Can a Ban on Islam be Discussed in Austria?

Wolfgang Fellner, the editor-in-chief of the Austrian daily Österreich, provoked outrage from Muslims and bien-pensants in Austria when he said in an opinion piece after the Brussels massacres that “it must be possible to discuss the prohibition of Islam.” (For additional German-language accounts, see Die Presse, Vienna Online, and Junge Freiheit.)

Many thanks to JLH for translating this open letter to Mr. Fellner from Christian Zeitz, which was published by Politically Incorrect:

Banning Islam: Are You Serious About That, Mr. Fellner?

by Christian Zeitz, Official in charge for Islam, Wiener Akademikerbund

Dear Mr. Fellner,

After the devastating attacks in Brussels on Tuesday you set off a verbal bomb with considerable power and reach. Even considering the bitter situation in Europe, that is a courageous act, and I can add only my congratulations. At any rate, only recently my Islam-critical friends and I would have been hauled into court for hate speech for such a statement, and the media would have applauded enthusiastically if we had gotten some grief from that.

Isn’t it odd? Serious Islam-critical organizations (such as, for instance, the Wiener Akademikerbund, for which I have worked voluntarily in this area for a long time) have proven with painstaking exactitude, that

  • “Emigration” (i.e., migration and “flight”) is a variation of Islamic jihad,
  • The paradigm of Islamic terrorism has an established, Koranic base (e.g., in the Battle of Badr),
  • The struggle (to the death) against “infidels” is Islamic normalcy,
  • Islam’s domination of the world is a commandment of Allah,
  • Integration of Muslims into a society that is not organized according to shariah is a serious crime,
  • Christians and Jews may only live in Islamic societies under restrictive (and de facto inhumane) conditions as dhimmis,
  • Women are unclean and second-class human beings,
  • “Infidel” women may be taken as slaves who may be raped without penalty,
  • Mohammed himself sexually abused a child then further harmed a child, etc.

A close friend of mine was convicted for establishing this last point. For the dissemination of the other points, we were regularly reviled as being Islamophobic, extreme rightist populists, racists and Nazis.

Exactly a year ago I had the dubious pleasure, as a parliamentary expert, of working for weeks with the new Islam Act — its drafts and its development as a law. At that time, we warned and predicted that the execution of this law would protect and strengthen (political) Islam and undermine religious peace and the interests of the Austrian people.

All of our predictions have unfortunately proven true. The so-called “disclosure of the doctrine” presented by the IGGiÖ (Islamic Religious Community in Austria) is a nine-page mockery of vulnerable Austrians. The requisite translation of the Koran, of course, was not done. Both of them would have been indispensable for checking the legal conformity of the religious doctrine. And the “constitution of the IGGiÖ” continues to expand, strengthening the base of believers and pushing Islam’s influence into all aspects of Austrian life (army, universities, “halal” food, cemeteries, etc,). Both the doctrine and the constitution were accepted on the 27th of February of this year by the responsible ministry. But who is bothered by it?

The responsible minister — and in fact the entire political class — are interested in appeasement, cooperation and favorable business with Islam. We conduct dialogues, and chase after the phantom of “Euro-Islam”. Critics are annoying troublemakers. They could, indeed, question the shaping of the EU, which means to accelerate the superstate project by pushing the multicultural society (and thus Islam and mass migration).

The effects of programs that spread out across decentralized organized structures cannot be limited merely by legal prohibitions, Islam, Mr. Fellner, they can be banned as well or as poorly as a computer virus. That does not mean that there would be no applicable instruments of de-Islamization and protection of the vulnerable public. And it is high time to attempt both, for the attacks of Brussels are only a modest foretaste of what awaits us.

So, are you serious abut your demands?

21 thoughts on “Can a Ban on Islam be Discussed in Austria?

  1. Nice one! The Wiener Akademikerbund shines brightly as about the only group of academics I know of which isn’t completely sucked in by PC. (By the way, trending on Facebook at the moment is a cartoon where a man says he’s sick of PC, only to have a woman say ‘try saying it again without the PC’ and he says he’s sick of not being able to insult women and minorities. So the PC crowd have gone and redefined PC for me–as if they didn’t make up the concept in the first place!

  2. It is about time someone had the guts to stand up and propose this. I see no other possible way of averting a total economic and social catastrophe in Europe.

    Let us hope the fact that he has not been immediately arrested and shot might embolden others to join the call.

  3. This makes me wonder what it will take to wake up the large segment of Europe that is still telling itself about the religion of peace, how only a minority of Muslims are um, violent or perhaps “angry” or upset or whatever. So if we only keep trying, we will all live in peace and harmony with the peaceful Muslims, who are only here looking for a better life . . . well, keep dreaming, Europe.

    Better yet, study your history.

  4. There’s little hope any decisions made now will be enough. The Euro continent is like the post-iceberg Titanic with 7 compartments flooded.

  5. From what I can see, the Islamists will have another attack in the next two weeks. These latest ‘arrests’ ( do you “arrest” combatants in war who are willing to die and give them lawyers?) mean that more information is rolling up. Hence any Jihadis will fast track their plans. This next attack will be big and the response could be widespread.
    All of this could be stopped years ago if we had a proper debate and discussion about Islam. 15 years ago it was more than obvious where the problems were.
    The real power of the Enlightenment, open discussion, hypothesis testing, has truly been snuffed out and we are seeing the resulting darkness take over.

    • “…do you “arrest” combatants in war who are willing to die and give them lawyers?”

      Good point. I’ve been thinking along this line for some time now. And in addition, if the Koran divides the world into the House of Islam (?) and the House of War, then EVERY Muslim is in fact at war with the rest of the world.

      That should simplify the logistics of the current situation. In effect it’s us or them, by their own definition.

      • So you’re saying that we should label *every* Muslim (including, presumably, children and other people whose only fault was being born into a religion that you’re not fond of) and label them enemies?

        Then genocide follows, I assume?

  6. “A close friend of mine was convicted for establishing this last point. ” That would be Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, for calling M a pedophile? I think the court found that sleeping with one 9 year old doth not a pedophile make?

  7. Poor austrian people!With your politicians that you get… , as many other countries of Europe…, you are [carnally known] by theese disgraceful muslims/islamic people! It’s a shame, it’s insane!Fight against these idiots! Everything was made to destroy you as prosperous and christian nation! My prayers are with you christians.
    PS: From a brazilian friend.

  8. “The requisite translation of the Koran, of course, was not done.”
    Could someone please give some background information on this point? What required this translation, from whom, for what purpose, and why was it not done? Aren’t existing German-language translations of the Koran satisfactory? Would such a translation come with an alphabetical index so that the reader could look up the Islamic doctrine on any topic, such as, for example, isbaal, or animal welfare?

  9. Banning any religion would be totally unconstitutional in the US-other than an overt declaration of war.. I don’t know what kind of laws they have in most of the EU.

    But that could drive it underground ( as in China now with Christianity) and cause more ‘hard feelings’. The radical planning and bomb making isn’t done in Mosques anyway.

    So I don’t know what good that would do. Cut of all immigration from the Middle east now is the first thing that needs doing.

  10. I expect that banning Islam will not work unless nations are prepared to reinstate the death penalty as a punishment of last resort – however, we can make a start by legislating so that it is a criminal offense for a Muslim to have custody of a child.

    • Are you being serious or simply attempting to be provocative? There is no way any democracy would enact such a law regarding children, much less enforce it.

      • In 2012 Rotherham Council removed three eastern European children from their foster parents who were members of the UK Independence Party. If being brought up by KIPpers is a crime against PC, why not being brought up by RoPpers?

    • The first step is to enact legislation declaring that Islam is a political ideology and not a religion. In the United States this would presumably require an amendment to the Constitution. None of this politically possible at the moment, but it is at least conceivable.

      Once Islam no longer enjoys protection as a religion, it may be investigated and legally restricted just as Nazism, Communism, and other seditious doctrines were before it. A constitutional republic is not obliged to protect political organizations that specifically advocate the overthrow of the existing order by violence. It may sanction such organizations, restrict them, or ban them; it can prosecute and imprison or execute their members.

      This, the long-term goal, is currently unrealizable. Massive amounts of bloodshed and suffering and economic loss must occur before any Western (west of the old Iron Curtain, that is) country has the political will to begin this process.

      Things will get very, very ugly for a while. Then at last they will begin to improve.

      • “The first step is to enact legislation declaring that Islam is a political ideology and not a religion.”

        Which will never happen. It’s a religion. A religion that contains political elements (like Judaism), but still a religion.

        A ban on Islam based upon any scriptural or theological grounds would inevitably result in a ban on Christianity and Judaism too.

        • I agree that it will never happen, but only with this proviso: if things stay more or less the same as they are now.

          Severe events may alter the underlying political matrix to the extent that change becomes possible. Suppose, for example, that Al Qaeda or ISIS manage to achieve their fondest dream and explode a dirty bomb in a major American city. If carried out in the most effective fashion — a detonation on an upper floor of a tall building, using a large enough quantity of a particularly dangerous isotope, and with the place and date chosen to disperse the cloud over heavily populated areas — they could finally achieve the mass casusalties they’ve been longing for, far exceeding 9-11.

          If such an attack were successfully accomplished in, say, northwestern Baltimore, with the prevailing winds from the northwest, hundreds of thousands of people would be affected, far beyond the blast radius, in the southern and eastern suburbs, and even into D.C.

          If you are a politician, and thousands upon thousands of your constituents are suddenly afflicted with radiation sickness due to the actions of an Islamic terror group, the political calculus of what you may or may not do about Islam will of necessity change.

          That doesn’t mean that any policies actually will change — the elites will stubbornly hang on to their religion-of-peace meme for as long as they can — but it makes a change at least conceivable, which is not the case at the moment.

  11. anyone seen this little gem of relativity doing the rounds on the liberal circuit. By one Brian Bilston

    Here is a new poem entitled “Refugees”. Please bear with it.

    They have no need of our help
    So do not tell me
    These haggard faces could belong to you or me
    Should life have dealt a different hand
    We need to see them for who they really are
    Chancers and scroungers
    Layabouts and loungers
    With bombs up their sleeves
    Cut-throats and thieves
    They are not
    Welcome here
    We should make them
    Go back to where they came from
    They cannot
    Share our food
    Share our homes
    Share our countries
    Instead let us
    Build a wall to keep them out
    It is not okay to say
    These are people just like us
    A place should only belong to those who are born there
    Do not be so stupid to think that
    The world can be looked at another way

    (now read from bottom to top)

  12. Islam should have been ban a long time ago. I am sure that Islam will be ban someday for islam is a crime against humanity.

    To survive, the people of Europe must ban Islam in their country and they must start the Remigration of all Muslims, but also the Remigration of many extra-European people.

    This is not racism, it is only a sane act to survive.

Comments are closed.