage hensyn til netop disse islamiske forbud.

Her er, hvad Danmarks Radios daværende hus-imam Abdul Wahid Petersen fortalte radioprogrammet P1 Business tilbage i december 2007

- Kan muslimer varetage alle job?

- Nej, det mener jeg jo så ikke man kan! Det er jo når jeg bliver spurgt som religiøs vejleder, så må jeg jo svare ud fra en religiøs kontekst. Vi ser jo masser af eksempler på muslimer der varetager den type jobs, som man netop ikke kan. Vi ser jo masser af eksempler på kioskejere som er muslimer som stort set lever af at sælge pornoblade og øl og smøger og tipskuponer og ingen af dam er så at sige tilladt i islam. Men det betyder jo ikke at jeg skal gå ud og dømme de her som kættere eller frafaldne eller sådan noget. Jeg bliver bare spugt om det her som et religiøst spøgsmål og så må jeg svare nej man kan ikke sådan som udgangspunkt slagte svine eller tappe øl eller arbejde i stripbar for den sags skyld.

(…)

- Står du ved at muslimer ikke kan arbejde i øltappehaller og på svineslagterier?

- Ja, forstået på den måde at hvis der kommer nogen hen til mig og spøger mig: “Abdul Wahid, kan jeg som moslem tage arbejde på Danish Crown og stå og slagte svin?”, så vil jeg sige: “Nej, det kan du ikke fordi du spørger mig som religiøs rådgiver!” Men hvis der er en der gør det så vil jeg jo ikke sige til vedkommene at: “..du har forladt islam!” ved at gøre det. Får jeg spørgsmålet som religiøs rådgiver så bliver jeg nødt til at svare ærligt og konkret sådan som religionen …[overdøves og afbrydes af værtinden]

(…)

- Hvorfor er det forkert at muslimer arbejder på et bryggeri?

- Det er jo sådan at islam har nogen områder, der er det vi religiøst kan sige er forbudte og nogen der religiøst set er tilladte. Her er alkohol et af de forbudte områder. Vi må ikke fremstille alkohol, vi må ikke være med i processen, vi må ikke sælge det, vi må ikke transportere det, vi må ikke forhandle det osv. Og det kan jeg jo ikke som religiøs vejleder. Bliver jeg spurgt; “kan man så ikke alligevel, når der nu er tale om arbejde, kan man så ikke fravige reglen?” “Nej!” For reglen gælder jo faktisk arbejde. Og jeg ville jo være utro i forhold til min egen religion, hvis jeg gik ind og sagde; “Ok, jamen så gør vi det.” Og i øvrigt så ville jeg jo slet ikke have kompetence til det. Så jeg kan ligeså godt være tro og troværdig i forhold til det som min religion repræsenterer. Sådan siger religionen! Hvordan mennesker så håndterer religionen i daglidagen, det er noget andet.

Ja, sådan siger religionen. Og den adlyder vi efter nogen tid.

Rollemodellen flytter med

“Mentalt set var jeg global fra fødslen” fortæller Sherin Khankan - “barn af en finskkristen mor og en syriskmuslimsk far” - Politikens Christoffer Emil Bruun. Khankan er “optaget af ’hjertets metodologi’” og mener ‘kulturmødet kræver “en sensitivitet for, hvad der er vigtigt for andre”

Danskerne kender intet til islams filosofiske og eksistentielle potentiale. Der er så meget ignorance, fordi vi kun kender den traditionelle, dogmatiske fortolkning. Vi vil gerne genoplive den filosofiske tradition«.

Khankan huskes måske af nogle for, som også Mona Sheik, at komme på kant med sit parti Radikale Venstre, da hun ikke ville tage afstand fra Sharia. Det var dengang Søren Bald udlagde Radikale Venstres forståelse af Folkestyre med ordene “vi anerkender faktisk kun menneskerettigheder som udgangspunkt for lovgivning“. Både Sharia og Folkets mening er vranglære for Det Store Korrektiv, men af alle onder må man vælge det mindste og det skøntes bedre at fylde landet op med en befolkning der i det mindste heller ikke anderkendte Folkets meninger.

