Arabisk hjemmeliv

Arabere, Forbrydelse og straf, Muslimer, Muslimguf, Sharia, islam, muhammed — Drokles on January 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Vi har vel alle problemer med hushjælpen…

Fra The Religion of Peace

The Qur’an:

Qur’an (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” This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing himself a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restrained to four wives, but, following the example of their prophet, may also have sex with any number of slaves, as the following verse make clear:

Qur’an (23:5-6) - “..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Qur’an (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, then sex slavery must be very important to him.

Qur’an (4:24) - “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Qur’an (8:69) - “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”

Qur’an (24:32) - “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Qur’an (2:178) - “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man’s).

Qur’an (16:75) - “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.” Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves - those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

From the Hadith:

Bukhari (80:753) - “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.’”

Bukhari (52:255) - The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

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

Bukhari (62:137) - An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.

Bukhari (34:432) - Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765) - A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351) - Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Bukhari (72:734) - Some contemporary Muslims in the West, where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime, are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Muslim 3901 - Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Muslim 4112 - A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Bukhari (47:743) - Muhammad’s own pulpit - from which he preached Islam - was built with slave labor on his command.

Bukhari (59:637) - “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.’” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives,” since Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150) - “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Qur’an 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Qur’an. Not only does Allah grant permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud 1814 - “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.

Ibn Ishaq (734) - A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.

Abu Dawud 38:4458 - Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (”those whom your right hand possesses”).

Ibn Ishaq (693) - “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) - According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Et par profetiske perspektiver på Charlie Hebdo massakren fra venstre og højre

Curt Sørensen sammenligner på Modkraft massakren på Charlie Hebdo med Breiviks massakre på Utøya og konkluderer friskt at “Begge begivenheder er umiddelbart også forklarlige som værende udbrud af enkeltpersoners vanvid”. Tjah, hvis man ser grupper som enkeltpersoner. For hvor Breivik repræsenterer den enlige ulvs vanvid, som det ikke lykkedes at mobilisere medskyldige endsige sympatisører, så deler muslimerne bag massakren på Charlie Hebdo verdensbillede, udsyn og logik. Derfor ville det være mere nærliggende, for at sige det mildt, at sammenligne med bomberne i London og Madrid og de utallige terrorangreb, der er blevet forhindret af efterretningstjenesterne. Men Sørensen har en frygt for udviklingen, som deles af flere på venstrefløjen og den er ikke helt uden substans

De tiltagende økonomiske, sociale, religiøse og etniske modsætninger føjer sig sammen i en eksplosiv blanding der udvikler en samlet negativ dynamik i den sociale orden, en dynamik som får ekstra kraft fordi det politiske demokrati samtidig er ved at forvandle sig til det en Colin Crouch har kaldt ‘postdemokrati’, hvor den overordnede økonomiske politik er fastlagt af overmægtige økonomiske og politisk-bureaukratiske eliter, hvor politikerne i stigende grad fremstår som en lukket, selvsupplerende ‘politisk klasse’, hvor mediemagten er mere og mere koncentreret, ytringsfriheden reelt et privilegium for de få, hvor afvigende meninger og holdninger i stigende grad kriminaliseres, hvor overvågning og kontrol er tiltagende  og hvor  befolkningerne generelt  mere og mere bliver sat uden for indflydelse på den førte ‘nødvendige politik’.

Denne tilstand tilsløres imidlertid af politikernes og meningsmagernes retorik om ’demokratiet’ ( bemærk den bestemte form), ’ytringsfriheden’ og vore ’værdier’, en retorik der udfolder sig for fuld udblæsning i disse dage ledsaget af en udviklet selvglæde og ivrig demonstration af moralsk selvfuldkommenhed.

Situationen burde ellers mane til større eftertænksomhed,  mere seriøse overvejelser og en dyb bekymring. Drabene i Paris kan i sin yderste konsekvens føre til en fascistisk præsident i Frankrig, yderligere styrke den europæiske højrefløj, fremme  racistiske overfald ( som der har været mange af, omend ikke så hyppigt omtalte)  og igen i en opgående spiral frembringe islamistiske kontraaktioner.
Lige som i mellemkrigsårene præges den europæiske situation af social disintegration, politisk opløsning og ideologisk konfrontation. Overalt er også højreradikalismen vakt til live igen og til forskel fra den gang -hvor det som bekendt også gik galt- er der i dag ikke nogen stærk arbejderbevægelse til at modvirke trusle fra højre. Er det måske  i virkeligheden begyndelsen til ‘Aftenlandets undergang’ ( som Oswald Spengler udtrykte det) vi oplever i disse år?

De mange prædikater som fascistisk og højredrejet til side (venstrefløjen har som bekendt ingen principper, kun faste fjender) så er det etablerede system sårbart i sin rådvildhed. Men, som Morten Uhrskov mere begavet skriver, så er faren snarere at systemet reagerer som et såret dyr

Meget multikulturelle stater er pr. definition mindre demokratiske end mere homogene, fordi statsmagten er nødt til at bevare en skrøbelig fred gennem hårdhændet disciplin af borgerne, som i mindre og mindre omfang kan give deres mening til kende om andre grupper. Disse tilkendegivelser vil nemlig med garanti fra tid til anden give sig udslag i voldsanvendelse.

(…)

Det uhyggelige angreb med 12 dræbte og 20 sårede, deraf flere alvorligt, er ud over sin ufattelige gru endnu en pind i demokratiets ligkiste. Myndighederne vil mene sig nødt til fremover at slå hårdere ned på kritikere af den førte vanvidskurs. Når det næste angreb kommer – mest sandsynligt fra en islamisk gruppe, men kan også være fra højreekstremister – vil skruen blive strammet nok engang. Det er nu engang den logik, der følger af at multietnificere og multikulturalisere de europæiske samfund.

Kun et brud med den hidtil førte politik kan forhindre denne udvikling. Vi må bede til og arbejde for, at dette skifte sker. Ellers er demokratiet på længere sigt dødsdømt.

Selv om Sørensen ikke er helt ved siden af har Uhrskov ret. Mulitikulturens cocktail med islam som hovedingrediens lader sig ikke fordøje. Krigen er for længst erklæret og flere og voldsomere angreb vil blive fremtiden, med gengældelser til følge. Demonstrationerne, hvor alle erklærer sig Charlie Hebdo der ikke vil lade sig skræmme forudsætter at terroren kun er en overgang, en periode vil skal igennem og som vi vil komme igennem, hvis blot vi tænder et lys og siger fra. Men de tager fejl, hvor rørende det ellers er at beskue. Der er lagt og lægges fortsat i kakkelovnen, større kræfter er i bevægelse end bevægede bedsteborgere. Lamperne slukkes i Europa.

Det er hårdt

Det er hårdt at være mig i denne svære juletid, måske ikke så som at være Knausgaard, men hårdt. Liverpool spillede pludselig fodbold, men til ingen verdens nytte. Mit højre knæ døjer med betændelse, mit højre håndled er forstuvet og min højre skulder brækket. Ja hele mine højre fløj er så syg at ironien næsten ikke er til at bære. Familiens store vareombytningsdag tager glæden ud af julen, dog ikke som Per Nyholm, der med krav om at den danske klamme og selvbedrageriske jul skal åbne sig for alle verdens velfærdssultne folkeslag tillige vånder sig over “bøvede julefrokoster og deres efterspil”. Jeg har kun været til een julefrokost og der var desværre intet efterspil - som sædvanlig. Og jeg burde foretage så mange andre ting end det jeg konstant er i gang med at jeg ender med at foretage mig meget lidt.

Teorien om mænds dumhed ‘male idiot theory‘, om hvorfor mænd har en højere tendens til at blive dræbt er komme slemt til skade kastede en del tragikomiske anekdoter af sig. Bl.a om manden der kom slemt til skade da han brugte en rystepudser som et sexlegetøj og derpå lappede sit scrotum med en klipsemaskine. Ubetvivleligt et udtryk for maskulin idioti. Men det er alligevel normativt og kulturelt, hvad man betragter som idioti, og mange kvinder går derfor fri. For, hvad skal man mene om de hundredevis af unge kvinder der drømmer om at gifte sig med jihad-krigere? Andet end at der er et låg til hver en gryde.

Og hvad skal man egentlig sige til Politikens overskrift “Bilist pløjer ind i menneskemængde i Frankrig“? Bilisten var muslim og råbte Allahu Akbar får vi at vide længere nede i teksten, men det er ikke så vigtigt som at han er bilist. Hvilket i sagens natur vel blot er en truisme. En anden ‘bilist’, som Jyllands-Posten ophøjede til ‘chauffør’  gentog dåden dagen efter. BBC havde samme overskrift ved en lignende muslimsk terrorhandling i Israel

10534090_10152916036499954_6442349501464347508_n

Anne Hertzum Alling skrev i øvrigt under overskriften “Hey Hamas, jeg tror, I er ved at smadre Palæstinas fremtid” i Information at jødedrab er kontraproduktivt og indledte med følgende anekdote

I sidste uge kørte jeg gennem Jerusalems gader sammen med en af mine palæstinensiske venner. Da vi passerede den gamle by, skruede han ned for popmusikken på anlægget. »Hvis jeg kører galt nu, vil medierne eksplodere med nyheden om endnu et terrorangreb i Jerusalem. Hvis jeg overlever, vil politiet med stor sandsynlighed skyde på mig. Ja, måske endda slå mig ihjel,« sagde han med både ironisk distance og et glimt i øjet. Vi grinede begge to, men blev hurtigt meget stille. Jeg er ret sikker på, vi tænkte det samme. At det desværre overhovedet ikke var usandsynligt. At det sørgeligt var uden for diskussion.

Ja, det er sørgeligt at arabere kan risikere det mindste ved at køre nogen ihjel i Israel. Det er den egentlige pris for terror. Derfor det ‘rørende øjeblik‘ en muslimsk brud lagde blomster for ofrene for terrorofrene i Sydney. Medierne og venstrefløjen ser undtagelsen, iscenesat som den sikkert var, som bekræftelse på at reglen ikke eksisterer. Folk klappede i deres hænder måske uden at gøre sig den tanke at det var fordi de så noget ekstraordinært.

2433516700000578-0-image-a-19_1419164255003

Hvad skal man egentlig mene om islamisk terror, når man ikke tør tale om islams væsen? Midt under gidseltagningen, hvor den muslimske terrorist tvang sine gidsler til at holde et islamisk flag op i vinduet slog den australske premierminister Tony Abbot koldt vand i blodet

“We don’t yet know the motivation of the perpetrator, we don’t know whether this is politically motivated although obviously there are some indications that it could be,”

Samme tanke havde “tidligere operativ chef i Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (PET) Hans Jørgen Bonnichsen, der advarer mod at drage forhastede konklusioner”

Vi er alt for hurtige til at råbe Islamisk Stat. Gidseltagninger er jo ikke noget nyt i kriminalhistorien. (…) jeg synes, man lige skal trække vejret og se, hvordan dagen og situationen udvikler sig

De fleste af os nøjedes nu også blot med at tænke islamisk punktum. Men det er et farligt ord for medier og politikere. Danmarks Radio skrev  da også forsigtigt under overskriften “Knivmand tre franske betjente på politistation

20-årig mand råbte Allahu akbar, da han angreb betjente. Motivet tyder på at være islamistisk, siger kilde.

Træk nu vejret, knivangreb er jo ikke nyt i kriminalhistorien. Og det er konstateret uden at “talkneppe”, som Trine Bramsen frivolt affærdigede Fyns Politis forsvar for nærpolitiet i Vollsmose. Klart en kandidat til årets citat. Men mesteren i absurditeter om islam havde inden da sikret sig sit mesterskab. Obama slog ved nyheden om ISIS slagtning af den amerikanske hjælpearbejder Peter Kassig nemlig fast at

“ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” the president said, using another name for Islamic State.

Såeh, det ligner mere end kristen eller buddistisk handling? Og så havde man svært ved for meget succes på Langeland

- Vi føler ikke, at vi kan magte mere her på øen. Men jeg forstår ikke, hvorfor der ikke er flere kommuner, der går ind i det her. Her på Langeland har det skaffet 85 nye arbejdspladser og mere omsætning til lokale håndværkere og forretninger. Der er ikke noget at være bange for, siger Bjarne Nielsen.

For meget af det gode kan ellers være skønt ifølge Mae West. Elefanter er der nok af. Jacob McHangama forklarede en journalist hvorledes det kan være omfattet af racismeparagraffen at citere koranen uden at nogen af dem, hverken den skarpe jurist eller den nysgerrige journalist bragte koranens indhold og islams væsen på banen. Eller tør man trøste sig med socialdemokraternes integrations- og fygtningeordfører Mette Reismanns ord om at der blot skal være fred i een større by i Syrien for at man kan (men vil man?) sende de syriske flygtninge hjem? Og hvorfor undrer ingen sig over, hvorfor det kun er syriske mænd, der redder sig i sikkerhed? Måske var kønskvotering den største fejl da Titanic sank?

skc3a6rmbillede-2014-10-24-kl-135848

Som da skuespilleren Shoshana Roberts vandrede i New York og stort set kun fik seksuelle tilråb fra ikke-hvide

The video is a collaboration between Hollaback, an anti-street harassment organization, and the marketing agency Rob Bliss Creative. At the end they claim the woman experienced 100-plus incidents of harassment “involving people of all backgrounds.” Since that obviously doesn’t show up in the video, Bliss addressed it in a post. He wrote, “We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera,” or was ruined by a siren or other noise. The final product, he writes, “is not a perfect representation of everything that happened.” That may be true but if you find yourself editing out all the catcalling white guys, maybe you should try another take.

What are the odds? Daily Mail ramte til gengæld tidens absurditeter i een sætning

The National Union of Students has come under fire after it refused to condemn ISIS - because of fears it was ‘Islamophobic’.

Herligt med sarkasme. Camilla Plum trådte derimod øvet op i bolledejen da hun rasede over nationalretten fordi hun tilhører den eksklusive gruppe der ikke forstår at alt nationalt er diskriminerende

‘Så er man da sikker på, at vores indvandrere ikke kommer til at føle sig sådan rigtigt danske, Fy Dan…det er skamfuldt , når man nu kunne have brugt også denne lejlighed til mere favnende statements….eller er det igen en besked, som hedder, at før de dersens indvandrere får lært at spise vores svinekød, så kan de godt glemme alt om at være helt rigtigt danske?’

Flere mente at hun måske foretrak en ret baseret på strandslagtet pony. Og Said Mansour blev ikke smidt ud af landet på grund af hans tilknytning til det svinespisende Danmark han hader og vil destruere. “Et statsborgerskab skal man ikke skalte og valte med.” sagde Marianne Jelved for år tilbage. Men det holdt dem ikke tilbage. Men i det mindste fik Morten Storm ført til rettens protokol og lagt ud til alverden at læse at muslimernes profet og eksempel på det perfekte mennesker er pædofil

Profeten Muhammed var pædofil og et narhoved. Han havde sex med en pige på ni år. Han blev gift med hende, da hun var seks og havde fuldbyrdet samleje med hende, da hun var ni år - det kalder jeg for pædofili.

Men det er selvfølgelig hårdere at være svensker når ens statsminister ser ned over det enorme og smukke land og deklarerer at der er plads nok til mange flere muslimer. Plads og rum er ikke det samme - rum er begrænset af de fælles regler som ironisk bliver stadigt strammere jo flere der skal favnes. Fra samhällets nye bund beskrev en svensk pensionist at “Det känns som att man vill rensa bort sådana som mig från samhället. Det är ett hemskt sätt att leva.” Og med de ord, glædelig jul!

Dokumentar: ISIS Sex-Slave Raping & Selling Girls

Why Yemen Is Incapable Of Banning Child Marriage and Rape

Arabere, Muslimer, Sharia, islam, muhammed — Drokles on December 16, 2014 at 6:30 pm

En tidligere Associated Press journalist beskriver mediernes anti-israelske fortælling

Matti Friedman arbejdede for det store nyhedsbureau Associated Press i Jerusalem mellem 2006 og 2011 og skønt han erklærer sig selv som venstredrejet (liberal i amerikansk terminologi) kan han ikke længere stå inde for, hvad han betegner som “a hostile obsession with Israel” i den almindelige nyhedsdækning. I en længere og højst anbefalelsesværdig artikel fra august i år i Tablet Magazine fortæller han om den overeksponering af Israel med sin tidligere arbejdsgiver som illustrativt eksempel. At de havde mere end 40 medarbejdere til at dække Israel-Palæstina, hvilket var mere end resten af Mellemøsten til sammen og kun ved særlige lejligheder vægtes andet end Israel højest.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP—the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives—that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

Det der er vigtigt i en Israel-Palæstina historie, argumenterer Friedman, er Israel. Palæstinenserne anerkendes ikke som selvstændige aktører  og eksisterer kun som passive ofre. Korruption er altid interessant, men kun israelsk. Friedman fortæller at han ikke kunne komme igennem med en artikel om palæstinensisk korruption fordi “that was not the story”. Således angribes enhver skævhed i det israelske samfund nidkært; Israelsks lovforslag til pressefrihed, antallet af ortodokse jøder, bosættelser, kønssegregering osv, mens der er meget få artikler om lignende palæstinensiske forhold.

Hamas formålserklæring, som handler om et udslette Israel og alle jøderne og deres graven terrortunneller ind under Israel er ikke vigtigt for medier og nyhedsbureauer, men det er derimod Israels angreb på Hamas. De fleste rapportere, siger Friedman, opfatter essensen af deres arbejde at rapportere om israelske overgreb: “That’s the essens of the Israel story”!

Og denne fortælling sættes ind i den ramme der hedder Israel-Palæstina konflikten eller variationer heraf. Her er det Israel, der er den store og dermed aggressoren hvor sandheden er at jøderne kun optager 0,2% af Mellemøsten og der er 5 millioner jøder overfor 300 mio. arabere. Det var den samlede arabiske verden, der ville udslette Israel fra begyndelsen og den palæstinensiske sag blev først interessant efter 1967 krigen, hvor Israel indtog de resterende områder fra delingsplanen fra Ægypten og Jordan, der ellers havde annekteret dem uden protester fra den arabiske verden.

For centuries, stateless Jews played the role of a lightning rod for ill will among the majority population. They were a symbol of things that were wrong. Did you want to make the point that greed was bad? Jews were greedy. Cowardice? Jews were cowardly. Were you a Communist? Jews were capitalists. Were you a capitalist? In that case, Jews were Communists. Moral failure was the essential trait of the Jew. It was their role in Christian tradition—the only reason European society knew or cared about them in the first place.

(…)

When the people responsible for explaining the world to the world, journalists, cover the Jews’ war as more worthy of attention than any other, when they portray the Jews of Israel as the party obviously in the wrong, when they omit all possible justifications for the Jews’ actions and obscure the true face of their enemies, what they are saying to their readers—whether they intend to or not—is that Jews are the worst people on earth. The Jews are a symbol of the evils that civilized people are taught from an early age to abhor. International press coverage has become a morality play starring a familiar villain.

(…)

You don’t need to be a history professor, or a psychiatrist, to understand what’s going on. Having rehabilitated themselves against considerable odds in a minute corner of the earth, the descendants of powerless people who were pushed out of Europe and the Islamic Middle East have become what their grandparents were—the pool into which the world spits. The Jews of Israel are the screen onto which it has become socially acceptable to project the things you hate about yourself and your own country. The tool through which this psychological projection is executed is the international press.

Men det er på alle måder den forkerte historie der fortælles, skriver Friedman. Reportere ser alt gennem en israelsk optik og ser derfor ikke islams undertrykkelse og forfølgelse af minoriteter, hvor der med ISIS nu er tale om folkemord

A knowledgeable observer of the Middle East cannot avoid the impression that the region is a volcano and that the lava is radical Islam, an ideology whose various incarnations are now shaping this part of the world. Israel is a tiny village on the slopes of the volcano. Hamas is the local representative of radical Islam and is openly dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish minority enclave in Israel, just as Hezbollah is the dominant representative of radical Islam in Lebanon, the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and so forth.

Hamas is not, as it freely admits, party to the effort to create a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It has different goals about which it is quite open and that are similar to those of the groups listed above. Since the mid 1990s, more than any other player, Hamas has destroyed the Israeli left, swayed moderate Israelis against territorial withdrawals, and buried the chances of a two-state compromise. That’s one accurate way to frame the story.

Men i mediernes og nyhedsbureauernes fortælling er Israel vulkanen, en vulkan der ikke eksisterer i den sammen geopolitiske virkelighed som resten af Melleøsten. Historen om Israel er ikke om nyheder men om “something else”.

Insisterende benægtelse hos de liberale

Lørdag skrev jeg optimistisk at der var små sprækker af erkendelse hos venstrefløjen. Selvfølgelig er der ikke det, der er kun positionering. Men den positionering afslører, hvilke flanker man vil dække af overfor vælgerne. Så på en måde kan man godt glæde sig over at den muligvis kommende socialdemokratiske leder Mette Frederiksen ikke kan lide burkaer, som hun omtaler som et fængsel. Feministen Karen West opdagede at man ikke kan kritisere islam på nogen som helst måde uanset tonen. Özlem Cecik fra Socialistisk Folkeparti slog til lyd for at det bedre kan betale sig at lytte til politiske modstandere, frem for at udskamme dem (nu Dansk Folkeparti står til at få hver femte stemme, som erfaringerne) og på Modkraft støvede man sin gamle Marx af og ærgrede sig over at det altid var så akavet for venstrefløjen at kritisere islam. Og så har regeringen med Mette Frederiksen i spidsen og i modstrid med Radikale Venstre ønsker besluttet at Danmark ikke skal gøre FNs menneskerettigheder til dansk lov, da “inkorporering indebære en risiko for en forskydning af kompetence fra Folketinget og regeringen til domstolene”.

Men der er snart valg og politikere siger så meget. Det gør de liberale også og de vil i deres moderne internationale udsyns ånd gerne distancere fra Danmark, måske ved at samle desillusionerede vælgere op fra netop venstrefløjen? Rune Kristensen glæder sig i hvert fald over at hans parti med det vildledende navn Konservative vil lægge “en klar distance til V og O” i deres nye udlændingeudspil, hvor grænserne skal åbnes for kvalificeret arbejdskraft. Og han…

…finder det fantastisk, at 24-års reglen skal lempes, da den ikke virker og i øvrigt rammer de forkerte mennesker. Hertil er jeg også særligt glad for, at beløbsgrænsen for personer uden for EU sænkes fra 375.000 til 315.000 kr. – dette her jeg tidligere skrevet om her på bloggen.

Uagtet fokus på de åbne grænser, så savner jeg en strategi for integration via arbejdsmarkedet i mit partis udspil. Det er her integrationen virker. Derfor er starthjælpen også helt tosset at genindføre. Hvis ikke folk kan forsørge sig selv, hvorfor så komme hertil?

Rune Kristensen er en kapacitet der har skrevet “bachelorprojekt om politisk islam versus det liberale demokrati” og derfor kan han ydermere konkludere

“Om man spiser flæskesteg eller halalkød er ikke det afgørende. Man kan godt blive dansk statsborger og holde ramadan. Det handler om at overholde loven og om at bidrage til samfundet. Så skal vi ikke være så nervøse for en kulturel mangfoldighed, som er helt naturlig i et moderne globalt orienteret samfund. Andre kulturer har alle dage påvirket Danmark”.

Men nok om den slags intetsigenheder for Rasmus Brygger har i Politiken skrevet 10 principper for en udlændingepolitik, som alle burde efterleve. Og det er selvfølgelig opløsningen af Danmark som suveræn nation til fordel for en åben jurisdiktion. “Forskelle mellem os mennesker skal hyldes” for det er “hamrende udansk at kræve, at vi alle skal ligne hinanden”. Statsborgerskab skal ikke kunne fratages, hvis man vælger halshugning med ISIS, 24 årsreglen skal væk og mennesker skal dømmes på deres handlinger. Her hedder det som det første meget sigende “Muslimer er ikke per definition ansvarlige eller medskyldige i andre muslimers gerninger”. Nej, men tanken ligger lige for, også når man hedder Rasmus Brygger.

Meninger kan ikke brydes når de ophøjes til indlysende og objektive sandheder, hvorfor Brygger og hans sort betragter dissens som moralsk forkasteligt. Især punkt 4 udtrykte dette, da det ikke var et princip, men en besværgelse

4. Indvandrere, der kommer til Danmark, er et plus for landet uanset, hvor de kommer fra

Danmark har kun godt af, at der kommer flere til landet. Fokuseres der alene på de arbejdende nydanskere, bidrager de stort til den danske økonomi. Men indvandring er ikke kun et spørgsmål om økonomi, men også kultur. Det liberale perspektiv er, at det er sundt for et samfund, når forskellige livsopfattelser og kulturer mødes. Det er gennem kulturkonkurrence og –udveksling af kultur, at det danske samfund har udviklet sig, ikke gennem isolation og nationalisme.

Kun i selvretfærdighedens univers, hvor enhver fremmed er en ven der endnu ikke har stukket en kniv i maven på dig giver udsagnet mening. Men det gør det ikke hos Brygger, der allerede i punkt 2 slår fast at “Alle, der kommer til Danmark, er velkomne, så længe de er selvforsørgende“. Ikke nok med det, så “Nydanskerne fortjener respekt og tolerance, så længe det er gensidigt“, hvilket vil sige at vi må møde dem med en vis skepsis, indtil de har gjort sig fortjent. I samme ånd skal kriminelle udlændinge udvises ifølge punkt 9. Hummus og spraglet burka kan altså alligevel ikke redde en langfingret dovenlars. Så meget for Bryggers kulturelle værdier.

Søndagsfilm: Battle of Kosovo

Yugoslavisk film med engelske undertekster.

Battle of Kosovo is a 1989 Yugoslav historical drama/war film filmed in Serbia. The film was based on the drama written by poet Ljubomir Simovi?. It depicts the historical Battle of Kosovo between Medieval Serbia and the Ottoman Empire which took place on 15 June 1389 (according to the Julian calendar, 28 June 1389 by the Gregorian calendar) in a field about 5 kilometers northwest of Pristina.
Serbian duke Lazar in 1389. refuses to obey the Turk sultan Murat who is penetrating towards Serbia with great army, in order to conquer Europe through it. Although aware that he is weaker, without enough army, duke Lazar decides to confront him. Serbian lords are not united. Most of them wants to fight, even if the price is defeat, but some of them hesitate. Everyone fit for weapon is sent to Kosovo field. The battle on Kosovo, in 1389. ended with no winners - both armies shed blood and got tired. Lazar and Murat died. But, nevertheless, the battle of Kosovo was a victory, not for Serbian state, which soon became Turkish, but for Europe, which Serbia rescued with bodies of her heroes of the first and the strongest Turkish attack…

The film was released in 1989, which marked the 600th anniversary of the Battle.

Robert Spencer om hvorvidt Islamisk Stat er islamisk

Kulturen, naturen og fremmedlegemet

Guardian fortæller om en heltemodig katolsk præst Fader Kinvi i Congo, der med fare for sit liv redder muslimer fra animistiske militsers hævnangreb. Fader Kinvi tror på “the contagion of love” og det kræver mere end almindelig vilje midt i sekteriske blodigheder. Og det er et af menneskets fineste egenskaber. Men det er idioti ikke. Og idioti er at invitere hadet indenfor og med vilje og magt konstruere forudsætningerne for sekterisk vold. Og ondskab er at forråde og bekæmpe sin egen befolkning, mens man konstruerer sin fremtidige sekteriske samfund

Fader Kinvi redder mennesker i nød fordi troen på næstekærlighed er stærk i ham. Men det er ikke næstekærlighed at ophøje fjendtlige ideologier til ligeværdighed. En kvinde blev eskorteret ud af The National Cathedral i Washington for at protestere over at den blev brugt til et muslimsk arrangement. Robert Spencer støtter kvindens argumentation i, hvor direkte antikristent islam og islamiske bønner er på Jihad Watch og skriver

It all sounds so high-minded: the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell says: “This needs to be a world in which all are free to believe and practice and in which we avoid bigotry, Islamaphobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Christianity and to embrace our humanity and to embrace faith.”

But someone threw a rotting cabbage on their lovely sofa, as DCist laments: “And because love, respect and understanding is too much of a concept for some people to understand, a person interrupted the service. Of course.” Still, the spectacle of a woman being forcibly ejected from what is ostensibly a Christian cathedral for proclaiming that Jesus Christ is Lord just before Muslim prayers are about to begin is at very least evidence that we live in strange times.

(…)

In light of all that, and the ongoing and escalating Muslim persecution of Christians worldwide, wouldn’t it have been more appropriate, so as to promote love, respect and understanding and all that, to have Christian prayers in a mosque? After all, it is Muslims who are persecuting Christians worldwide, and the National Cathedral decides to show its good will and love for Muslims by inviting Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front groups to pray there. Why doesn’t the ADAMS Center show its good will and love for Christians by inviting Christians to pray in the mosque there?

This woman who disrupted the service was upset that a building dedicated to the worship of Christ had been given over for the use of people who believe that her proclamation of Christ is a blasphemous falsehood and that her beliefs are a perversion of the true teachings of Jesus the Muslim prophet.

Den muslimske bønneleder talte derefter for den amerikanske kongres hvor han også ledte bønnen, skriver Freedom Outpost

With newly re-elected Speaker of the House John Boehner presiding AND BOWING HIS HEAD, the Imam for the Islamic Center of Central Jersey praised Islam’s Allah from the House floor as the God who reigns supreme. Here is the shocking video of Imam Hamad Chebli delivering the Islamic prayer; Boehner can be seen behind him

We’re not talking about a harmless, moderate Imam here. Instead, we’re talking about a major devil.

(…)

The selection of Chelbi also appears to have significance relative to the U.S. policy in Syria. Both his mentor Khaled – and Khaled’s father – were killed by the Syrian regime. As such, Chelbi has an axe to grind when it comes to Bashar al-Assad. With news that the Obama administration is actually considering a policy based on an absurd premise that the best way to defeat ISIS is to remove Assad from power, Chelbi’s appearance at locations of national significance seem to coincide with this potential shift in U.S. policy.

Despite western portrayals of Chelbi as a moderate, he absolutely is not.

When it comes to Muslim prayers being delivered on the House floor or at the National Cathedral, unfortunately, this is not new. The precedent was set by Boehner’s predecessor – Speaker Dennis Hastert – less than one year prior to 9/11. As for the National Cathedral, none other than President George W. Bush shared a podium with Muzammil Siddiqi, then president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

First up, on February 7, 2001, Chairman of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque Bassam Estwani delivered a prayer on the floor of the House as well. As the chairman of Dar al-Hijrah, Estwani represented perhaps the most notorious mosque on American soil. It was visited by three of the 9/11 hijackers and was home to Anwar al-Awlaki, the inspiration for the Fort Hood shooter. Estwani was the chairman of the mosque at that time:

Mennesket er rundet af sin kultur. Det har visioner, overvejelser og håb og frygt. Naturen har kun konsekvens.

Tid for vold

Det er søndag, det blæser en stiv pelikan og det er koldt og vådt, så måske er det tid til en bulgarsk film om Balkans erfaringer med Osmannerriget?

A Bulgarian film, Time of Violence uses precisely the same stylistic conventions as American films, the same form of storytelling, the same approach to character, the same values as to what makes a good story, and, moreover, it satisfies American criteria for being a good movie. There is a basic story, with well-attached subplots, lots of action, villains and heros (with a bit more complexity, perhaps, than most American films), and a logical resolution. The production values are high, the performances excellent, the direction skillful. The film has done very well in many countries, including some as foreign to Bulgarian culture as Japan. So why can’t the filmmakers get any distribution deal in the U.S.?

Time of Violence suffers only from its language and its setting. Few Americans know much about the Balkans during the 17th century. But it was one of those proverbial “interesting” times during which it was a curse to live. Most of the Balkans were under the thumb of the Ottoman empire. Islamic empires have more of a reputation for tolerance than most, but the Ottoman empire was showing its ugliest face during this period in Bulgaria. Bulgaria was a strategically important area inhabited by unreliable Christian subjects. The sultan decided that they must all convert to Islam, or die.

Time of Violence focuses on the fate of one valley during this crisis. The son of the miller was taken off by the Turks years ago, while still a boy, to become a janissary. Janissaries were special troops used by the Ottomans. Recruited (involuntarily) from Christian boys, they were separated from their families at an early age, indoctrinated in Islam, and turned into fiercely reliable troops with no allegiance to anyone but the sultan. The miller’s son is now a highly trusted janissary, with the task of converting his entire home valley to Islam. But the people there take their religion very seriously, and will not submit. The janissary becomes more and more brutal in his attempts to convert the valley, for he must slaughter them all if they don’t take the turban.

The film is painted on a large, sweeping canvas, with many characters and subplots, all cleverly woven into a single story. (This accomplishment is even more remarkable when you consider that the original Bulgarian version was nearly two hours longer, yet there is no sign at all that anything has been cut.) And, surprisingly, this isn’t a “vile Turk” story. Director Ludmil Staikov has much more ambitious goals, including an examination of the power of religion and of the destructiveness of violence and fanaticism. Not all of the Christians are good, nor all of the Muslims bad. The Turkish governor of the valley is not loved by his subjects, yet does all he can to avert their doom. He is given a beautiful, tender moment as he leaves the valley forever, in disgrace. Crossing a bridge that leads out of his valley, he notices a stone that has worked out of place. He gets down from his horse, carefully puts the stone back into its place, and then proceeds on to his exile. Even the janissary has his complexities, as he truly wants to spare his people from unnecessary pain, despite having completely transferred his loyalties to the sultan. The screenplay, by Staikov, Georgi Danailov, Mihail Kirkov, and Radoslav Spassov, provides complex shadings of characters and motivations.

Time of Violence is a professionally made film, beautifully photographed, well edited, and with scrupulous care in costuming and set design. The period atmosphere feels perfectly authentic, at least to someone with only passing familiarity with the time and place. The technical aspects of the film are well up to the standard of moderate budget Hollywood movies.

There are some unpleasant moments of torture and brutality in Time of Violence, but they do not exist to excite or titillate. Rather, they are necessary to demonstrate the full scope of the tragedy. Still, some viewers may find themselves looking away during certain scenes. But, otherwise, Time of Violence is a film without flaws. There are no particularly weak points in the film, and many great virtues.

Træt af at være forkælet

I Ekstra Bladet kunne man læse noget så fantastisk som hvad der gjorde en global meningsdanner træt. Svaret var det at være ung i Danmark. Bemærkelsesværdigt handlede det ikke om at drikke  mange øl, noget unge danskere er gode til og som gør een træt. Nej, den globale meningsdanner er træt af at Anders Fogh ladet ordet ’rundkredspædagogik’ så negativt, at Morten Østergaard har skåret i SUen, at Women against Feminism bliver større, træt af multinationale selskaber og PiaKjærsgaard.

Den globale meningsdanner er 18 år og hedder Sophie W og hun er global meningsdanner for Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke. Jeg ved ærligt talt ikke, hvad det betyder, men det er ironisk både at høre, hvad der gør unge mennesker trætte og at det globale er rent danske forhold. Vi kan trøste med at ungdom kun er en overgang. Om få år, og de går hurtigt min pige, vil du savne ungdommen og den ulidelige træthed når du som os andre ruiner kæmper med nedslidthed.

Men vi vil også komme med en lille advarsel, hvis Sophie W skulle bevæge sig uden for sit mellemfolkelige samvirke, for danske unge har det globalt set bedre end så mange andre. Et par eksempler fra samme dags rundtur på nettet viser at det også kan være trættende at være ung inder i England som Daily Mail skriver

This photo shows the horrific injuries a Sikh woman suffered after being attacked by her father-in-law because he thought she was having an affair with a Muslim man.

Jageer Mirgind was left blind and scarred for life after 51-year-old Manjit Mirgind slashed her wrists and stabbed her in the eyes screaming ‘I am going to kill you’.

Mrs Mirgind’s children, just three and six years old, watched the horrific attack at their mother’s home in Kensington Gardens, Ilford, East London, and pleaded with their grandfather to stop.

The mother has been left partially-sighted in both eyes while the children can no longer sleep alone and have recurring nightmares.

The crazed attacker wrongly believed his daughter-in-law was ’sleeping with a Paki’ and that she had ‘ruined his family’, Snaresbrook Crown Court heard.

article-2652927-1ea29d7f00000578-584_634x425

Det er også trættende at være ung fra negerland som The Express skriver

The mutilation, a traditional practice in the west African republic of Cameroon, aims to deter unwanted male attention, pregnancy and rape by delaying the signs that a girl is becoming a woman.

Experts believe the custom is being practised among the several thousand Cameroonians living in Britain. Schools are training staff to look out for signs of the barbaric practice. The move follows heightened awareness of female genital mutilation.

Campaigners want to see the same prominence given to other forms of cultural abuse, such as breast ironing. Margaret Nyuydzewira, co-founder of the charity CAME Women’s And Girl’s Development Organisation, says authorities need to take action faster than they have on stopping FGM in the UK.

Trættende at være ung i Iran

Trættende af være ung pige i Ægypten

Vi frygter at ikke danske unge ville møde Sophie Ws træthed med alt fra manglende empati henover dummeflade til en decideret dragt prygl.

batman

Mere muslimsk indskoling

Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Frankrig, Jihad, Multikultur, Muslimer, Sharia, islam — Drokles on October 31, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Vi kan ikke leve i fred med hinanden.

Måske ikke ligefrem indskoling, men en så kort video retfærdiggør ikke en post. Fransk politi efterforsker en voldtægtssag det mest åbenlyse sted og trænges væk

Islamificering i fængslerne

Arabere, Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Muslimer, Sharia, USA, islam — Drokles on October 30, 2014 at 5:03 am

Hugh Fitzgerald fortæller på New English Review

Isn’t that the question that ought to be asked all over the Western world? Not to try to say that the mentally ill, who just happen to be converts to Islam, kill people, but that those who are psychically off, if they convert to anything, nowadays will almost certainly to convert to Islam.

So what is it about Islam that makes it so attractive to them?

Let’s give the answers now, again, before some clever fellows apply for a government grant of five or perhaps ten million dollars to answer, after ponderous studies, involving lots and lots of researchers, and papers, and conferences, and come, finally, tortuously, to the conclusions which you and I can come to right now, and spoil their well-paid, overpaid, fun.

1. Islam offers a Total Regulation of Life. Like the Junior Woodchucks of America, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, you get special Arabic words to learn: Allahu Akbar, alhumdulillah, Jihad, Kuffar, things like that. You get to make up a special name, in Arabic, for yourself. It can express your origin in a particular country: Al-Amriki, Al-Frangi, Al-Britani, just the way those to the manner born can be called Al-Misri (from Egypt) or Al-Shami or Al-Hijazi. You can give yourself a new first name: Stephen might choose to become Suleiman. It’s such fun. A new identity, and an instant Community of Bruvvers, fellow Believers, one for all and all for one (that can be especially important in prison).

2. Islam offers a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. Life is so confusing, so overwhelming. But to the True Believer, life suddenly beomes simple. See Eric Hoffer. There is the Enemy — in Islam,it’s the non-Muslims, the Unbelievers, the Kuffars, the Ungrateful Ones. .There is the Cause for which one subsumes one’s own personality (not that such people ever had much of one to begin with), ready to do everything, ideally, for that Cause. And Islam is all about a Cause — the Cause of Islam itself. The true object of worship in Islam is not Allah, but Islam. It is for Islam that we live and die. And Muslims, to the precise extent that they take Islam to heart (and someone may not take Islam to heart, and then do so, but converts ordinarily are among the most fanatical, the least willilng to modify their behavior, or to embarrassedly or uneasily try to ignore some of the tenets and teachings of Islam).

3. In prisons in the Western world, where Musliims represent such a disproportionate number of those incarcerated (in France Muslims may be 5% of the population, but constitute 60% of the prison population, and similar figures can be found in every other country in Western Europe) Islam is attractive as a Gang, the biggest and most dangerous Gang, and the one you want to belong to, for your own protection against others, and of course, against that Muslim Gang. Western governments have yet to do the obvious and sane thing, which would be to put Muslims in prisons for Muslims only, keeping them away from others who might otherwise convert to this dangerous doctrine.

4. Islam legitimizes criminal behavior. It makes the convert feel good about his behavior, not ashamed or guilty. Have you raped, or stolen from, or killed people, peope who are not Muslims? That’s not only not a crime, but they have it coming to them. Not only have you not done wrong, but if you continue to do what you are doing, you can see it in a new light: you are merely helping yourself to the Jizyah that the Infidel nation-state, for now, prevents you from claiming. If you rape seductively-dressed Western women, that is women who aren’t wearing a niqab, or chador, or even a hijab, and whose skirts may be short, and who may wear lipstick and rouge, then they are asking for it. The little English girls who were made sex slaves deserved what they got. So for a certain kind of convert to Islam, his life now becomes justifiable; he’s been a warrior for Islam all along.

5. Islam provides a permanent source of enmity — the Infidel — whom you can blame for all of your woes. That’s very relaxing. In the Western world, we find so many different things to blame if things go wrong — and things always go wrong. But in Islam, you can always blame the Infidel for everything. And that’s what Musilms do, with their conspiracy theorizing, all the time.

6. So that’s why criminals and homicidal maniacs find Islam so attractive. Do you know of any homicidal maniacs who decided to convert to Judaism or Buddhism? No, I haven’t, either. And if a criminal converts to Christianity, say in prison, aren’t we all relieved to hear it, don’t you feel he’s done the one thing that might help change him? Of course you do. Now imagine the glad tidings reach you that that same prisoner converted not to Christianity, but to Islam. Now how do you feel?

Islam udfolder sig i Levanten

En far stener sin datter til døde i Levanten efter islams foreskrifter.

Robert Spencer pointerer normaliteten

Stoning adulterers is not “extremist”; it is Islamic law. The caliph Umar, one of Muhammad’s closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur’an:

‘Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” ‘Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 8.82.816)

“Allah’s Apostle” is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

The Jews came to Allah’s Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah’s Apostle said to them, “What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?” They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them.” Abdullah bin Salam said, “You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm.” They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, “Lift your hand.” When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, “Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. (‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, “I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.” (Bukhari 4.56.829)

I Kobanes ruiner fandt man det måske mest foruroligende billede til dato på en død gedekneppers mobiltelefon

0011699707

Raymond Ibrahim skriver i Middle East Forum om sexslaver i islam

During Muhammad’s jihad on the Jews of Khaybar, he took for himself from among the spoils of war one young woman, a teenager, Safiya bint Huyay, after hearing of her beauty. (Earlier the prophet had bestowed her on another Muslim jihadi, but when rumor of her beauty reached him, the prophet reneged and took her for himself.)

Muhammad “married” Safiya hours after he had her husband, Kinana, tortured to death in order to reveal hidden treasure. And before this, the prophet’s jihadis slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.

While Islamic apologists have long tried to justify this account—often by saying that Muhammad gave her the honor of “marriage” as opposed to being a concubine and that she opted to convert to Islam—they habitually fail to cite what Islamic sources record, namely Baladhuri’s ninth century Kitab Futuh al-Buldan (”Book of Conquests”).

According to this narrative, after the death of Muhammad, Safiya confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” before “marrying” (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.

So there it is. Muhammad seized for himself as rightfully earned booty (or ghanima) a young woman; he took her after killing everyone dear to her—husband, father, brothers, etc.

And, according to authoritative Islamic sources, she hated him for it.

If that is not rape, what is?

Islam er, som islam er og nu gives hele pakken.

Mere om muslimernes profet Muhammeds manglende eksistens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Og sådan ser det ud.

mideast-saudi-remakin_horo-2-965x543

Virker det ikke bekendt?

isengard1

Og sjovt nok ligner Orthanc i Isengard Germasolar anlægget i Andalusien

germasolar-power-plantAesthetica totalitarianism.

Livet i Kalifatet

En kort rapportage om dagligdagen i Kalifatet.

Islamisk 30-års-krig eller 30 års islamisk krig?

Den arabisk muslimske verden ser ud til at bryde sammen i disse år. Ægyptens General El-Sissi er sikkert ganske sober når han påstår at han ved sit kup forhindrede Ægypten i at henfalde i en borgerkrig som den i Syrien-Irak. Men, hvis vi fokuserer på Syrien-Irak, hvad kan vi så alt andet lige se frem til? Richard Haas skrev i forrige måned i Project Syndicate at han kunne se en arabisk genopførsel af den europæiske Trediveårskrig

It is a region wracked by religious struggle between competing traditions of the faith. But the conflict is also between militants and moderates, fueled by neighboring rulers seeking to defend their interests and increase their influence. Conflicts take place within and between states; civil wars and proxy wars become impossible to distinguish. Governments often forfeit control to smaller groups – militias and the like – operating within and across borders. The loss of life is devastating, and millions are rendered homeless.

That could be a description of today’s Middle East. In fact, it describes Europe in the first half of the seventeenth century.

In the Middle East in 2011, change came after a humiliated Tunisian fruit vendor set himself alight in protest; in a matter of weeks, the region was aflame. In seventeenth-century Europe, a local religious uprising by Bohemian Protestants against the Catholic Habsburg Emperor Ferdinand II triggered that era’s conflagration.

Protestants and Catholics alike turned for support to their co-religionists within the territories that would one day become Germany. Many of the era’s major powers, including Spain, France, Sweden, and Austria, were drawn in. The result was the Thirty Years’ War, the most violent and destructive episode in European history until the two world wars of the twentieth century.

There are obvious differences between the events of 1618-1648 in Europe and those of 2011-2014 in the Middle East. But the similarities are many – and sobering. Three and a half years after the dawn of the “Arab Spring,” there is a real possibility that we are witnessing the early phase of a prolonged, costly, and deadly struggle; as bad as things are, they could well become worse.

Analogien til Trediveårskrigen rummer en falsk præmis om en lighed mellem kristendommen og islam. Trediveårskrigen afgjorde et konkret forhold mellem protestantismen og katolicismen, der erkendte at der eksisterede liv udenfor Kirken. Og den etablerede staterne og sikrede religionsfriheden i en orden, der alt i alt holdt til Napoleonskrigene, hvor en ny moderne virkelighed opstod med nye konflikter. Og selvfølgelig nye krige. Krigen mellem sunnier og shiaer er ikke ny og hadet mellem de to samt til alt andet er en indgroet del af religionernes essens og selvforståelse. Og mere klart bliver det ikke når Haas fortsætter

Islam never experienced something akin to the Reformation in Europe; the lines between the sacred and the secular are unclear and contested.

Moreover, national identities often compete with – and are increasingly overwhelmed by – those stemming from religion, sect, and tribe.

Den fremvoksende islamisme er reformationen, det er det muslimske råb ‘ad fontes’, det er bevidstgjorte muslimers opgør med ulemaens traditionelle fortolkningsret; sole scriptura. Islam kræver verdensherredømme og kan ikke finde hvile blot ved tanken om at der eksisterer dissidenter et sted i verden. Hvis denne krig varer tredive år vil den ikke slutte med en westfalsk fred, men blot med udmattelse indtil næste omgang. Det er også David P Goldmans anke mod Haas, som han skriver i Middle East Forum. For Goldman er krigen i Mellemøsten et demografisk fænomen mere end et strategisk og eksemplerne er trediveårskrigeNE

Wars of this sort end when two generations of fighters are killed. They last for decades (as did the Peloponnesian War, the Napoleonic Wars and the two World Wars of the 20th century) because one kills off the fathers in the first half of the war, and the sons in the second.

This new Thirty Years War has its origins in a demographic peak and an economic trough. There are nearly 30 million young men aged 15 to 24 in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran, a bulge generation produced by pre-modern fertility rates that prevailed a generation ago. But the region’s economies cannot support them. Syria does not have enough water to support an agricultural population, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of farmers into tent cities preceded its civil war. The West mistook the death spasms of a civilization for an “Arab Spring,” and its blunders channeled the youth bulge into a regional war.

The way to win such a war is by attrition, that is, by feeding into the meat-grinder a quarter to a third of the enemy’s available manpower. Once a sufficient number of those who wish to fight to the death have had the opportunity to do so, the war stops because there are insufficient recruits to fill the ranks. That is how Generals Grant and Sherman fought the American Civil War, and that is the indicated strategy in the Middle East today.

It is a horrible business.

(…)

Three million men will have to die before the butchery comes to an end. That is roughly the number of men who have nothing to go back to, and will fight to the death rather than surrender.

Goldman fortsætter med kontrafaktiske analyser man kan nørde lidt med, hvis man er til den slags. Læsværdig er den i hvert fald.

Flames of War - Kalifatets krigserklæring til korsfarerne

Man kan lære meget om islam ved at høre muslimer selv fortælle. Husk at dette er en propagandavideo og sigter altså mod at ægge det muslimske sind. Derved er det også en god kilde til at forstå det muslimske sind. For eksempel vises dette billede fra Syriens parlament, hvor alle kvinderne har slørede ansigter

screendum-fra-flames-of-war-ingen-kvinder1

Men: “WARNING: Insufferable chants during the whole video. Could cause brain cancer or worst!!!” skriver oploaderen venligt og den advarsel er hermed givet videre.

Krigen mod islam bliver sværere at benægte

Vi har vænnet os til det gennem mange år med muslimsk terror. Hver gang muslimer begår grusomheder i islams navn mod tilfældige mennesker rundt omkring på kloden føler vores kære ledere sig kaldet til islam, eller i det mindste kaldet til at redde islams anseelse. Om og om igen.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Allahu akbar - BUM! Nej, det er ikke islam, islam er fredens religion.

Osv, osv. Man kan kun bortforklare en trend så mange gange.

Islam beskrives i negationer, når ikke man kan påstå at det er fredens religion, hvilket Bush var slem til, skriver Jonah Goldberg. Og man må give Goldberg ret i, at muslimer, der kan deres koran og deres profets perfekte forbillede, opretter en islamisk stat, styret af sharia med en kalif på toppen jo så heller ikke ligefrem er lutherdom, katoliscisme eller Vennernes Religiøse Samfund. Særligt fordummende finder jeg Obamas truisme med at ingen religion godkender drab på uskyldige. Hvad er skyld? Som en terrorist på Achille Lauro svarede svarede passagerene da de gik i forbøn for en invalid jødisk amerikaner, der skulle myrdes “I siger han er uskyldig - uskyldig i hvad?”. I islam er alle skyldige, der ikke er de rette muslimer. Og mod de skyldige bedriver man Jihad, som Denis MacEoin beskriver for Gatestone Institute

There are estimates of some 164 jihad verses in the Qur’an. And those do not include innumerable passages commanding or describing holy war in the Hadith, or the prophet’s biography. A few examples (translations by the author) include:

“Let those who sell this world’s life for the hereafter fight in the way of God. For whoever fights in the way of God, whether he is killed or lives victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” 4: 74

“I will cast fear into the hearts of the unbelievers. Therefore behead them and cut off all their fingertips.” 8:12

“Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them, take them captives and besiege them, and waylay them by setting ambushes.” 9:5

Regrettably it is impossible to re-interpret the Qur’an in a “moderate” manner. The most famous modern tafsir, or interpretation, of the holy book is a multi-volume work entitled, In the Shade of the Qur’an. It was written by Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), the Muslim Brotherhood ideologue often regarded as the father of modern radicalism. His interpretation leads the reader again and again into political territory, where jihad is at the root of action.

The Qur’an contains many peaceful and tolerant verses, and these could well be used to create a genuine reformation — something several genuine reformers have tried to do. But there is a catch. All these moderate verses were written in the early phase of Muhammad’s career, when he lived in Mecca and had apparently decided to allure people. When he moved to Medina in 622, everything changed. He was soon a religious, political and military leader. During the next ten years, as his religious overtures were sometimes not welcomed, the peaceful verses gave way to the jihad verses and the intolerant diatribes against Jews, Christians and pagans. Almost all books of tafsir take for granted that the later verses abrogate the early ones. This means that the verses preaching love for all are no longer applicable, except with regard to one’s fellow Muslims. The verses that teach jihad, submission and related doctrines still form the basis for the approach of many Muslims to non-believers.

One problem is that no one can change the Qur’an in any way. If the book contains the direct word of God, then the removal of even a tiny diacritical mark or a dot above or beneath a letter would be blasphemy of the most extreme kind. Any change would suggest that the text on earth did not match the tablet in heaven — the “Mother of the Book,” much as Mary is the Mother of Christ — that is the eternal original of the Qur’an. If one dot could be moved, perhaps others could be moved, and before long words could be substituted for other words. The Qur’an itself condemns Jews and Christians for having tampered with their own holy books, so that neither the Torah nor the Gospels may be regarded as the word of God. The Qur’an traps us by its sheer unchangeability.

Det var i øvrigt hele baladen om De Sataniske Vers, selv ideen om at Fanden kunne have haft held til at ændre blot en lille smule i indholdet. Det hedder jo ikke Slutstenen og det Endelige Segl for ingenting.

Muslimer fra nær og fjern valfarter til Syrien og Irak for at være med. Et stk. kvindeligt sundhedspersonale med engelsk pas fremviser stolt et afhugget hoved, en gangster fra Danmark, en lærer fra Belgien, to teenagepiger på kneppetur fra Østrig, historierne mange, statistikkerne i udvikling. Kalifatet (ISIS, ISIL, IS, kært barn…) er inde i et halshugningmode som de stolt fremviser for verden. Og Raymond Ibrahim fortæller i Frontpage Magazine om denne evige muslimske glæde ved grusomhed

Thus we come to the following account concerning the slaughter of ‘Amr bin Hisham, a pagan Arab chieftain originally  known as “Abu Hakim” (Father of Wisdom) until Muhammad dubbed him “Abu Jahl” (Father of Stupidity) for his staunch opposition to Islam.

After ‘Amr was mortally wounded by a new convert to Islam during the Battle of Badr, Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, a close companion of Muhammad, saw the “infidel” chieftain collapsed on the ground.  So he went to him and started abusing him.  Among other things, Abdullah grabbed and pulled ‘Amr’s beard and stood in triumph on the dying man’s chest.

According to Al-Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya (“The Beginning and the End”), Ibn Kathir’s authoritiative history of Islam, “After that, he [Abdullah] cut his [‘Amr’s] head off and bore it till he placed it between the hands of the Prophet. Thus did Allah heal the hearts of the believers with it.”

This, then, is the true significance of Koran 9:14-15: “Fight them, Allah will torment them with your hands [mortally wounding and eventually decapitating ‘Amr], humiliate them [pulling his beard], empower you over them [standing atop him], and heal the hearts of the believers, removing the rage from their hearts [at the sight of his decapitated head].”

The logic here is that, pious Muslims are so full of zeal for Allah’s cause that the only way their inflamed hearts can be at rest is to see those who oppose Allah and his prophet utterly crushed—humiliated, mutilated, decapitated.  Then the hearts of the believers can be at ease and “healed.”

Danmark er også i krig med islam og det er den radikale udenrigsminister, der har erklæret det. Ja, man kan kalde det så meget andet end krig siger han og så er det ligesom en bagdør for radikal selvopfattelse når regningen skal betales. Men nu har de erklæret ISIS krig og de kan hoppe og danse alt hvad de vil og påstå at ISIS ikke islam. Men det er de mange sunnimuslimer ligeglade med, de kalder det kalifatet og de noterer sig at Danmark har erklæret det krig. Ikke et sekulært korrupt arabisk regime eller en perifær terrororganisation, men et genuint forsøg på et sunnimuslimsk kalifat. Det er, hvad Danmark reelt er gået i krig mod.

Og det er herligt for nu slutter denne falske krig og danskerne kan endelig få syn for sagn. Javist kommer der terror herhjemme, javist vil mennesker dø. Men det ville ske under alle omstændigheder, blot senere og mere intenst jo længere vi venter.

Kalifatet er et banesår for venstrefløjens islamopfattelse. Et større terrorkomplot er blevet forhindret ved en massiv politiaktion i Australien og Politikens overskrift var “Australsk politi slår til i kæmpe anti-terroraktion”. Ingen lyst til at afsløre gerningsmændene så tidligt. Men heller ingen grund. Ingen, end ikke Carsten Jenen, Anders Jerichow, bror Lidegaard eller nogle af deres læsere er i tvivl om, hvad den historie drejer sig om. Ingen er i tvivl om at der nu igen skal politikere på banen til at forklare at også disse engagerede muslimer, der kan koranen og Muhammeds forbillede udenad har misforstået det hele på nøjagtig samme måde som alle de andre muslimer hele tiden misforstår koranen..

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress