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

Kort dokumentar om Obamas forhold til Israel

Obama kan ikke lide Israel, det er næppe nogen hemmelighed.

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.

Lang vej hjem for venstrefløjens selvransagelse

Arabiske forår, Diverse, Jihad, Kalifatet, Multikultur, Muslimer, Racisme, Terror, USA, islam, venstrefløjen — Drokles on October 15, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Skuespilleren Ben Afflecks udfald mod Bill Maher og Sam Harris jeg omtalte forleden demonstrerede et skisma hos venstrefløjen i forhold til realiteternes verden og egne værdier. Maher og Harris prøvede at stille venstrefløjen (liberals) til ansvar for deres svigt af deres egne liberale værdier når det ikke handlede om arvefjenderne blandt kristne og konservative hvide amerikanere og andre vesterlændinge. Som svar fik de en vred dosis argumentresistent udskamning (så kan de prøve det til en forandring). Vist er det amerikanske forhold, men deres venstrefløj er blot mere moderne end vores, der i højere grad hænger fast i marxisme og socialisme. Den danske venstrefløj står i samme realitetskrise så det amerikanske eksempel er lidt interessant at se på.

Den venstresnoede Peter Beinart kommer nemlig Ben Affleck til undsætning og advarer mod “Bill Maher’s Dangerous Critique of Islam”. Beinart trækker på Harvard professor Schlesingers manifest fra 1949 The Vital Center, hvori Schlesinger, som Bill Maher, opfordrer til ikke at stirre sig blind på nogen fløj, men bekæmpe antiliberale holdninger, hvor end de er. Som venstrefløjen svigter ved kritikken af islamisk praksis, svigtede den tidligere ved at holde hånden over kommunismen. Men, for der er ifølge Beinart et men

Where Maher goes wrong is in forgetting two other lessons of the liberal anti-totalitarian tradition. The first is to be precise about what you’re opposing. The second, to not get so carried away with your own virtue that you end up justifying terrible crimes.

Dette er to overraskende indvendinger og som viser at Breinart ikke har forstået eller ikke vil acceptere Maher og Harris kritik, blot på et højere plan end Afflecks . For Maher og Harris var netop meget specifikke med at det var en specifik religion og de angreb den kyndigt og specifik, så langt som debatten ikke blev forsøgt udskammet af Affleck. For det andet er det en uretfærdig anklage mod netop Maher, hvis eneste ideologiske selvkritik synes at være venstrefløjens blinde islamvinkel. Resten af Maher virke er et langt udfald mod kristne, konservative og mennesker der ved noget om klimaet.

Men Beinart uddyber sin pseudokritik af hvad han opfatter som Mahers og Harris manglende præcision

As Graham Greene wrote of Alden Pyle, the idealistic CIA agent in his novel, The Quiet American, “He was impregnably armoured by his good intentions and his ignorance.”

Maher is similarly armored today. It’s one thing to denounce the Saudi monarchy for its fanatical illiberalism. Like Stalin’s dictatorship, it’s a particular regime in a particular place. But to imply that Islamism—and by extension organizations such as Tunisia’s Ennahda Party or Turkey’s AKP, both of which have won democratic elections—are just milder versions of ISIS is dangerously sloppy. As Kennan insisted again and again, national circumstances often play a larger role in determining how cultures and political systems function than do transnational beliefs.

That’s especially true when the ideology isn’t even Islamism but Islam. Maher wants Americans to denounce Islam because while “all religions are stupid, Islam just happens to be the one right now, in this century, that’s most dangerous and violent.” That’s a wild overgeneralization. “Islam” is not violent or peaceful, dangerous or benign. Like every great religion, it includes a vast array of diverse and often contradictory teachings, which different people interpret in different ways in different places and times. Yes, in some Muslim-majority countries, women and religious minorities are treated brutally. But that has far more to do with their particular national circumstances than with the fact that Muslims populate them. After all, other Muslim-majority countries have elected female heads of state. To lump together Indonesia and Yemen because both countries are mostly Muslim makes about as much sense as lumping together Ireland and the Dominican Republic because both countries are mostly Catholic.

Restraining the evil that lurks within our own culture requires facing our own history of terrible crimes.

Men igen, det var især Harris og Mahers pointe at islam og muslimer ikke er synonyme, den pointe som Affleck heller ikke fangede da promte han kaldte det racisme. Islam er et manifest, som Schesingers manifest af 1949 er et manifest. Muslimer er mange, som venstreorienterede er mange. “Are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam?  You’re the interpreter of that?” udbrød Affleck udner debatten med Maher og Harris uanfægtet af den banalitet at der er en udlægning af islam - og af The Vital Center i øvrigt - uafhængigt af Mahers og Harris mening. Eller en vox-pop af bymuslimer et sted i verden for den sags skyld.

Manifester som koranen er skrevet så de ikke skal misforstås. Islam påstår en simpel udlægning, det er Allahs sidste klare befaling til hans slaver og for at udrydde enhver tvivl har han sendt Muhammed som budbringer så man har et pratisk eksempel til at forstå teorien. Hvor der er modstrid abrogerer de nyeste vers de ældste ud fra den klokkeklare logik at Muhammeds befalinger var stadigt mindre slørede af en fjendtlig omverden efterhånden som hans magt steg mod det absolutte. Af det følger logisk at det ikke giver mening at tale om at overgeneralisere islam da islam er et - i modsætning til mennesker, der er mange. Derfor er det ikke variationer i islam man kan observere når brutaliteten varier i islamiske samfund men variationer i de islamiske samfund.

Men hvorfor insisterer venstrefløjsere som Affleck og Beinart på at afvise banale sandheder og rationaler? Daniel Greenfield giver en hård analyse af venstrefløjens patologiske totalitarister og deres instinktive hang til overgangskrav i Frontpage Magazine

Ben Affleck isn’t a liberal. He’s an enthusiast of revisionist Communist historian Howard Zinn. The modern liberal of today is uninterested in identifying “illiberalism” since he is an illiberal man of the left. The most significant difference between the two is not simply political, but psychological. Liberals used to think about issues. Leftists respond to ideological cues while operating on a purely tribal wavelength.

Affleck’s assertion that criticizing Islam is racist is impossible to argue with. It’s completely wrong on multiple levels, but it’s not an argument. It’s a denunciation. It doesn’t advance an argument; it rejects the argument and the arguer as illegitimate. And it’s an ideological cue telling everyone else to follow.

Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse. The denunciation places the target outside the consensus. Calling Maher a “racist” makes him a Tea Party member no matter how much he clings to a liberal identification. It makes him an outsider.

(…)

Gays, feminists and Muslims are a means to the left. They are not the reason why the left does things.

The left builds coalitions of disruption with interest groups. It doesn’t care about those groups. It’s just using them to get what it really wants which is a totalitarian state in which the consensus can implement all of its horrible ideas without any interference. Muslims are the newest coalition member and their disruption skills are impressive. Just look at how they managed to turn the Bush Administration around.

That doesn’t mean that the left cares about Muslims. It would toss them under the bus before they could shout “Allah Akhbar” if it suited the consensus. The liberal defenders of Islam have chosen not to read the Koran. They know next to nothing about Islam except that it’s a minority group. And that’s how they like it. That way they can shout down any criticism with cries of “Racism” because they’re too lazy to even bother stringing enough letters together to shout “Islamophobe”. That’s how little they care.

(…)

Leftists don’t value equality, they value disruption. If they can disrupt by promoting equality, they will do it. If they can disrupt by promoting inequality, they will do that. If they can disrupt by promoting gay marriage, promoting Islamists, promoting the environment, promoting unregulated industry, promoting freedom of speech or promoting hate speech laws, they will do those things in order of opportunism.

Their underlying goal is to replace existing ideas and systems with their own. Anything that serves that purpose is good. Anything that maintains the existing order is bad.

The very concept of universal standards that Maher is appealing to is foreign to the modern liberal. He doesn’t believe that there is a universal standard. He views the world as tribally as a Taliban. He can’t see behaviors as good or evil in isolation, but only in relation to ideological cues. He derives his heroes and villains from the tribal affinities of the left, not from the things that they actually do.

That’s why he wears a Che t-shirt while calling Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic for opposing Obama.

På den baggrund forstår man bedre en anekdote Raymond Ibrahim fortæller i et glimrende indlæg om Affleck -Maher i Frontpage Magazine

Towards the end, a frustrated Affleck, unable to respond, exclaimed, “What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what?”

These are interesting questions in that they reveal the true position of the apologist. I have encountered this phenomenon often, most memorably in a public debate with Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi.   Towards the end of the debate, he declared “You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?”

What this line of reasoning suggests is that the apologist believes there is no other recourse than to be an apologist; that the best policy is to ignore Islam’s violence and intolerance, since the alternative—open acknowledgement—will lead to something worse, a clash of civilizations. War. And that must be avoided at all costs—so let us pretend.

Det amerikanske netmagasin Think Progress misforstod i første omgang Bill Mahers og Sam Harris kritik og mente at Maher gjorde sig skyld i “generalizing Islam“.

Yet in using the same kind of reasoning that officials have espoused to perpetuate Islamophobia, Maher and Harris mixes the violent actions of a few with millions of Muslims who are leading the initiative to show Islam as a peaceful religion.

Countering the conflation of the actions of a terrorist organization to millions of Muslim adherents, the brother of David Haines, who was beheaded by ISIS, reiterated the point that Islam is about peace and love. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has said that the group is “not a true form of Islam.” As ThinkProgress’ Igor Volsky and Jack Jenkins previously argued, the Islamic State is not Islamic: the terrorist organization does not abide by many of its fundamental tenets of Islam, like committing to peace or giving regard to the welfare of women and children. Instead, the terrorist group has committed systematic, gruesome violence, while a United Nations report released Thursday found that the group sold women and girls into sex slavery and forced children to become child soldiers. What’s more, nearly every American Muslim organization has roundly condemned the ideology and actions of the terrorist group, with some petitioning the name of the terrorist group be changed to “Unislamic State.”

Flere læsere udtrykte deres skuffelse på Facebook over at Think Progress ikke forstod, hverken Harris og Mahers pointer som de ikke vidste noget om islam. Efter mere end en uges debat er Think Progress ikke kommet videre, men holder stædigt fast i deres støtte til Afflecks position. Her omtaler

A Fox News host became visibly angry on Monday while trying to defend comedian Bill Maher’s comments about Islam. On Friday, the “Real Time” host argued that Islam “is the only religion that acts like the mafia” as he expanded on his claim that the “vast numbers of Muslims want humans to die for holding a different idea.”

In a segment about those remarks, Fox News host Bill Hemmer battled with two guests who took issue with Maher’s broad characterization. As they condemned the HBO host for painting the world’s one billion Muslims with too broad a brush, Hemmer insisted that Maher was accurate in his characterization.

“How do you define what’s bigotry and what’s just reality?” he asked, defending Maher’s position. After both guests criticized Maher’s comments, Hemmer interjected, telling them that they were “missing the point here.” “[Maher] is arguing about 2014,” he explained, implying that the religion is currently overflowing with terrorists.

As guest Bernard Whitman pointed out that “[Maher] indicted a billion Muslims with that comment,” Hemmer interrupted in frustration. “I can’t believe I’m defending Bill Maher!” he exclaimed, before insisting that the comedian was only referring to “radical Islam.”

Watch the exchange:

“The issue is not the religion of Islam, the issue is the politicization in the Islamic organizations that are using Islam as a crutch and as a shield to hide their true terrorist nature,” Whitman told Hemmer. Indeed, nearly every American Muslim organization and Muslim leaders around the world have condemned the ideology and actions of terrorists and ISIS, with some petitioning the name of the terrorist group be changed to “Unislamic State.”

Fox News has a lot history of trying to conflate terrorists with Islam. Fox host Steve Doocy has claimed that President Obama went to a “madrassa” and was possibly a Muslim extremist, Brian Kilmeade suggested “special screenings” for Muslim American soldiers after the Fort Hood shootings in 2009 and linked a commonly-used Arabic phrase to terrorism. Most recently, Bill O’Reilly criticized Bowe Bergdahl’s dad for looking too much like a Muslim.

ISIS er en sandhedens time ikke blot for den muslimske verden, en også for venstrefløjen. Islam er ikke længere en eksotisk abstrakt størrelse, hvis handlinger kan bortforklares med at den er underlagt allehånde politiske, imperialistiske og sociale strukturer. Nu har islam sit eget ubesmittede land at udleve sine grusomheder på, nu får alle syn for sagn. Seeing is believing, som man siger.

BEN AFFLECK: How about more than a billion people who aren’t fanatical, who don’t punch women, who just want to go to school, have some sandwiches, pray 5 times a day, and don’t do any of the things you’re saying of all Muslims. It’s stereotyping.

SAM HARRIS, AUTHOR: I’m not saying all Muslims –

AFFLECK: Some of them do bad things and you’re painting the whole religion with that broad brush.

MAHER: Wait, let’s get down to who has the right answer here. A billion people, you say.

AFFLECK: A billion five.

MAHER: All these billion people don’t hold these pernicious beliefs?

AFFLECK: They don’t.

MAHER: That’s just not true, Ben. That’s just not true. You’re trying to say that these few people, that’s all the problem is, these few bad apples. The idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic

AFFLECK: That’s horrible.

MAHER: But you’re saying the idea that someone should be killed if they leave the Islamic religion is just a few bad apples?

AFFLECK: The people who would actually believe in that you murder someone if they leave Islam is not the majority of Muslims at all…

SAM HARRIS: Just imagine you have some concentric circles. You have at the center, you have jihadists, these are people who wake up wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying. They believe in paradise, they believe in martyrdom. Outside of them, we have Islamists, these are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity but they want to work within the system. They’re not going to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, they want to use democracy against itself. Those two circles arguably are 20% of the Muslim world.

BEN AFFLECK: What are you basing that research on?

HARRIS: There are a bunch of poll results that we can talk about. To give you one point of contact: 78% of British Muslims think that the Danish cartoonist should have been prosecuted. 78%. So, I’m being conservative when I roll this back to 20%. But outside of that circle you have conservative Muslims who can honestly look at ISIS and say that does not represent us, we’re horrified by that but they hold views about human rights, and about women, and about homosexuals that are deeply troubling. So, these are not Islamists, they are not jihadists, but they often keep women and homosexuals immiserated in these cultures and we have to empower the true reformers in the Muslim world to change it. And lying about doctrine and this behavior is not going to do that…

MICHAEL STEELE, FMR. RNC CHAIR: So having said that, even if that is true, statistically or otherwise, the key thing to recognize that I don’t think is part of the argument but I think should be is that there are voices that are oftentimes raised in opposition to these jihadists and to these extreme acts but, guess what, they don’t covered, they don’t get exposed. And they’re not on the same level platform that we see jihadists get.

BILL MAHER: One reason they don’t get exposed is because they’re afraid to speak out because it’s the only religion that acts like the mafia that will fucking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture or write the wrong book. There’s a reason why Ayaan Hirsi Ali needs bodyguards 24/7…

AFFLECK: What is your solution? To condemn Islam? To do what? We’ve killed more Muslims than they’ve killed us by an awful lot. We’ve invaded more –

MAHER: I’m not for more dead Muslims.

AFFLECK: And somehow we’re exempt from these things because they’re not really a reflection of what we believe in. We did it by accident, that’s why we invaded Iraq.

MAHER: We’re not convincing anybody here.

AFFLECK: I’m simply telling you that I disagree with you.

MAHER: I understand, and we’re obviously not convincing anybody here.

HARRIS: You don’t understand my argument.

AFFLECK: Your argument is, “You know, black people, they shoot each other” –

MAHER: It’s not! No, it’s not. It’s based on facts. I can show you a Pew poll of Egyptians. They are not outliers in the Muslims world. It’s like 90% of them believe death is the appropriate response to leaving the religion. If 90% of Brazilians thought that death was the appropriate response to leaving Catholicism you would think it was a bigger deal.

AFFLECK: I would think it’s a big deal no matter what.

MAHER: Okay, well, that’s the facts.

AFFLECK: I wouldn’t say it’s all Brazilians, or I wouldn’t say, “Well, Ted Bundy did this. God damn these gays, they’re all trying to eat each other.”

HARRIS: Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith siresly, who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.

AFFLECK: ISIS couldn’t couldn’t full a AA ballpark in Charleston, West Virginia and you want to make a career out of ISIS, ISIS, ISIS.

MAHER: No we’re not. That’s the opposite.

HARRIS: No, it’s not just ISIS, it’s all jihadists. It’s a phenomenon of global jihad.

MAHER: I think that’s the opposite of what we’re doing.

AFFLECK: There is those things. There is ISIS, there is global jihadists. The question is the degree to which you’re willing to say, because I’ve witnessed this behavior, which we all object to on part of these people, I’m willing to flatly condemn those of you I don’t know and never met.

MAHER: They’re not willing. This is based on reality.

HARRIS: It’s not condemning people, it’s ideas.

MAHER: It’s based on reality, Ben. We’re not take it up that in the Muslim world it is mainstream belief.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF: This is such a caricature of Indonesia, of Malaysia, of so much of the world. And this does have a tinge a little bit of how white racists talk about African-American and define blacks by –

MAHER: What you’re saying is because they are a minority, we shouldn’t criticize.

AFFLECK: It’s not a minority, it’s the second biggest religion in the world.

MAHER: Exactly, but you’re treating them like a minority. I mean if Filipinos were capturing teenagers and sending them into white slavery, we would criticize that. We wouldn’t say, oh, well, they’re Filipinos.

AFFLECK: You would criticize the people who are doing it, not the Philippines. A Filipino kid who lives on the streets has nothing to do with that. These are different things.

Cirka samtidig i New Yorks gader flasher muslimerne en flig af deres muslimske sentiment

Forstå ISIS med 10 koranvers

Arabiske forår, Hamas, Jihad, Kalifatet, Muslimer, islam, muhammed — Drokles on October 15, 2014 at 4:33 am

Glimrende pædagogisk gennemgang af islams doktriner af David Wood. Når alle vores kære ledere igen og igen føler sig kaldet til at redde islams renomme ved den og den terroraktion eller ved halshugninger af ISIS eller småpigeudsalg hos Boko Haram falder det dem aldrig at de nøk for nøk negerer deres egen påstand. Man kan kun forkaste noget som en anomali så mange gange førend det er en trend.

Og de har da heller ikke noget at have deres spin og overspændte damage control i. ISIS er islam, islam er Boko Haram, Boko Haramm er Hamas og så videre. Og således er det morsomt på sin egen bedrøvelige facon at de kalder islam for den rene ondskab uden at ville være ved det.

I deres forstillelse taler de om en fredens religion (Der skal blive fred, når den hår fået sin endelige vilje - som med alle totalitarismer) og går måske så langt som til at citere misforstået om næstekærlighed i islam (der kun gælder muslimer hvis man også medlæser det indledende forbehold) eller at der ingen tvang er i religion (som forudsætter at alt alligevel står skrevet). Men ak, Koranen er ikke en opslagsbog af bon mot’er til selskabsleg:

2:106 - We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

Skønt David Wood har helt ret i at dette vers 2:106 der fortæller at senere og altid voldelige(re) vers ophæver de tidligere og mere indsmigrende indtil det servile er det helt centrale til at defineret budskabernes hierarki og derved Koranens essens, så vil jeg alligevel hæfte mig ved vers 47:35

47:35 So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds.

Det forklarer hvorfor ingen opblødning af islam har været mulig - hvorfor sufier og lignende udspring kun er marginaliserede sekter, der må døje med undertrykkelse og forfølgelse, hvis monotoni kun afløses af terror. Det er den egentlige forklaring på at det fleste ofre for islamisk vold er muslimer. For alle sagtmodige muslimer skal blive jaget vildt. De optimistiske modernister fra Naser Khader til Yildiz Akdogan har ikke en chance, de står først på listen.

Det er amoralsk at svigte sin dømmekraft, som Thirteen Days lader Kennedy sige.

Vi er i krig - og det er med islam

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Diverse, Indvandring, Jihad, Kalifatet, Multikultur, Muslimer, Obama, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on October 4, 2014 at 9:54 am

Politikere tror de ændre verden med ord. Trods alt kan de ændre deres karriere med ord. Men at sætte en dagsorden for en tid er ikke det samme som at bestemme over virkeligheden. Man kan ikke definere sig ud af problemerne, højst skjule dem en rum til ; til efter valget eller bedre tider (hvad der kommer først). Politikerne kan ikke frit bestemme om det at angribe med militære midler er en krig eller ej for krig er krig uanset civiliserede spidsfindigheder. Politiken har en glimrende oplysningsmættet og pædagogisk artikel, der uddyber, hvad Thorning mente, da hun sagde at vi teknisk ikke var i krig

Hvis man ser stringent på juraen, så er Danmark ikke i krig. For selve det juridiske begreb »krig« blev afskaffet for omkring 65 år siden, fortæller jurist og ph.d. Peter Vedel Kessing, der er seniorforsker ved Institut for Menneskerettigheder.

»Krig er et begreb, man ikke bruger i folkeretten længere. Det brugte man i gamle dage før Anden Verdenskrig, men det blev afskaffet i 1949 med Geneve-konventionen«, fortæller han.

I stedet taler Geneve-konventionen om »væbnede konflikter«. Altså konflikter, hvor der bliver brugt våben til at løse dem. Konventionen opstiller en række regler og retningslinjer, som skal overholdes i disse konflikter.

Når man droppede ordet »krig«, så skyldes det, at begrebet var blevet for politisk, og at det var blevet uklart, hvad det præcist betød. Der var derfor brug for et stringent juridisk begreb, og det blev altså »væbnet konflikt«. Så langt så godt. Danmark er altså juridisk set ikke i krig, for krig findes ikke som juridisk begreb.

LÆS ARTIKELBredt flertal har stemt ja: Danmark går endnu engang i krig

Dertil kommer, at der er to former for væbnede konflikter.

Den ene er en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Her kan vi nævne krigen mellem Iran og Irak i 1980′erne, men mere relevant for nutidens dagsorden er krigen mellem Irak og den amerikansk ledede koalition af lande, herunder Danmark. Dengang i 2003 var Danmark i international væbnet konflikt med Irak. Vi var - i folkemunde - i krig.

Der gik dog ikke længe, før Iraks diktator Saddam Hussein var væltet, og dermed ophørte den internationale væbnede konflikt. Der kom en ny irakisk regering, og da landet ikke blev mere fredeligt af, at Saddam Hussein var væk - snarere tværtimod - så bad den irakiske regering Danmark og andre lande om at blive i landet og hjælpe med at skabe sikkerhed.

Med base i Basra var Danmark altså ikke længere part i en international væbnet konflikt mellem stater. Derimod hjalp vi en stat med at beskytte sig mod forskellige oprørsgrupper, der truede staten Irak. Vi blev ifølge juraen i Geneve-konventionen part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt.

Og nu gentager historien sig. I samme land.

»Med beslutningen om at deltage i koalitionen med kampfly er Danmark dermed part i en ikke-international væbnet konflikt. Vi hjælper den irakiske regering med at nedkæmpe en oprørsgruppe, nemlig Islamisk Stat«, siger Peter Vedel Kessing.

Men krig er krig uanset hjemlig politisk indpakning og folkeretsligt juristeri (sjovt i øvrigt så meget fokus man har på at skelne mellem de forskellige former for væbnet konflikt når man mindes den unuancerede harme over amerikanernes juridiske og administrative dilemmaer med non-combatanter og Gitmo). Politikerne kan heller ikke tale sig ud af, hvem der føler sig angrebet. Når Vesten begynder at bombe ISIS nede i muslimland så føler muslimerne sig angrebet. Det betyder ikke en pind, hvor meget Obama, Cameron og Thorning forsikrer at det ikke er islam de bomber, men nogen der  ikke er rigtige muslimer og som udnytter islam. Særligt slemme var Venstres hårde hund Inger Støjberg, der talte om en ugudelig misfortolkning på sin FB side, kun overgået af hendes formand og Danmarks måske kommende statsminister Lars Løkke, der i msiforstået hensyn mente at islam var blevet voldtaget af ISIS. Virkeligt? Når muslimmænd går amok i vrede og råber ‘jeg knepper dig’ som den ultimative hån, så finder Løkke det religiøst sensitivt at sige at islam er sådan noget som bliver kneppet for alle at se? Men uanset hvad vestlige ledere end måtte bedyre så mener muslimer sig under angreb. Islam er et hele, en nation, den hedder Umma. Det svarer til at vi bombede Hong Kong mens vi bedyrede hvilken skændsel det var for det rigtige Kina.

End ikke oprørene i Syrien er begejstrede, som man kan læse i Syria Pulse

Several rebel factions have issued statements of dissatisfaction with the alliance’s strikes for not targeting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Hazem movement said in a statement obtained by Al-Monitor, “The airstrikes are considered a violation of national sovereignty and an attack against the Syrian revolution. We will only work according to the revolution’s priorities, not according to the will of the international alliance.”

Hazem, which falls within the category of the moderate opposition and was among the first groups that received US TOW missiles, said, “The only side benefiting from the foreign intervention in Syria is Assad’s regime, especially in the absence of a real strategy to topple it.”

The movement condemned the deaths of civilians following the alliance’s raids on Idlib and Homs. One of the inhabitants who had returned from Kfar Daryan in the Aleppo countryside told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity that 12 civilians had been killed by the alliance’s raids, most of them children from the Barakat family, saying, “Four shells targeted Jabhat al-Nusra’s locations, but the fifth one fell on the town and killed the inhabitants of two houses that were completely destroyed.”

Og ifølge teksten til videoen herunder så går moderate muslimer i Syrien i solidaritets demonstration i protest mod bombningerne af ISIS

The Ahrar al-Sham “moderate” rebel group that belongs to the “Islamic Front” conglomerate of “moderate” Islamist brigades, which is mainly supported - both financially and militarily - by Saudi Arabia, came out today in support of the “Islamic State” (aka ISIL or ISIS) and al-Qaeda’s Jabhat al-Nusra terror groups against the US-led coalition. Protestors can be seen in Houla (Homs province) carrying ISIL flags and shouting slogans against the establishment of a secular state.

Og herhjemme var Erik Westergaard til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus og beskrev sin oplevelse på Facebook

For et par uger siden var jeg til fredagsbøn i Grimhøjmoskeen i Århus. Jeg søgte ud over oplevelsen, nogle konkrete informationer og mere viden om bestemte ting. Det var en ret voldsom oplevelse og stemningen var mildt sagt noget trykket for den ene hvide mand, blandt ca. 300 knap så hvide mænd !

Sidst mødte jeg bla. 3 meget forskellige mænd som jeg alle efterfølgende har talt med. Det har medført yderligere et besøg ved fredagsbønnen i dag. Hvis der var sort af mennesker sidst, var det intet at regne for deltagelsen i dag.

Det var umuligt at finde en parkeringsplads i nærheden, så jeg parkerede på en mark over 400 meter væk. Der var mindst 3-400 biler i området og så mange mennesker at jeg må sige +500 i og omkring moskeen. Bemærkede 3 biler hvori der sad “danske” kvinder, de sad der også jeg kom tilbage, måske de ventede, det så sådan ud !

Var stemningen træls sidst, var den direkte modbydelig denne gang, men for sent…. jeg havde allerede taget skoene af. Jeg blev hurtigt glad for at have været der før og derfor “kendte stedet”. Der var rigtig mange der meget gerne lige ville ha et par ord med mig… Hvad laver du her, tar du billeder, er du fra politi, er du journalist osv. osv. Prøvede med humoren, men den virker bare ikke her ! Så det var stoneface og fuld skrue på entreen.

Imamen - der sidst gik frisk til opgaven - gik fra start yderligere 2-3 trin/niveauer op ad stigen og både råbte og skreg og jeg skal love for der blev udbasuneret nogle budskaber ! Stemningen var bare alt andet end hjertelig.

Ved et tilfælde mødte jeg en af mine “nye venner” Ahmed, der noget forbløffet spurgte hvad jeg lavede der ? “Det samme som dig, svarede jeg….. Sender lidt bønner afsted.

“Du er ikke rask… du må gå, sagde han. Det er ikke i dag du skal være her. Mange er ikke glade….
Bingo…. så faldt 10øren (dumme jyde) Havde et kort øjeblik glemt vi i går morges havde sendt 7 stk. F16 til Mellemøsten for at bombe !! Og det var i høj grad det der var galt !

Selv om jeg til tider står lidt lavt i tændingen, fattede jeg budskabet og fortrak inden bønnen var færdig. Jeg gik før alle samles oppe foran Imamen. Heldigvis nåede jeg at tale med yderligere 2 mennesker, hvilket jeg fik en del ud af, så forgæves var det ikke.

På vejen ud tog jeg en hurtig selfie, hvilket lynhurtigt fik 3 unge Somaliere til at samles om mig for at spørge om jeg tog billeder. Nej svarede jeg - jeg sælger kun billeder, men det er en anden historie ! Jeg fortrak og noterede mig, at der nu også ved Grimøjmoskeen ses IS flag i bilerne (2 stk.). Politiet kunne i øvrigt med nogen succes, aflægge stedet et besøg en fredag, sidst var der 2 biler uden nummerplader, denne gang mindst 5.

Og fra den lokale afdeling af Mordor i København Mjølnerparken

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro-iii1

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro

muslimsk-optog-pa-nc3b8rrebro-ii

Og hverken i Danmark eller Holland er det nu sikkert at færdes i sin militæruniform i sit fædreland. Efterhånden som missionen med den væbnede intervenøse aktion eskalerer vil kontrasterne kun stå stadigt skarpere og skarpere mellem dem og os. Vi er i krig og fjenden bor i vores gader.

Arabiske årstider forklaret

For en del år tilbage efterhånden blev fremtidige engelske vintre aflyst og ville være at minde man fortalte sine forundrede børn. Det var den logiske konklusion på den globale opvarmning. Derpå væltede sneen ned de følgende år. Det var ligeledes den kontraintuitive følge af global opvarmning. For at tage endnu et spring i logikken, så blev det arabiske forår også til af den globale opvarmning. Og da den globale opvarmning insisterede slog det arabiske forår direkte over i det arabiske efterår uden nogen sommer. Nu ser det ud som om den globale opvarmning er løbet helt løbsk og skabt den arabiske vinter fortæller Huffington Post

As the Obama administration undertakes a highly public, multilateral campaign to degrade and destroy the militant jihadists known as ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State, many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria’s extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad’s government. Rage at the regime’s callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians.

While ISIS threatens brutal violence against all who dissent from its harsh ideology, climate change menaces communities (less maliciously) with increasingly extreme weather. Most of us perceive these threats as unrelated. We recycle water bottles and buy local produce to keep the earth livable for our children — not to ward off terrorists. Yet environmental stressors and political violence are connected in surprising ways, sparking questions about collective behavior. If more Americans knew how glacial melt contributes to catastrophic weather in Afghanistan — potentially strengthening the Taliban and imperiling Afghan girls who want to attend school — would we drive more hybrids and use millions fewer plastic bags? How would elections and legislation be influenced?

The drought that preceded the current conflict in Syria fits into a pattern of increased dryness in the Mediterranean and Middle East, for which scientists hold climate change partly responsible.

Daniel Greenfield forklarer glimrende venstrefløjens tilsyneladende autistiske logik i Frontpage Magazine

It’s all a matter of how you connect the dots.

Democrats think that Global Warming is a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda. That’s the profitable notion that Al Gore has been selling for some time. When ISIS began making headlines, lefty publications scurried to explain how ISIS had been caused by Global Warming. If you can’t get rid of ISIS, you can always promise to make it go away with another few billion for Bay Area Green Tech liberal donors.

That’s why Homeland Security is focusing on Global Warming. Why bother with Islam when the root cause of Islamic terrorism turns out to be neither Islam nor terrorism, but your failure to buy recycled toilet paper and pay much higher prices for energy. Instead of droning ISIS, we will drone on about sustainable sustainability and how eagles would rather be killed by wind turbines than by oil spills.

Ideas are roads to conclusion and conclusions lead to policies. If you want to control the policy, you have to control where the roads go. The media narratives are roads. If you take them, you can never reach the right conclusions because they just don’t go there. The media’s map of America has highways going from climate change to marriage equality to death panels. The policies we end up with are based on that map and the policies determine where all the money and the power end up.

If Islamic terrorism is a major threat then the money will go to defense contractors and security consultants, to building more drones and bombs. That means guys named Earl and Amos who wear sunglasses and have a background in the Agency and the Mossad are suddenly in demand. Transguys named Meaghan and Tad who wear retro eyeglasses ironically and did their thesis on using non-linear histrionic narratives to educate inner city children about climate change suddenly have to get real jobs.

But if Global Warming is a major threat, then money goes to environmental consultancies and non-profits, to propaganda for education and the arts, to Green Tech companies and Wall Street. And the consultants, bureaucrats and regulators gain a vast suite of expanded domestic and international powers. Meaghan and Tad are back and running every aspect of your life through their gigs at some non-profit you never heard of funded by a family foundation with Ford or Rockefeller in its name.

The War on Terror expanded the powers of domestic law enforcement, but it’s nothing compared to what the War for the Environment has done to the power of every bureaucrat large and small to raise your heating bill, outlaw your washing machine, eliminate your water supply and root through your trash. If you thought the TSA was bad, the carbon regime puts a carbon footprint value on everything you do from driving to the grocery store to buying a beer to viewing this website.

And then it decides which of your behaviors have to be changed and how.

Global Warming and the War on Terror empower different parts of the government and the assorted consultants and contractors who plug into them. Those people not only have political differences, but also major cultural differences. It’s no wonder that the media, whose writers, producers and talent are culturally a lot closer to Meaghan and Tad than to Earl and Amos, favors their narrative.

The Warmist side of government is also the more liberal side. The side that bombs ISIS doesn’t even understand why anyone would stand on line for two hours to buy fair trade artisanal pancakes.

A shift to the terror side of the dial means restrictions on immigration, more strong male role models and more domestic oil drilling. Tilt to the Warmist side and the emphasis is on letting Meaghan and Tad decide what you can buy, where you can live and whether you can live.

However only one of these crises is real and it isn’t the one that involves the planet burning up, the polar bears riding surfboards to San Francisco and Al Gore revealing that he was sent as a messenger from a distant alien civilization to convince us to change our ways. But that has never mattered before.

The left has a long history of diverting attention from real problems by inventing urgent crises.

I 1933 var den også gal, som Climate Depot minder os om

ScreenHunter_174 Sep. 03 22.08

Vi skal tage os i agt, for de sorte vinder terræn

Ordene er Klaus Rifbjergs og de er hans måske let vildledende overskrift på hans seneste opkast i Politiken.

På et tidspunk, hvor Politiken finder det passende at gøre Søren Krarup til en af det tyvende århundredes store (konservative) tænkere og blæser hans mugne fjæs op både på forsiden og inde i bladet, hvor Rune Lykkeberg træder sin sædvanlige træskodans med ét skridt frem og to tilbage, kan det måske være på sin plads at pege på et værk, der ikke har nogen direkte forbindelse til den jammerlige drejning i dansk åndsliv, hvor også Information giver spalteplads til en nedgroet negl som Mikael Jalving til at underholde de arme læsere med sin sikre overbevisning om, at typer som Ralf Pittelkow og Karen Jespersen en dag vil blive hyldet og få satisfaktion for al den tort og svie, de har måttet døje for deres kulsorte reaktion og udtalte fremmedhad.

Fra denne lange sætning af umotiveret galde glider Rifbjerg henover “’The Mexican Suitcase’, der rummer flere tusind genfundne negativer af Robert Capas, Gerda Taros og Chims (David Seymours) billedreportager fra den spanske borgerkrig” til en historielektion

Den legale spanske regering og alle, der sluttede op om den, kæmpede for demokratiet mod nazismen. Og blev totalt svigtet af demokratiet.

Der var ingen hjælp at hente, hverken fra England eller USA eller Frankrig. Til gengæld holdt det nazistiske Tyskland-Italien sig ikke tilbage, men forsynede Franco med alt det dræbende isenkram, han havde brug for. Hvilket betød, at slaget var tabt, før det var begyndt, og vejen til Anden verdenskrig banet.

Man kunne derfor tro at Rifbjerg var glad for at vi idag engagerer os sammen med de legale regeringer i Syrien og Irak med bombninger suppleret med våben og ekspertise. Men nej, Rifbjerg har en anden konklusion på demokratiernes svigt af Spanien

Ganske vist er vi nu igen i krig og bomber til højre og venstre i demokratiets navn og mod den rædselsfulde terror, som vi tror kan udryddes med TNT, men avler ti ny terrorister for hver én, vi får taget livet af.

Og mere behøver man ikke gøre ud af at opretholde illusionen om en rød tråd. For uanset hvad hænger Rifbjergs fjender Franco, ISIS og Søren Krarup sammen således

Også vi kan ende på landevejen med vores bylter og vores rædsel, hvis vi lader os sluge af den bekvemme tanke, at Vorherre ordner det hele, og hvis ikke han så Søren Krarup.

Ak ja, Rifbjerg er en færdig mand. Men tilbage til overskriften, for  jeg er enig; vi skal sandelig tage os iagt, de sorte vinder nemlig terræn. Forbered dem på en uhyggelig video

Hvad er forskellen mon?

Civile ofre kan ikke undgås, når danske kampfly kaster bomber mod Islamisk Stat i Irak, erkender udenrigsminister Martin Lidegaard. Men endnu flere uskyldige irakere vil blive dræbt, hvis vi lader være med at bombe, mener han.

Og han er Danmarks justitsminister Martin Lidegaard der taler salvelsesfuldt om sin egen samvittighed til Politiken. Tidligere sagde han således

- Jeg må sige, at vi er kommet i den situation, at det er helt uacceptabelt, der bliver slået så mange civile ihjel. Det er ude af proportioner, og det må stoppe, siger Martin Lidegaard til TV2 Nyhederne.

Dengang var han som mange muslimer og arabere og Obama sur over at jødestaten Israel forsvarede sig selv. Israel var som bekendt juridisk i sin gode ret til selvforsvar, men det er Danmark til gengæld ikke når det handler om at bombe frit i Levanten, som vi gør, skriver Jyllands-Posten

Luftangreb i Syrien er et klart brud på folkeretten, lyder det fra militærekspert.

Syrien blev informeret.

Men landet har ikke sagt god for de luftangreb, som en koalition bestående af USA, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og De Arabiske Emirater foretog i landet tirsdag.

Ej heller har det borgerkrigshærgede Syrien bedt om hjælp til at bekæmpe Islamisk Stat (IS) i landet.

Og endelig har FN’s Sikkerhedsråd ikke givet mandat til det.

Derfor var der tale om brud på folkeretten, da USA og dets partnere foretog mindst 50 luftangreb i de syriske provinser Raqqa og Deir al-Zor.

Det siger major ved Forsvarsakademiet Lars Cramer-Larsen.

“Det er et brud på folkeretten at angribe et andet land, hvis ikke det land har inviteret til at få hjælp. Og uanset hvor meget præsident Bashar al-Assad er en krigsforbryder, så er han jo stadig i folkeretlig forstand den legtime magthaver i Syrien, og den syriske regering har ikke inviteret koalitionen til at angribe,”

Israel gjorde sig som bekendt historisk store anstrengelser for at undgå de civile tab som Hamas ellers fristede til overmåde med at sikre. Da vi ikke har støvler på jorden, som det nu hedder og ingen gode efterretninger andet end, hvad vores oppustede godhed ellers driver os til må vi jo stole på at amerikanerne ved hvad de gør.

Det gør jeg gerne, det er i hvert fald underholdende.

Den arabiske verden knækker under vægten af kognitiv dissonans

Der har den seneste tid været flere gode artikler om den arabiske verdens store krise. Det man optimistisk kaldte for et forår har helt mistet en årstidbetegnelse thi en sådan vil ikke være dækkende. En vinter er jo kun en periode, men flere ser ikke nogen umiddelbar ende på den spiral af kaos, som araberne ser ud til at blive trukket ned i. Den libanesiske Hisham Melhem skrev den glimrende artikel Barbarians Within Our Gates for Politico Magazine

Arab civilization, such as we knew it, is all but gone. The Arab world today is more violent, unstable, fragmented and driven by extremism—the extremism of the rulers and those in opposition—than at any time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Every hope of modern Arab history has been betrayed. The promise of political empowerment, the return of politics, the restoration of human dignity heralded by the season of Arab uprisings in their early heydays—all has given way to civil wars, ethnic, sectarian and regional divisions and the reassertion of absolutism, both in its military and atavistic forms. With the dubious exception of the antiquated monarchies and emirates of the Gulf—which for the moment are holding out against the tide of chaos—and possibly Tunisia, there is no recognizable legitimacy left in the Arab world.

Is it any surprise that, like the vermin that take over a ruined city, the heirs to this self-destroyed civilization should be the nihilistic thugs of the Islamic State? And that there is no one else who can clean up the vast mess we Arabs have made of our world but the Americans and Western countries?

No one paradigm or one theory can explain what went wrong in the Arab world in the last century. There is no obvious set of reasons for the colossal failures of all the ideologies and political movements that swept the Arab region: Arab nationalism, in its Baathist and Nasserite forms; various Islamist movements; Arab socialism; the rentier state and rapacious monopolies, leaving in their wake a string of broken societies. No one theory can explain the marginalization of Egypt, once the center of political and cultural gravity in the Arab East, and its brief and tumultuous experimentation with peaceful political change before it reverted back to military rule.

Nor is the notion of “ancient sectarian hatreds” adequate to explain the frightening reality that along a front stretching from Basra at the mouth of the Persian Gulf to Beirut on the Mediterranean there exists an almost continuous bloodletting between Sunni and Shia—the public manifestation of an epic geopolitical battle for power and control pitting Iran, the Shia powerhouse, against Saudi Arabia, the Sunni powerhouse, and their proxies.

There is no one single overarching explanation for that tapestry of horrors in Syria and Iraq, where in the last five years more than a quarter of a million people perished, where famed cities like Aleppo, Homs and Mosul were visited by the modern terror of Assad’s chemical weapons and the brutal violence of the Islamic State. How could Syria tear itself apart and become—like Spain in the 1930s—the arena for Arabs and Muslims to re-fight their old civil wars? The war waged by the Syrian regime against civilians in opposition areas combined the use of Scud missiles, anti-personnel barrel bombs as well as medieval tactics against towns and neighborhoods such as siege and starvation. For the first time since the First World War, Syrians were dying of malnutrition and hunger.

(…)

A byproduct of the depredation of the national security state and resurgent Islamism has been the slow death of the cosmopolitanism that distinguished great Middle Eastern cities like Alexandria, Beirut, Cairo and Damascus. Alexandria was once a center of learning and multicultural delights (by night, Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, “it was a sort of reminiscence of Paris”). Today Alexandria is a hotbed of political Islam, now that the once large Greek-Egyptian community has fled along with the other non-Arab and non-Muslim communities. Beirut, once the most liberal city in the Levant, is struggling to maintain a modicum of openness and tolerance while being pushed by Hezbollah to become a Tehran on the Med. Over the last few decades, Islamists across the region have encouraged—and pressured—women to wear veils, men to show signs of religiosity, and subtly and not-so-subtly intimidated non-conformist intellectuals and artists. Egypt today is bereft of good universities and research centers, while publishing unreadable newspapers peddling xenophobia and hyper-nationalism. Cairo no longer produces the kind of daring and creative cinema that pioneers like the critically acclaimed director Youssef Chahine made for more than 60 years. Egyptian society today cannot tolerate a literary and intellectual figure like Taha Hussein, who towered over Arab intellectual life from the 1920s until his death in 1973, because of his skepticism about Islam. Egyptian society cannot reconcile itself today to the great diva Asmahan (1917-1944) singing to her lover that “my soul, my heart, and my body are in your hand.” In the Egypt of today, a chanteuse like Asmahan would be hounded and banished from the country.

***

The jihadists of the Islamic State, in other words, did not emerge from nowhere. They climbed out of a rotting, empty hulk—what was left of a broken-down civilization. They are a gruesome manifestation of a deeper malady afflicting Arab political culture, which was stagnant, repressive and patriarchal after the decades of authoritarian rule that led to the disastrous defeat in the 1967 war with Israel. That defeat sounded the death knell of Arab nationalism and the resurgence of political Islam, which projected itself as the alternative to the more secular ideologies that had dominated the Arab republics since the Second World War. If Arab decline was the problem, then “Islam is the solution,” the Islamists said—and they believed it.

At their core, both political currents—Arab nationalism and Islamism—are driven by atavistic impulses and a regressive outlook on life that is grounded in a mostly mythologized past. Many Islamists, including Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (the wellspring of such groups)—whether they say it explicitly or hint at it—are still on a ceaseless quest to resurrect the old Ottoman Caliphate. Still more radical types—the Salafists—yearn for a return to the puritanical days of Prophet Muhammad and his companions. For most Islamists, democracy means only majoritarian rule, and the rule of sharia law, which codifies gender inequality and discrimination against non-Muslims.

And let’s face the grim truth: There is no evidence whatever that Islam in its various political forms is compatible with modern democracy. From Afghanistan under the Taliban to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and from Iran to Sudan, there is no Islamist entity that can be said to be democratic, just or a practitioner of good governance.

Men det er Raymond Ibrahims fremragende artikel Islams Protestant Reformation fra Juni måned for Frontpage Magazine, som leverer en en dyster forklaring for hele den muslimske verden, nemlig at den er ved at knække over under presset for sin egen kognitive dissonans.

Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).

Jalving skrev under blandt andet denne inspiration den glimrende advarsel til Vesten at nissen flytter med i Efter Os Syndfloden.

Men nu ser vi den. Vi ser, at det hele er noget lort på de kanter. Og vi ser noget andet og endnu værre – for os: At vi ikke evner at forvare os mod opløsningen af den arabiske civilisation. Deres ødelæggelse kan blive vores ødelæggelse. Vi importerer den nemlig.

Her tænker jeg ikke kun på de varme lande som arnested for radikalisme og jihad. Det er næsten for banalt, her er dagens episode. Næ, jeg tænker naturligvis også på den voksende strøm af flygtninge og asylansøgere, der vandrer mod Europa – og for de flestes vedkommende – kommer frem og opnår en eller anden ret til at være her – på de europæiske skatteyderes regning.

(…)

Hvem skal redde araberne fra sig selv?

Hvorfor peger flaskehalsen på os? Hvorfor er det ikke kinesernes opgave, de er trods alt de kommende, globale magthavere? Hvorfor kigger ingen på Latinamerikas ansvar, de vil for helvede også gerne handle med araberne? Hvorfor kan Putin køre friløb? Og mere graverende: Hvorfor er det ikke araberne, der løser arabernes selvskabte problemer?

Du ved godt hvorfor. Det er kun i Vesten, at vi har fået den tro, at vi og ingen andre kan løse alverdens problemer lige fra nødhjælp til geopolitik. Det er os, dvs. vores nedarvede humanisme, der i generationer har ledt Vesten på vildspor og skabt en grænseløs, universel samvittighed hinsides alle sociale konsekvenser i hjemlandene og gjort menneskerettighedskonventioner til guddommelige anvisninger.

Dér ligger hunden begravet, og det er på tide at sige det ligeud, som det er: Det er os selv, ikke araberne, der har gjort den kroniske arabiske borgerkrig til USA’s, Storbritanniens, Australiens, Canadas, Hollands, Sveriges og Danmarks evige problem. Vi vil og skal hjælpe, koste hvad det koste vil, herunder vores egen deroute.

Deroute er egentlig for venligt et udtryk. Det er ikke alene den arabiske civilisation, der forsvinder for øjnene af os, men tillige vores egen kultur, der synker sammen i bestræbelsen på at spille Jesus, imens vi tillader, at arabere, der tydeligvis ikke vil Danmark eller det land, der har givet dem eller deres forældre en ny chance, huserer som grever og baroner på gader og stræder og opfører sig, som var de herrer i vores hus.

Mærk dig disse dage, det er dage, der forandrer verden, herunder din egen. Tiderne skifter, jeg siger det bare.

Ingen milde sæder kommer af disse tiders skiften dog.

Livet i Kalifatet

En kort rapportage om dagligdagen i Kalifatet.

Dawkins kaster den første sten

Richard Dawkins er en prominent ny-ateistisk polemiker, hvis skriverier oftest lider under hans ny-ateistiske kæphest. Og som sådan er han også min kæphest, som det som regel lykkes mig at holde i ro. “As an atheist” bekender han kvalmt, som det første, i et ellers lovende indlæg om ISIS, som var hans glimrende indvendinger imod islams indhold afhængig at hans ståsted. Men han fortsætter mere skarpt en Obama og Cameron og vores hjemlige politikere og alle de akademiske eksperter

Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.”

More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to serve in the British armed forces. In fact, this group has managed to attract thousands of recruits from free societies throughout the world to help build a paradise of repression and sectarian slaughter in Syria and Iraq. This is an astonishing phenomenon, and it reveals some very uncomfortable truths about the failures of multiculturalism, the inherent vulnerability of open societies, and the terrifying power of bad ideas.

No doubt many enlightened concerns will come flooding into the reader’s mind at this point. I would not want to create the impression that most Muslims support ISIS, nor would I want to give any shelter or inspiration to the hatred of Muslims as people. In drawing a connection between the doctrine of Islam and jihadist violence, I am talking about ideas and their consequences, not about 1.5 billion nominal Muslims, many of whom do not take their religion very seriously.

But a belief in martyrdom, a hatred of infidels, and a commitment to violent jihad are not fringe phenomena in the Muslim world. These preoccupations are supported by the Koran and numerous hadith. That is why the popular Saudi cleric Mohammad Al-Areefi sounds like the ISIS army chaplain. The man has 9.5 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pope Francis has). If you can find an important distinction between the faith he preaches and that which motivates the savagery of ISIS, you should probably consult a neurologist.

Fint ikke? Han fortsætter så et stykke tid med glimrende  at revse sine ‘liberale’ ligesindede for at lade deres tolerance overfor det utålelige stå i vejen for et nøgternt syn på islam førend har glider over i det ene hit der gjorde ham stor blandt rådvilde og usikre mennesker (hvem dyrker bekræftelsen i, hvad man ikke er?) - hans kamp for ateismen

In any conversation on this topic, one must continually deploy a firewall of caveats and concessions to irrelevancy: Of course, U.S. foreign policy has problems. Yes, we really must get off oil. No, I did not support the war in Iraq. Sure, I’ve read Chomsky. No doubt, the Bible contains equally terrible passages. Yes, I heard about that abortion clinic bombing in 1984. No, I’m sorry to say that Hitler and Stalin were not motivated by atheism. The Tamil Tigers? Of course, I’ve heard of them. Now can we honestly talk about the link between belief and behavior?

I denne brandvæg af stråmænd ligger den lille djævel, der er Dawkins besnærende retoriske evner. Vi ser bort fra den tilsyneladende kluntede relativisme ved at sætte Biblen (en bog OM Gud) på niveau med  koranen (en bog AF en afgud), der sikkert mere tjener som en baiter sigtet mod emotionelle kristne, konservative og dannede mennesker. Nej, jeg vil frem til det fremhævede, om Hitler og Stalin og deres ateisme.

Se, Dawkins gjorde som bekendt længere oppe i teksten et stort nummer ud af at skelne muslimen, som menneske, som individ, fra islam. Et menneskes motivationer er for komplekse til på en gang at sige noget meningsfuldt og generelt om - alle mennesker er forskellige. Men i grupper er det anderledes, der træder fællestræk igennem. I gruppen ser vi kulturens, sprogets og religionens træk. En tysker går, to marcherer, som min mormor plejede at sige.

Så hvorfor skal vi så nu skydes Hitlers og Stalins indre liv i skoene? Når emnet nu er islam, hvorfor så ikke eksemplificere med de relevante tankesæt, narrativer, ideologier såsom kommunisme? Fordi Dawkins ikke kan komme udenom at kommunismen er en stærkt ateistisk ideologi for hvilken det galt med Marx ord, at religion ligefrem var opium for folket, en illusion, om man vil, noget man burde vågne op fra.

Som Dawkins er jeg også ateist, men jeg er mere i vildrede over, hvad jeg så kan udlede nu der ikke er en gud, hvis karakter jeg er fortrolig med. Marxisterne og kommunisterne var ikke i tvivl og myrdede 0,1 mia. mennesker på 60 år. Hvis mennesket ikke var besjælet, hvad var det nemlig så? Ja, de manges behov opvejer de fås så nogen var bare altid i vejen - og det er jo svært at argumentere imod, hvis ikke man må være sentimental.

Dawkins er som jeg heller ikke kommunist. Men, hvis han insisterer på at dele verden op i teister og ateister må han, som jeg, lade kommunisterne stå i vores synderegister, så langt som vi vil tørre muslimerne af i teisternes. Det vil Dawkins ikke, han vil være ren. Der er nemlig ingen komplikationer med hans indre liv, ingen regning at betale, ingen negative konsekvenser når man har så indlysende ret som han har.

Der er en sammenhæng med tro og opførsel konkluderer Dawkins så rigtigt og hans tro har lige renvasket sig selv, hævet sig over denne verdens intellektuelle og moralske synder. Ville Dawkins mon træde skælmsk frem for Jesus og hoverende smadre den første sten i kraniet på horen, fordi hun jo grundlæggende kun er en amoralsk belastning for fællesskabet?

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.

Bent Jensen om koranforskning

Arabere, Bent Jensen, Kalifatet, Muslimer, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 25, 2014 at 7:35 pm

Bent Jensen leverer i dagens Jyllands-Posten et læsværdigt indlæg om islams dunkle oprindelse og dets problem med sine kilder

Koranen er angiveligt Guds rene og fejlfri lære, formidlet som nævnt via englen Gabriel til Muhammed i begyndelsen af 600-tallet. Men hvorfor indeholder bogen da så mange sproglige og historiske fejl, og hvorfor er dele af teksten uforståelig? Og hvad skal moderne muslimer i det 21. århundrede stille op med de mange udsagn om drab på vantro, kvinders henvisning til en lavere samfundskategori, slavehold og andre barbariske ting? Altså hvis man ikke er eller ønsker at blive hellig kriger.

Ifølge Pressburg tyder intet på, at Muhammed har eksisteret. Han er en litterær eller mytisk konstruktion. Ja, navnet Muhammed fandtes slet ikke, da Muhammed levede. ”Muhammed” var oprindeligt ikke et navn, men en titel, der betød ”den udvalgte” eller ”lovpriste”. Og denne udvalgte og lovpriste var – hold på hat og briller – Jesus Kristus. Titlen findes på mønter og i inskriptioner, som er forsynet med et kors og fremstillet af kristne arabiske herskere. Pressburg bygger på Christoph Luxenbergs banebrydende filologiske studier. Ifølge Luxenberg (også et pseudonym) er det simpelthen grammatisk umuligt, at Muhammed var et navn. Arabisk har ligesom hebraisk kun konsonanter, og det i sig selv har givet anledning til store problemer med at forstå mange passager i Koranen. Det er Luxenbergs store fortjeneste at have forklaret flere af disse dunkle eller uforståelige passager. Luxenberg mener, at Koranens kernestykke er en assyrisk kristen tekst, skrevet med arabisk skrift, men på aramæisk, som i sin tid var et udbredt kultursprog i Mellemøsten. Den MHMD (MuHaMeD), der omtales, betyder altså Guds lovpriste udsending, Jesus Kristus. Først flere hundrede år efter Muhammeds angivelige eksistens blev de fire konsonanter misforstået og gjort til navnet Muhammed.

Bogen har et særligt budskab til de hellige muslimske krigere, som tror, at de kommer i Paradis og dér bliver forsynet med 72 evigt unge, barmfagre jomfruer. Der er tale om en alvorlig misforståelse på grund af en fejllæsning; ”martyrerne” får i virkeligheden kun stillet vindruer og frugtsaft i udsigt. De unge drenge, som også ifølge traditionen skulle stå til rådighed for de himmelfarne, viser sig at være kølige frugter. Jomfruerne og drengene er til dels et resultat af oversætternes egen fantasi og forhåbninger.

Pressburg har som motto og ledestjerne for sin bog videnskabsteoretikeren Karl Poppers maksime: »Vi kan ikke bevise sandheden. Men vi kan bevise usandheden og dermed tilnærme os sandheden.« Alle forsøg på at bevise personen Muhammeds eksistens har været forgæves. Der findes ikke et eneste stik- og håndfast vidnesbyrd, der bekræfter den, ikke et eneste spor efter denne mand. Den såkaldte Klippemoské i Jerusalem fra slutningen af 600-tallet er ifølge muslimske myter bygget over det sted, hvor Muhammed red til himmels på en hest. Men der er i virkeligheden tale om en kristen helligdom – det viser hele dens ottekantede syrisk-byzantinske arkitektur, men også den 240 meter lange indskrift, der pryder dens indre.

Klippehelligdommen blev bygget af den kristne arabiske hersker Abd al-Malik på det sted, hvor den israelske kong Salomons tempel havde stået, og hvor Kristus forventedes at ville komme igen. Indskriften udtrykker derfor en kristen trosbekendelse. Først senere blev den kristne kirke omdannet til en muslimsk helligdom – og i allernyeste tid gjort til en moské.

Der er grund til at antage er islam er en arabisk efterrationalisering. Muhammeds navn forekommer kun 4 gange i koranen. Første gang i 3. kapitel, hvor det på engelsk hedder “Muhammed is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). Men inden armene ryger i vejret hedder det senere “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). Dette lægger mening til at man har fundet en mønt i Palæstina fra 640′erne viser en figur, der holder et kors, men har navnet Muhammed.

Den tidligste kilde til Muhammeds liv stammer fra Ibn Ishaq og er skrevet i 750, mere end 120 år efter Muhammeds død. Men Ishaq arbejde eksisterer ikke og vi har kun Ibn Hishams redaktion som er kommet til 60-70 år senere. Historierne om Muhammeds liv og levned (hadith) er blevet samlet op af kæder af vidner der har fortalt hinanden historierne (isnader). Hadith er således samlinger på baggrund af isnader der anses for troværdige. Problemet er at ingen holder vand under moderne metoder.

Ifølge islamisk lære er det kalif Uthman, der i 653 samler koranen i et standardværk og får alle andre versioner destrueret. Men mønter fra Kalif Muawiya (661-680) viser Muawiya med et kors samt en halvmåne. Og Muawoyas efterfølger Kalif Yazid (680-683) er også præget på mønter med et kors. På Klippemoskeen i Jerusalem slås det fast at Muhammed har er tjener for Gud og hans profet og at Messias, Jesus søn af Maria, er Guds eneste profet.

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.

Åh, de jøder

Så det kan ikke overraske, hvad de er i stand til at arrangere

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..

Islam har mange sider

Arabere, Arabiske forår, Irak, Jihad, Kalifatet, Muslimer, Sharia, Syrien, Terror, islam — Drokles on September 2, 2014 at 8:48 am

Nogle horror, andre depravation.

Daily Beast beskriver den grusomme islamiske virkelighed

Thousands of Iraq’s Yazidis, driven from their homes by ISIS and trapped in the desperate siege of Mt. Sinjar, have captured the world’s attention and received some relief from U.S. airstrikes and humanitarian aid. But hundreds of Yazidi women taken by ISIS and held in a secret prison where they have been raped and sold off like property are facing an equally dire fate.

Survivors who managed to escape from ISIS say the women held in its prison in Mosul face two fates: Those who convert to Islam are sold as brides to Islamist fighters for prices as low as $25, and ranging up to $150. Those who do not convert face daily rape and a slow death.

Accounts of the prison have come from women who managed to hide their cellular phones, calling relatives to describe their plight. Some imprisoned women have been forced by militants to call their families. The mother of one woman still held captive told The Daily Beast about the call she received from her daughter. She was forced to listen as her daughter detailed being raped by dozens of men over the course of a few hours. Still other women testified that multiple children had been born under these conditions, with the newborns ripped away from their mother’s arms to fates unknown.

Jeg har intet at sige.

Det muslimske sind

Jeg har undgået at høre de sædvanlige forklaringer på, hvorfor unge mænd (muslimer) fra Vesten drages af ekstremisme (islam) og kan finde på at drage i hellig krig (jihad) i Syrien og Irak. Det afhænger ikke af sociale eller uddannelsesmæssige forhold, ej heller af niveauet af muslimskhed i opvæksten. Det handler blot om at være muslim og kæmpe for islam, som man kan læse ud af en rimeligt serøs artikel (fra fremtiden) i Economist

Western fighters often seem to jump at the chance to take part in a fight or help build a new Islamic state. The Soufan Group, a New York-based intelligence outfit, reckons that by the end of May as many as 12,000 fighters from 81 nations had joined the fray, among them some 3,000 from the West (see chart). The number today is likely to be a lot higher. Since IS declared a caliphate on June 29th, recruitment has surged. Syria has drawn in fighters faster than in any past conflict, including the Afghan war in the 1980s or Iraq after the Americans invaded in 2003.

The beheading on or around August 19th of James Foley, an American journalist, by a hooded fighter with a London accent, has put a spotlight on Britain. In the 1990s London was a refuge for many extremists, including many Muslim ones. Radical preachers were free to spout hate. Britain remains in many ways the centre of gravity for European jihadist networks, says Thomas Hegghammer of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. “The radical community in Britain is still exporting ideas and methods.”

While the overwhelming majority of foreign fighters in Syria are Arabs, Britons make up one of the biggest groups of Western fighters. But Belgians, Danes and others have a higher rate per person (see left-hand chart above). France, which has tighter laws against extremism, has also seen more of its citizens go off to wage jihad.

(…)

IS is not the only group Westerners join, but it is the most appealing thanks to its global outlook, which includes spreading the caliphate across the world, to its attempts to implement immediate sharia law—and to the glow of its military success.

(…)

Those who talked of defending Syrians now deny that the land belongs to the locals, says Shiraz Maher of ICSR. “Bilad al-Sham”, or Greater Syria, has a special status in Islam because it appears in end-of-time prophecies. It belongs to Allah, fighters declare. But what if Syrians do not want Islamic law? “It’s not up to them, because it’s for Islam to implement Islamic rule,” says the European fighter who says he left his home country because it was not Islamic enough. He says he wants to “educate rather than behead Syrians”.

(…)

Most of IS’s ideas and all of its gorier methods are rejected by most Muslims, who see the group simply as criminal. But it does draw on Islamic theology, arguing—for instance—that non-Muslims should pay jizya, a special tax.

Hvad muslimer tænker (eller, hvad journalisten ønsker de tænker) er som sagt uden betydning: “It’s not up to them, because it’s for Islam to implement Islamic rule”.

Many say they feel more comfortable in a country where the way of life is Islamic—even if not yet Islamic enough—and have no plans to leave or carry out attacks elsewhere. “I am much happier here—got peace of mind,” says the European fighter.

But others who have gone to Syria to battle against Mr Assad have become disillusioned, says Mr Neumann. They worry about infighting and about killing other Muslims. “This is not what we came for,” they tell him.

Der er selvfølgelig variationer i antallet af muslimer fra forskellige lande og retninger og etniciteter som der også er det i bevæggrundende. Og det er hvad der er tale om, variationer, som der altid vil være når der er tale om mennesker. Men variationerne er over et tema, islam, og trenden er klar. Det er en folkelig bevægelse. Man har råbt ad fontes og uagtet hvad en spinkelt flertal måtte mene er almindelig fornuft, som Vesten har inspireret til så er islam islam og man må tage hele pakken - det er ikke op til en selv.

Men variationerne vil være halmstrå til allehånde bortforklaringer om at det intet har med islam at gøre (som jeg lige hørte David Cameron gentage i TV - forstår politikerne vitterligt ikke at de udhuler deres påstand når de tvinges til at slå den fast igen og igen og igen?), at vi har en ansvar og derfor også evnen til at ændre, hvad der ikke behøver at være sådan. Det er ikke monstre, der tager kravet om jihad alvorligt, det er almindelige mennesker, der er muslimer. Som regnvejr reducerer antallet af demonstranter, således betyder faciliteterne også noget for, hvilke kampe man vælger at tage

But junk food is in ample supply, tweets a Swedish fighter, more happily. And there is a lot of time, sometimes days on end, for “chilling”, says the European fighter on Kik, a smartphone messaging app. That is when he makes “a normal-life day: washing clothes, cleaning the house, training, buying stuff”. Thanks to satellite internet connections, the continuing flow of goods into the country and the relatively decent level of development compared with elsewhere in the region, Syria is a long way from the hardship of Afghanistan’s mountains. Last year, to attract others to come, jihadists tweeted pictures with the hashtag “FiveStarJihad”.

Kedsomhed nævnes også som en del af forklaringen, men det kan kun påvirke variationen (hvorfor keder muslimer sig så ekstremt?)

More plausible explanations are the desire to escape the ennui of home and to find an identity. “Some individuals are drawn out there because there is not a lot going on in their own lives,” says Raffaello Pantucci, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think-tank. Images of combatants playing snooker, eating sweets and splashing in swimming pools have sometimes suggested that jihad was not unlike a student holiday, without the booze. For young men working in dead-end jobs in drab towns, the brotherhood, glory and guns seem thrilling. Many of Belgium’s fighters come from the dullest of cities, where radicals have concentrated their efforts to get recruits.

I sidste uge kunne man i Telegraph læse lidt nærmere om det sørgelige muslimske sind.

Choudhury, 31, who once ran a Muslim youth group, has been accused of being the ringleader, blamed for recruiting his friends. Others suggest he was simply a willing volunteer, a married father with two children, aged five and two, who was disaffected with life in Britain and desperate for a change of scene.

He had worked for an insurance company and then his local council as a racial awareness officer. But he was also a con artist, who had tricked his own family out of tens of thousands of pounds.

In 2010, he conned them out of £25,000, under the false pretence of needing treatment for cancer, to go to Singapore, not once but twice for surgery.

Once there, Choudhury, who was in perfect health, spent the money on prostitutes costing £200 a night, his penchant for young women revealed in text messages discovered by police.

Back in Portsmouth, he resumed the habit. He went on what he called “lads’ holidays” to Morocco three times and twice more to Singapore in 2011 and 2012, while at the same time downloading lectures by extremist preachers, extolling the virtues of an Islamic caliphate. To atone for his sins, Choudhury decided to embark on a holy war.

(…)

Jaman, a former worker in a Sky customer service call centre, whose parents owned an Indian takeaway restaurant in Portsmouth. He had studied at an Islamic boarding school in London, but life in a call centre proved boring and un-demanding. In May last year, he went to Syria and began recruiting his eager friends. In messages posted on Twitter and other internet sites, he painted a romanticised version of life on the front line, boasting of a “five star jihad”.

A month before he went, Choudhury asked Jaman what kind of gun he could buy for £50. “I had a hand gun but it’s not a great one. I bought it [for] $30,” replied Jaman in messages seized by British police while building up their case against Choudhury.

(…)

Once the men landed in Turkey, they were met by an intermediary who took them overland to the Syrian border. From there, they crossed the border easily and were driven straight to an abandoned hospital in Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, and scene of ferocious fighting.

“You could tell it was an abandoned building with broken pipes and wires,” Choudhury said at his trial at Kingston Crown Court. “No one spoke English. We had a meal of pasta and whilst eating, the table was shaking from the shelling.”

He said he was made to do the cooking and washing and look after children in a makeshift nursery. He had gone with grand ambitions.

In a series of tweets on September 16 and 17 last year, he wrote: “Leaving wife & kids behind for Jihad… All my life I strived to be something, someone, but isn’t being a Muslim something, someone. Isn’t being a Muslim the best thing ever?… The life of this world is nothing but a sweet poison that quenches the thirst of desire and drags the ungrateful soul deeper into Hell!” But in Syria he had become quickly disaffected.

Triste skæbner, nogle dør, andre kan ikke klare og nogle bliver sat til at skure lokummer. Og så vil man hellere bruge 2000 kroner på en luder men kun 500 kroner på et våben når man skal i krig. Men kedsomhed? Kone og børn og et produktivt liv tilfredsstiller ikke muslimen? Hvorfor?

Drømmen om jihad er depraveret ifølge Firatnews, der har set en dokumentar med det passende navn “Gang of Degenerates” (der skal tages forbehold for sandhedsværdien af det følgende, men måske er det historier om hvad man hygger sig med på en sådan “jihad student holiday” der drager?)

Attention was drawn in the documentary to the fact ISIS’s most effective weapon is its ability to create fear and terror by means of its methods, such as random killings regardless of gender, age, religion or ethnicity, its decapitations, rapes and burying people alive. The gangs do not feel a need to conceal what they have perpetrated, on the contrary they publish their atrocities so that more people can see them.

(…)

The most lurid part of the documentary was the part in which gang members gave their ‘marriage’ numbers in addition to their names and ISIS membership numbers. For instance, Cinêd Cemîl Silêman said his membership number was 333, while his marriage number was 583.

Mihemed Sebah Hebe? said his membership number was 500, and his marriage number was 400.

The ISIS members admitted that what they called ‘marriage’ was in fact rape. They said that every new member of the organisation was raped. The footage of the rape would be used as blackmail in the event of the new recruit refusing to participate in actions.

20-year-old Ferhan Salim Unûf Safên said he had been abducted by Silêman Kohnê, Ebû Qûteybe and Cinêd Cemîl and suffered multiple rapes. “I fainted. When I came round they told me: ‘you are now with ISIS in Jazaa.’ They told me to join. I said it was not possible. They did terrible thiungs to me. Things even the Americans didn’t do in Abu Graib. Things even the Israelis haven’t done to the Palestinians. I’m ashamed to explain them. There were 6 or 7 of them. Their faces were covered. They ‘married me’ about ten times!”

Ebdulkerîm Îbrahîm Bazo said ‘marriage’ was a rule in order to be a member of the organisation. Bazo said the ‘wedding’ was carried out like a ceremony, adding: “those who did it to me said I had gained morale and strength to fight.”

(…)

Bazo added that the footage recorded was used as blackmail. He said: “Silêman Kohnê took me to a village, where my ‘marriage’ was performed by Hecî Newaf Mele Mehmûd. They blindfolded me and carried out the wedding. About a fortnight later they came and said I had to participate in the organisation. I didn’t want to. But they had the footage. They threatened to show it to my family.”

Ehmed Hisên explained horrifying incidents; “I’m from the Sharbaniyan tribe in Malikiyê (Derik). Silêman Kohnê proposed that I join ISIS some time ago. But I told him I was newly married and did not want to be involved in such things. I was then abducted and drugged. When I came to I was in a room which stank terribly. They wouldn’t let me leave the room. Five people came in and told me I should join the organisation, I refused. Then they tortured me. They extinguished cigarettes on my body. Such things were not done to Iraqis at Guantanamo. You would think I was an infidel. They blindfolded and stripped me. They ‘married’ me 15 times. Then they washed my head and put cologne on me. They told me no one could join ISIS without being married. Then they recited very strange verses of the Quran. As they spoke I imagined images of severed heads. They spoke academic Arabic.”

Måske optræder serierøvpuling ikke ved ISIS jobsamtaler, men groteskheder er der nok af

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress