Først dette sitatet som oppdatering til denne posteringen:
... George W. Bush told us about on June 24, 2002, when he set out a vision of a Palestinian Authority that was a beacon of freedom in the Middle East: “If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza,” he asserted, “it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression, equally entitled to the benefits of democratic government.”
Bush went on to express his fantasies about Islam in general: “I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries. Your commitments to morality, and learning, and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today. You have a rich culture, and you share the aspirations of men and women in every culture. Prosperity and freedom and dignity are not just American hopes, or Western hopes. They are universal, human hopes.” (Se postering 201024 om ikke å se det opplagte som de ser).
Med terroraksjonene på New Zealand og på Sri Laka friskt i
minnet, og i det minnet som fortsatt brenner seg inn i sinnet, og hvor vestlig
media og topppolitkere på eksepsjonelt tydelig vis har prioritert de muslimske
ofrene på en helt ennen fordelaktig måte enn det de har begunstiget de kristne
ofrene for den islamske terroren med, kan det være av interesse å gå gjennom en
del utvalgte sitater og uttalelser fra visse toppolitikere sammen med media,
for å forsøke i hvert fall delvis forklare hvorfor. Vi begynner med J G Støre:
Jonas Gahr Støre skal ha sagt:
«Vi i Ap vil alltid arbeide for innvandrernes rettigheter. De
har kjempet seg fram til våre grenser og da skal vi være såpass rause at vi
bistår økonomisk.
Det kan hende at dette vil påvirke våre eldre, men staten
kan ikke ta seg råd til å hjelpe begge parter. Innvandrere vil alltid komme i
første rekke». (Aftenposten 29.02.13).
Jeg vet ikke om sitatet er en inkurie, om Støre har beklaget
eller forsøkt å rette opp det inntrykk hans utsagn kan ha hatt i befolkningen.
Sitatetet er tatt fra facebook, ett eller annet sted, jeg finner ikke lenke. Jeg
vet heller ikke om de som eventuelt har feilsitert Støre har beklaget. Men som
eventuell inkurie, er uttalelsene like vel interesssant, ikke minst sett som en
mulig freudiansk forsnakkelse.
I det følgende legger jeg ut en del spesifikt - men likeve litt tilfeldige - utvalgte uttalelser
fra topppolitere rundt omkring fra de siste 20 til 30 årene. Det er rystende
lesing. De forteller om forvirring og servilitet, dumhet og naivitet, og fremfor
alt: Manglende evne til å se islam i et større perspektiv, i en større dybde.
Uttalelsene vitener om umodenhet på høyeste plan, om at emosjoner trumfer
fornuften og at disse toppfolkene fakatisk frykter kristendommen – som de
kommer fra – mer enn islam.
«Enjoy»:
Terrorens ansikt har ingenting med en islamske tro å gjøre.
Den er ikke hva islam handler om. Islam er fred. Terroristene representerer
ikke fred. De representerer det onde og krig. (G. W bush etter 9.11).
Islam er et fredfylt og tolerant identitetselement for mange
land og mange folk, J. L. Rodrigues
Zapato på ettårsdagen for madridbombingen i mas 2004 som drepte 141
mennesker.
Når alt kommer til alt så er det gjennom argumentenes kraft,
debatt, sann religiøs tro og sann legitim politikk at vi vil sire over
truslene. Det betyr ikke at vi bare skal argumentere mot terrorisme, men mot
terroristenes politikk og deres pervertering av religiøs tro. Tony Blair i en tale etter 7.
juli-terrororen i London 2005.
Den tro som virkelig er holdbar over tid og som tilhører
over en milliard mennesker er så mye større enn det snevre hatet som bare noen
få står for. Islam er ikke en del av problemet når det gjelder kampen mot
voldelig ekstremisme – islam er en viktig del av dette å fremme fred, president Barack Obama i sin tale Speach to
the muslim world i Kairo 2009.
De skryter av sin brutalitet. De hevder at de gjør det i
islams navn. Det er tøv. Islam er en fredens religion. De er ikke muslimer. De
er monstre, David Cameron 14. desember
2014.
Det er tanken at de har lov til å handle, straffe og drepe
på Guds vegene … men for meg er dette ingenting annet enn blasfemi, Angela Merkel, 15 januar 2015
At vi står samlet betyr at vi ikke må blande sammen disse
terroristene og fanatikerne med den muslimske religion, Francois Holland etter et jihadangrep på Charlie Hebdo i Paris 7.
januar 21015
Jeg har diskutert de senere hendelsene med verdensledere og
vi er alle enige om å fordømme denne terroren. Vi står samlet om å beseire
disse som utfører disse angrepene. Lederne i den muslimske verden som jeg har
møtt de siste ukene … har alle sagt klart i fra at ISIL’s udåder og idelogirekker
ned på og krenker islam og står i direkte motsetning til autentisk islam, den australske statsminister Malcolm
Turnbull i en kommentar til angrepene i Paris i 2015.
La oss si det klart: Islam er ikke vår fiende. Muslimer er
fredelige og tolerante mennesker og har ingenting i det hele tatt med
terrorisme, Hillary Clinton etter
terrorangrepene i Paris 2015.
“The Islam that I
know, that is in the Qur’an, I don’t associate that with any acts that are
occurring around the world. People tend to blame religion for the atrocities
that are happening, but if we do that we take responsibility away from the
individuals.”
President Bill
Clinton taler i UN i 1998:
Mange tror at det fins et uungåelig sammenstøt mellom den
vestlige sivilisasjon og vestlige verdier og den islamske sivilisasjonen og
dens verdier. Jeg mener at et slikt syn er forferdelig galt. Falske profeter
kan bruke og misbruke en hvilken som helst religion for å rettferdiggjøre et
hvilket som helst politisk mål de måtte ha – til og med kaldblodig mord. Noen
vil ha verden til å tro at den allmektige Gud selv, den miskunneige (merciful)
gir dem fullmakt til å drepe. Men dette er ikke vår oppfatning av islam …
amerikanerne respekter og ærer islam.
Martin Luther
reagerte i sin tid negativt på pave Leo X’s forsøk på å få i gang et nytt korstog. Luther
sa: «Å kjempe mot tyrkerne er det samme som å motsette seg Gud, som hjemsøker
oss for våre synder med sin pisk». 4 i kap 7.
Luther beskyldte også pavekirken var verre enn det osmanske
kalifatet, noe som gjorde det anatema for mange protestanter å gå i allianse
med paven i Roma.
Paven, sammen med hans tilhengere, begår en større synd enn
tyrkerene og alle hedningene … tyrkerne tvinge ingen til å fornekte Kristus og
å tilhøre ham ved troen på ham … Selv om han raser intenst mot ham og myrder
kristne i kroppen, så gjør tyrkeren ikke noe annet enn å fylle himmelen med
helgener … Paven vil hverken være tyrker eller fiende, han fyller helvete med
ingen andre enn «kristne» … Dette er virkelig å begå åndelig drap og er like
ille som Muhammeds og tyrkerenes lære og blasfemi. Men når menn ikke tillater
ham å praktisere denne djevelske forførelse, adopterer han tyrkerenes metoder
og begår legemelig drap i tilegg. … Tyrkerne er svorne fiender av Kristus. Men
paven er ikk det. Han er en hemmelig fiende og anklager, en falsk venn. Av
denne grunn er han desto verre … note 5 i kap 7, s 220
Khomeini ankom 1. februar 1979 Iran og hvor han erklærte at
det skule etableres et nytt styre i landet: Dette er ikk en ordinær regjering.
Det er en regjering basert på sharia. Å motsette seg dette styret er å motsette
ses islams sharia og for å gjøre opprør mot regjeringen, finnes det
straffebestemmelser i vår lov … strenge bestemmelser på grunnlag islamsk lov.
Opprør mot Allah’s (Spencer oversetter konsekvent Allah med Gud) regjering, er
en revolt mot Allah. Og revolt mot Allah er blasfemi.
Jeg anser okkupasjonen av den amerkanske ambassaden for å
være en spontan og rettferdig hevnakasjon for vårt folk. Aksjonen har mange
fodeler for oss. Amerikanerne vil ikke at den silamske republikken skal slå
rot. … Hva nasjonen vil er en islamsk republikk. Ikke bare en hvilken som helst
reublik, ikke en demokratisk republikk. Ikke bruk «demokrati» for å beskrive
denne. Det er den vestlig måten, ikke den islamske måten.
Delegaten til Fn fra Iran sa i 1985: «Selve konseptet om
menneskerettighete er en judeokristen oppfinnelse og derfo uttilatelig i islam.
Khomeini: Jihad, eller hellig krig, skal brukes for å erobre
andre land og kongedømmer, er en plikt å etter etableringen av Islamic State i
ærvær av en imam eller i samsvar med hans befalinger. Islam pålegger alle
voksne bortsett fra de som ikke kan pga funksjonshemming å forberede seg på å
erobre andre land slik at islams lov blir adlydt i alle land i verden …. islams
hellige krig er et strev mot avgudsdyrkelse, seksuelt avvik, plyndring,
undertrykkelse og grusomhet … islam øsnker å underlegge seg hele verden.
«De som ikke vet noe om islam foregir at islam fordømmer
krig. De som sier dette er uvitende. Islam sier: Drep alle vantro slik de sier
aat de vil drepe dere. … Alt godt som fins eksisterer takket være sverdet og
skyggen av sverdet. Folk kan ikke tvinges til å adlyde uten ved sverdet.
Sverdet er nøkkelen til paradiset, hvilket bare kan åpnes for de hellige
krigerne. Allah skapte ikke mennesket for at det skulle ha det moro. Skapelsens
mål var å sette mennesket på prøve gjennom vanskeligheter og bønn. Et islamsk
regime må være seriøst på alle områder. Det fins ingen vitser i islam. Det fins
ingen humor i islam. Det fins ikke noe moro i islam. Det kan ikke fins noe
morsomt eller glede i det som må tas seriøst. Islam tillater ikke å svømme i
havet og er imot radio og tv-serier. Islam, derimot, tillater «markmanship»,
hesteritt og konkurranse. s 319 i J fra
M til … Robert Spencer.
I 1999 holdt den
britiske statsminister Tony Blair en tale i Chicago, senere kalt
Blair-doktrinen, hvor han blant annet erklærte følgende:
«Vi er alle internasjonalister nå, om vi liker det eller
ikke. Vi kan ikke nekte for å være en del av de globale markeder, hvis vi vil
ha velstand. Vi kan ikke lenger ignorere nye politiske ideer i andre land, hvis
vi ønsker innovasjon. Vi kan ikke vende ryggen til konflikter og brudd på
menneskerettigheter i andre land, hvis vi selv ønsker sikkerhet.»
17 år etter Blair-doktrinen kom avstemmingen om Brexit, og statsminister Theresa May, konkluderte i en
tale til parlamentet:
«Den som tror han er verdensborger, er en borger i
ingenmannsland.»
“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” said Barack Obama.
In his famous
outreach speech to the Islamic world from Cairo on June 4, 2009, Barack Obama
said:
Islam has a proud
tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba
during the Inquisition….
Tolerant al-Andalus: as the conquest of Spain was being
completed in the year 718, the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent out a
message to the governors of the various Islamic provinces:
O you who believe!
The non-Muslims are nothing but dirt. Allah has created them to be partisans of
Satan; most treacherous in regard to all they do; whose whole endeavor in this
nether life is useless, though they themselves imagine that they are doing fine
work. Upon them rests the curse of Allah, of the Angels and of man
collectively.
Terrorens ansikt har
ingenting med en islamske tro å gjøre. Den er ikke hva islam handler om. Islam
er fred. Terroristene representerer ikke fred. De representerer det onde og
krig. (G. W. bush etter 9.11).
Islam er et fredfylt
og tolerant identitetselement for mange land og mange folk, J. L. Rodrigues
Zapato på ettårsdagen for madridbombingen i mas 2004 som drepte 141 mennesker.
Når alt kommer til
alt så er det gjennom argumentenes kraft, debatt, sann religiøs tro og sann
legitim politikk at vi vil sire over truslene. Det betyr ikke at vi bare skal
argumentere mot terrorisme, men mot terroristenes politikk og deres
pervertering av religiøs tro, Tony Blair i en tale etter 7. juli-terrororen i
London 2005.
Den tro som virkelig
er holdbar over tid og som tilhører over en milliard mennesker er så mye større
enn det snevre hatet som bare noen få står for. Islam er ikke en del av
problemet når det gjelder kampen mot voldelig ekstremisme – islam er en viktig
del av dette å fremme fred, president Barack Obama i sin tale Speach to the
muslim world i Kairo 2009.
De skryter av sin
brutalitet. De hevder at de gjør det i islams navn. Det er tøv. Islam er en
fredens religion. De er ikke muslimer. De er monstre, David Cameron 14.
desember 2014.
Det er tanken at de
har lov til å handle, straffe og drepe på Guds vegene … men for meg er dette
ingenting annet enn blasfemi, Angela Merkel, 15 januar 2015
At vi står samlet
betyr at vi ikke må blande sammen disse terroristene og fanatikerne med den
muslimske religion, Francois Holland etter et jihadangrep på Charlie Hebdo i
Paris 7. januar 21015
Jeg har diskutert de
senere hendelsene med verdensledere og vi er alle enige om å fordømme denne
terroren. Vi står samlet om å beseire disse som utfører disse angrepene.
Lederne i den muslimske verden som jeg har møtt de siste ukene … har alle sagt
klart i fra at ISIL’s udåder og idelogirekker ned på og krenker islam og står i
direkte motsetning til autentisk islam, den australske statsminister Malcolm
Turnbull i en kommentar til angrepene i Paris i 2015.
La oss si det klart:
Islam er ikke vår fiende. Muslimer er fredelige og tolerante mennesker og har
ingenting i det hele tatt med terrorisme, Hillary Clinton etter terrorangrepene
i Paris 2015.
“The Islam that I know, that is in the
Qur’an, I don’t associate that with any acts that are occurring around the
world. People tend to blame religion for the atrocities that are happening, but
if we do that we take responsibility away from the individuals.”
“A lot of things have been misconstrued
about Islam. I feel that a category has been created that is not really what
the Qur’an actually promotes. I believe Islam is about peace, unity, prosperity
and inclusion.” Esma Voloder, iss World Autralia 2017 i sin takketale for
prisen. Huge Fitzgerald i en kommentar: Shall we remind her of 9:5 and 9:29 and
8:12 and 3:151 and 47:4 and 98:6?
Esma Voloder, of
course, has plenty of distinguished company in her certitudes. Tony Blair, who
claimed to never be without his copy of the Qur’an, once praised that book as
“practical and way ahead of its time. The most remarkable thing about reading
the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic –
is to understand how progressive it is.” His successor David Cameron knew
Islam, the real Islam, could do no wrong, so that after the killing of Drummer
Rigby, he quickly denounced the attack, describing it as a “betrayal of Islam.”
Theresa May has repeatedly called Islam “peaceful” after every terror attack —
not just at home, but to an American audience in Philadelphia — and described
the Muslim attack on Westminster Bridge as a “perversion of Islam.” Barack Obama
has said, repeatedly, that “Islam is a religion that preaches peace.” His
predecessor George Bush produced his own variations on the theme in a series of
treacly Iftar messages: “Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow
citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy
does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve
hijacked a great religion.” And “Islam is a faith that brings comfort to
people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and
compassion.” And “all Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not
the true faith — face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a
billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and
sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”
For Pope Francis,
who has somehow managed to overlook 1400 years of war against Christians by
Muslims, “all religions want peace” (this was uttered shortly after an
85-year-old priest had his throat slit) and “Islam is peaceful” and the “Qur’an
is peaceful” and “Muslim terrorism does not exist.” How many times must he say
it, in how many variations on the nonsensical theme, to make you believe it?
Credo quia absurdum — this should be the motto repurposed for this Pope —
“I believe because it is absurd.” jw
President Donald Trump:
The Trump administration: now digitally McMastered:
“Instead of naming the enemy, Trump seemingly went out of
his way to use other descriptors in his speech, including ‘terrorists who
attacked us,’ ‘barbaric forces of evil and destruction,’ ‘horrible, horrible
enemies,’ ‘enemies of all civilized people,’ and ‘enemies like we’ve never seen
before.'”
That’s great, Mr. President, but you will find it impossible
to defeat these horrible, horrible enemies without identifying and working to
devise ways to confront their motivating ideology. That’s what you seemed to be
promising to do when you rebuked Obama and Hillary Clinton for not daring to
say “radical Islamic terrorism.” Now you have joined them. You were right the
first time.
-
In January 2015, jihadists in Paris shouting "Allahu
Akbar" attacked Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, murdering 15
people. French President François
Hollande said that the jihadists had "nothing to do with the Muslim
faith".
Two years later, when a jihadist targeted the very heart of
European democratic civilization, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster
Bridge, British PM Theresa May said:
"It is wrong to describe this as Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist
terrorism and the perversion of a great faith".
In the face of hundreds of Muslim terrorists yelling
"Allahu Akbar" while bombing, shooting, stabbing, and car-ramming
thousands of innocent civilians to death and wounding thousands of others, it
would be reasonable to assume that elected representatives might feel obliged
to put their denial of reality on hold long enough to read at least bits of the
Quran. They might start by reading the commands in "Fight and kill the
disbelievers wherever you find them..." (9:5), or, "So fight them
until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of Allah"
(8:39).
-
Kommentar:
Det er dessuten dokumentert at mainstream media unngår å
bruke terrorist-ordet for ikke å ”fornærme” islam. Man beskrev terroristene i
Beslan i 2004 med følegende betegnelser:
… activists, assailants, attackers, bombers, captors,
commandos, criminals, extremists, fighters, group, guerrillas, gunmen,
hostage-takers, insurgents, kidnappers, militants, perpetrators, radicals,
rebels, and separatists – anything but terrorists.
…. adjectives such as Islamist, Islamic, and Muslim become
unmentionable.
Det går ikke an å kalle islamisme for fienden. Man erstatter
”Krig mot terror” med ”A Global Struggle for Security and Progress”
(På denne måten tror man at man skal vinne” over Muslim
hearts and minds”. I stedet har ”Islamic terrorists won our hearts and
minds."
Det må et massivt og spektakulært angrep til før vi våkner:
La oss si 100 000 døde i ett sveip … ).
-
Mona Sahlin:
Svenskarna måste integreras i det nya Sverige, det gamla Sverige kommer inte
tilbake.
P1 Morgon, Sveriges radio, 2002
-
Erna Solberg – Hatet lever
fortsatt, Av NTB -22. juli 2018 | 10:21 145.
– Sju år høres lenge ut, men mange har en hverdag som
fortsatt er preget av 22. juli, sa statsminister Erna Solberg (H) under
minnemarkeringen.
Statsministeren talte under markeringen i regjeringskvartalet
søndag formiddag, på dagen sju år etter terrorangrepene.
– Da ble demokratiet vårt angrepet. Uskyldige mennesker ble
drept i et forsøk på å ramme åpenheten, mangfoldet og tilliten som preger det
norske samfunnet, sa Solberg.
– Sju år høres lenge ut, men mange har en hverdag som
fortsatt er preget av 22. juli, sa hun.
Statsministeren trakk fram Erik Poppes Utøya-film, som kom
tidligere i år, og flere kommende filmer.
– På den måten blir vi minnet om det som skjedde den
grusomme fredagen i 2011. Det er vondt men det er viktig, sa hun.
Solberg minnet også om at vi lever i en tid som preges av
falske nyheter og hatefulle kommentarer på internett.
– I dag vet vi at den høyreekstreme terroristen befant seg i
et ekkokammer med meningsfeller som delte hans konspiratoriske verdensbilde. Et
verdensbilde preget av fremmedfrykt og at det finnes et «oss» og et «dem» i
dette landet. I dag ser vi de samme konspirasjonene i kommentarfeltene. Hatet
lever fortsatt, sa Solberg.
– Flere av dem som overlevde, ble rammet av terroristens
kuler. Nå opplever de også ord som rammer. Som har til hensikt å bringe dem til
taushet, fortsatte hun.
– De som rammes av hets og hat, skal vite at de har oss alle
i ryggen, slo Solberg fast i talen.
Former UK PM David
Cameron lectures Donald Trump: It is “wrong to project terrorism as
Christianity-Islam clash”, Jul 21, 2018 10:02 am By Christine
Douglass-Williams.
Former British
prime minister David Cameron said today it was wrong to project terrorism as a
clash between Christianity and Islam and called for a strategy to wipe out the
extremist forces.
Cameron was pontificating to Donald Trump, since it “appeared
to him from US President Donald Trump’s comments that he viewed terrorism as a
clash between Christianity and Islam.” This is the extent of Cameron’s strange
allegation against Trump: that it “appeared to him”; he couldn’t point to
anything Trump has actually said in order to substantiate his claim.
Despite what might appear to Cameron, like it or not, the
global jihad is in part focused upon subjugating Judeo-Christian democracies
under the hegemony of Islamic law. Islamic expansionists have declared war on
Christianity, on apostates, on Israel, on Zionists, and indeed on every
religion and doctrine that does not align with the Sharia.
If Cameron is looking for someone to whom to direct his
advice, it should be Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who — in his quest
to revive the Ottoman Empire — has in fact declared the “coming war between the
cross and the crescent.” Erdogan has also meddled in Europe’s business,
accusing the EU of starting “a new battle between Islam and Christianity
following a ruling permitting employers to ban headscarves.”
Cameron, meanwhile, has stated:
Islam is a
religion, observed peacefully and devoutly by over a billion people. Islamist
extremism is a political ideology, supported by a minority. At the furthest end are those who back
terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by
an interpretation of sharia.
Vast Christian persecution, the murder of apostates, the
content of the Islamic fiqh, the supremacist foundation of the Sharia, and the
expansionist goals of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Muslim
Brotherhood all seem to have escaped the attention of David Cameron.
