The AfD in Stuttgart: “An enlightenment of Islam is neither possible, nor desirable”

As a follow-up to JLH’s translation from Stern, here’s a video showing part of the proceedings at the recent AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany) convention in Stuttgart.

Many thanks to Egri Nök for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:


00:00   Mr. Tillschneider, please present your proposal.
00:04   The draft of the executive board contains the idea that we should inject Islam with some kind of enlightenment.
00:12   I have stressed only the passages with those ideas.
00:16   Why? I find the notion of injecting Islam with some kind of enlightenment ridiculous.
00:22   We are witnessing — (applause)
00:25   We are witnessing in the Islamic world, for the past 20, 30 years,
00:29   a tendency to return to orthodox lifestyles.
00:33   Everything is getting more and more Islamic, and Germany cannot evade this trend,
00:36   as we are connected to it through globalisation and the internet,
00:40   and through mass immigration. And therefore it cannot succeed, especially now,
00:45   in the era of the worldwide radicalisation of Islam —
00:48   we think we might be able to breed an enlightened Islam here?
00:51   That might flourish in academic habitats, but it will never have majority appeal.
00:56   The proposal on the right hall microphone.
01:01   Besides, I find it neither desirable, nor consistent.
01:08   As we are rightfully opposed to the Islamisation of the West.
01:11   So if we are to reason consistently and righteously, and are against the Islamisation of the West,
01:16   then we must not advocate the westernisation of Islam. It does not even concern us!
01:21   (applause) [Moderator:] Please conclude.
01:25   So, to summarise: An enlightenment of Islam is neither possible, nor desirable.
01:30   And therefore, I request to revise the draft accordingly.
01:35   Whoever agrees with Mr. Tillschneider’s proposal as presented, show the blue voting card, please.
01:41   Thank you. Who is against it? Thank you. Abstentions? Thank you. The proposal is accepted.
01:47   (applause)

23 thoughts on “The AfD in Stuttgart: “An enlightenment of Islam is neither possible, nor desirable”

  1. “As we are rightfully opposed to the Islamisation of the West. So if we are to reason consistently and righteously, and are against the Islamisation of the West, then we must not advocate the westernisation of Islam. It does not even concern us!”

    It is important to always reason out what is going on, vis. I f I am deemed racist because I am islamophobic, then Islam is the most racist of religions because it is ‘kuffar-phobic’ to an extremely high degree.

    There should always be reciprocity in these things, but somehow where cultural marxism is concerned there is a separation of values and mores depending upon the ‘victim status’ of the subject.

    • Let me propose an edit: “racist . . . to an extremely ‘lethal’ degree.”
      And since Marxism is totalitarian by definition, no, there is no reciprocity at all. Give-and-take has been a hallmark of Western Civilization, exemplified in the ‘live and let live’ attitude which formerly defined *tolerance,* that word having been deconstructed by the left now to mean acceptance and respect for what for centuries had been considered perversions and crimes against society.
      Indeed, the law has moved in to make certain that perversion is protected, and that at the cost of the safety and well-being of citizens, generally, and children in particular.
      These are truly times of gross moral inversion.

  2. Indeed, reform of Islam is not possible.
    The AfD, being a political party, arrives at its policies democratically, by a show of hands.
    Islam is not a party, or a Trade Union.
    Islam’s teachings are not subject to a vote of “the vast majority”.
    Islam’s teachings come ONLY from its source texts.

  3. “Islam is a copyrighted material. Any attempt to skew the meanings, softening the penal code, probing it’s validity or drawing cartoons of it’s figures without written permission from the copyright owners is punishable by death.”

    Anyone wants to “Westernise Islam”? Please help yourself!

  4. How are you supposed to do that if you aren’t muslim? How do you even sell that. Think like this and become a bad Muslim.

  5. Muslim believers will not want “enlightenment” because they can see what it has done to Christianity. Rather than producing a more moderate, gentler, tolerant form of Christianity, it has led to apostasy, debauchery, and a spiritual void. This is not what Muslims want for their grandchildren.

    • I agree. In fact I believe that this is the reason why some of the radical leftist types convert to Islam. They find themselves on the extreme end of the spiritual void, don’t see the other radical leftists doing enough to “fight the man”, and then when 9/11 happens they see an opportunity to both fill their spiritual void and join the club that’s doing more to “fight the man” with “direct action”.

      The “Enlightenment” thing has gone too far and lead to an overestimation of the degree to which people and groups of people not only do make decisions based on reason, but also to an arrogant overestimation of the degree to which people CAN make decisions based on reason.

  6. It’s always funny to hear about bureaucrats in the EU acting as though they can come up with an Islamic liberation theology when the Islamic world isn’t subject to the enculturation of German Romanticism.

    These academic types seem to think that just because they have a few Muslim students playing along taqiyya-style at the uni that this means the whole Islamic world must have adopted German Romantic ideals. I’m pretty sure most of them think these ideals are some sort of inborn human instinct. Yea…. Good luck with that fantasy.

  7. Well, we can do two things at once: fight Islam like hellfire AND try to sabotage their dogma and Hope for apostates and reformation.

    Fact: there are _some_Muslim apostates.
    Fact: these people had a change in mind.
    Fact: some other people MAY change their minds.
    Fact: Islam has waxed and waned for 1400 years.

    Why give up on a possible strategy? What does it cost us to try to make apostates?
    Don’t we need to be as shrewed as possible?

    • There is one big problem associated with it. Even if you succeed to create new apostates, those are not the ones who make the decisions inside that cult. Devastating decisions are made somewhere else, and a few apostate will not guarantee any kind of safety.

      I am a person with muslim background (Perisan actually), not an apostate since I never accepted any kind of faith, even as a child. I still live among them, but I spend some time for counter-jihad over web, because I believe West (and the whole world) is in serious danger.

      So, a few thoughts from a person you hope to reproduce, should not hurt:

      * Some people think if they offer muslims jobs, education or similar things, they will change their minds over time. To be honest I am 40 and still have not met 10 people who have changed their minds. Developing a mind-set is decided in very early stages of life by imitating someone, usually a parent. So Fact-1 and Fact-2 seem to be only exceptions to me. Furthermore, the black coup of ’79 in my country (Iran) proves exactly the opposite is true. Radicalism took over exactly when people were well-fed with plenty of jobs to chose from. A unique secular 2.5-world turned into 4th world in 10 years; and all that wealth and all the universities filled with top British and American scholars could not save us against the waves of savages.

      * Why not trying to create apostates out of them in their home lands? Apparently some people have got the idea that it’s worth all the risks to take many into Europe and make apostates out of them -without any obvious benefit- before consulting psychologists, without consulting other citizens who have rights to share their views, or even taking advice from apostates of that cult.

      * One more thing I want to share with you, and I hope that may help to see the world through the lens of a 3rd world apostate. As someone with no faith (not even an Atheist), a little bit of study and brown hair I do not attract any attention from 3rd-world-lover Westerners. Why? Because multicultuis are the true Racist ones. They want 3rd worlders weak, dark skinned, dirty, uneducated and needy so they can take pity on them; that quenches their desire to feel the superiority as assisting whitemen. To multiculis, a 3rd worlder who may have ideas about King Lire, medicine or music is just a boring hypocrite.

      * back to the original question: “What does it cost us to try to make apostates?” Well, I think it costs everything, you may go back 1000 years into the darkest days of history, and with you, everyone of us. I am not the most seasoned traveler of the world, but I have been to your countries and actually lived in Australia, United States and Germany for some years, so I hope my judgement is not emanated from total ignorance.

      * And please remember, some people in East (a lot of people in China and India and a few in Iran) hope West can resist and not to give up to islamism/communism. That will be irreversible and all the hope for better future is lost for us too. What you want to figure out by trial and error is already tested and certified to be madness in our countries.

      • Thank you for your thoughtful and knowledgeable information. Anyone who has lived so widely in the West and paid such attention is worth hearing. The Iran people, the Persians, have been under the thumb of Islam from early on. Thus the fact that beauty and intelligence continues to come into being despite all the obstacles gives me hope for human nature in general.

        Astute observations, but especially about the multicultis.

      • I agree to most you wrote, Rec. As Indonesian who have lived abroad, but born in Indonesia and now live in Indonesia again, I can testify that essentially Rec is right. Yet I want to answer the last question of Palmer: Yes, we need to be shrewd as possible. To be naive and totally honest with Moslems is generally bad.

      • Thank you,You have enlightened me enormously. You need to put more of this information out there. Your clarity and skilled communication is valuable now more than ever.
        Please contribute more to this subject. It is of the utmost importance. Thank you again.

        • Your response to another commenter should be a template for all responders. It is courteous, specific in its compliments and adds another level of civility.

          We are certainly fortunate in our commenters.

      • I agree with thewitness. Your comments are valuable and I would like to see more of them.

    • Part of the problem with “reformation” is that it may not have the effect you imagine. For example, Pervez Hoodbhoy seems to think that the failure of the mutazila school in Islam is why there was no age of reason in the Islamic world. But if there was an age of reason, would that have made Islam less barbaric or just more intelligent and thus more dangerous?

      With someone like Mohammad as the “perfect moral example”, all sorts of sub-human savage barbarity is easy to justify. A more intelligent evil would just look more like the Nazi state.

      The immoral character known as Mohammad ruins all chance of moral progress in Islam. It would require a new prophet of some sort (such as the Ahmadiyya have) and then it’s arguably not Islam anymore (which is why the Ahmadiyya are persecuted and killed).

      If anything happens it won’t be socially engineered by the western academics or EU bureaucrats who unconsciously assume that everyone in the world is enculturated with or born with German Romantic ideals.

      • A couple of sleepness nights ago (3.05 am!) I caught Stephen Sackur’s interview of Raheel Raza, Pakistani-born Canadian campaigner for reform of Islam, who’s had death threats for her trouble. She was mostly convincing, except regarding the Qu’ran, which she knew wasn’t chronological, but apparently didn’t understand about abrogation.

        If you’re interested:

        • Yea, they produce stuff like this:

          Notice that none of this is justified in Islamic scholarship terms. In fact, all of it (especially the language about “interpretations”) is Romanticism which has nothing to do with Islam.

          They might as well just say that they are apostate converts to Western Romanticism who continue to claim the identity of “Muslim” even though their beliefs can’t be justified in Islamic terms.

          If they want to oppose Islamic jihad then great but they seem to have made zero progress in justifying their “interpretation” of Islam in Islamic terms, probably because none of their interpretation is based on anything from Islam. So good luck getting their own department at al Azhar.

          Even if they were successful at getting Muslims to disregard the Hadith and Sira as forgery, the Quran still contains the verse of the sword and the rule of abrogation. So their strategy still appears hopeless.

          • I don’t think much of Gatestone since they fired sans any notice the inestimable Clare Lopez for the sin of favorably mentioning (only in passing) Diana West’s book in a scheduled essay she wrote for them.

            Ms. Lopez was attending seminars or something on the west coast and had no idea of the contretemps David Horowitz, Conrad Black, and Planet X were plotting against DW’s book, “American Betrayal”, and even more so against its uppity author who refused to duck and run for cover.

            Wish I’d kept that essay. It came in the subscription email from Gatestone and when I tried to access it online at their website (about 5 hours after it had gone out) not only had the essay been scrubbed but so had Clare Lopez.

            She’s at the Center for Security Policy now. Interestingly she’s been at least partially rehabilitated by Gatestone. That is, they have re-installed her bio, pic, and an abridged list of her writings for them, which doesn’t include the offending essay. See here:


            They lost my support for their underhanded allegiance to Planet X – or whoever it was that tried to wipe out Diana West’s work and ruin her reputation.

      • As a Protestant Christian who thanks God for Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and even the Synod of Dordrecht (1619), I can tell you that the well-meaning liberals who yearn for a “reformation” of Islam simply don’t know what they’re asking for. It makes a very big difference which Scripture you plan to go back to.

        While I disagree with the Mennonites, I understand how Christianity can be tempted by a big-P Pacifism (it is small-p pacifist, meaning it thinks peace better than war, by default); but I cannot see how any kind of pacifism can tempt Islam.

  8. “As we are rightfully opposed to the Islamisation of the West. So if we are to reason consistently and righteously, and are against the Islamisation of the West, then we must not advocate the westernisation of Islam. It does not even concern us!”

    Given what we know (or should know, by now) of Islam, we reasonably conclude that any “westernisation” of Islam is, in fact, a stealth jihad Islamisation of the West. [redacted for obsessive dinging of the Counterjihad after being warned].

    “So, to summarise: An enlightenment of Islam is neither possible, nor desirable.”

    Well, it’s not desirable because it’s not possible; and for no other reason: There’s no ifs,ands, or nors about it.

Comments are closed.