In addition to the film about the Quran that Dutch parlementarian Geert Wilders is set to release in March there is more serious Islam criticism coming up in The Netherlands.
Dutch Islam Scholar Hans Jansen is publishing a critical book on Islam and Jihad (Dutch) against unbelievers in April. The book's title is "read the Quran yourself". Hans Jansen has written a score of critical books and pamflets against Islam. He calls the Quran a hunting licence against non-muslims.
Hans Jansen has seen the effect of Islam in his own family. His son Ewout Jansen, a comedian who ridiculed Islam, has received death threats against his person.
Showing posts with label Hans Jansen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hans Jansen. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Mohammed removes all doubt
Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh's assassin had to testify yesterday in the case against several members of the Hofstad terror cell. Mohammed Bouyeri was a dominant member of the Hofstad terror cell. Amongst other matters concerning the nature of his religion Mohammed Bouyeri testified:
This is what Islam means to a good Muslim according to a significant portion of the Muslim community in their countries of origin AND in the West, where they have settled in the last 40 years as a result of the failure to control immigration into those countries.
Good Muslims take their scripture as a hunting licence, as Arabist Hans Jansen argues. And we unbelievers are their prey. In a world in which states are becoming increasingly irrelevant this is a powerful force.
In the same week US law enforcement arrested a group of Albanian Muslim immigrants who were preparing themselves to attack Fort Dix, a US Military base. From their actions it is highly probable that they see their duty as Muslims in the same light as Mohammed Bouyeri does.
A good Muslim in the Netherlands has two choices,he said.
The first was to ‘pack your bags and leave’ for an Islamic countrybut, he said,
there isn't one at the moment. The second, said Bouyeri, is the one he opted for:
pick up your weapons and fight.
This is what Islam means to a good Muslim according to a significant portion of the Muslim community in their countries of origin AND in the West, where they have settled in the last 40 years as a result of the failure to control immigration into those countries.
Good Muslims take their scripture as a hunting licence, as Arabist Hans Jansen argues. And we unbelievers are their prey. In a world in which states are becoming increasingly irrelevant this is a powerful force.
In the same week US law enforcement arrested a group of Albanian Muslim immigrants who were preparing themselves to attack Fort Dix, a US Military base. From their actions it is highly probable that they see their duty as Muslims in the same light as Mohammed Bouyeri does.
The Dukas are typical of those who have thrived from such ties: 28 of 37 local family members live in America now.This plot exposes Bush' dictum:
we fight them there (Iraq), so they do not come hereas the inanity is obviously IS and WAS. But neither Bush, nor the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates seems to be able to rethink their position on the universality of Western civilisation.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Collateral damage
This blog has drawn attention to the violent ultra Leftist scene in The Netherlands that is ready to pursue its aims through the use of violence. This scene is often subsidised by the Dutch State. The Leftists set up front organisations which recieve subsidies and which propagandise, gather intelligence and sue for their cause. In their free time the Leftist activists pursue their more underground violent activities on basis of the information gathered in their above ground live. The main cores of this kind of leftist vigilantism are the squatter movement and the animal rights movement. Radical animal rights activists attack farms, farmers and laboratories using test animals. The government does not just use tax payers' money to subsidise the life style and ideology of the radical left, Dutch judges refuses to punish these radicals, public prosecutors and Ministers of Justice refuse to investigate cases. The murderer of Fortuyn, Volkert van der Graaf, was a animal rights/green activist who threatened and possibly killed opponents, who did not follow the course he set out for them. (Read "the van der Werken case")
In November 2005 Louis Sévèkes, a radical of the squatter movement was killed. His comrades from the squatter movement suspected a police infiltrator, who had been uncovered by the radical organiser. Sévèkes was known for purging the movement of people he regarded as suspect.
This blog opinioned:
The assassin was wanted by the Dutch and European authorities for bank robberies. This month the suspicion of murdering Sévèkes was added, after Dutch police raided a garage which served Teges as a stash. Family and friends of Louis Sévèkes are shocked by the fact that the murder was committed by someone who belonged to their crowd. The assassin was living in a squatter building in Barcelona when he was arrested.
This case gives a bit of background on the Pim Fortuyn assassination. The murder on Fortuyn was not an isolated case. Radical leftist have a well-developed infrastructure and they receive tacit support from the State. Now that there is a Right wing countermovement underway the Leftists meet resistance for the first time. It is my prognosis that there will be more political violence in the near future from the Left in addition to the violent actions of Jihadis.
There are two items in the news which are related developments:
Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, whose son was threatened by Dutch Muslims, has called for the formation of a police special intelligence unit to investigate and follow up on death threats for political and religious purposes.
Significantly, in the border district of Twenthe German and Dutch police (Dutch and German) held an excercise ("Grensenlos") this month. The theme of the exercise was cracking down on rightwing extremists. It seems the authorities are looking the other way hard.
In November 2005 Louis Sévèkes, a radical of the squatter movement was killed. His comrades from the squatter movement suspected a police infiltrator, who had been uncovered by the radical organiser. Sévèkes was known for purging the movement of people he regarded as suspect.
This blog opinioned:
A few days ago a 41 year old leftist activist Louis Sevekes from the radical "squatter" and Extreme Leftist Fringe was murdered in Nijmegen. It is unclear who is responsible for the murderThe police could not find the assassin despite spending 60,000 hours on the investigation. However this week the assassin (Dutch) was arrested in Spain. He admitted guilt and his dairy provides the motive. Assassin Martinus Hendrikus Tega was also a member of the radical Leftist Squatter scene. He was purged by Louis Sévèkes in 1995 on suspicion of being a snitch. He swore revenge and waited for ten years to carry his intention out.
.............
Political violence is the new rage in The Netherlands. This started with subsidised Leftist groups that targetted nationalist groups in the mid 1980s. In 1986 squatters set a hotel on fire in Kedichem where a Dutch Nationalist group CP'86 was having a meeting. The wife of the party leader had to jump from the second floor of the hotel and lost a leg. At the time the thugs (Antifa) were subsidised by the government and shielded from police action.
The assassin was wanted by the Dutch and European authorities for bank robberies. This month the suspicion of murdering Sévèkes was added, after Dutch police raided a garage which served Teges as a stash. Family and friends of Louis Sévèkes are shocked by the fact that the murder was committed by someone who belonged to their crowd. The assassin was living in a squatter building in Barcelona when he was arrested.
This case gives a bit of background on the Pim Fortuyn assassination. The murder on Fortuyn was not an isolated case. Radical leftist have a well-developed infrastructure and they receive tacit support from the State. Now that there is a Right wing countermovement underway the Leftists meet resistance for the first time. It is my prognosis that there will be more political violence in the near future from the Left in addition to the violent actions of Jihadis.
There are two items in the news which are related developments:
Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, whose son was threatened by Dutch Muslims, has called for the formation of a police special intelligence unit to investigate and follow up on death threats for political and religious purposes.
Significantly, in the border district of Twenthe German and Dutch police (Dutch and German) held an excercise ("Grensenlos") this month. The theme of the exercise was cracking down on rightwing extremists. It seems the authorities are looking the other way hard.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Hunting Licence
This article, by the hand of Dutch Arabist Hans Jansen, appeared in HP/de Tijd
In every Dutch library and in almost every bookshop for years there has been a book available that three times refers to Jews as monkeys three times and as swine one time. This book is the Quran. It is mentioned in Quran 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166. Infidels, who constitute more than half of the Dutch population, are the subject of very unpleasant remarks. Moreover in every library of a pious Muslim there are books which argue that the majority of those in Hell are women. That a nation led by a woman can not be a happy one. Such pearls can be found in large quantities in the canonical compendia of the words regarded as pronunciated by the prophet Muhammed. In handbooks of Islamic law, which are also widely available and have been translated in many languages there is far more what Dutchmen, judging by their voting patterns strongly object to: a woman committing adultery must be stoned, those who are found guilty of a homosexual act must be killed. Those who drink wime must receive beatings with the rod. Further the Quran insists that the faithful must wage war “even if their spirit is not into it” (Quran 2:216). This book, which according to Muslims is Gods own writ, we read: “kill the unbelievers, where-ever you find them” (2:191). It is not a misprint, it is repeated twice: in Quran 4:89 and 4:91.
If a modern country wishes to outlaw certain Islamic books for their inflammatory character, a special police must be created to enforce the law, burn the books, interrogate the owners and borders and customs will have to makes sure such books will not enter and be distributed. Most Arabic and Islamic states indeed possess such special police services.
Even if such police services are effective, such questions need be asked as: can universities and academics be exempted for the purpose of studying Islam? Who will decide which academics can purchase what books despite the ban? Such a ban causes so many troubles that it better should not exist at all.
It is not really the books that are dangerous in the way gunpowder and cyanide are dangerous. As a matter of exegesis there is no problem for a modern or traditional theological acrobat to interpret the texts in such a way that the threat emanating on the first reading of these books will evaporate somewhat, or if necessary entirely.
The most used instrument of exegesis has been that they are not “general” texts, dealing with e.g. all Jews, no matter where and when, but that they are “specific” pronouncements concerning the Jews in the city of Medina, contemporaries and enemies of Muhammad, the Prophet (570-632). It is even possible to maintain that the text deals with several Jews in that city, a few individuals having a running argument with the Prophet Muhammad.
It is questionable whether that is historically correct, but who will know, the good purpose (Peace in our time) is valuable. On the other hand, when God in the story of Moses and Pharao instructs Moses to: “Go to Pharao” (Quran 20:24), than that is not a general divine commandment which all have to keep either? There are indeed istructions in the Quran, directly given by God himself, which are no for you and me.
Many English language Islamic books about Islam are annoying to read for an outsider, as the authors are apologetic about texts which are obviously crooked. Which is not odd, because we are dealing with a text which is over a thousand years old and the Bible has some interesting passages too. In the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomium 7:2 and the following verses it is carefully explained that “Thou shalt not kill”, unless it is heathens who recognize neither God nor law. Then killing becomes most commendable.
Modern outsiders are annoyed by contemporary straightening of crooked instructions, for they do not understand that is is a somewhat diffident way to distance the faithful from the killing that the ur-text calls for. A modern text can not be expected to say: “the Quran calls for robbing and killing non-Muslims, but I am a decent man, and although a Muslim I refuse to follow those violent passages of the Quran.”
Those who do so will get into a argument with many, (but not all) Islamic lawmen, and the often fanatical followers of these bearded professional Muslims. It is much smarter to explain the calls for militancy one finds in the Quran, as “in fact” not violent. “In fact“ the Quran does not call to warfare and murder, but to , say, self-defense. “In fact” Jihad is not “war against the unbelievers” but a “war against unbelief”, even if found in one’s own heart. From this position it is still possible to get into a feud with the militant pulpit tigers, but at least you are telling a good story.
However there is an essential difference between the Quran and the Bible, and that is the way both books are used by their adherents. The Quran is seen by clubs of Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence” granting them the right to murder non-Muslims. This caused a number of attacks, the most well-known and biggest of which is the attack on the USA of 11 September 2001. The smaller-scale attacks are ones such as the murder of Sadat, 1981, or those against the columnist Farag Foda in Cairo in June 1992. Of course there are Muslims without number who do not regard the Quran as a hunting licence, but the small or great number of Muslims that do, give the rest of the Planet a lot of trouble.
In the Churches there have been no serious reverends who regard the Bible as a hunting license which not only condones murdering dissidents, but even commands it. This is not so clear within Islam. At least there is a school within Islam, the Wahhabbis, which for lack of income, from the inception of the movement around 1750, until the discovery of oil, developed an amusing hobby from robbing and if necessary killing dissident Muslims, as non-Muslims had not around anymore in their area of operation on the Arabian peninsula for a long time.
The Ottoman Turks have managed to defeat these Wahhabites every now and then and in the nineteenth century quite a few Wahhabbi leaders ended on the excecutioner’s scaffold, to be killed in the name of the Sultan-Caliph in Constantinople/Istanbul. The Egyptian army has defeated the Wahhabbis once too. However the Wahhabbi movement has always managed to recover. And the Wahhabbis always act in concert with the Saudd dynasty.
As a result of the discovery of oil the Wahhabbis/Sauddis have become rich in the 50ies of the twentieth century and there is no more need to rob old women. They started to use their money to propagandize their teachings. Which is perfectly permittable of course. However, they market their creed as “the pure and original Islam”, not a provincial, eccentric and violent mode of Islam, invented around 1750, which preaches hatred against dissidents. In large areas, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere Wahhabbi schools is all there is, educationwise. A parent who does not send his son as a Taalib (“pupil”) to such a Wahhabbi madrasa (“school”) shortchanges him.
For Muslim youth in The Netherlands Wahhabbi education is often the only Islamic education that they will get. Compare this to a situation where giving Christian religious instruction is left to the Ku Klux Klan, as there is Freedom of Religion and the Klan has the money.
As “Wahhabbi” does not sound so pleasant after the wars on this movement by the Ottoman Turks, the name has been changed: “Salafism”. Salafism was originally a name of a modern school of Islamic thought from Egypt and has been recycled by the grateful Wahhabbis.
Islamic youth usually has no more than a vague cultural loyalty to Islam, without a concrete practice. They dream of a future in which Islam will be triumphant over its enemies. When such youth gets in touch with competent preachers and recruiters, it will not be long or such youngsters will view the Quran as a hunting licence and a licence to kill.
It sounds impressive to outlaw bloodthirsty interpretations on the Quran and Islam. However this approach may rather prove counterproductive. Making sure that militants do not crowd out their liberal modern fellow-believers is likely to be as effective and will prove sufficiently hard. Let’s not forget that the Reformed Church was never outlawed, and even so this Church does not exist anymore. After the more freethinking Protestants started to debate the question whether the snake in the Garden of Eden spoke in a way that could be understood using the senses it did not take a century before the Liberal Protestants had become virtually extinct, while the Orthodox Protestants were pushed to the margins.
It is questionable whether the Dutch State should concern itself deeply with Islam. Contrary to what is often thought the modern separation of State and Church does not mean that the State should not meddle in religious affairs. Rather the State has to see to it that the access to the religious market remains open to all vendors equally. In the Middle East an evil alliance between the State and religious leaders ensures that the market is closed to other vendors that Islamic ones.
A Dutch Islamic policy should seek to forestall, that supporters of religious movement intent on using violence to further their ideological goals, can abuse modern Western religious freedom, as it exists since about 1700. Religious freedom is only meant for those who are willing to desist from using violence for religious violence intend on furthering their own religion towards victory. Those who do not conform to that prescription and wishes to view their Holy Writ as a hunting licence or a licence to kill, is our enemy.
In every Dutch library and in almost every bookshop for years there has been a book available that three times refers to Jews as monkeys three times and as swine one time. This book is the Quran. It is mentioned in Quran 2:65, 5:60 and 7:166. Infidels, who constitute more than half of the Dutch population, are the subject of very unpleasant remarks. Moreover in every library of a pious Muslim there are books which argue that the majority of those in Hell are women. That a nation led by a woman can not be a happy one. Such pearls can be found in large quantities in the canonical compendia of the words regarded as pronunciated by the prophet Muhammed. In handbooks of Islamic law, which are also widely available and have been translated in many languages there is far more what Dutchmen, judging by their voting patterns strongly object to: a woman committing adultery must be stoned, those who are found guilty of a homosexual act must be killed. Those who drink wime must receive beatings with the rod. Further the Quran insists that the faithful must wage war “even if their spirit is not into it” (Quran 2:216). This book, which according to Muslims is Gods own writ, we read: “kill the unbelievers, where-ever you find them” (2:191). It is not a misprint, it is repeated twice: in Quran 4:89 and 4:91.
If a modern country wishes to outlaw certain Islamic books for their inflammatory character, a special police must be created to enforce the law, burn the books, interrogate the owners and borders and customs will have to makes sure such books will not enter and be distributed. Most Arabic and Islamic states indeed possess such special police services.
Even if such police services are effective, such questions need be asked as: can universities and academics be exempted for the purpose of studying Islam? Who will decide which academics can purchase what books despite the ban? Such a ban causes so many troubles that it better should not exist at all.
It is not really the books that are dangerous in the way gunpowder and cyanide are dangerous. As a matter of exegesis there is no problem for a modern or traditional theological acrobat to interpret the texts in such a way that the threat emanating on the first reading of these books will evaporate somewhat, or if necessary entirely.
The most used instrument of exegesis has been that they are not “general” texts, dealing with e.g. all Jews, no matter where and when, but that they are “specific” pronouncements concerning the Jews in the city of Medina, contemporaries and enemies of Muhammad, the Prophet (570-632). It is even possible to maintain that the text deals with several Jews in that city, a few individuals having a running argument with the Prophet Muhammad.
It is questionable whether that is historically correct, but who will know, the good purpose (Peace in our time) is valuable. On the other hand, when God in the story of Moses and Pharao instructs Moses to: “Go to Pharao” (Quran 20:24), than that is not a general divine commandment which all have to keep either? There are indeed istructions in the Quran, directly given by God himself, which are no for you and me.
Many English language Islamic books about Islam are annoying to read for an outsider, as the authors are apologetic about texts which are obviously crooked. Which is not odd, because we are dealing with a text which is over a thousand years old and the Bible has some interesting passages too. In the Old Testament, e.g. Deuteronomium 7:2 and the following verses it is carefully explained that “Thou shalt not kill”, unless it is heathens who recognize neither God nor law. Then killing becomes most commendable.
Modern outsiders are annoyed by contemporary straightening of crooked instructions, for they do not understand that is is a somewhat diffident way to distance the faithful from the killing that the ur-text calls for. A modern text can not be expected to say: “the Quran calls for robbing and killing non-Muslims, but I am a decent man, and although a Muslim I refuse to follow those violent passages of the Quran.”
Those who do so will get into a argument with many, (but not all) Islamic lawmen, and the often fanatical followers of these bearded professional Muslims. It is much smarter to explain the calls for militancy one finds in the Quran, as “in fact” not violent. “In fact“ the Quran does not call to warfare and murder, but to , say, self-defense. “In fact” Jihad is not “war against the unbelievers” but a “war against unbelief”, even if found in one’s own heart. From this position it is still possible to get into a feud with the militant pulpit tigers, but at least you are telling a good story.
However there is an essential difference between the Quran and the Bible, and that is the way both books are used by their adherents. The Quran is seen by clubs of Muslims as a God-given “hunting licence” granting them the right to murder non-Muslims. This caused a number of attacks, the most well-known and biggest of which is the attack on the USA of 11 September 2001. The smaller-scale attacks are ones such as the murder of Sadat, 1981, or those against the columnist Farag Foda in Cairo in June 1992. Of course there are Muslims without number who do not regard the Quran as a hunting licence, but the small or great number of Muslims that do, give the rest of the Planet a lot of trouble.
In the Churches there have been no serious reverends who regard the Bible as a hunting license which not only condones murdering dissidents, but even commands it. This is not so clear within Islam. At least there is a school within Islam, the Wahhabbis, which for lack of income, from the inception of the movement around 1750, until the discovery of oil, developed an amusing hobby from robbing and if necessary killing dissident Muslims, as non-Muslims had not around anymore in their area of operation on the Arabian peninsula for a long time.
The Ottoman Turks have managed to defeat these Wahhabites every now and then and in the nineteenth century quite a few Wahhabbi leaders ended on the excecutioner’s scaffold, to be killed in the name of the Sultan-Caliph in Constantinople/Istanbul. The Egyptian army has defeated the Wahhabbis once too. However the Wahhabbi movement has always managed to recover. And the Wahhabbis always act in concert with the Saudd dynasty.
As a result of the discovery of oil the Wahhabbis/Sauddis have become rich in the 50ies of the twentieth century and there is no more need to rob old women. They started to use their money to propagandize their teachings. Which is perfectly permittable of course. However, they market their creed as “the pure and original Islam”, not a provincial, eccentric and violent mode of Islam, invented around 1750, which preaches hatred against dissidents. In large areas, in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere Wahhabbi schools is all there is, educationwise. A parent who does not send his son as a Taalib (“pupil”) to such a Wahhabbi madrasa (“school”) shortchanges him.
For Muslim youth in The Netherlands Wahhabbi education is often the only Islamic education that they will get. Compare this to a situation where giving Christian religious instruction is left to the Ku Klux Klan, as there is Freedom of Religion and the Klan has the money.
As “Wahhabbi” does not sound so pleasant after the wars on this movement by the Ottoman Turks, the name has been changed: “Salafism”. Salafism was originally a name of a modern school of Islamic thought from Egypt and has been recycled by the grateful Wahhabbis.
Islamic youth usually has no more than a vague cultural loyalty to Islam, without a concrete practice. They dream of a future in which Islam will be triumphant over its enemies. When such youth gets in touch with competent preachers and recruiters, it will not be long or such youngsters will view the Quran as a hunting licence and a licence to kill.
It sounds impressive to outlaw bloodthirsty interpretations on the Quran and Islam. However this approach may rather prove counterproductive. Making sure that militants do not crowd out their liberal modern fellow-believers is likely to be as effective and will prove sufficiently hard. Let’s not forget that the Reformed Church was never outlawed, and even so this Church does not exist anymore. After the more freethinking Protestants started to debate the question whether the snake in the Garden of Eden spoke in a way that could be understood using the senses it did not take a century before the Liberal Protestants had become virtually extinct, while the Orthodox Protestants were pushed to the margins.
It is questionable whether the Dutch State should concern itself deeply with Islam. Contrary to what is often thought the modern separation of State and Church does not mean that the State should not meddle in religious affairs. Rather the State has to see to it that the access to the religious market remains open to all vendors equally. In the Middle East an evil alliance between the State and religious leaders ensures that the market is closed to other vendors that Islamic ones.
A Dutch Islamic policy should seek to forestall, that supporters of religious movement intent on using violence to further their ideological goals, can abuse modern Western religious freedom, as it exists since about 1700. Religious freedom is only meant for those who are willing to desist from using violence for religious violence intend on furthering their own religion towards victory. Those who do not conform to that prescription and wishes to view their Holy Writ as a hunting licence or a licence to kill, is our enemy.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Muslim talks big, Muslim weasels out
Amsterdam mosque issues death threats against "those who insult Islam".
From:
Kleinverzet
Islamineurope
The person who is being threatened, Ewout Jansen, is the son of Dutch Islam-expert Hans Jansen. Hans Jansen wrote the commentary on the letter Van Gogh's assasin Mohammed Bouyeri left on the filmmaker's body. I translated the commentary and published it here.
My summary. Fledgling comedian Ewout Jansen, makes "goat jockey" jokes about Muslims. Muslims in the audiences issue threats. Student paper Folia asks for interview with imam of As-Soenna Mosque. Imam turns up with As-Soenna spokesman / translator, Mr. Kabli. Folia interviews first imam, then the translator. Translator says serious Muslims should attack and kill "those who insult Islam, the religion of peace". Just as the letter Assasin Bouyeri left on Van Gogh's body says.
There is an uproar in the press after Folia publishes the interview. Alderman Achmed Aboutaleb visits the mosque to have tea with the imam. He dissembles and declares to the Amsterdam city council that the translator was just a visitor to the mosque and has nothing to do with As-Soenna.
Alderman Aboutaleb is a prominent Amsterdam Labour politician, who is bound to go into national politics in a few years. He is the great white hope of the struggling Labour party and commands the Morroccan Muslim voter base in the big cities. He is the face of the sophisticated Muslims, who pretent moderation and who know that nothing will endanger the chances of the umma to gain power so much as firing too early and shooting their bolt.
But that is what a lot of the common Muslims do all the time. They are unthinking and robotic in their quest for power and their moves are utterly predictable. Which begs the question: "why are so many people still deceived?"
From:
Kleinverzet
Islamineurope
The person who is being threatened, Ewout Jansen, is the son of Dutch Islam-expert Hans Jansen. Hans Jansen wrote the commentary on the letter Van Gogh's assasin Mohammed Bouyeri left on the filmmaker's body. I translated the commentary and published it here.
My summary. Fledgling comedian Ewout Jansen, makes "goat jockey" jokes about Muslims. Muslims in the audiences issue threats. Student paper Folia asks for interview with imam of As-Soenna Mosque. Imam turns up with As-Soenna spokesman / translator, Mr. Kabli. Folia interviews first imam, then the translator. Translator says serious Muslims should attack and kill "those who insult Islam, the religion of peace". Just as the letter Assasin Bouyeri left on Van Gogh's body says.
There is an uproar in the press after Folia publishes the interview. Alderman Achmed Aboutaleb visits the mosque to have tea with the imam. He dissembles and declares to the Amsterdam city council that the translator was just a visitor to the mosque and has nothing to do with As-Soenna.
Alderman Aboutaleb is a prominent Amsterdam Labour politician, who is bound to go into national politics in a few years. He is the great white hope of the struggling Labour party and commands the Morroccan Muslim voter base in the big cities. He is the face of the sophisticated Muslims, who pretent moderation and who know that nothing will endanger the chances of the umma to gain power so much as firing too early and shooting their bolt.
But that is what a lot of the common Muslims do all the time. They are unthinking and robotic in their quest for power and their moves are utterly predictable. Which begs the question: "why are so many people still deceived?"
Monday, November 27, 2006
The End of Freedom of Speech
Previously this blog published a translation by Professor Hans Jansen of the letter the assassin of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh pinned to his body.
Hans Jansen’s analysis of the letter by Mohammed B., shows the incompatibility of the presence of Muslim communities in Western democratic societies. Not only is the liberal dream of Bush and his neo-conservative advisors of remaking Islamic societies as free and democratic an impossible one, simultaniously opening one’s own country to invasion by tens of thousands of Muslims will have the effect of rendering Freedom of Speech, essential to the working of democracy, difficult. And this while Freedom of Speech is essential for setting the political course of a democratic entity.
Assimilation is not a cure. Mohammed B. was born in The Netherlands and went to good schools here. He CHOSE the Wahhabist version of Islam which tells him that those who criticise and ridicule Islam have to be killed and that this is a duty of a Muslim and a key to Paradise.
Islam critics like Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer and others, who fail to expose the absurdity of G.W. Bush’ "war to democratize the Islamic world", while the Islamic offensive in Western Europe and the USA goes on unimpeded may eventually become victims of their own oversight. Either because attempts will be made on their lives for their criticism of Islam. Or because they will either have to change the subject when they realize their predicament through the examples that are made of others. There are now an estimated 3 to 6 million of Muslims in the USA. What if they are 10 percent of the population, say 30 million? Inbridled immigration will bring them in and the aforementioned Islam critics do nothing to criticise Islam.
Jihadists regard it as their God-given duty to fight un-Islamic governments and to silence dissenters. For Westerners it is an unusual feature of war. Failure to appreciate this will be dear as the Dutch have found out at their expense. Learn from the mistakes of others while you can. Tomorrow it may be too late and the capacity for learning, which is such a distinguishing feature of Western societies will not just be impaired by the Politically Correct powers in media and academia, but be reinforced by Islamic terror. Only the very brave will speak up and who can know in advance if there will be a sufficiency of bravery to turn back the tide?
Hans Jansen’s analysis of the letter by Mohammed B., shows the incompatibility of the presence of Muslim communities in Western democratic societies. Not only is the liberal dream of Bush and his neo-conservative advisors of remaking Islamic societies as free and democratic an impossible one, simultaniously opening one’s own country to invasion by tens of thousands of Muslims will have the effect of rendering Freedom of Speech, essential to the working of democracy, difficult. And this while Freedom of Speech is essential for setting the political course of a democratic entity.
Assimilation is not a cure. Mohammed B. was born in The Netherlands and went to good schools here. He CHOSE the Wahhabist version of Islam which tells him that those who criticise and ridicule Islam have to be killed and that this is a duty of a Muslim and a key to Paradise.
Islam critics like Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer and others, who fail to expose the absurdity of G.W. Bush’ "war to democratize the Islamic world", while the Islamic offensive in Western Europe and the USA goes on unimpeded may eventually become victims of their own oversight. Either because attempts will be made on their lives for their criticism of Islam. Or because they will either have to change the subject when they realize their predicament through the examples that are made of others. There are now an estimated 3 to 6 million of Muslims in the USA. What if they are 10 percent of the population, say 30 million? Inbridled immigration will bring them in and the aforementioned Islam critics do nothing to criticise Islam.
Jihadists regard it as their God-given duty to fight un-Islamic governments and to silence dissenters. For Westerners it is an unusual feature of war. Failure to appreciate this will be dear as the Dutch have found out at their expense. Learn from the mistakes of others while you can. Tomorrow it may be too late and the capacity for learning, which is such a distinguishing feature of Western societies will not just be impaired by the Politically Correct powers in media and academia, but be reinforced by Islamic terror. Only the very brave will speak up and who can know in advance if there will be a sufficiency of bravery to turn back the tide?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)