Daniel Greenfield skriver i Frontpage Magazine om terroristen Abdulazeez - der skød og dræbte 5 marinesoldater i Chattanooga - om hans familie og folk som dem

No matter how “ordinary” their sons seemed, how many parties they attended and, how many of their American friends saw nothing wrong with them, they were always ticking time bombs waiting for the right confluence of theology and anger to explode.

The people of Boston and Chattanooga unknowingly lived with these ticking time bombs. Ticking time bombs just like them are all around us; Muslim families with scowling fathers, timid mothers, a history of failed businesses, growing resentment toward the infidel, sons who drift through life despite good schools and numerous opportunities until they find their focus around the black flag of the Jihad.

Abdulazeez kom fra en dysfunktionel familie. Den var dysfunktionel på grund af ham, der var vokset op med troen på islam. Hans far havde fået ophold i USA, selvom FBI var lorne ved at han gav pengedonationer til Hamas.

Ammar DooshBilal Al-IssaSubhi Hassan, Mahmoud HamdanTariq MahmoodMuna Mohamoud Abdullahi og en anonymiseret er nogle af de tidligere rollemodeller i Danmark, der er blevet islamister eller bandemedlemmer, man har kunnet læse om på Uriasposten de seneste par år. Det er blevet en hel subgenre at se politikere, medier og offentlige myndigheder føre sig frem ved disse Gustav Vasa slagnumre - og ingen erfaring drage til næste gang. Telegraph skriver om en sådan rollemodel

A young jihadist who once dreamed of becoming Britain’s first Asian Prime Minister before later joining Isil has reportedly been killed in a drone strike.

Reyaad Khan, 21, from Cardiff, was one of the first Britons to appear in an Isil propaganda video last year, alongside two other British fanatics.

Other fighters with the terror group reported on Twitter that he had been killed in a strike in Raqqa, possibly on the tenth anniversary of the 7/7 terror attacks on London.

(…)

The former Catholic school student, who as a teenager said he wanted to become Britain’s first Asian prime minister, featured alongside two other Britons in a recruitment propaganda video for the terror group released in June 2014.

(…)

Khan grew up in a terraced house in the Welsh capital in the same road as Abdul Miah, one of the ringleaders of a foiled plot to unleash a Mumbai-style terror attack on London.

Former schoolmates at Cantonian High School in Cardiff remembered him as a talented scholar who had moderate views and mixed well with people of all backgrounds.

But in 2013 they noticed his interest in religion appeared to intensify and he successfully applied to study at the Madinah University in Saudi Arabia - although he did not take up the position.

Since then Khan used Twitter to post a series of gruesome pictures and sickening boasts, writing in July 2014: “Executed many prisoners yesterday.”

A few days later he tweeted: “Probably saw the longest decapitation ever. And we made sure the knife was sharp.”

Herunder ses han med Labours Ed Balls

engelsk-minister-ed-balls-m-kommende-jihadist

At rollemodeller er nødvendigt at have og fremhæve fortæller i sig selv noget om dybden af problemet. De mange ‘rollemodelsudfald’ er en funktion af problemet og det burde ikke komme bag på nogen. Men det gør det tilsyneladende. Om politikerne er dumme, onde eller i alment vildrede kan man blive usikker på, men noget aner de engelske politikere jo nok, siden de ifølge Daily Mail barsler med en “secret plan for the mass deployment of armed troops on the streets of Britain in the wake of a major terrorist attack”

More than 5,000 heavily armed soldiers would be sent to inner cities if Islamic State or other fanatics launched multiple attacks on British soil – an unprecedented military response to terrorism.

The plan, codenamed Operation Temperer, would see troops guard key targets alongside armed police officers, providing ‘protective security’ against further attacks while counter-terror experts and MI5 officers hunted down the plotters.

