Our German translator JLH has compiled a report on the latest from Necla Kelek. First, his introduction [Note: The first sentence of the second paragraph has been updated to correct the wording]:
These two short articles are based on the latest book by Necla Kelek
Ms. Kelek is a
formerpracticing Muslim whose not terribly devout family came to Germany when she was eight. Her father became increasingly Islamicized, and her mother did not really understand her daughter’s question, “When will I be free?”
She entered German society and succeeded on its terms — earning a university degree and becoming a sociologist. She has published a number of books and appears often in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, among other mainstream publications. She seems to have marked out a middle ground where she can be quite critical of Islam, but still be accepted as a scholar.
In one instance, when she was attacked by a number of mainstream sociologists, she was defended by the deaconess of feminism in Germany, Alice Schwarzer. Schwarzer, unlike NOW, etc, threw in her lot with women, not Islam.
Kelek’s new book is sure to attract much attention among the politically-minded, and the negative reactions will be muted by her own personal history and her previous achievements.
The first article below is from Politically Incorrect, lifted from a longer review in Freitag. The second is one blogger’s attempt to summarize the main points in her book.
Translated from Politically Incorrect concerning Necla Kelek’s new book, Chaos of Cultures (Chaos der Kulturen):
Necla Kelek: Anyone Can Become An Imam
Anyone who has sufficient knowledge of the requisite prayer rituals can become an imam. The training of priests in the Christian sense does not exist, because Islam is nor familiar with the office of (spiritual) pastor. In many mosques in Germany, imams with no theological training are preaching — often as an avocation. And even the 800 imams sent to Germany from Turkey possess — measured by local theological training — insufficient knowledge. They have read the Koran in Arabic, studied the hadiths and compared them to one another.
They draw their opinions from the “four sources of the law”: first the Koran, second the Sunna, that is the customs of Mohammed as passed on in the hadiths, third from the consensus, i.e., the consistent opinion of the legal scholars, and fourth the conclusion by analogy, that is making judgments by analogy with verdicts of the past.
They act within a predetermined body of knowledge — there is no research or inquiry. Therefore, every imam can interpret the Koran as he wishes. The dignitary is distinguished from the individual believers through the respect accorded him on the basis of his position and influence. It is not, at any rate, an authority achieved through special education and training.
The fact that no organization, no hierarchy, no priestly class, no church stands between the believer and God has not led to greater spiritual independence or an individualization of the profession of faith, but rather to social control by the collective, represented by the imam as the highest authority.
From the blog Ethical Realism by Christoph Rohde:
Ten Clarifications of Necla Kelek
(Review of Necla Kelek: Chaos of Cultures)
March 12, 2012
1. Islam is, above all, not a religion, but an all-encompassing political ideology which lays claim to the entire person. 2. The collectivist mindset prevents individuals acting with freedom of conscience and decision. 3. The immigration industry deprives the immigrant of personal responsibility and gives him/her over to social organizations like schools and other institutions of integration. 4. The myth that “the Turks built Germany” is just not tenable. The Sunday speeches on the 50th year of the German-Turkish recruitment treaty generally ignore the fact that Turkey was able to alleviate its social problem with emigration and money transfers from its guest workers in Germany. 5. The theoretical bases of “immigration research” are empirically untenable. Concepts like “super pluralism,” “diversity” or “modernity difference” — which proceeds from the premise of the automatic modernization of antiquated cultures in mixed milieus — have failed. Archaic structures constantly reproduce themselves, most of all in parallel societies, where the function of ostracism must take over. 6. In Islam, dealing with women can only be described as female apartheid. Honor killings, the apparatus of oppression and rituals of genital excision in Germany are minimized even by the courts as things specific to the culture. So human rights violations against women are tolerated. Many multi-culti adherents call the burka ban racism. 7. Mosques are not sacred places, but centers of socioeconomic exchange which have increasingly become demonstrations of Islamic power. The conversion of the Hagia Sophia from a church to a mosque demonstrates that mosques are intended to become a symbol of Islam’s superior philosophy. 8. In the Turkish-Anatolian parallel worlds, infractions of the law are dealt with according to the inner hierarchy. In the case of an honor killing, the defense is constructed so the youngest son — the weakest link in the chain — is “sacrificed” for the honor of the family. And the youngest will also receive the most lenient punishment. Kelek shows that female family members willing to testify must as witnesses go into lifelong hiding, if they are prepared to reveal what is behind actions. 9. Illnesses are also often culturally determined. It can be proved that women suffer from vitamin D deficiency from always wearing the burka, because the vitamin D synthesis needed for the skin is prevented. The psychological costs of life in the parallel worlds are demonstrable in the heightened suicide rate of Turkish girls. Next-of-kin marriages lead to a higher rate of handicaps. Research on this topic is not supported in Germany with research grants. Why? 10. Thilo Sarrazzin’s book was not read. He indicated that participation without any accomplishment cannot be sustained over the long run in a shared risk society. He is reproached for “racism” because of this. It is Patrick Bahners — the critic of Islam critics — who is in a panic himself, and not those he has derided as Panic Makers. Kelek makes it clear that Islam — after a phase of liberality and openness from the ninth to the eleventh century — has stagnated. Every form of progress and technical civilization was blocked. What was left was a whining society which cursed those who wanted to bring it civilization.