German President Christian Wulff recently stated that “Islam belongs in Germany.”
Ralph Giordano is one of the most outspoken critics of Islamic doctrine in Germany. Below is his open letter to President Wulff, as posted at Politically Incorrect and translated by JLH:
Open letter from Ralph Giordano to Christian Wulff
Dear Mr. President:
“There is no doubt that Christianity belongs in Germany; there is no doubt that Judaism belongs in Germany. That is our Judaeo-Christian heritage. But in the meantime, Islam also belongs in Germany.” This sentence in your address of October 3, made on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the re-unification, reveals in its sweeping generality such a disturbing ignorance of reality and premature blending of basically different systems, that it bids fair to render a person speechless.
I will not presume to offer you remedial instruction in history, but such a naïve equivalence of actual Islam with a wish-fulfillment, EU-conforming Islam is obvious here, that someone must object strenuously. Political and militant Islam is not capable of integration. Beyond that, Islam “in general” is problematic enough. As yet it has given no convincing answer to the question of whether it is compatible with freedom of expression, gender equality, pluralism, separation of church and state — in short, with democracy. A dark cloud hovering in the sky of the 21st century, which, by way of a completely failed immigration policy, directly touches the Federal Republic of Germany. In fact two entirely cultures, in two very different stages of development are in collision.
One is the Judaeo-Christian, where — after dark periods, followed by Renaissance, Enlightenment, bourgeois revolutions and their aftermath — the liberal pattern prevailed: a mighty leap forward. The other is the Islamic culture, which still today — after periods of cultural brilliance that could put the West to shame — with all its inner differentiations, displays a general patriarchal-archaic stagnation: obedience-oriented, inimical to secularism, fixated on inequality of the sexes, parental control and unquestioning deference to religious authorities. It is the collision of a culture which severely limits personal freedom and is guided by tradition and religion and another, which — after lengthy aberrations — has been formed as individualistic, primarily Christian and yet secular. Enormous obstacles rise up in this confrontation, and it is Muslims themselves who point them out.
The great Turkish writer Zafer Senocak, laying the scalpel on the sorest spot, says: “Hardly any Islamic ecclesiastic, let alone a devout lay person, is voluntarily in a position to see the central problem in the thinking process of the faith. They are not ready for a critical analysis of their own tradition, a merciless comparison of their faith with the realities of modern society.” Or the unflappable Abbas Baydoun, for many years the feature editor of the Lebanese daily newspaper “As-Safi,” who enters the similarly dangerous territory of unrestricted self-criticism: “Many among us seek excuses not to look in the mirror, in order to spare ourselves the sight of a fearful countenance, the countenance of another Islam, an Islam of isolation and indiscriminate violence, which bit by bit gains the upper hand and soon becomes our true face, as we steer for the high point of delusion.”
Mr. President, what are Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” to these solemn declarations? Here are Muslims putting an end to the practice of delegating responsibility for their own self-inflicted miseries and grievances to “Europe” or “the great Satan USA” or “the small Satan Israel.” Here, Muslims are pillorying the incapacity of the Islamic world for self reflection; here their own elite are named as the true originators of the crisis. And in the process, they express what no non-Muslim would dare to say: It is not immigration, but Islam that is the problem!
A huge portion of humanity, ripe for revolution — the “umma,” the entire Muslim community, as internally diverse as it is — is threatening to suffocate on its own culturally and religiously determined backwardness and immovability. An equally ominous exclamation can be added to that: the spooky, tinsel-town world of the oil billionaires, the grease spot in the chasm of a cynicism awash in money and gold — as Orham Pamuk says: “That cannot work out well.”
But in Germany, too, Mr. President, there are Muslim voices that respond with skepticism to your inclusion of the Islamic culture in the Judaeo-Christian. The Iranian theologian Hamideh Mohaghegni warns “that the internal Islamic clearances along the way to a Euro-Islam will take twenty or thirty years, and it would still be questionable whether it would prevail here or be overcome by traditional Islam.”
Another voice which urges that attention be paid to the opinion of the people and critically confronts Muslim societies and functionaries of the mosque organizations is the voice of Dr. Ezhar Cezairli, member of the German-Islam conference: “I find it understandable if people who are no part of the rightist scene are afraid of Islamization.” And further: “It is dangerous to the future of Germany that some politicians — through their ignorance of Islamic organizations — are in the process of surrendering the foundations of our enlightened society.”
This can go into the family albums of all those universal huggers, xenophilic one-eyes, social romantics, bleeding hearts on duty, and apostles of conciliation, whose pedagogy of coddling still takes the same line after Thilo Sarrazin, as if it were about a multicultural idyll that could be patched up with a some social-therapeutic actions.
Let there be no misunderstandings, Mr. President: It remains in the interest of our national honor to shield every immigrant, stranger, or foreigner from the plague of racism and its accomplices. At the same time, it is our civic duty to protect ourselves against tendencies, customs, habits, and traditions in the Turkish-Arab minority which, beyond lip service, are negative or even hostile toward the successes of freedom in the democratic republic and its constitutional government.
The decisive obstacles to integration come from the Muslim minority itself, even if you go on the assumption that most of them are peace-loving. It is still disturbing how quickly enormous protests can be organized in the Islamic world the minute Muslims feel insulted or under attack. How quiet it is in the local organizations and mosque groups, however, when, for example, three co-workers in a bible-printer’s in the Turkish town Malatya are massacred, nuns in Somalia are shot to death, and Christians in Pakistan, because of breaking a “blasphemy law,” await their execution in death cells. Icy silence…
The integration/immigration problem demands a fearless as well as a critical language.
Just where are we, that we are afraid of being labeled hostile to strangers or foreigners if we confess our own values? Just where are we, that we have to avoid calling a paternalistic culture — in which the individual is nothing while family and religious community is everything — hostile to integration? What is wrong with saying that in innumerable immigration cases the attraction is not work, but German federal welfare?
“But in the meantime, Islam also belongs in Germany” — really?
Please take note that it is not without danger to express doubts about that — I know what I am talking about. Islam does not know the critical method. Therefore criticism is equated with insult. Which does not mean that there are no critical Muslims.
I carry my contribution by their side, with brave women like Necla Kelek, Seyran Ates, Mina Ahadi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — and all the other peaceful Muslims in the world.
A postscript to my motive: as a Holocaust survivor I know the difference between Hitler’s Germany and the Federal Republic. Its democracy is sacred to me, because only in it do I feel secure.
Therefore: Whoever lays hand on it is at my throat, whether Muslim, Christian or atheist.
Wow. Powerfully well written. Very eloquent and incisive. As he says now is the time “for a fearless as well as a critical language”. That is very true.
“Islam does not know the critical method.Therefore criticism is equated with insult”. Nicely put.
“Therefore: whoever lays hand on it is at my throat, whether Muslims, Christian or Atheist”. Great.
He got it exactly right. It doesn’t matter what name people go by, or their appearance though they certainly will have a name and an appearance, but it is the behavior that is the problem and which alarms us. That is exactly how I feel. I feel as though some people who have not proven their trusworthiness are coming over to my house and disrespectfully putting their hands on that which I consider extremely important while the people who are charged with taking care of the safety of those things, like our Democratic Republican Institutions, do not seem to exhibit the same kind of alarm I feel and think is warranted. Even if only in lip service. That greatly disturbs me.
A dark cloud hovering in the sky of the 21st century, which, by way of a completely failed immigration policy, directly touches the Federal Republic of Germany.
Give it time. Soon enough the complacency and outright idiocy of Multiculturalist loons like German President Christian Wulff will see that “dark cloud” mushroom into a plasma-laden nuclear storm that will engulf an unfortunate Europe or an equally doomed Islam.
Per Abbas Baydoun: “Many among us seek excuses not to look in the mirror, in order to spare ourselves the sight of a fearful countenance, the countenance of another Islam, an Islam of isolation and indiscriminate violence, which bit by bit gains the upper hand and soon becomes our true face, as we steer for the high point of delusion.”
Muslim delusions of adequacy have become so all-consuming that “indiscriminate violence” is merely an acceptable strategy for those who cannot imagine something so strenuous as peaceful coexistence.
A huge portion of humanity, ripe for revolution — the “umma,” the entire Muslim community, as internally diverse as it is — is threatening to suffocate on its own culturally and religiously determined backwardness and immovability.
Not “threatening”. Islam most clearly is suffocating upon its own “backwardness and immovability”. Islam’s comatose corpus is spasming as it thrashes about in its death throes. The only question is how many others will it take down with it?
Western culture and Islam are entirely immiscible. There can be no rapprochement and no reconciliation is possible. Resolution of this age old conflict is as it always has been; an all-or-nothing proposition.
There is no sane reason for making any concessions to an intolerant, puritanical, misogynist, genocidal ideology that refuses to give any quarter wherever it has the upper hand. Why then should the West accomodate even a shred of this infantile, tantrum-prone lunacy known as Islam?
I find your ignorance of reality … disturbing.
[insert asthmatic wheeze >here<] [/Lord Vader]
‘The other is the Islamic culture, which still today — after periods of cultural brilliance that could put the West to shame —”
Fairy tales. I ain’t buying any. Manufactured Mohammedan history. The “golden age” never happened. ‘Golden” is the period when the soldiers of allah enjoy the spoils, the looted goods from the conquered kaffirs, when the dhimmies are utterly subdued and the Muslims can rape their sons and daughters with impunity.
The letter has its moments, but is overall way too mild. To wake an imbecile like Wulff from his slumber, Giordano needs far stronger tobacco.
The Muslims never put anyone to shame intellectually. There are valid historical arguments that the zenith of Muslim culture was built on the cultures they encountered. The nadir was reached when Muslims were conquered by the Mongols and Timogen, and then they took the liberty of silencing and ignoring the materials that made their zenith.
Their own intellectuals, in the 13th century, had to seek refuge from anti-intellectualism among the sword-carrying elites.
Islam belongs in Germany?
If Germany becomes Islamic, it will indeed cease to be Germany. The culture and people will be Arabized completely.
To describe these people as ‘worthless’ is to overvalue the contribution they make to our society.
“Hardly any Islamic ecclesiastic, let alone a devout lay person, is voluntarily in a position to see the central problem in the thinking process of the faith. “
And the clerics are NOT going to do it voluntarily, because they’re in COMPLETE control. They stand watch over it. Counting it. Guarding it. When have you ever known of any tyrant giving over control to the people?
Hoarding it. Living high off the hog, from the material support of their people. Above gold and land and drugs and their stock of women, there is POWER. Nothing like power over their fellow Souls.
What a high, POWER gives tyrants!
Whatever “Golden Age” that Islam may have experienced was that period which directly preceded its ulema forever shutting the door of ijtihad:
Note: Although this linked article is written from a Muslim point of view, it is quite accurate as to the internal effects of eliminating ijtihad (individual interpretation) in favor of taqlid (blind imitation). The author would clearly be declared taqfir (heretical or impure) and promptly put to death by millions of modern devout Muslims.
Since Islam is universal in scope, its laws must reflect that universality. Therefore, it is wrong to refer to a shariah that applies only to a particular group or sect as ‘Islamic.’ In fact, attaching the Islamic label to a sectarian shariah negates its very universality. Similarly, imposing the shariah of a particular sect (or Madhab) on all Muslims is also wrong because there is no compulsion in Islam.
So why the apparent contradiction where everyone wants to impose his or her interpretation on everyone else? And is there a way out of this conundrum?
Yes, there is and that involves re-opening the closed door of ijtihad that has remained shut tight for centuries. The self-appointed custodians of the religion guard it passionately, issuing fatwas against those who do not step in line with their sectarian shariah and even declare them as heretics or kafirs. These custodians waged war to get rid of the M’utazilah. Their Crime? Belief in human free will (what you sow is what you reap), fairness in justice, and utilizing reason to understand the Qur’an. The stigma remains, so much so that even today anyone advocating to uphold these Qur’anic ideals is branded with this label by the proponents of this man-made sectarian shariah.
The door to ijtihad was almost a millennia ago for the purpose of cutting Islamic doctrine in stone. This elimination of individually reasoned analysis secured the ulema‘s grasp on power (per allat‘s comments) and brought to a close whatever “Golden Age” Islam might ever have enjoyed (per sheik yer’mami‘s comments).
Ijtihad was forbidden because it challenged the clerical power structure which was deemed by those in control to be of far more value than all future progress of Islam.
From Mansoor Alam’s passionate argument in the foregoing link, it is clear that more than a few Muslims regard this closure as contrary to Islam itself; just as others claim that terrorism is as well.
This should bring to mind the fact that a huge proportion of Islam’s existing power structure has absolutely NO PROBLEM with the immutability of Islamic doctrine OR its sanctification of terrorism.
When taken in their horrible combination, the implications of an ideology that is utterly resistant to reformation and wholly dependent upon the vicious, asymmetrical warfare of terrorism, means that it bodes exceptionally unwell for Islam.
It is difficult to imagine a more irresistible invitation for Western powers to pre-emptively terminate Islam’s war making capacity. By definition, enacting terrorism reaches down to the individual level.
The connotations of addressing Islam’s propensity for instigating terrorism at the individual level are very disturbing, indeed. It is yet another predictor variable that continues to both support and point towards the looming Muslim holocaust.
trencherbone: To describe these people as ‘worthless’ is to overvalue the contribution they make to our society.
I am obliged to recommend trencherbone‘s well crafted article that he links to above.
The “subtractive” nature of Islam is a superb explanatory tool that many here might find of use in delineating why Muslim immigration is so damaging to Western cultures. To wit:
As with adolescent vandals, those who lack creativity can only express themselves by destruction, and Muslims are very good at destroying the products of other civilisations (known as ‘Jahiliyya’) .
If you look carefully at the process of Islamification in Europe, you’ll see that nothing is being added (apart from babies and mosques), but much is being taken away. Almost every Muslim demand is culturally ‘subtractive’ rather than ‘additive’. They want to remove pig statues, ban alcohol, curb free speech, and stop teaching art, music, drama, biology and other ‘un-Islamic’ subjects in schools.
The mere presence of Jihadists in the West reduces the quality of life, with security restrictions on travel, and kaffir women and children in Jihadist-infested cities unable to move and play freely for fear of sexual predators. [emphasis added]
These are just a few of the solid arguments put forth in trencherbone‘s useful article. I recommend reading it. Some may deem it highly negative but there is little to dispute. The simple fact remains that Islam is exceptionally deleterious to any and every culture it invades.
“In fact two entirely cultures, in two very different stages of development are in collision.
One is the Judaeo-Christian, where — after dark periods, followed by Renaissance, Enlightenment, bourgeois revolutions and their aftermath — the liberal pattern prevailed: a mighty leap forward.”
So, he’s a right-liberal: He thinks our own Christian past was repressive, “dark” and so on. Then one day, the Hobbesian sun burst shining onto the black sky, and the glorious day of liberalism dawned (mass immigration, no prayer in schools, Christianity mocked in the universities, feminism, etc.).
And he thinks that Islam is currently enduring its same long, dark night of intolerance. And until the Hobbesian sun burst onto the dark Arabian sky too, we just have to keep our distance.
Which means that a.) As soon as the Muslims do become dutiful leftists, Giordano will have no reason not to welcome them in droves. He’ll have not a single reason to oppose the complete arabization of all Western Europe, so long as the Arabs go whoring and drinking just like the few remaining Europeans.
How is he an ally?
Salient observations bartholomewscross.
However, not all allies are friends.
Escape Velocity, wrote,
“However, not all allies are friends.”
Haha, yeah, you’re right, EV.
Still, if these guys are allies, though, then they’re engaging in some pretty heavy “friendly fire”. That line about our “dark” pre-liberalism past reminds me of a college girl I heard blabbering in a coffee shop this afternoon. She complained that American evangelicals were “afraid” of modernism and were looking for some kind of “masculinity” in their Christianity. I guess she thinks masculinity is bad.
I just sat there wondering what her boyfriend was thinking and shook my head.
Sometimes, it just really isn’t too difficult to figure out how we got into this mess, you know what I mean?
Many Jews are delusional about Islam. The myth that Islam is closer to Judaism than Christianity is wide spread, the “Golden Age” nonsense too often repeated to be ignored.
I often discuss these things with Orthodox Jews who rant about the “Goyim” but are squeamish when it comes to criticizing Islam. The illusion that Jews were historically better off under Islam has been indoctrinated in the skulls of many, notwithstanding the fact that Maimonides, (the Rambam) was forcibly converted and had to make a run for it to save his life.
There is also this Koran sura that offers asylum to unbelievers, generally misinterpreted, because the asylum is only given “so that they can hear the word of allah”.
Which again means simply: accept Islam, pay the jiziya with willing submission and live worse than a slave under the Islamic system, or be killed.
Too many “misunderstandings” here. Who will take Islam to the cleaners?
sheik yer’mami: Who will take Islam to the cleaners?
It’s not a matter of “who” but “when”. As in, “When will Islam be taken to the cleaners?”
Even if Muslims overran the entire world, they would still aspire to manufacture nuclear weapons in order that such arsenals might be turned upon the takfir among them.
The neverending quest for “Islamic purity” (an oxymoron if ever there was one), will one day see two snarling clerics, the last Muslims on earth, strangling each other to death amidst the desert wastes in an argument over who is the most “Islamically pure”.
Islam belongs in Germany.
Hilarious. Hitler thought so too.
For what is worth, Judaism IS closer to Islam than to Christianity. One difference between Judaism and Islam is that Islam is proselytizing, while Judaism is tribal. Other difference is that, while both are religions of law, Jewish scriptures are written by many authors, more or less inspired, through large span of time, and Koran is written by one man, and Muslims believe its inspiration is nothing less than ultimate. This, and also infinitely better quality of scriptures enables Jews to pick what they want and to be normal. For the very same reason, (real) Muslims are condemned to insanity.
On the other hand, Christianity (New Testament) differs from both in that it is not religion of law, but religion of spirit. Christianity obsoletes religion of law and brings forth religion of live God.
This is all pretty basic stuff people. 😉
” Judaism IS closer to Islam than to Christianity.”
Yes. And No.
With the Christians we have at least the 10 commandments in common. Our sages also have been able to interpret the scriptures in such a way that we can lead productive lives instead of engaging in violence.
Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper, not just scratch the surface.
Dear aku: Christ was a JEWISH man, so, to say that “Judaism IS closer to Islam than to Christianity” is to also say that Christ is closer to Islam than to Christianity – which is precisely what a devout Muslim would say.
I believe that GOD would disagree!
you actually confirmed everything I wrote. Christians are not people of a book, as Muslims wrongly think they are. On the other hand, Jews are. Laws – book, Holy Spirit – not book. Ok?
that’s nonsense. I provided context and arguments. If you disagree with that, fine, let’s hear it then.