Men måske handler om at beskytte muslimer mod backlash, kommenterede en ven bedrøvet. Selv om der eksisterer reelle rollemodeller (som Naser Khader, der jo stod bag Khankans, Sheiks og Radikales sharia penibiliteter) overstiger de tikkende bomber så langt den kritiske masse, ikke blot for, hvad der er udholdeligt, men også det ødelæggende. Jo flere muslimer der kommer, jo flere terrorister med og uden rollemodel på cv’et. Ja, og så er muslimer blot anti-folkelige i al almindelighed.

Grænser

Bloomberg skriver at grænsehegn er ved at blive dagens orden i Mellemøsten, som staterne forsøger at sikre sig imod terror

As they confront the rising threat of modern jihadist violence, many of the nations most at risk are retreating behind one of the oldest forms of defense.

Tunisia and Turkey are the latest to invest in border barriers, both announcing the plans in the immediate aftermath of attacks on civilian targets. A fence and watchtowers will guard Tunisia’s border with Libya, where the militants who killed foreign tourists on a Tunisian beach are said to have been trained. Turkey said late Wednesday it will fortify the border with Syria after a suicide bomb in a nearby town.

From Morocco to Saudi Arabia, boundaries are being fortified at a rate not seen since the months following the Sept. 11 attacks.

grc3a6nsehegn-i-mellemc3b8sten

Men, advarer eksperterne, fysiske grænsedragninger er ikke løsningen

“Of the Middle East’s most-famed physical defenses, the majority failed. Jerusalem’s ancient walls did little to halt a succession of conquerors, and Byzantine Constantinople’s elaborate fortifications didn’t thwart the Ottomans.

Though modern barriers may curb trafficking and illicit crossings in the short term, they almost never deliver prolonged security without cross-frontier cooperation.

“Israel’s barriers have worked well for them so far,” said Brent Sterling, author of “Do Good Fences Make Good Neighbors?” and a professor at Georgetown University. Long-term, though, they remove the incentive to try and reach a permanent accord with the Palestinians, he said.”

Fysiske grænsedragninger virker altså ikke fordi de bliver overløbet af en overlegen fjende. Når de så ikke bliver overløbet af en overlegen fjende er det dem der forhindrer fred. Alligevel er Mellemøsten ikke alene om at sætte grænser, skriver Gatestone Institute

Bulgaria has built a 33-km (21-mile), three-meter-high (10-foot) barbed wire fence along its border with its southeastern neighbor Turkey in an effort to limit the influx of migrants from Syria and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa. The Interior Ministry has also deployed more than one thousand police officers to patrol the Turkish border.

Greece has erected a 10.5-km, four-meter-high barbed-wire fence along part of its border with Turkey. The Greek wall is said to be responsible for diverting migration routes toward neighboring Bulgaria and, consequently, for construction of the wall there.

Spain has fortified fences in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla as record numbers of migrants are jumping over the barriers from neighboring Morocco. Border police registered more than 19,000 attempts to jump the fence at Melilla in 2014, up 350% on 2013, according to the Interior Ministry. Nearly 7,500 migrants successfully entered Ceuta and Melilla in 2014, including 3,305 from Syria.

The UK is setting up more than two miles of nine-foot-high security fencing at the Channel Tunnel port of Calais in northern France, in an attempt to stop thousands of illegal migrants breaking into trucks bound for the UK. Currently, more than 3,000 migrants are camped in and around Calais hoping to make it to Britain. More than 39,000 would-be illegal immigrants were prevented from crossing the Channel in the 12 months prior to April, more than double the previous year.

EU member states are implementing other emergency measures to halt the flow of immigration.

Austria has stopped processing asylum claims as of June 13, in an effort to make the country “less attractive” for migrants relative to other EU countries. According to Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner, Vienna was “stopping the Austrian asylum express,” whereby applications are processed within an average period of four months, faster than in any other EU country. Asylum requests for Austria rose nearly 180% in the first five months of 2015 to 20,620, and were on track to reach 70,000 by the end of the year.

Denmark on July 1 announced that it would slash benefits for asylum seekers to bring down the number of refugees coming to the country. It recently emerged that three out of four refugees who came to Denmark in the early 2000s are jobless ten years later.

