We posted last Saturday about the editor of an Austrian daily paper who caused a ruckus by saying that it must be possible to discuss the banning of Islam from Europe. Below are two more articles on the topic, both translated by JLH.
First, a brief summary from Politically Incorrect:
Editor of Österreich: Ban Islam!
Wolfgang Fellner, the Viennese editor of the daily paper Österreich (Austria), has penned a very readable commentary on the terrorism in Brussels. He suggests taking three lessons from the “Super-GAU for our security”. Fellner: …The third point in the battle against terrorism is the most problematic: The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe. With all due respect for the freedom of religion and the many peaceful, sympathetic adherents of Islam here in Austria. The lines between peaceful Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam are becoming increasingly more blurred. In our municipal kindergartens. In many mosques. Terror is encouraged, preached and prepared there. This cannot go on.
And a longer article from Die Presse:
Brussels Terrorism: Uproar Over the Österreich Commentary on the Banning of Islam
Editor Wolfgang Fellner calls for allowing discussion of a ban on the practice of Islam in Europe. Religious community criticizes Fellner.
March 23, 2016
An editorial in the daily Österreich by Wolfgang Fellner has caused outrage among Austrian Muslims. In the Wednesday edition. he opined : “The discussion must be allowed of whether Islam per se should be banned in Europe.” The opinion of the Islamic community is that Fellner is openly “attacking the central human right of religious freedom.”
The spokeswoman for the Islamic Faith Community in Austria (IGGiÖ), Carla Amina Baghajati, stated in a broadcast that Fellner’s statement represented “an atrocity and must not be passed over in silence.” She says that Islam is a state-recognized religion in Austria. When Fellner writes that the lines between peaceful Islam and terrorism in the name of Islam are becoming increasingly more blurred, she says, Muslims are being pushed into the “spiritual vicinity of the terrorists.”
Terrorists “are happy” about this comment
Terrorists would be happy about Fellner’s comment, Baghajati believes, for “Islamophobia is grist for the mill of their perfidious recruiting propaganda which above all emphasizes the experience of exclusion.” The editor of Österreich is doing them a favor “by going beyond the general suspicion already painfully perceptible to Muslims.” By openly discussing the demand for a ban, he is only confirming the distorted view offered by the terrorists.
Fellner refined his view. It a not about a ban on a religion per se, but a possible ban on its practice. As in the study on kindergartens commissioned by the Minister of Integration, Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP — Austrian People’s Party), there must be an examination of the institutions of the religious community. in order to draw appropriate conclusions. “For me, it is also that the ideology of terrorism must be stopped,” Fellner expanded. Therefore, it would be necessary to investigate to what extent this is an ideology of Islam itself.
Unprecedented agreement for an editorial
Fellner sees no call in his article for a ban, but simply an invitation to thought: “Ultimately. the discussion will have to be allowed.” He had never before experienced so much agreement with an editorial, he reported, and explained that he himself is an open and liberal person. At any rate , there are limits. “We cannot expose ourselves to the dictates of a religious community which has, crusader-like, declared war on the West.”
Religious freedom in Austria is based primarily on the patent of tolerance issued in 1781 by Emperor Joseph II. The acknowledgment act for religious communities has been in effect since 1874. Beyond that, the Islam Act has applied in Austria since 1912, securing rights for Muslims. This was reformed last year for the first time.
Isn’t it obvious that being a Muslim is a necessary condition of going on to become a jihadist?
Isn’t it obvious that there is a crossover between the beliefs of a so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim and a jihadist
Those Islamic beliefs that are shared by members of both groups which are peaceful in nature are open to criticism. Human beings are protected by human rights legislation, but religious beliefs are not. So there is no problem with criticising those particular Islamic beliefs. This means actually discussing them – what they mean and how they manifest themselves in practice.
Those Islamic beliefs which are held by the jihadists are of course open to criticism. David Cameron asked not too long ago that we all engage in a ‘war of ideas’ in order to undermine the jihadists’ worldview.
So there is no problem in discussing and criticising any and all Islamic religious beliefs.
We hear a lot about ‘terrorists misrepresenting Islam’ but we never hear precisely how they misinterpret it.
Saying “Hello” to a Moslem is ‘Islamophobia’ theses days in UK. One poor well-meaning chap bought some Moslem employee a bacon sandwich ( He did not realise she was a Moslem) and she raised merry hell. The growing arrogance and self-perceived ‘superiority’ as quote “The Best of People” really stick in my throat. The Koran is a copy of an original compendium of religious sayings written in Syriac (Aramaic) common in the Fertile Crescent. The Archaeology (I am still a professional) does not stack up either. Then their claim we are all “born Moslem” but will “revert” also deeply offends this Bishop.They kill us, head chop, hack off and throw gays off buildings and that is Superior?
MHMD is an acronym for the “Son and servant of the Holy Father” from ancient Greek or Persian. “Islam” arrived nearly 1000 years after Jesus, yet they claim their “Prophet” whom I am sure,that like the “Holy Koran” is a fake concoction like all the rest and I would seriously suggest that the modern Moslem not study the archaeology of their “Kabba”- a form of temple or place of worship, even a tomb common to Arab belief in those days pre- “Islamic” and often Christian or pagan- they might get a rather nasty surprise. “Kabba” as in Jewish ‘Kabala’ is a hint. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Kabbalah (Hebrew: קַבָּלָה, literally “receiving/tradition”) is an esoteric method, discipline, and school of thought that originated in Judaism. A traditional Kabbalist in Judaism is called a Mekubbal (Hebrew: מְקוּבָּל). Arabia was ruled by Jewish tribes for quite a while including the period of “MHMD” the Gerund “Prophet”. No respectable theologian or scholar I know gives the Koran any credence whatsoever. The Bible is a different matter entirely and the events described therein have stood up well to scholarly exegesis. The early “Moslems” were referred to as “Saraceni” or “Sicarii” and in my opinion were simply a corrupted version of monophysite Christianity- a heresy banned by the Emperors of Byzantium and the so called “Righteous Kalifs” were in fact Christian as the archaeology shows.
The forces of ‘moderate’ Islam are always telling us what we cannot do because they are a ‘religion’. They continuously claim that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. The terrorists continue to perpetrate their crimes in the name of Islam, and also to hide in the muslim community.
It is like dealing with deadly schoolkids.
I do no have an irrational fear of Islam, I have a perfectly rational hatred of it.
Yes exactly! But in Pychopathic NWO we must all celebrate our deaths and smile with tea and cakes…
Baghajati complains that the terrorists’ recruiting propaganda “above all emphasizes the experience of exclusion.”
“The muslim nation is one nation to the exclusion of all others”, said the placard in Oxford Street, London.
Yes. This is the Islamic doctrine of “Loyalty and Enmity”, Al Walaa Wal Baraa. Non-muslims, the filthy kuffar, have to be hated. The “excellent pattern” praised in Koran 60:4, part of Islamic law, is “between us and you animosity and hatred forever”.
Terrorism?
“The Quran directly commands us to commit terrorism, so why are we afraid of it?”
said MP Ragab Hilal Hamida in the Egyptian Parliament in 2006
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/nonie_darwish_an_arab_for_isra
While on the subject of discussing a ban, can Baghajati start discussing Saudi Arabia’s Islamic ban on any religion other than Islam. Is that emphasising exclusion?
‘The opinion of the Islamic community is that Fellner is openly “attacking the central human right of religious freedom.” ‘ Oh, puhleeeeze! Central human right? When it’s a central human right in Saudi Arabia or the Islamic State, then I’ll believe that Muslims regard freedom of religion as a central human right.
I thought the blurred line between ‘peaceful muslims’ and muslim terrorists was called taqiyah. It must be very confusing for these poor muslims trying to decide whether to lie to us that they are peaceful or lie to their imams that they are fully paid-up violent. I expect they just do both. As for muslims accusing Fellner of “attacking the central human right of religious freedom”, words fail me.
The West needs someone with the courage to take this ball from the brave Mr Fellner and run with it, hard.
It is possibly encouraging that, apart from the usual ignorant, hysterical twaddle from the usual morons, Mr Fellner, so far anyway, seems to have avoided the expected public lynching. Could this be the small crack that leads to the dam bursting?
Could this be the small crack that leads to the dam bursting?
If I could identify the sledge hammer and chisel necessary to pry that crack wide open, I would.
Have any such cults ever been successfully banned?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee
says that the Thugs, an organized gang of professional robbers and murderers, traced their origin to seven Muslim tribes. To take advantage of their victims, the Thugs would join travelers and gain their confidence; this would allow them to surprise and strangle the travelers with a handkerchief or noose. The word “Thuggee” derives from the Hindi ठग (ṭhag), which means “deceiver [i.e., taqiyya artist]”. Thugs considered themselves children of Kali (a Hindu goddess), created from her sweat. However, many Thugs who were captured and convicted by the British were Muslims. The Thugs were suppressed by the British rulers of India during the 1830s.
Ibn Khaldun is arguably Islam’s most widely respected historian – he does have the authority to speak for what “Islam is”. In his most famous work, the Muqadimmah, arguably Islam’s greatest Muslim historian writes:
“In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations”
Ibn Khaldun, The Muqadimmah. An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958), vol. 1, p. 473.
What is it about this statement that you don’t understand?
Excellent! One more excerpt from that book:
“This is because, as we have said, such a nation is better able to achieve superiority and full control, and to subdue other groups. The members of such a nation have the strength to fight other nations, and they are among human beings what beasts of prey are among dumb animals. The Arabs and the Zanatah and similar groups, for instance, are such nations, as are the Kurds, the Turkomans, and the Veiled Sinhajah.
These savage peoples, furthermore, have no homelands that they might use as a fertile (pasture), and no fixed place to which they might repair. All regions and places are the same to them. Therefore, they do not restrict themselves to possession of their own and neighboring regions. They do not stop at the borders of their horizon. They swarm across distant zones and achieve superiority over faraway nations.”
This is what Ibn Khaldun observed 1000 years ago. Today the old procedure is being followed one more time, and someone in West is helping them.
* Reference:
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter2/Ch_2_20.htm
* I think it would be nice if someone downloads the entire book before it is removed from the internet.
To ban Islam completely is a no brainier. Why would it even be a question? Surely Saudi Arabia and the other Stone Age Muslim mates would instinctively respond in the affirmative. Let’s hope we can start letting go of the legal drugs soon and start giving a big “NO!” to the illegal ones. It will also keep the future war casualties down by a few millions. Kurdish women would be a definable exception.
The opinion of the Islamic community is that Fellner is openly “attacking the central human right of religious freedom.” – The use of freedom to undo freedom. How should we respond to Muslims’ frequent use of this tactic?
Terrorists recruit with videos of beheadings, butchering alive, burning alive, etc. etc. The notion that polite debate is an inducement to Islamic terrorism is European self-debasement and magical thinking.
Fellner may have penned his arrest warrant, or obituary. I wish him and like minded Austrians well.
Slowly, ever so slowly, Europeans stir from their slumber……
Absolutely. The past year has seen some perviously unsayable things being given voice.
Trump – ban Muslims!
Editor of Ostereich – ban islam!
These things cannot now be un-said.
There is more hope now for us than at any time in the last decade, ugly Muslim terrorist violence notwithstanding.
The slow drip drip was killing us.
The avalanche has now opened many eyes.
Merkel’s folly might yet prove our salvation.
Banning Islam won’t be any more successful than Spain banning Jews. Islam doesn’t cause terror any more than guns cause shootings. The Bible has lots of violence but modern Christians don’t act like Muslims. Hmm, what could be different? Could it be the kind of people to which Islam appeals?
The violence in the bible is in the Old Testament.Christians (and the clue is in the Christ part) are followers of Christ .Christ’s life and teaching appear in the New Testament.
The Old Testament stands as a history of life before the advent of Christ. .
The New Testament relegates the Old Testament to the past .The New Testament is a new compact ,between Christ and the people.The New Testament advocates new practices and a new way of life ,a different way of worship .
However Christ in his teachings refers to the 10 commandments laid down and the necessity of upholding them.In fact Christ wants more than a strict adherence to the letter of the 10 commandments ,he wants obedience to the spirit of the commandments -which he explains at length.
Under Christ the commandments are not just laws which one obeys to escape punishment ,but obligations to ensure that one’s obedience is infused with the desire to treat one’s neighbor well not only in deed (as per the Old Testament) but in thought as well.
So the focus is on doing as you would be done by, rather than following a set of laws merely to escape punishment.
Christs approach to the 10 commandments (which include a prohibition against murder) are based on Jewish law.
Christ is referred to by the Roman masters of Judea as a member of the Jewish community( or mockingly the “king of the Jews”).
So in fact Christianity is based on Jewish law ,with the worship of Christ as the son of God being the major point of departure.
In Christianity Christ is the perfect man.
He heals the sick ,washes the feet of beggars .He teaches his followers to heal the sick ,clothe the naked and feed the hungry and to do so in His name.
Mohammed in contrast is a warlord ,he takes a 6 year old child bride (Aisha)and consummate the marriage when she is 9.
Mohammed the perfect man of Islam enslaves women and children ,beheads his enemies.
The 10 commandments stand in direct contrast to the teachings of the Koran.
The Koran urges followers to kill the infidels((non-Muslims) wherever you find them.
The bible in the 10 commandments says you may not murder.
The Koran justifies slavery saying that a man may have sex with the women folk he takes captive during war and possesses as slaves.
Contrast this with the commandment from the bible not to commit adultery and not to covert another man’s wife.
The Koran instructs followers of Islam to lie in order to further the dominance of Islam over all other beliefs.
In contrast the bible exhorts believers not to bear false witness (that is not to tell lies)
The bible also demands that believers do not steal.
So we can see that Western legal systems owe quite a lot to the 10 commandments.
There is no similarity between the bible and Islam or even between the Old Testament in Christianity .To conflate the two shows an appalling lack of both knowledge and judgement.
Yes, the kind of people Islamic ” culture ” produces is precisely the problem. The sanctioning of first-cousin marriages is a confirmed disaster. The Islamic gene pool is debased.
The damaged gene stock is the main reason why I would never consider marrying and procreating with any of the native young women that I’ve met during my 3+ years here in Algeria. The signs of inbreeding are readily apparent on the faces of the populace.
That’s part of it. Another part is that the New Testament does not advocate ANY sort of violence against unbelievers – unlike the Qur’an, ahadith and sira of Islam. Finally, the Old Testament passages that do call for violence are historical, not open-ended. Jews and Christians believe that God commanded destruction of certain peoples at ONE point in history. By contrast, the commandments for slaughter and pillage in the Qur’an are open-ended and eternal: Faithful Muslims are to attack and oppress non-believers today and tomorrow, just as they were expected to do in the time of Muhammad. Big – and alarming – difference.
Here in the US, banning Islam outright may run afoul of the First Amendment (barring something like the backstory of Tom Kratman’s Caliphate), but we can certainly stop making excuses of “oh, it’s just their culture” and start enforcing the laws against a host of behaviors generally associated with Islam and sharia.
Enforce noise and nuisance ordinances to stop the parking jihad and the blasting of the call to prayer at extreme volumes.
Use the mask laws that were originally created to fight the KKK to ban niqab in public places. (I don’t know about you, but I find niqab intensely creepy).
Enforce laws against incitement to riot and conspiracy to overthrow the government, etc. against those who preach jihad or sharia law.
Stop making cultural excuses about enforcement of pedophilia and statutory rape laws. Diddle kiddies, go to jail, and I don’t care what your so-called Perfect Man did with his child bride (assuming he even was a historical individual).
Stop winking at honor killings. Murder one, and prosecute rigorously, until it becomes clear that anyone who’s involved in killing or “suiciding” a female relative for offenses against their ‘ird code means a LONG stretch of hard time in the state pen.
We’re dealing with people who don’t understand restraint and mistake it for weakness, so that they just keep pushing. And it may well be that we’ve let things get stretched so far that when the final, intolerable provocation comes, it will end with the Middle East depopulated much as Central Europe was at the close of the Thirty Years’ War. Except with modern warmaking technology, this one is more likely to be the Thirty Minutes’ War.
All good points which will certainly (if carried through ) make a difference.But I do think you can ban Islam .To do this one must first redefine Islam as a totalitarian ideology like Communism and Fascism and Nazism rather than a religion.
Religion and the state should be separate .The separation of church and state holds in every Christian country.
In contrast every Islamic country is a theocracy where the law is made by the imams .There is no separation of politics ,religion and law.It is a completely rigid and totalitarian framework where both blasphemy and apostasy are punishable by death.
To do this one must first redefine Islam as a totalitarian ideology like Communism and Fascism and Nazism rather than a religion.
And that’s how Buckman bans Islam in the backstory of Caliphate. But that’s after Islamic terrorists explode stolen Soviet nukes in American cities (Boston, LA and someplace in the Midwest — Kansas City? Omaha?) and the sitting President did nothing.
Right now we just don’t have the support for that, mostly because the religious elements of Islam — that it has teachings about the Deity and the supernatural, that it requires prayers and other religious observances — overshadow the political elements in most people’s minds (and a lot of us who aren’t mainstream Christians or Jews worry that if Islam can be redefined as “not a religion” and banned, our faith could be too). So focusing on enforcing laws against various (already illegal) behaviors that are associated with sharia and Islamic violence is something doable that will help stem this tide. Make it clear that we won’t be bullied, that if they won’t assimilate and conform to our norms, they will be punished, and not just a tap on the wrist and a scolding.
If we don’t act now, I’m thinking that when the overstretched rubber band finally does snap after one too many provocations, it may well come to not just banning Islam and either deporting all Muslims or shipping them to detention camps in the Mojave, but making America an officially Christian country. In Kratman’s imagined future, Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc. are still welcome — there’s even reference to Asatru prayers at West Point. But I’m already hearing talk on certain fora of how we ought to make US citizenship for Christians only, repeal the 19th Amendment and return to the days of legally-enforced coverture, strip non-whites of their civil rights, etc.
We’ve got to start getting a handle on things now, or the rebound will be truly ugly.
Mostly good points, Leigh. Dont’t forget endless attempts at convincing argument. Rational exchange. Debate. Educational disputation and elucidation.
Afterall, it did work on tobacco (pretty well.) Our minds do change after enough logical interaction with other minds.
Agree that the niqab is creepy, and above all dehumanizing. It is far more objectifying and dehumanizing to a woman than a bikini.
Excellent suggestions all. Time we stopped letting Muslims get away with crimes in the name of cultural relativism. Or laws apply equally to all who chose to live in this country. If you prefer sharia law, then go live someplace where that is the code of the land.