Year after year (see here and here) the taz deals more or less with Islam criticism with the same content — without losing one word over the idea that teachings of Islam are being attacked by these individuals. Meanwhile more heated debate is firing up, as the current taz article “What they think, who don’t think” illustrates.

The blogkeepers from the ranks of the apologetics scene are no longer enough. But the statements thus aren’ t any more competent than before, rather they keep the same vagueness, or are kept vague, in order to support the idea of supposed racism. In the headline, Cigdem Akyol already makes it clear: One is only capable of thinking, if the result of the process necessary for doing so is the same as the one the author has come to. This is a traditional practice with the Left, who likes to put “deviants” in lunatic asylums. For whoever doesn’t think the same as we do is either stupid and/or crazy. The kinds of errors in thinking that can be made as deemed by the left-wing powers remain unclear in the context of the article.

And thus, the idea that “critical Islam scholars” have also turned against “this” criticism ends up getting lost in vagueness:

Critical Islam scholars like Ursula Spuler-Stegeman are surprised at how heated the debate has become about Muslims in Germany. Spuler-Stegemann is recognized for her harsh criticism of Islamic associations, however she warns against the populist actions because of fears. “Being critical is OK, but this exaggerating of the situation, it just can’t be.”

Unfortunately, the reader is left alone guess what Mrs. Spuler-Stegeman means by criticism and “this (?!) exaggeration of the situation.” It should be assumed that she means any group that is mentioned by critics, and even the content of their criticism as well. Or did the author possibly put the stamp “Approved by Islam Critics” on her whole article by one of these unintended amplifications here?

We would like to deal primarily with the assertions of the article with relation to PI!

Just one word about the outrage stated in the taz article concerning the approach of the Cititizen Movement Pax Europa to the incompatibility of Islam in letting itself to be tested in court by the constitutional values of a peace-loving democratic society. On the one hand, this outrage is already unfathomable, since this appears to be a discussion in harmony with rule of law. On the other hand, it would already serve to complete the picture by mentioning that the “World Week” already dealt with this very theme a few days before, and introduced Islam scholar Lukas Wick’s dissertation. In his dissertation, e finds “precious few criteria” for the above-mentioned compatibility, and for the ability of Muslims in integrating with a constitutionally ordered state. Incitement? Racism? What the taz author thinks about this doesn’t get disclosed. Thus, she remains in the company of her universally recognized experts.

Of course, Mathias Rohe, who feels he has been pilloried by PI, is certainly not to be missing from this group. It’s possible that Rohe feels this way when Nassim ben Iman asks himself in an interview with PI from where Rohe got his apologetic thesis that the Quran is to be read historically. Rohe is also not asked by the taz author why he isn’t defending his assertion in the discussion. But since that’s not to his liking, he would rather complain to taz about his alleged agitators. But one should show sympathy for that because at the taz it has been decided that no critical questions are to be asked dealing with the uniqueness of “Islam expert” Rohe’s thesis (see interview starting at 8:40).

Unfortunately, neither Nassim ben Iman nor the taz reader can gather from the article where Rohe draws his crude theories, and therefore one has to accept that he relies on his own isolated opinion — as some jurists do — in some aspects of his lectures and presentations. He also understands how to do this rather creatively, as if the agent of this opinion would
a) propagate all his theses in the Islamic World b) and as if he were one of many agents. This he achieves by constantly invoking “for example…” in the course of his lecture. After all, he is aware of his function. Concerned individuals come to him WANTING to be informed that Islam means peace so that they can once again sleep well. Thus, in the respective lecture, his catalog of problems with Islam has the effect of objectivity. But he returns very quickly to the point that Euro-Islam is right at the door. And that is just about as true as it would be with Santa Claus.

“Islamism expert” Claudia Dantschke determines the feeling of “Islamism hostility” with connection to the increase in the number of “PI Action Groups.” Whether the “Islam expert” can really say something about the subject of Islam is questionable, since Islam and Islamism have no real points of connection. But Mrs. Dantschke doesn’t seem to be so ceartain about this. According to Wikipedia, she calls Islamism a religious ideology in her essays. Perhaps “one” might ask, could it be possible that hostility to Islam is directed against a religious ideology rooted in Islam? And this “one” apparently doesn’t buy into the taz author’s ideas.

However, in all seriousness, one has to credit taz for the fact that these individuals — even Dantschke — are dedidicating more and more critical time to the worst excesses of Islam. However, they refuse to take the step of recognizing that these excesses themselves are rooted in Islam, and that the difference between Islam and Islamism is only an artificial one. This is also true when someone — like PI — recognizes that there are Muslims who simply have a mystical approach to their religion or are simply Muslim on paper. In the conclusion of Nassim Ben Iman, it remains that the Muslims spreading terror are exercising their faith from A to Z. The constantly invoked expression, “abuse” of Islam, which thankfully isn’t used in this article, is a chameleon. See Nassim Ben Iman regarding this aspect right here (after 1:00 min).

Yet, a discussion about the content of the criticism cannot be found in this article. Otherwise it wouldn’t be so easy to push all the differing opinons from taz’s into the corner of right-wing extremism.

And of course, Edathy, in his demand that PI be watched for Constitutional Protection, should not be excluded from this group. Since Edathy — in accordance with his basic attitude about policy — wishes to hand everything to the State, including political debate. We recommend a look at this text and the videos corresponding to it here in which a demonstration by the “League for Freedom of Thought” is shown where “We don’t want any Christian pigs” is being chanted. It could be a conviction, considering his desire for balance, that a letter of complaint should be filed and the demand made for surveillance under Constitutional Protection. But possibly, Mr. Edathy — as well as PI — looks at this as a indication of a free society when somebody is allowed to desecrate a crucifix with something like a multiple-headed phallus. Nobody has to like it, but in a free society, one must live with such things. Or is it the case in a certain religion that this Constitution is somewhat invalid? Let us take a guess, Mr. Edathy, one has to differentiate, right? (We hope, Mr. Edathy, that you have not somewhat overlooked the articles at your obviously zealous PI lectures?! We had hoped for your outrage.)

And because Edathy and taz are in agreement that they are the ones to determine who should be allowed to speak out about a societal question, they get upset when not everyone sees it their way. Thus they find it completely monstrous when citizens in fact do join in a debate. What would we come to, if the Sovereign would also join in the political discussions of this country? They would have to be totally and completely involved in financing of billions for the Euro-Misery that they have never been able to inquire about.

So that there are no misunderstandings: every thought about, moreover, every actual threat, act of violence or suppression of debate will be most harshly rejected on the side of PI. Such a debate can only happen in an atmosphere totally free of fear. It is only sad that the Religion of Peace™, with over 14,000 attacks since September 11, 2001, doesn’t contribute to this debate. Therefore, it is especially regrettable that some Islam critics — especially when they are also still apostates — must fear for their lives in palpable measure. But we cannot forget: It is clear once and for all, with the murder of the Egyptian woman Marwa El Sharbini, from whom the danger truly originates. How simple, though, the world is. At least for those who assume that nobody besides them is capable of thinking.

Year after year (see here and here) the taz deals more or less with Islam criticism with the same content -- without losing one word over the idea that teachings of Islam are being attacked by these individuals. Meanwhile more heated debate is firing up, as the current taz article \"What they think, who ...

PI, 02. Jun 2010 |  Print This Post |  Email This Post | post a comment    
Kategorie: Germany, Islam, Left-wing, Media;

 Loading ...

look up...