France and Italy have sparred over who is responsible for hundreds of African migrants stranded at Ventimiglia on the France-Italy border after French police refused to let them in. France accused Italy of failing to respect the so-called Dublin Regulation, a law that requires people seeking refuge within the EU to do so in the first European country they reach. Italian officials argued that the migrants see Italy as only a transit country.

Hungary on June 23 suspended its adherence to the Dublin Regulation, which requires Hungary to take back refugees who have travelled through the country to reach other EU countries.

Meanwhile, the European Commission, the EU’s powerful bureaucratic arm, on May 27 announced a controversial “relocation plan” that would require EU member states to accept 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean asylum seekers from Italy and Greece over the next two years.

Eksperterne tror dog også at ISIS, med bombeangrebet mod en venstrefløjsdemonstration i Tyrkiet forleden og dagens skudvekslinger mellem ISIS og tyrkisk militær, måske forsøger at trække flere ind i det muslimske kaos. Nej, virkeligt. Snaphanen giver dette link til ISIS indre verden, Channel Four Dispatches: Escape From ISIS

Guardian har en længere fortælling fra en højtstående ISIS leder og New York Review of Books en større artikel, hvor de undrer sig over fænomenet ISIS. Ellers kan man allerede læse eller genlæse The Atlantics What ISIS Really Wants, der næsten er blevet en klassiker, som også venstrefløjen tør citere.

ISIS er en islamisk bevægelse, derfor lader den sig ikke bekæmpe med fornægtelse og venstrehåndsbombninger

Daily Mail har en udmærket artikel om den enorme indsats imod Islamisk Stat der synes aldeles nytteløs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3154680/The-astonishing-FIFTY-FOUR-countries-groups-battling-ISIS-haven-t-crushed-already.html#ixzz3fWyanjo9

An international coalition of over 30 countries and at least a dozen more rebel and terror factions have been unable to prevent the rapid growth of ISIS.

The terror group has expanded its territory, recruited ‘thousands’ of new foreign fighters and brought new jihadi organisations under its wing since an international ‘task force’ to ‘eliminate’ ISIS in October 2014.

At least 42 nations have either carried out airstrikes on ISIS, trained troops and Middle-Eastern tribesman to do battle against it or given weapons to those who are.

Meanwhile, at least a dozen rival Islamist groups are waging bloody war with ISIS on the ground - and for the hearts and minds of Muslims online.

Despite their collective hatred for the Islamic State, these disparate groups have failed to combat and destroy ISIS because their agendas conflict and they are not attacking the heart of the so-called caliphate, a counter-terrorism expert has told MailOnline.

ISIS commands 31,000 loyal fighters according to the United States - up from 16,000 last Autumn - while Kurdish forces put that number at closer to 200,000. And around eight million are thought to live under its barbaric rule.

This inspired more than 60 nations to commit to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS which was formed to ‘eliminate’ ISIS, even though some of these - including Austria, Sweden and Ireland - are simply providing humanitarian support to the millions made homeless by the insurgents.

As part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the US-led coalition whose purpose is to eliminate ISIS, 13 different countries have executed airstrikes on Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

The United States and five of its Arab allies - Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - launched the intense campaign of airstrikes and cruise-missile attacks against ISIS in September 2014.

Since then, America has been responsible for around 60 per cent of the 16,000 bombings on Iraq and Syria carried out since.

Den irakiske hær har kæmpet med den siden 2006, dengang den kun var en Islamisk Stat Irak og Syrien begyndte i 2011. Mange muslimske lande kæmper internt med deres egne muslimske entusiaster, der begynder at sværge troskab til Islamisk Stat, blandt andet Boko Haram, der trodsede Michelle Obama og aldrig gav de kidnappede småpiger tilbage, har bragt flere afrikanske lande ind i kampen. Alligevel trives Kalifatet Islamisk Stat som aldrig før. Terroreksperten, som Daily Mail har talt med, mener at problemet er at alle, der bekæmper Islamisk Stat har forskellige interesser. Men det hjerte han mente skulle angribes defineres ikke.

Vi får dog at vide at en lokal terrorgruppe producerer sin egen propaganda, der skal imødegå Islamisk Stats “poisonous narrative” “and mistaken understanding of Islam“. Og den amerikanske præsident Barak Obama er helt enig i det synspunkt og “says no amount of firepower will bring down the terror group who prey on ‘vulnerable’ Muslims around the world, adding: ‘Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas, a more attractive and compelling vision.’“. Man skulle tro at alle alternativer til Islamisk Stats svælgen i grusomheder var bedre ideer, at det IKKE at hugge hovedet at handlende der holder fredagsåbent klart var en bedre ide og en større vision end et gøre det. Men Islamisk Stats giftige narrativ, dårlige ideer, misforståeede islam og og uattraktive vision er åbenbart mere end almindeligt konkurencedygtigt og antallet af svage muslimer er svimlende og stigende.

Igår spekulerede jeg via kloge indlæg om Euroens og EUs krise kunne demaskere den herskende politiske klasses manglende realitetssans førend islams grusomheder blev ubenægtbare ud fra en Clintonsk ‘it’s the economyu, stupid’ tankegange. Douglas Murray forklarer i Gatestone Institute den stigende kløft mellem, det som politikere siger om ‘fredens religion og det som befolkningerne ved. For selvfølgelig kan man bekæmpe Islamisk Stat militært, skriver Murray i sit opgør med Obamas ide om attraktive ideer. Det var således man knuste nazismen. Islamisk stat kan ikke rekruttere nye krigere, hvis den knuses og den vil ikke virke attraktiv, hvis den får bøllebank og lider nederlag. Men der er noget andet om kalifatets ideer, som Obama og de andre vestlige ledere samt medierne vånder sig over at se i øjnene, nemlig at Islamisk Stat er islamisk, dens ideer er islamisk lære og det virker tiltrækkende på muslimer, der er opflasket med at islams ideer er de bedste uanset hvad virkeligheden ellers fortæller

While the Nazis tried to hide their worst crimes from the world, the followers of ISIS repeatedly record and distribute video footage of theirs. Between free and open democratic societies, and a society which beheads women for witchcraft, throws suspected gays off buildings, beheads other Muslims and Christians, burns people alive, and does us the favour of video-recording these atrocities and sending them round the globe for us, you would have thought that there would be no moral competition. But there is. And that is not because ISIS has “better ideas, a more attractive and more compelling vision,” but because its appeal comes from a specific ideological-religious worldview that we cannot hope to defeat if we refuse to understand it.

That is why David Cameron’s interjection was so important. The strategy Barack Obama and he seem to be hoping will work in persuading the general public that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is the same tactic they are adopting in the hope of persuading young Muslims not to join ISIS. Their tactic is to try to deny something that Muslims and non-Muslims can easily see and find out for themselves: that ISIS has a lot to do with Islam — the worst possible version, obviously, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, but a version of Islam nevertheless.

ISIS can destroy its own credibility among advocates of human rights and liberal democracy. The question is how you destroy its credibility among people who want to be very Islamic, and think ISIS is their way of being so. Understand their claims and their appeal, and work out a way to undermine those, and ISIS will prove defeatable not only on the battlefield but in the field of ideas as well. But refuse to acknowledge what drives them, or from where they claim to get their legitimacy, and the problem will only have just started.

Murray gør sig for mange håb om at islam kan reddes fra sig selv og det gør Jürgen Todenhoffer også i dette interview i BBCs Hardtalk. Men, hvis man kan abstrahere fra udtryk som “so-called Islamic State movement” og hæfte sig ved hans beskrivelse af den muslimske bevægelse for man et anderledes forstemmen realistisk billede af, hvorfor Obama har ret når han siger at vi kommer til at kæmpe med disse problemer i mange, mange år

The so-called Islamic State movement has very publicly murdered western journalists and aid workers who entered its territory. As a result, IS-held areas of Syria and Iraq have been off-limits to western reporters for the past year. Except for the guest today.

Last December Jürgen Todenhöfer spent ten days inside the self-styled IS caliphate. He emerged unscathed with a remarkable story - what more can he tell us about the jihadists and what can we conclude about his own motivations?

Next Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress