From an article in USA Today:• Supporters of the Swiss referendum collected enough signatures two weeks ago to call for a constitutional ban on minarets, the towers used to call worshipers to prayer. No date has been set for the vote.
• Italy's Interior Minister Roberto Maroni announced this month that he wants to close a Milan mosque because crowds attending Friday prayers spill onto the street and irritate neighbors. In April, the city of Bologna scrapped plans for a new mosque, saying Muslim leaders failed to meet certain requirements, including making public its source of funding.
• In Austria, the southern province of Carinthia passed a law in February that effectively bans the construction of mosques by requiring them to fit within the overall look and harmony of villages and towns.
• Far-right leaders from 15 European cities met in Antwerp, Belgium, in January and called for a ban on new mosques and a halt to "the Islamization" of European cities. The group said mosques act as catalysts for taking over neighborhoods and imposing Islamic ways of life on Europeans.
"We already have more than 6,000 mosques in Europe, which are not only a place to worship but also a symbol of radicalization, some financed by extreme groups in Saudi Arabia or Iran," Filip Dewinter, leader of a Flemish separatist party in Belgium, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide at the conference.
14 comments:
now don't again call us here in europe rascists or else (a la haider). We're fighting the war against islamofascism for all of the west - and yes - europe is the new battlefront for Al Qaida (new strategy: europe first). Support us (thank you). Otherwise you'll have to really fight europe - but not the good old europe you like to bash - an islamofascistic europe.
The stirrings in Europe are encouraging - very encouraging!
Sensible Europeans reject political correctness and multiculturalism. America, where it probably all began, can stick both concepts where the sun don't shine!
I think most of us in the United States feel strongly that Western European countries are our strong and important allies, and what goes on in Europe is extremely important to Americans.
And those of us who are working to thwart Islam's relentless encroachment are doing our damnedest to stick our American multiculturalism and political correctness where the sun don't shine! These concepts have become a danger to the free world. They are fine in a very limited sense, but blindly following them would lead to our undoing.
In a way, we could characterize this war as a battle between political correctness and freedom. May freedom reign!
Criticism of Islam is not racism. Islam is not a race. And there are Christian and Jewish Arabs. And there are Muslims of every race on earth. In fact, there are more Muslims who are non-Arab than there are Arab Muslims.
Islamification is not a racial issue, as anyone who has studied Islam — in either America or Europe — is well aware.
In fact, Walid Phares, speaking to policy makers in Europe, made a very important point: Understanding exactly what the threat really is (Islam's political intentions) can actually ELIMINATE racism against Arab-looking people because it would accurately name the enemy. By not clearly naming the enemy (out of political correctness), we leave the enemy undefined and so out of fear and uncertainty those fears express themselves as racism. I think that is a very good point.
I say again and again and again: America! Stick PC and multiculti where the sun don't shine! Where the sun don't shine! Where the sun don't shine!
No one asked my two cents, but I'll stick that in:
I don't care about PC and multiculti.
Islam is not a race. It is a religio-POLITICAL ideology. It is akin to Nazism in that it is the almost complete obliteration of the individual, and it calls for death to large numbers of people.
That being said, where I get of the bus is when Europeans AND Americans attempt to conflate the problem of Islamization with the problem of generalized immigration.
They are two separate issues.
The reason I feel the need to add this is that we continue to get harrassed here at IBA because we oppose racism.
That's bleeding stupid.
And, it is stupid because Islam is not a race, and the only thing we make a habit of opposing here at IBA is Islam.
That seems so strange to be harassed BECAUSE we OPPOSE racism. Thank you for weighing in, Pastorius. I didn't know anyone would oppose the opposition of racism. That's crazy. What the hell does race have to do with Islam?
The reason I DO care about multiculturalism and political correctness is that it seems to be the only thing standing in the way of simply adopting what should be commonsense self-defense: Arresting and deporting those who propose the overthrow of the government (which is apparently happening in the MAJORITY of mosques in America today) and stopping all concessions to this relentless band of interlopers (the Jihadis).
If you've got someone pushing for special concessions regardless of fairness, and who have stated their intentions to usurp the legitimate government, you would think it a no-brainer to stop them.
The two things that prevent most Westerners from even knowing about this issue is political correctness and multiculturalism. They prevent politicians from speaking openly and directly about the issue. They prevent newspapers and television reporters from reporting openly and honestly about the issue, and they even prevent individual people talking about it among themselves out of fear of being ostracized by political correctness and multiculturalism. You could probably get fired at work for simply saying the teachings of Islam are seditious.
So I would say: This barrier to being heard — the BIGGEST barrier to being heard by a significant portion of the population of non-Muslims — is an important factor to deal with in this fight.
I just came across an example of how multiculturalism ties the hands of those who are trying to protect a country. In Britain, the Equality Commission says it would be a violation of the Race Relations Act to treat foreigners less favorably than British citizens by limiting how many foreigners can be in the British armed forces.
The British Army wanted no more than 15 percent of their national army made up of non-British soldiers, which in my mind is already way too high.
But multiculturalism may force them to fill their ranks with people who are not loyal to Britain. That is multiculturally-induced insanity.
Why any country would have non-citizens in their army does not make sense.
It is becoming ever clearer by the day that the mainstream parties are not going to tackle our problems with immigration or Islam. Those parties have been ruined by multiculturalism and political correctness, and in any case do not have leaders strong enough, bold enough, or courageous enough to tackle the problems head on. They are afraid of sounding racist, etc.
The only parties prepared to do anything about these problems are the very parties that many people are afraid of. The parties I am referring to are, of course, the BNP in the UK, Front National in France, BZÖ and FPÖ in Austria, the Northern League in Italy, the Swiss Peope's Party in Switzerland, and Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, etc.
But even therein lies a problem, because these right-wing parties have their differences; so it is doubtful that they could co-ordinate anything, at least at this stage. Also, some of those parties do not have mass appeal because many voters consider them to be too extreme.
But it has to be said that they all seem to be gaining ground. In Austria, the BZÖ and the FPÖ together took 29% of the votes. That's significant.
But then, as soon as that happens, people start harking back to Austria's Nazi past. Understandably, of course. People are fearful that history will repeat itself. It often does.
The fact is, though, that the mainstream parties will not do anything about the problems we face; so we are left with two options, vote for right-wing parties who will do something about these problems, or let Islam take over. I think it is as simple as that, especially as things stand.
By the way, Citizen Warrior, I notice that you have a link to books on 'political Islam' on your website. That's a tautology. Islam is political by its very nature. It is not possible to be a practising Muslim and not be political. I always say that Islam is 90% politics and 10% spirituality. Even the Ayatollah Khomeini said: Islam is politics or it is nothing.
Hi Mark,
I know it is a tautology, but most people do not, and the site is very good. Have you ever read their books? Their book, A Simple Koran, was the first version of the Qur'an I was able to read. I bought two other standard versions but they were so difficult to read and so confusing, it was frustrating (because they were written in King-James style Old English, the Qur'an refers to events in Mohammad's life without telling you what those events were, and the chapters are arranged out of chronological order).
But A Simple Koran fixes all those problems, and yet still has every single passage from the Koran in it.
I have since found, however, that the same group (CSPI Publishing) have a book called An Abridged Koran which is exactly like A Simple Koran without the repetition. The original Koran has an enormous amount of repetition in it, saying the same tired stories again and again.
Citizen Warrior:
I hope you didn't think I was being hypercritical when I wrote that. That wasn't my intention at all. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement.
I haven't seen that "simple" Koran you write of (except from the link you gave me); though I am sure it is good. You know, you've read it. One of the Korans I have that is in the most modern English is the one by Dawood. You'll find it here. This one has the surahs re-arranged, and the English is modern.
Like you say, the Koran is so repetitive; it is also mind-numbingly boring! There are also so many contradictions in the Koran, and grammatical mistakes to boot! :-)
I didn't take any offense at all, Mark. You made a good point, and people have used all kinds of phrases to indicate Jihadis and distinguish them from "moderate Muslims" -- phrases like "radical Islam" and "Islamic terrorists" and "Islamic fundamentalists." I thought "Political Islam" was better than most, but in a sense, I think the whole exercise is futile.
We need a phrase to distinguish the non-Jihadi Muslims. And it needs to be defined clearly: Specifically it should be Muslims who openly acknowledge the violent and intolerant passages in the Qur'an and reject them.
There are very few of these kinds of Muslims, at least very few speaking up. But unless they want to be lumped together with the "Radical Muslims" they had better start speaking up. Or at least that's the way I'm thinking we should deal with it because all this coddling of "moderate Muslims" doesn't seem to be doing anything but lulling non-Muslims back to sleep.
One of the justifications of distinguishing between moderate and radical Muslims is that "we don't want to turn the moderates against us." That is to say, "Unless we coddle the peace-loving Muslims, they will turn violent."
Which is to say, "Unless you pander to us and call us peaceful, we will kill you."
You see, I just don't like that.
I liked what you said, Mark, about the Qur'an being boring. That is the one descriptor I have used when talking about it. I had to read it in short bursts because it put me to sleep.
That is, until the last fourth of the book (written after Mohammad became a military power), where it suddenly became very interesting and relevant. This is only true in Qur'ans that are written in chronological order, of course, and not the jumbled traditional order of the chapters. (I know you know that, Mark, but I was putting that in for people who haven't yet attempted the brave and challenging act of reading the damn thing.)
Post a Comment