Cameron’s attempts to enhance his stature by playing both
sides of the political divide is worsening his already degraded reputation.
While he defends Islamic doctrine, he has also warned about “swarms of
migrants” and about immigration threatening the UK’s future. Cameron has
already earned himself the reputation of being “a historic and disastrous failure.”
He is no one to be advising Trump.
-
Mona Sahlin:
Jag har ofta fått den
frågan men jag kan inte komma på vad svensk kultur är. Jag tror att det är lite
det som gör många svenskar så avundsjuka på invandrargrupper. Ni har en kultur,
en identitet, en historia, någonting som binder ihop er. Och vad har vi? Vi har
midsommarafton och sådana ”töntiga” saker. (kilde: fra fria tider).-
For Pope Francis, who has
somehow managed to overlook 1400 years of war against Christians by Muslims,
“all religions want peace” (this was uttered shortly after an 85-year-old
priest had his throat slit) and “Islam is peaceful” and the “Qur’an is
peaceful” and “Muslim terrorism does not exist.” How many times must he say it,
in how many variations on the nonsensical theme, to make you believe it? Credo
quia absurdum — this should be the motto repurposed for this Pope — “I believe because it is absurd.” jw
-
Sakset fra Judith Bergmann:
As early as 2001, immediately after 9/11, then-President
George W. Bush gave a speech in which he claimed that in the United States, the
terrorist acts in which over 3,000 people were killed "violate the
fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith" and that "Islam is
peace".
Twelve years and many spectacular terrorist attacks later,
in 2013, when two jihadists murdered Lee Rigby in broad daylight in London, the
prime minister at the time, David Cameron, declared that the attack was "a
betrayal of Islam... there is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly
dreadful act".
In January 2015, jihadists in Paris shouting "Allahu
Akbar" attacked Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, murdering 15
people. French President François Hollande said that the jihadists had
"nothing to do with the Muslim faith".
Two years later, when a jihadist targeted the very heart of
European democratic civilization, the Houses of Parliament and Westminster
Bridge, British PM Theresa May said: "It is wrong to describe this as
Islamic terrorism. It is Islamist terrorism and the perversion of a great
faith".
In the face of hundreds of Muslim terrorists yelling
"Allahu Akbar" while bombing, shooting, stabbing, and car-ramming
thousands of innocent civilians to death and wounding thousands of others, it
would be reasonable to assume that elected representatives might feel obliged
to put their denial of reality on hold long enough to read at least bits of the
Quran. They might start by reading the commands in "Fight and kill the
disbelievers wherever you find them..." (9:5), or, "So fight them
until there is no more fitna [strife] and all submit to the religion of
Allah" (8:39).
-
Low IQ, Violence and
Terrorism, July 20, 2017 3:36 pm By Nicolai Sennels
Taboo: Almost half of Muslims are inbred. How does that
affect intelligence and health? And is there a connection to terrorism and
violence?
Lise Egholm, longtime school leader in the Muslim-dominated
area of Nørrebro in Copenhagen, Denmark, recently warned against not talking
about the widespread practise of inbreeding among Muslims: “A study shows that
infant mortality doubles, along with a high risk of congenital malformations,
also that increased birth defect rates and inheritance of recessive traits are
more common in consanguineous marriages. I think it’s time to express concern.
We must talk about this problem. All parents want healthy children.
Fortunately, we live in a society where our health system does much to ensure
that a pregnancy ends with a viable child. What amazes me and has made me
wonder for years is why we do not talk about, maybe they even ban, the many
cousin marriages?”
While health systems in otherwise less-developed countries
in the Muslim world are openly discussing and warning against consanguineous
marriages, it is considered politically incorrect in the West to regard as a
problem the vast genetic and societal difficulties resulting from this
religious-cultural practise.
Prevalence
Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34
percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguineous (cousin marriages), 46
percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in
Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42
percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent
in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria,
39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arab Emirates and 45 percent in
Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health
among Arabs). In Pakistan, 70 percent of marriages are consanguineous, and in
Turkey, the percentage is 25-30. There seems to be no national data on
Indonesia, but there are reports on 17 percent consanguinity on East Timor and
a “high level of consanguineous marriages in some areas of Java.”
Huge increase in PA terror funding in 2017”, by Itamar
Marcus, PMW, July 19, 2017:
The PA has
publicized its budget for 2017, which includes how much it will be spending on
salaries to terrorist prisoners and to families of terrorist “Martyrs.”
Ignoring demands to stop rewarding terror by the United States, EU countries,
Israel and many others, the PA in 2017 is actually increasing significantly
these outlays. The PA expenditure for salaries to terrorist prisoners has risen
by a huge 13%, from 488 million shekels ($135 million) in 2016 to 550 million
shekels ($158 million), and the expenditure for payments to families of
“Martyrs” has gone up by 4% from 660 million shekels ($183 million) to 687
million shekels ($197 million). In 2017, the PA’s total expenditure for
directly funding terror is 1.237 billion shekels or $355 million….. jw
Farage, mannen bak
Brxit: Jun 14, 2018 1:23 pm By Robert Spencer:
“If dealing with Islamic
fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire religion, I’ll tell
you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose….We absolutely have to get that
Muslim majority living in many of our towns and cities on our side, more attuned
to Western values than some pretty hardline interpretations of the Qur’an.”
Spencer: Sure. Now how does Farage propose to do that? His
warning against making the resistance to jihad a “battle between us and the
entire religion” is odd. No sane person is saying that the West should go to
war with the entire Islamic world. The likeliest interpretation of his
statement is that he is saying that we must not speak about how jihadis find
justification for their actions in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as that will alienate
the “moderates.”
But if we don’t speak about such facts, how will we ever
convince Muslims not to follow “hardline interpretations of the Qur’an”?
After playing a significant role in the Brexit fight, Farage
has become just another mainstream hack politician.
“Is Nigel Farage woke? Ex-UKIP leader warns party off
supporting Tommy Robinson,” RT, June 12, 2018:
Former UKIP leader
Nigel Farage has questioned the ‘judgement’ of his successor Gerard Batten over
his support for the imprisoned ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson, who was recently
convicted for contempt of court.
Farage, who was
speaking at a dinner for UKIP activists in Lancashire this month, did not
openly criticize Batten, but told the assembled faithful that being seen as
opposing all Muslims and supporting Robinson was a political mistake, reports
the Guardian.
In an apparent dig
at Batten’s choice of friends, Farage told dinner guests: “I think this gets to
the heart of not just the positioning of a political party, but of judgment
too. And judgment really, really matters. Tommy Robinson is seen to be a hero
by many. But actually, what the bloody hell was he doing outside the court?”
Batten posted a
picture on Twitter of himself with Robinson, on Saturday, declaring he was to
speak at the ‘Free Tommy Robinson’ rally, which was marred by violence from a
set of protesters against the police.
Batten seems to
also be in hot water with many UKIP senior officials over his position on
Islam. It is understood that one senior party member has written to him to
express their concern about his alleged anti-Islam stance.
On the issue of
Islam and how UKIP should conduct the debate around the issue, Farage told
activists that the party was right to oppose Islamic extremism “but if dealing
with Islamic fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire
religion, I’ll tell you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose.”
Adding: “We
absolutely have to get that Muslim majority living in many of our towns and
cities on our side, more attuned to Western values than some pretty hardline
interpretations of the Qur’an.”…
President Donald Trump om islam og id al fitra etc:
Please sit down.
Thank you. Good evening, and thank you all for joining us — this iftar dinner —
as we celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. It’s a great month. A lot of
friends, a lot of great friends.
I want to thank Vice President Pence,
Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross, Secretary Chao, Secretary Azar, and
Administrator Linda McMahon for being with us tonight. Thank you all very much.
Appreciate it. We had a very busy day, a
very successful day in Washington, D.C. A lot of great things are happening.
Tremendous economy — best we’ve ever had. And we have a wonderful
administration; they’re doing a lot of great things. So that’s really terrific.
I also want to
thank the members of the Muslim community at home and abroad for joining us.
And a special thanks to Imam Agbere and all of the folks at the U.S. Army.
Imam, where are you? Imam? Very nice. Thank you very much for being with us.
It’s a great honor. Thank you. (Applause.)
At tonight’s dinner,
we especially are pleased to welcome members of the diplomatic corps,
representing our friends and partners across the globe. And a very warm welcome
to all of the ambassadors here tonight representing Muslim-majority nations.
We’re greatly honored by your presence, and thank you very much for being here.
Some very good friends. To each of you and to the Muslims around the world:
Ramadan Mubarak.
So far, so empty of meaning. We wait to see if it will lead
into something significant. But that something significant never appears. There
are a few more paragraphs about what good friends Trump has made among the
ambassadors, about the great two days he spent in Saudi Arabia (without naming
the country), about what great things are going to be accomplished.
The paragraph, containing the phrase that most offends, is
this:
In gathering
together this evening, we honor a sacred tradition of one of the world’s great
religions. For the Islamic faithful, the Iftar dinner marks the end of the
daily period of fasting and spiritual reflection that occurs throughout the
holy month of Ramadan. Iftars mark the coming together of families and friends
to celebrate a timeless message of peace, clarity[sic] and love. There is great
love. It’s a moment to call upon our highest ideals, and to give thanks for the
many blessings we enjoy. Thank you very much.
What if this one paragraph were rewritten? It might go, more
acceptably, like this:
“In gathering together this evening, we mark the tradition
of the Iftar dinner, which breaks the Ramadan fast in the faith of Islam, one
of the world’s major religions. Muslims the world over spend this month in
fasting, to commemorate the first revelation of the Qur’an to Muhammad. And the
Iftar dinners by which they break their fast are a time for families and
friends to come together and share. And while we may not be family, many here I
certainly consider to now be friends,
and I think it appropriate to share this Iftar dinner at the White House with
all of you. Thank you very much.”
This reduces Islam from a “great” to a “major” religion,
leaves out the offending phrase about a “timeless message of peace, clarity
[sic for “charity”], and love,” yet still manages to maintain a positive tone
and end on a note of human warmth.
Meanwhile, CAIR and Company, sputtering their rage, held a
demonstration outside the White House while the Iftar Dinner was being held.
There are about 3 million Muslims in America. For this anti-Trump’s-Iftar
rally, CAIR managed to attract less than a few dozen. That cannot be described
as a success.
Vel, vi glemmer ikke
statsminster fra samme parti, Fredrik Reinfeldt, sin uttalelse om all
plassen i Norden som kan fylles opp av mennesker fra andre kontinent:
»Hvad betyder ordet
’nok’? Er Sverige fyldt op? Er Norden fyldt op? Er vi for mange mennesker? Vi
er 25 mio. mennesker, som bor i Norden. Jeg flyver ofte rundt over det svenske
landskab. Det vil jeg anbefale andre at gøre. Der er uendelige marker og skove.
Der er så meget plads, man kan tænke sig. De, der hævder, at landet er fyldt
op, må jo vise, hvor det er fyldt op«.
Og vi vet hva som er
mantraet fra ledende partier som Høyre og Ap i Norge: En «streng, rettferdig og
human politikk». Tror vi på dette lenger? Nei, er svaret mitt.
Arne Tumyr i SIAN:
Hvordan kan statsministeren få seg til å mene og si at islam
beriker Norge? Det var nemlig det hun sa til 8000 muslimer som feiret
avslutningen på ramadan, men Erna Solberg forholdt seg taus da 3000 muslimer
marsjerte på Karl Johan og skrek drep forfatteren Salman Rushdie som har
fornærmet vår profet. De slo også ned på nordmannen som sto på fortauet med sin
plakat hvor det sto: Vi vil ha religionsfrihet i Norge!
Erna Solberg snur ryggen til de eksmuslimer som reiser
opprørsfanen mot imamer og moskeer. Hvorfor er det noen muslimer som bryter med
islam? Fordi islam i 1400 år har påført menneskene smerte, terror, ufrihet
fengsel og død, konflikter og kriger. Eksmuslimene har sett det Solberg ikke
ser - islam er ikke forenlig med demokratiet og vår måte å leve på!
Tidligere stortingsrepresentant fra Høyre, Hallgrim Berg,
sier: Islamisme er nazisme. Nei, sier Erna Solberg. Islam beriker Norge.
Statsministeren er holdningsløs. I stedet for å sette foten ned overfor de
muslimske særkrav, innynder hun seg - åpenbart for å få deres stemmer i valg.
Hun har ikke støtte i folket, for et flertall i Europa vil ha innvandringsstoff
av muslimer.
Statsminister Erna Solberg hilser velkommen på norske
arbeidsplasser hijab-sorte muslimske kvinner med sine sorte islamske
shariauniformer. Denne demonstrasjonsbekledning er utbredt på sykehjemmene –
der norske gamle slitere er rasister dersom de spør etter pleiere som ikke
demonstrerer for Muhammed og Allah.
http://www.sian.no/artikkel/islam-beriker-norge
Hallgrim Berg:
Ei stor utfordring ligg i muslimane sitt syn på seg sjølve
andsynes alle andre folkeslag og trusoppfatningar. Supremacy, supremati,
overhøgd, inneber pr. definisjon hierarkisk tenking og nedlatande menneskesyn,
ei form for universell rasisme. Muslimar over jødar og kristne, menn over
kvinner osv. Islam er teologisk og politisk urokkeleg. Det er ein bastant
erobringsreligion.
Maria ZÆLER, RESETT:
Islam er vår tids nazisme, det kan ikke gjentas for ofte.
Islam er ikke mennesker, og å hate islam er like ille eller like bra som å hate
kommunisme, fascisme eller andre ideologier. Ingen er menneskefiendtlig eller
rasistisk av å frykte ideer.
Vi som advarer mot islams vekst gjør det med stor risiko for
eget liv og egen helse. Vi gjør det på tross av at det medfører stigmatisering
fra vårt ettergivende, servile og islamofile etablissement, som insisterer på
destruktiv flerkultur. På tross av at vi blir sett på som paranoide, skrullete
rasister.
Vi gjør det fordi vi ser at islam i Vesten er på fremmarsj
og vokser raskere enn alle andre religioner, og fordi vi vet at mer islam i
samfunnet nødvendigvis vil bety mindre frihet, mindre likestilling, mindre av
alt vi kjenner og elsker. Det er ikke spekulasjon. Vi ser det samme over hele
verden. Der islam trer frem, forsvinner friheten. Ingen land med en muslimsk
majoritet er noe å skryte av. Ingen av dem har noe i nærheten av vår frihet,
vår likestilling, vår individualisme, og dermed er de heller ikke kapable til å
oppnå det vi har oppnådd i Vesten.
As one example, many academics, especially those entrenched
in Middle East Studies departments, have long insisted that, “five centuries of
peaceful coexistence [between Islam and Europe] elapsed before political events
and an imperial-papal power play led to [a] centuries-long series of so-called
holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of
misunderstanding and distrust,” to quote Georgetown University’s John Esposito.
her, Ibrahaim raymond
-
The French and all Western people—indeed, all non-Islamic
people—would do well to remember what James Lorimer, a theoretician of legal
jurisprudence, wrote back in 1884 in his Institutes of the Law of Nations:
So long as Islam
endures, the reconciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians
[“People of the Book”], and still more with the rest of mankind, must continue
to be an insoluble problem… For an indefinite future, however reluctantly, we
must confine our political recognition to the professors of those religions
which… preach the doctrine of “live and let live.” https://raymondibrahim.com/2016/07/18/reuters-muslim-grievances-responsible-for-terrorism-in-france/
-
Leftist academics across the country regurgitated
Chomsky’s themes, cheering the 9/11 terrorist acts, which they deemed a just
retribution for America’s transgressions:
History professor Robin Kelley of New York University
stated: “We need a civil war, class war, whatever to put an end to U.S.
policies that endanger all of us.”
History professor Gerald Horne of the University of North
Carolina asserted that “the bill has come due, the time of easy credit is up.
It is time to pay.”
Professor Eric Foner of Columbia University, the renowned
Marxist historian, expressed his personal confusion about “which is more
frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric
emanating daily from the White House.”
Barbara Foley, a professor of English at Rutgers
University, felt 9/11 was a justified response to the “fascism” of U.S. foreign
policy.
Mark Lewis Taylor, a professor of theology and culture at
Princeton Seminary, thought the WTC buildings were justifiable targets because
they were a “symbol of today’s wealth and trade.”
Robert Paul Churchill, a professor of philosophy at
George Washington University, rationalized that the terrorist attack was
justified:
What the
terrorists despised and sought to defeat was our arrogance, our gluttonous way
of life, our miserliness toward the poor and its starving; the expression of a
soulless pop culture . . . and a domineering attitude that insists on having
our own way no matter what the cost to others.
Of course, the infamous Ward Churchill, as we know,
outdid all the others, blaming not only Bush and America, but the “little
Eichmanns” inside the buildings for the attacks.
Churchill, Chomsky, and their kin on the academic Left
were joined by prominent figures in the progressive culture at large. Norman
Mailer stepped forward to opine that the suicide hijackers were “brilliant.” In
his view, the attack was completely understandable, since “Everything wrong
with America led to the point where the country built that tower of Babel which
consequently had to be destroyed.”
Oliver Stone affirmed that he saw 9/11 as a “revolt” and
compared the subsequent Palestinian celebrations with those that had attended
the celebrations in the French and Russian Revolutions. Susan Sontag,
meanwhile, held that the terrorist attack was the result of “specific American
alliances and actions.”
From the religious camp, Tony Campolo, a leading Christian
evangelist who served as one of former President Clinton’s “spiritual
advisers,” believed that 9/11 was a legitimate response to the Crusades.
The American flag, a hated symbol to the Left, also
became a target: Novelist Barbara Kingsolver was incredulous that her
daughter’s kindergarten teacher instructed the students to come to school the
next day dressed in red, white, and blue. Nation columnist Katha Pollitt had
the same reaction regarding her teenage daughter’s impulse to fly an American
flag outside the family home. Pollitt told her that she could “buy a flag with
her own money and fly it out her bedroom window, because that’s hers, but the living
room is off-limits.” This was, Pollitt explained, because the American flag
stands for “jingoism and vengeance and war.”
Similar sentiments were heard throughout Europe as well.
The German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen described 9/11 as “the greatest work
of art for the whole cosmos.” Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997
Nobel Prize for literature, observed: “The great [Wall Street] speculators
wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with
poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?” [1]
Cicero sa det
slik:
«En nasjon kan overleve sine tåper men den kan ikke overleve
den indre fienden. Fienden ved porten er mindre formidabel, for han er kjent og
bærer sitt banner åpent. Men forræderen beveger seg fritt i folkemengden (…)
han fremstår ikke som en forræder. Han bederver nasjonens sjel, underminerer
byens pilarer og infiserer politikken slik at den ikke lenger kan stå i mot. En
morder er mindre fryktinngytende. Forræderen er selve pesten».
Kulturmarxistene og de gode muslimene er begge avhengige av
å ødelegge sarte barnesinn, for å sikre oppslutning om sine respektive onde
tankesett. I begge tilfeller hjernevaskes ungen til å forkaste kritisk tanke og
vestlige frihetsverdier.
Andre Servier forklarer fenomenet i boken «Islam and the
Psychology of the Musulman», men fenomenet har samme effekt uansett om ungen er
muslim eller ei; «Den bedøvende innflytelse
av islam er godt illustrert av måten muslimen oppfører seg på i ulike stadier
av livet hans. I sin tidlige barndom, når religion ennå ikke har infisert
hjernen hans, viser han en livlig intelligens og et bemerkelsesverdig åpent
sinn, tilgjengelig for ideer av alle slag; men, etterhvert som han vokser opp
og utsettes for familiens og samfunnets påvirkning, tar islam tak i ham og
omslutter ham, hjernen hans stopper tilsynelatende å fungere, hans dømmekraft
svinner hen, hans intelligens paralyseres og blir uhelbredelig degenerert.»
På tidlig 80-tall var det 56 000 muslimer i Tyskland.
Hovedsaklig tyrkere, en gruppe der 80 % lever på trygd. Hvis du synes det er ille, er
sysselsettingsgraden enda verre for nåtidens velferdsturister. I dag er det
over 7 millioner Uintegrerbare der. Og landet har for lengst begynt å få
kjennetegnene på en muhammedansk krigssone. Innenriksministeren erklærte denne
uken at migrasjonen var årsaken til Tysklands problemer. Det har faktisk
tyskerne visst siden 80-tallet, uten at de har foretatt seg noe med
islamproblemet.
He cites as evidence the bizarre assertions of Western
leaders that Islam is simply the “religion of peace”. After the 9/11 hijackers
had done to the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon exactly as Islam had always
taught, President Bush declared:
“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is
all about. Islam is peace.” Barack Obama,
his successor, went further when visiting Cairo in 2009: “I have known Islam on
three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed … Partnership
between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.”
Most extreme in his stupidity, in Spencer’s view, was Pope Francis in 2013: “…authentic Islam and the proper reading of
the Qur’an are opposed to every form of violence.” These fantasy views of Islam
lead to calls for “respect” instead of reform. They result in the demonisation
of people with real life experience of the problems Islam inflicts on the
societies where it takes root — people such as Geert Wilders, apostate Ibn
Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
-
Med gud på Fykse
Tveits side av Jan Herdal -19. september 2018 | 20:45 31
Olav Fykse Tveit er norsk teolog og generalsekretær i
Kirkenes Verdensråd. I går åpnet han rådets verdenskonferanse mot
«fremmedfrykt, rasisme og populistisk nasjonalisme». I åpningstalen hyller han
masseinnvandring uten begrensninger, og forsøker nærmest å gjøre åpne grenser
til guds eget prosjekt.
– Vi er samlet her av
en meget betydelig årsak, en krevende oppgave, et bud fra Gud som kommer til
oss gjennom mange migranter. Mange av dem finner at de er utestengt fra en
trygg og håpefull framtid. Vi er her fordi kirkene er kallet til sammen å
konfrontere frykten, uttrykk for den frykten og politisk misbruk av frykt, sa
Fykse Tveit.
Dette er en klokkeklar politisk krigserklæring mot de store
og raskt voksende deler av Europas folk, deres politiske partier og talerør som
motsetter seg masseinvandringen. Og aktivisten Fykse Tveit mener kirkene bør
«konfrontere» sine politiske motstandere.
…
– Vi må hjelpe millioner av migranter og flyktninger til å
finne trygghet og til å integrere dem i nye hjem. Vi må lege samfunn som er
dypt splittet av fremmedfrykt, rasisme og hat.
Jeg tror det skulle
rekke til å vise at vi står overfor en prelat uten sjenerende bakkekontakt, og
at Kirkenes Verdensråd akter å gå både FN og EU en høy gang som globalistisk og
nasjonalstatsfiendtlig fyrtårn. Fykse Tveit er heller ikke i stand til å se
motsetningen i sine mål – å ønske velkommen millioner av nye migranter,
samtidig som samfunnet skal leges for sine sår.
Det er helt naturlig at Europas folk utvikler et sjølforsvar
mot den eksistensielle trusselen som masseinnvandringen har eskalert til. Det
er underlig at det ikke har kommet før og sterkere. La oss håpe det ikke er for
seint. Men trygghet for europeerne står åpenbart ikke på Fykse Tveits og KVs
agenda. Deres grenseløse godhet gjelder andre, og konsekvenser er uetisk, for
ikke å si rasistisk.
Det er kanskje litt flåsete sagt, men jeg synes både Fykse
Tveit og rådet hans er like utdatert som slagordet «Thanks heaven for Seven
Eleven». Hvem har bruk for slike prester lenger?
Videre om Tveit av
Zæhler på resett:
Katolske biskoper i
Europa påkalte solidaritet for migranter i en uttalelse mandag da de møttes i
Poznan, Polen. De fordømte blant annet mentaliteten der man anser innvandrere
for å være utlendinger.
I en skriftlig uttalelse, som biskopene skal ha blitt enige
om, heter det blant annet følgende:
– Individualistisk kultur (…) leder til et rent økonomisk
syn på ting, der solidariteten ikke har noen plass, der svakere individer anses
for å være byrder, og der innvandrere anses for å være utlendinger.
Ifølge de kristne lærde er «solidaritet» løsningen på alle
verdens problemer. Og det innebærer nødvendigvis masseinnvandring.
– Vi er ikke geopolitiske eksperter, men som pastorer er vi
involvert i det faktiske livet i våre samfunn under alle omstendigheter. Vi
anerkjenner den store kompleksiteten ved dette temaet, men vi understreker,
sammen med den hellige Fader Frans, at solidaritet er den uunngåelige veien til
å løse nasjonale, internasjonale og globale problemer. Denne veien inkluderer
åpenhet og integrering i alle mulige former, heter det videre i uttalelsen.
På tirsdag innledet Vatikanet og Kirkenes Verdensråd en to
dager lang konferanse mot «fremmedfrykt, rasisme og populistisk nasjonalisme»,
som del av en større agenda for å støtte ytterligere masseinnvandring til
Europa.
Generalsekretæren i
Kirkenes Verdensråd er norske Olav Fykse Tveit. Han fordømte i sin tale de
«destruktive kreftene» som nasjonalismen angivelig representerer.
– Vi vil ikke tillate
at de polariserende kreftene fremmedfrykt, rasisme, og nasjonalistisk populisme
vinner frem, derimot er vi rede til å kjempe for bevisstheten til alle de som
affekteres av dem, sa Tveit.
Vatikanets
representant, Monsignor Duffé, fordømte på sin side myndigheter som forsøker å
hindre illegal migrasjon, slik som Italias nye regjering.
– Hvordan kan vi
ønske velkommen og beskytte migranter, når en vesentlig del av våre borgere,
inklusive våre brødre og søstre i troen, stenger sine dører for migranter,
fordi de tror at de sistnevnte «destabiliserer» deres samfunn, nasjon og miljø?
spurte Duffé.
-
“The Bush
administration chose the first path.” Do you really think that America has been
trying to “demonize and attempt to disenfranchise from the global community
one-sixth of humanity”? We have, after all, endless statements, including many
by President Bush himself, that do not demonize but celebrate Islam, time after
time. I’d like to just read a handful of them, if you don’t mind.
Azzi: “No, of course I don’t, it’s fine, go right ahead.”
Questioner 9: Here are just a few:
“America treasures the relationship we have with our many
Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires
countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This
year, may Eid also be a time in which we
recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us
together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance
mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all.”
“Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my
country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an
occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning
that has benefited mankind.”
“Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do
not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most
Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful
religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon
tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.”
‘”We see in Islam a religion that traces its origins back to
God’s call on Abraham. We share your belief in God’s justice, and your
insistence on man’s moral responsibility. We thank the many Muslim nations who
stand with us against terror. Nations that are often victims of terror,
themselves.”
“Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens
are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not.
Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a
great religion.”
“Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires
them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion.”
Azzi: “Well, I can’t disagree with any of that. But I think
you’ve been cherry-picking what George Bush said. He also said some pretty
awful things about Islam.”
-
Anjem Choudary:
Here are some of Choudary’s
quotes, from an earlier article in the Telegraph:
“When Sharia law is implemented, maybe in
10 or 15 years’ time, she [the Queen] would be expected like all women in
Britain to be covered from head to toe, only revealing her face and hands.”
“Thieves would have various warnings first,
and only in cases where he has stolen more than £20 of non-perishable goods
from a private house would his hand be chopped off.”
“Under Sharia and under the Koran the sale
of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol, that would be
40 lashes.”
“There will be no more pubs, no more
gambling houses, no more national lottery.”
“All women would have to be covered up
appropriately and wear the niqab or veil and so there will be no prostitution.”
“By 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim
country. It will be the end of freedom of democracy and submission to God.”
“We don’t believe in democracy, as soon as
they have authority, Muslims should implement Sharia. This is what we’re trying
to teach people.”
“Next time when your child is at school and
the teacher says, ‘What do you want when you grow up? What is your ambition?’
they should say, ‘To dominate the whole world by Islam, including Britain –
that is my ambition’.”
“BBC under fire after Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton
‘compares extremist preacher Anjem Choudary to Gandhi and Mandela,’” by Steph
Cockroft, MailOnline, May 14, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
The BBC is under fire after the Home Affairs Editor appeared
to compare notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson
Mandela.
Following a lengthy report on last night’s BBC News at Ten
about Choudary’s ‘radicalising force’, Mark Easton appeared to question whether
there were similarities between Britain’s most famous extremist and two of
history’s greatest civil rights campaigners.
Referring to Theresa May’s pledge to clamp
down on extremism, the journalist said that Gandhi and Mandela had both been
‘extremists’ and that extreme views ‘are sometimes needed to challenge very
establish values’.
But outraged viewers slammed the comparison
as ‘disgusting’ while experts said the ‘ludicrous’ comments could give credence
to Choudary’s ‘complete rejection’ of democracy and tolerance.
After a ‘special report’ which gave further
airtime to Choudary and his radical views, Mr Easton said: ‘It’s one thing to ban
someone for inciting hatred or violence, but quite another to pass a law that
silences anyone who challenges established values.
‘I was in
Parliament Square today – a statue of Gandhi looking down at me who was jailed
for being extremist; Mandela who was jailed for being an extremist.
‘History tells us
that extreme views are sometimes needed to challenge a very established values
that people at the time hold so dear.’
Adam Deen, founder
and executive director of The Deen Institute, a Muslim debating forum and
think-tank, said the journalist was trying to make the point that dissenting
views are essential in a democracy.
But he said that
Choudary’s views ‘completely reject’ democracy and tolerance – the very values
by which Gandhi and Mandela’s views were inspired.
Mr Deen said: ‘I
think the journalist’s point is underpinned by the view that dissenting views
are important for a democracy and that these voices can highlight areas where a
society may have gone wrong.
‘But the error is
that he is assuming that Anjem is arguing in the same way or dissenting in the
same way as the likes of Mandela or Gandhi, both of whom were dissenting with a
backdrop of views that the establishment already held.
‘Unlike Mandela
and Gandhi, Choudary completely rejects those values of democracy and tolerance
which makes the comparison completely false.
‘Anjem rejects
democracy, is very non-Muslim and is very much anti-western. So to regard Anjem
as a legitimate dissenting voice – and to open up this topic, saying that
“maybe we’ve got it wrong to clamp down on his organisation” – is absurd.’
Anjem is “very non-Muslim”? Exactly who is “Mr. Deen” trying
to kid?
-
Since the election of
President Emmanuel Macron a year ago, the situation has become worse. On June
20, 2017, at the end of a post-Ramadan iftardinner he shared with Muslim
leaders, President Macron stated that «…no one should make believe that Islam
is not compatible with the Republic»; that » no one should say that France
reject Muslim faith» and that «attempt to give Islam the image of a religion
condoning murder and terror» must be condemned.
Pave Frans:
“there is no such thing as
Islamic terrorism” and that ‘“authentic Islam and the proper reading of the
Quran are opposed to every form of violence.” He has, in turn, been praised by
the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed al-Tayeb, who thanked him for his “defense of
Islam against the accusation of violence and terrorism.”
He has even obliquely justified
the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad, saying
that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good
friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,
it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people
provoke and then (something can happen).” So the murder of a dozen helpless
cartoonists is compared to a punch. There is something out of whack in the
Pope’s moral calculus.
-
Before he visited the
United Arab Emirates on Feb. 3-5, Pope Francis delivered a video message to the
people of the U.A.E.:
“I am happy that
in a few days I will be able to visit your country, a land that strives to be a
model of coexistence, human brotherhood and encounter among different
civilizations and cultures, where many find a secure place to work and live
freely in respect for diversity.”
What “model of coexistence” and “respect for diversity” is
to be found in the U.A.E.? U.A.E. subjects constitute 20 percent of the
population, while foreign workers and other expatriates account for the other
80 percent.
Just a few days before making his visit to the U.A.E., the
Pope effusively described that country as “a model of coexistence, human brotherhood
and encounter among different civilizations and cultures where many find a
secure place to work and live freely in respect for diversity.” That’s a
curious way to describe a country where fewer than 10% of the population, a
pampered elite of Muslim Arabs, are waited on by the other 90%, made up of
foreigners, whose working conditions are harrowing, whose job security is
nonexistent, and whose religious observances are constrained by the paucity of
churches and Hindu temples.
And before he next decides to praise to the skies such
people as Egyptian Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, whom he
has met on several occasions, the last time during this February 3-5 visit to
the U.A.E., let the Pope find out more about him. Calling El-Tayeb a “friend
and dear brother,” Francis thanked the sheik for having “the courage and desire
to affirm that faith in God unites and does not divide, draws together even in
differences (and) moves away from hostility and aversion.” F
Australia: Muslim
leader compares extermination of Jews in Holocaust to how Muslims are treated
now, July 17, 2017 12:31 pm By Robert Spencer 56 Comments
This is not just an insult to the memory of the Jews who
were murdered in the Holocaust. It’s also a common Leftist talking point. Many,
many others have made this claim, including Noam Chomsky, Bernie Sanders; the
notorious non-Muslim Islamic apologist Karen Armstrong; Jeffrey Goldberg,
“journalist” at The Atlantic; Leftist media darling Reza Aslan; Muslim
Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison; Nicholas Kristof of the New York
Times; Canadian Muslim leader Syed Sohawardy; and Philadelphia chapter leader
of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations Jacob Bender. Many
others have repeated it.
The blazingly
brilliant Daniel Greenfield takes it apart in this video.
The idea that Muslims are the new Jews is put forward by the
Left, but it also has opponents on the Left. In 2014, as part of his ongoing
awakening to the nature and reality of the jihad threat, Bill Maher noted:
Jews weren’t
oppressing anybody. There weren’t 5,000 militant Jewish groups. They didn’t do
a study of treatment of women around the world and find that Jews were at the
bottom of it. There weren’t 10 Jewish countries in the world that were putting
gay people to death just for being gay.
Indeed. Further, no one is calling for or justifying
genocide of Muslims. No individual or group opposed to Islam is remotely
comparable to the National Socialists. Not that facts have ever gotten in the
way of a good meme.
Maher isn’t alone on the Left in having pointed out the
absurdity of likening opposition to jihad to the lead-up to the Holocaust. The
late Christopher Hitchens also refuted this idea when writing a few years ago
about the notorious Ground Zero Mosque proposal:
“Some of what
people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German
media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,” Imam Abdullah Antepli,
Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall
the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy
war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of
homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they
did not like.
“Extremist Islamic leader compares the extermination of six
million Jews during the Holocaust to the way Muslims are treated now,” by
Brianne Tolj and Stephen Johnson, Daily Mail Australia, July 16, 2017 (thanks
to The Religion of Peace):
A leader of a
hardline Islamist group has compared the treatment of Muslims to the massacre
of millions of Jewish people during the Holocaust.
Muslims have
become an ‘existential threat’ in the world today, Hizb ut-Tahrir media
representative Hamzah Qureshi was recently recorded telling fellow group
members.
The growing fear
of Islam is comparable to Germany’s declaration that the Jewish people ‘needed
to go entirely’ almost 70 years ago, Mr Qureshi argued.
‘In Europe during
the 19th and 20th century the ‘Jewish question’ interrogated the status of Jews
and soon morphed from an allegedly neutral inquiry into a question of serious
threat,’ he began.
‘Numerous answers
were proposed – resettlement, integration, assimilation, deportation and so on
as Jews were labelled an obstacle to the German nation and the insidious enemy
within.’
As fears grew, the
Holocaust was offered as a ‘final solution’ to the ‘Jewish question,’ he said.
‘Today though
brothers and sisters there is a “Muslim question”,’ he said.
‘The same answers
that were given for the Jewish question are now being suggested for the Muslim
version – integration, assimilation, deportation and so on. Muslims have become
that existential threat, that enemy within and that persistent danger,’ Mr
Qureshi said.
‘Muslims are told
that in order to be accepted they must conform to a certain set of values
different to their own.’
‘All this begs the
confronting question. What will be the final solution to this ‘Muslim
Question?’
Mr Qureshi’s
comments come after fellow Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Uthman Badar was captured
on camera saying Muslims who leave the religion should be put to death.
‘The ruling for
apostates as such in Islam is clear, that apostates attract capital punishment
and we don’t shy away from that,’ Badar said in Sydney in May. An apostate is
someone who decides to leave Islam…. jw
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar