We, the activists of PI, see ourselves as upstanding democrats (translator’s note: not the party in the US) that have decided to proceed against dictatorial power schemes and to avert danger from our homeland. In 1933, we would have stood in the streets and handed out warning flyers to enlighten the population concerning National Socialism. In the GDR (East Germany), we would have been the underground working against the regime that for decades imprisoned its own people. And we most certainly would have been maligned — partly by the media and the population itself.

(Report of the Berlin PI Group concerning the event “Crossing borders — concerning use of religious symbols” on February 1 in Berlin-Mitte, translated from German by Anders Denken)

There were the aiders and abettors, the supporters and the collaborators that helped keep the National Socialists (Nazis) in power and keep the dictatorship of the GDR running. They naturally hated the opponents of the system and held back nothing in their attempt to render them silent or dead. The church played an unglorious role here as well. Her message of “neighborly love” and “tolerance” eventually came to scorn, though, when she acted in collusion with the things that the Nazi criminals did. Whoever believes this tendency remains kept for uncomfortable situations, or only collaborates with totalitarian ideologies, let him become better informed.

For even in the year 2010 certain events took place in the Catholic Academy in Berlin-Mitte such as had to do with understanding Islam and creating a common coalition with the goal of confronting critics of Islam. After the moderator Thomas Hake introduced the now unified podium and didn’t stand in it — in order to point out that “rioters” that is speakers with an aberrant opinion, were not invited — he then handed it over to author and translator Stefan Weidner who reminded us one-on-one about Wilhelm Heitmeyer.

Weidner is a parading example of the left wing fascism of opinion, an undifferentiating Islamophileand limitless intolerance against each and everyone that doesn’t follow his world view. He informed the public right then and there, that there is no critic of Islam, but that in reality they are enemies of Islam. He sees no problem with Islam. Moreover, the problem is buried in German society: Islam namely appears with a self-consciousness, which the Christian world of the Catholic Church hasn’t been used to for a long time. Islam simply self-consciously demands its due share in societal life and critics of the same simply wish to refuse this share. Because they aren’t entitled to this, critics are enemies that simply provoke irrational fear of or hostility to foreigners.

In the first minute already after he had shoved the majority of Germans and the non-Muslim population this way into the corner of the right wing extreme or mentally ill classification, instead of seriously considering their worries and clinically delivered criticisms and at the same time ignoring the presentation of complete datafacts, statistics and even the events gathered daily, he lamented over the world of media, that they weren’t far enough left. So we find articles in “Der Speigel” or “Die Welt” that are consistently hostile to foreigners, whereas the “FAZ” or the “Süddeutsche” deal in a totally different way with this theme, even though at the same time there are also “unreasonable articles” to be read there. Without a doubt, Weidner would have felt comfy cozy in the GDR (East Germany)the Third Reichor any other dictatorship where one doesn’t have to be burdened with dissenting viewpoints.

Weidner possesses a startlingly high amount of manipulative energy. Sentences like “would the Church be so wise and realize that she has to assume responsibility together with Islam for religious symbols in the public arena” show what rhetorical methods are being employed hereand in what direction the journey is headed. The fact that Christian symbols have already hung in Germany’s places for many centuries without problemsbut nowadays they are disappearing directly and expressly because of Islam, has well escaped Weidner’s attention — and that of the other head-nodding speaker deacon Johann Hafner.

Next, it was the turn of the Muslim side, in the form of Abdul-Ahmad Rashid (photo left) from ZDF (the Second German TV Network) who right away embraced that an open dialog can take place today, but then, in the same sentence, reported about the last meeting in which a viewer questioned Rashid on his beliefs about Sharia. “There is naturally no place in such a meeting for this kind of people” he reassured Weidner who had already noticed the expression of opinion beginning to show.

Rashid complained that Muslims are always talked “about” but never talked “with.” We already can’t understand completely, but we certainly live in a land that is twisting itself to the breaking point with open dialog and where in high positions of the government we’re indeed coming to the table with organizations antagonistic to the Constitution. Aside from that, it is naturally interesting that one is allowed to speak about critics of Islam — excuse me, enemies of Islam — instead of allowing those critics to speak up.

Of coursefor him the Swiss Minaret Referendum turned out the wrong way and it shows how Islam has been misunderstood in society. Muslims define themselves not by political symbols, but rather by their faith and its five pillars. Muslim symbols are meant to be purely religiousand their function has been converted by enemies of Islam into political symbols because they find no point of referene in them otherwise. In this assertion the declaration of the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan came to mind:

“The mosques are our barracks, the minarets our bayonets, the cupolas our helmets and the believers our soldiers. Democracy is only a train we hop on until we arrive at our goal.”

We were also informed by Rashid about the theme of Head Covering. He repeatedly hears that this is a sign of oppression for the woman, but nobody ever seems to think that this could be an expression of self-assertion or simply fashion. Young Muslim women would dress themselves in such a way that accentuated their body, and he would become “confused” when others would assert that these girls wanted to hide their sexuality. Yes, Mr. Rashid, we also are confused with all the reports about Islamic misdeeds against women and the collective challenges in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sharia to treat women more like cattle than people how head coverings could consequently be misconstrued expressions of fashion and feminine self-assertion.

The third speaker was the Catholic deacon, Professor Dr. Johan Hafner, who spoke for the most part about the meaning of religious symbols, during which some viewers were found sleeping. Since we didn’t want to put anything at risk with our PI readers, we’ll deal only shortly with this. Hafner came across authentically, as somebody who really wishes to do a good work — other than a self-righteous do-gooder who simply wants to appear good for egotistical reasons although filled with hate — but unfortunately he doesn’t have the least idea about the threatening danger that islamization poses and its impact on Christian society. Head coverings are no problem, each one even has “his own style” we Westerners could even consider tattoos and piercings as equivalents. Hafner was considerate of the expulsion of religious symbols in public places. So now he has removed his cross from his office and he no longer signs the Crucifix before his meal at the Mensa so as not to provoke anyone. It is completely incomprehensible for us, but it clearly presents the difference between intelligence and wisdom in just how Hafner, although he is a Doctor-degreed professor, doesn’t recognize that only since the strengthening of Islam have crosses have been perceived as a problem and also that Muslims are the only having feelings of provocation by these signs. Besides this, Hafner made by far the most startling declaration of this evening and this is even the reason for this article’s title. But more on this later, for now it was the public’s turn.

Apparently the anticipation of no criticism didn’t pan out. The first speaker at the guest microphone was CDU politician Marc Dollwho immediately declared to Weidner that open dialog must also allow other opinions. Criticism does not necessarily imply hostility,one can criticize his mother without making himself hostile against her and because of this he did not understand how Weidner came to this comparison. Doll however was directing his question to Rashid. We have a dilemma here, that since 9/11 around 15000 terror attacks have been executed in the name of the “religion of peace” and because of that alone, the anxiety of the population concerning Islam is to be understood. In addition, considering the conditions in the Islamic world: with two halfway exceptions (Turkey and Malaysia)they are altogether dictatorshipsin which the oppression of women, forced marriages, honor murders, genital mutilations, antisemitism and persecution of Christians are the daily routine. When checking things out in the Quran, one quickly finds the legitimization of such violence — over 200 times the call is made to murder infidels — and the index for the international persecution of Christians, as well as studies on antisemitism, mirror this call with a gruesome reality. Even in Germany there are tendencies that raise concern. That this concern is spreading in the population because of these facts is very little wonder and therefore, this concern should be taken seriously rather than suppressing it in the name of right wing extremism. Finally Doll poses the question, if Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, or if it misunderstands Islam, then why in the collective Muslim world don’t they restrain the permanent demonstrations against Islamists and their murderous attacks, but millions will go out into the streets if a caricature is drawn. Why are there no Fatwas against these “enemies of Islam”but rather always only against Islam critics? And why are Islamists not banished out of the Umma, but rather end up celebrated as martyrs. Boom! That one landed hard.

After that, Weidner, who was wildly shaking his head while this question was being posed, spoke out, whereby he said that he very well allows criticism (aha! and what does that look like)and that he would also exercise criticism about Islam. Since it seemed to him that nobody rightly accepted what he said, he added that the moderator Hake could confirm this. But Hake — and this was one of Weidner’s most embarrassing moments — swayed his head back and forth with a self-conscious smile as if to say somewhat”Yeah… I can’t agree just now.” Good, Hake doesn’t play along with the people’s mocker yand so Weidner ends up pulling the Joker and declaring that religious freedom allows the Muslims in Germany all of their actions and therefore it should not be criticized, if one wishes not to offend the freedom of religion. And if the National Socialists had had their own god with Hitler as his emissary, then we could be certain that Weidner would have protected them under the cover of religious freedom.

Rashid, to whom the question was really directed and had to ask for a repeat, since “he didn’t hear the question” (nice try)excitedly let loose then with a renewed thought: “When did you finally understand that Muslims live in a dictatorship! You can’t just go out into the street and protest against the government!” Of course, the absurdity of this statement can’t be outdone. In the Sharia, Islam possesses a legal codex that intervenes in the lives of people 24 hours a day and thereby creates a totalitarian system. Therefore, Muslims live in a dictatorship directly because of Islam. That one can twist cause and effect around in the most banal of ways shows just how razor thin the facade is that hides the true people-hating face of Islam and it illustrates just why everything is being done by hook or crook in order to prevent critics of this ideology of speaking and just why critics of Islam are constantly and openly calling for equitable dialog. For only by lie and deceit, only by euphemism and cover up, only by means of the battle against freedom of opinion is it possible for Islam to survive. An ideology that is good and truly lawful has no need of this.

The next speaker was a freelance reporter of the Berliner Rundfunk (unfortunately, we couldn’t catch her name) that, by Weidner’s definition, could very easily be classified as a “rioter.” She advocated that the worries of the population about Islam be taken seriously and that their concerns be addressed instead of casting aspersions about their irrationality. A study had uncovered, that under the theme “fear and depression” the number one cause was the fear of Germany’s islamization. People who have had such pent up rage would privately make such statements as “I hate Islam!”she said. She warned of criticism becoming taboo and advocated for an open debate.

The third person to stand was a Jew who inquired about what is behind the expressions about religious freedom, since he works with kippa on head in the synagogue only 150 meters away and hasn’t been injured yet. However last week, when he was careless and went about in “open” Germany without a hat over his kippa, immediately four youth with the “appropriate” background let loose on him. They pulled iron rods out of the ground at a construction site and stormed on him in order to kill him. Fortunately, a police car, which just happened to come around the corner, saved the man of the “religious freedom” of the Muslims. He missed religious freedom too, when in Berlin and country wide, Muslims were going through the streets and shouting such hate speech like a mob gone wild: “Death to Israel! Child and women murderers Israel! Open the concentration camps! Where is our Hitler!” The police looked on without reaction, indeed they forced their way into a private apartment in order to remove a Jewish flag. Weidner credits this criminal activity (call to violence, hate and murder) to the account of “free expression of opinion” which, by the fascists of opinion, was the irony of the day. In reaction to Hafner’s removal of the cross out of his office, the Jewish man called out that we are too cowardly to profess our faith… and with that, he was greatly applauded.

Stefan Weidner (right) with Abdul-Ahmad Rashid, ZDF.

With one exception all further statements were also Islam-critical “riots.” A female jurist complained about the role and situation of the woman in Islam, where it most certainly can’t be dismissed as a fashion statement, not to mention anything about her self-assertion. Moreover, these women are squeezed by legal directive into a narrow corset, where if they break out of it, fatal consequences can happen. She remembered Hatan Sürücü who was murdered by her own family directly because she wanted to live a self-determined life. She told of the electronic store that Hatan wanted to open, but now it won’t happen. Many in the public were moved by the lady’s speech, the same could not be confirmed about Weidner, for his complete and shrugging answer was (citation): “Honor murder. Murder. I don’t find that to be good. There’s nothing more to say.” Exactly that is the essence of the do-”good”-er individual: look the other way if the suffering of others doesn’t fit one’s own ideology.

A man came to the microphone and remembered that Christianity also had to go through the Enlightenment, and that the first steps of this so highly regarded Enlightenment included even criticism of religion. This Enlightenment has not taken place in Islam, but it is bitterly necessary, if an orderly coexistence between religions is supposed to exist. Rashid pointed out to the man that the development of Christianity into its present form also took centuries. OK, then we’ll wait another 600 years.

However, we don’t have even 60 years before our civilization collapses, one older gentleman remarked in public expression of his fear about islamization. He looks at demographic developments with great concern and fears that this development is no longer reversible. We mentioned in the beginning that, though he is otherwise very reserved, Hafner executed the most serious statement. And it was at this point that he said “Yes, it may be that in 3040 years, we will have a Muslim majority in this country. But I have the most complete trust in our educational system that these people will become well-meaning citizens and Germans.” We were flabbergasted.

All the arson letters of school rectories, the horror notices in secondary schools, the amalgamate criminal statistics, the aggregation of constant and deteriorating disintegration, these are the things Hafner seems to shut out completely in order to prop up his illusion of rosy perceptions. Hafner is no do-gooder. He truly believes in this and he is serious when he speaks of neighborly love and acceptance. And herein is truly a sad situation. Christianity, since its beginnings, has always wrestled with the dilemma of absolute pacifism versus confrontation of aggressive people groups. Those cultures that came out of a false peaceableness were wiped out — for example, all of North Africa that was once upon a time Christian — but now are worth no more than a footnote in a school’s history book and the few remaining are still persecuted today. However, those cultures that fought — like Christian Europe — have survived and to this day can even proclaim the message of neighborly love. Through people like Hafner, however, this will very soon belong in the past.

Now, it was our turn. We couldn’t take being harassed by the idea that criticism of Islam is truly hostility, especially in Weidner’s view. Where there are advocates there must also be objectors. This is a concept that must not be put in a negative light. Objectors must be allowed in a democracy! Did he wish in these questions to do away with democracy and thereby advocate a religious dictatorship? Rashid countered with the usual speech about victims, such as “Muslims were rolled over by…” “they were helpless against…” and so on. We again cited a declaration of the Islamic Council for Europe (London1980)”Islam is a faith, a lifestyle and a movement for the construction of the Islamic system in the world.” A conclusion of the Islam scientist, Dr. Eberhard Troeger, says in addition (again cited) “Islam is a program, not only a religious one, but also a societal-political and economic program.” Our question to this was, doesn’t this mean then that Islam itself is a political symbol and that it turns its religious symbols into political ones?

Weidner, who already was burying his head in his arms during the meeting, then shot out”What certain crackpots conclude here must not apply to all Muslims.” The question wasn’t pursued any further. Anyway besides that, Weidner behaved this way during the whole meeting, when he was confronted by each critical question — as we saw far and wide that they didn’t were just PI — he would toe-tap, turn partly away, rub his eyes, make disapproving faces, laugh, etc. When one of our speakers would be at a meeting and critical questions came in the public, then — we were unified in this — each Islam critic would quietly hold backlet the question be heard and then factually answer the question. That Weidneras mentioned above, would fidget around like a clown during the questioning is not only an expression of missing respect in the face of numerous visitors and highly unprofessional, but it also reveals here that he notices (perhaps only subconsciously) how shaky his beautiful construction of “reality” really is. If an Islam critic would have sat at the podium, Weidner’s and Rashid’s construct would have completely thrown it back in his face. But we know for certain that this was not the desired enlightenment.

When one imagines a society in which people like Weidner can do as they please without limitation and have support by the State, it makes one shudder. Such a gruesome and brutal regime brings Orwell’s “1984″ to mind. Critics must be convinced as enemies of the “Ministry of Love” in order to love Big Brother. Dissenting opinions would not be allowed and each incident would know only one interpretation, namely, that which is decreed at the top.

Whether we PIers will end up being imprisoned sometime for our defense of democracy here in Germany — as in that time when critics were put in concentration camps or penitentiaries by the likes of such people as Weidner — we do not know. Austria, however, is already taking the first step in that direction, but we will not stay quiet, until Freedom and Justice reign again in our country! Even if we do lose and there is no more German history to be made, then one will not come around to analyze the reasons for the demise of Europe. They will expose the self-righteous do-gooders of today for what they really are: cowards, aiders and abettors and collaborators of oppression — people for whom it was easier to go with the flow,even when the direction of that flow leads to the abyss, people, for whom it was more important to present themselves as “good” and “upright” and “tolerant” than it was to reject barbaric traditions and avert the harm of their own people. The price for this short comforting feeling of one individual will be that one of the most highly developed cultures having ever existed on this planet, along with millions of victims who will not survive this catastrophe and the world itself will be catapulted back into the darkness of the Middle Ages.

For people like Weidner, this is an acceptable exchange.

We, the activists of PI, see ourselves as upstanding democrats (translator\'s note: not the party in the US) that have decided to proceed against dictatorial power schemes and to avert danger from our homeland. In 1933, we would have stood in the streets and handed out warning flyers to enlighten the population concerning National ...

Guest, 07. Feb 2010 |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | post a comment    
Kategorie: Church, Dhimmitude, Germany, Human Rights, Hypocrisy, Islam is peace™, Left-wing;

 Loading ...

look up...