THE HAGUE, The Netherlands — Having run the polite-but-grim gauntlet of Dutch government security to gain access to Geert Wilders, I finally understood what the 24-hour security requirements of the man's continued existence really mean: To make the survival of Western-style liberty in the Netherlands his political cause, this Dutch parliamentarian has to live under high-tech lock and key.

This stunning paradox, with no end in sight, illustrates how far political freedom in the West has already eroded. Think of it: For writing about the repressive ideology of Islam, for arguing against the inequities of Sharia (Islamic law), for making a video ("Fitna”) to warn about Islamic jihad, Wilders lives in his own non-Islamic country under a specifically Islamic death threat.

If it is politically incorrect to notice this, it is also indisputably true. True, too, is that, sans state security, this death threat could conceivably be carried out anytime, anywhere — from the picturesque streets outside the Dutch parliament, to the house Wilders hasn't slept in since 2004. That, of course, was when, on an Amsterdam street, a Muslim assassin plunged a knife into Theo van Gogh's corpse, thus attaching the Islamic manifesto threatening both Wilders and his then-parliamentary colleague, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with death.

Not long ago, political debate in the Netherlands met with, well, more political debate. Now, however, with a growing Muslim minority — and it's politically incorrect to notice this, too — political debate sometimes meets with Islam-inspired political assassination. At least it has, traumatically, twice in recent years: once, with the 2002 murder of the anti-Islamic-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn by an animal rights activist who claimed Fortuyn was scapegoating Muslims; and the following year with the ritualistic Islamic murder of Van Gogh, director of "Submission,” a short video made with Hirsi Ali about Islamic mistreatment of women. In all, such Islam-inspired violence has been enough to chill Islam-inspired debate.

And that's just the situation at home. This week, even as Amsterdam's chief public prosecutor, Leo de Wit, announced that no charges would be brought against Wilders for "discrimination” or "incitement to hatred” related to Wilders' writings or video, Jordan announced it is bringing a "Fitna”-related criminal case against the Dutch parliamentarian.

In other words, Jordan will indict a Dutch politician according to Jordanian (read: Islam-inspired) law. "Jordanian authorities are not aiming to arrest” the Dutch leader of the Freedom Party, Radio Netherlands Online reports. "They say the decision to prosecute was taken in order to send a signal to the Netherlands.”

A "signal”? How about a gag? Of course, like other Western peoples, the Dutch seem content to censor themselves, happily mouthing multicultural platitudes that effectively rationalize their own culture's Islamization. Not Wilders.

I recently asked the 44-year-old Dutchman what was stronger in his country: Islam or multiculturalism.

"Unfortunately, they are both strong,” he replied, seated in his lightly furnished but heavily guarded office. "But cultural relativism is the biggest problem.” He went on to explain: "Multicultural society would not be that bad — I don't really believe in it — but it would not be that bad if, at least, we would be strong enough to say that our culture is better and dominant. But when you combine multicultural society with a dominant sense of cultural relativism, you are heading in the wrong direction. You are committing suicide when it comes to your own culture.”

Hoping to preserve the primacy of Western culture in this Dutch corner of the West, Wilders advocates a halt to Islamic immigration. "I'm not saying that every Muslim in the Netherlands is a criminal or a terrorist,” he explains. "We know the majority is not. Still,” he continues, "there is good reason to stop the immigration, because the more we have an influx of Muslims in the Netherlands, the strength of the (Islamic) culture will grow, and the change of our societies will increase.” He sees his efforts as "a fight against an ideology that I believe at the end of the day will kill our freedom, kill our societies and change everything we stand for.”

He's right — and, yes, it's politically incorrect to say that, too. Everything the West stands for, starting with freedom of speech, is already changing as our institutions, up to and including, for example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, increasingly proscribe critical references, or indeed, any references to Islam. While it's clear that the European manifestation of Islamic ideology has already killed Wilders' personal freedom in the Netherlands, the general impact on freedom throughout the West has yet to be fully appreciated.

"I have a mission,” Wilders said. "I believe very strongly in what I say, and my party fortunately shares this view. And nobody in the Netherlands is doing (what I do). And somebody should. And I pay a high price for it.”

What is the expression — freedom isn't free? This is literally and acutely the case when it comes to this heroic Dutchman.

Il terrorismo dei kamikaze? bombe caricate a eros.La privazione del sesso può avere un ruolo nell'ondata di violenza suicida scatenata dall'Islam integralista. Un fattore che per lo storico Ian Buruma si aggiunge alla mancanza di lavoro e all'umiliazione sociale nel delineare la pericolosa figura del «perdente radicale»

La masturbazione porta al terrorismo suicida? Sembrerebbe di no. Ma potrebbe esserci un legame tra l'inadeguatezza o la frustrazione sessuale e la spinta verso l'estremismo violento. È il tema di un'interessante novella, Seventeen, del romanziere giapponese Kenzaburo Oe, vincitore del Premio Nobel per la letteratura nel 1994. La storia è ambientata negli anni '60, quando fu scritta.

Il protagonista è un diciassettenne che non riesce a trattenersi dal masturbarsi, in bagno, in camera, tra i cespugli, perfino a scuola. Si vergogna di questa pratica, come di qualunque altra cosa. Non è bravo nello sport, è un fallimento con le ragazze e un bullo a casa, non sopporta nessuno. Ma una sorta di salvezza è a portata di mano. Il ragazzo viene presentato a una banda di giovani estremisti di destra che indossano uniformi e seguono un leader che farnetica a proposito dei traditori comunisti e socialisti e delle glorie dell'impero giapponese. Anche il grande masturbatore viene accettato come guerriero per la causa imperiale. E ha il suo primo vero orgasmo nella nuova uniforme quando, in un centro per massaggi, sogna il potere totale, l'uccisione dei nemici, la violenza sulle loro mogli e figlie e la morte per il glorioso imperatore.

Non è l'opera narrativa più acuta di Oe. Ma la palude sessuale in cui l'estremismo può prosperare è descritta bene e vale la pena di esplorarla. Come intellettuale di sinistra in un certo senso dogmatico, Oe sembra pensare che l'estremismo violento, che nasce da fantasie di onnipotenza, sia tipico dell'estrema destra. Ha spesso espresso la sua ammirazione per il Presidente Mao. Ma anche il Grande Timoniere si scontrava con l'inadeguatezza, come è stato riferito dal suo medico personale. La sua potenza sessuale aveva alti e bassi, sembra, di pari passo con le sue fortune politiche.

La privazione sessuale può avere un ruolo nell'attuale ondata di violenza suicida liberata dalla causa palestinese e dall'islamismo rivoluzionario. La prospettiva allettante di possedere le più incantevoli vergini del paradiso viene fatta balenare di proposito agli occhi dei giovani addestrati per la morte violenta. E anche coloro che non vengono addestrati ad uccidere e morire spesso vivono in società autoritarie in cui il sesso prima del matrimonio è severamente proibito. L'accesso a MTV, a Internet, ai dvd e alla pubblicità globale rinforza la convinzione che gli occidentali vivano in un giardino degenerato di delizie peccaminose. Questo può provocare un misto di rabbia e invidia. Capita che a rabbia esploda in orge di violenza orchestrate con cura. Si dice che Mohammed Atta abbia visitato uno strip-tease bar prima di schiantarsi con un aereo contro le Torri Gemelle.
Forse ha voluto dare un morso al frutto proibito prima della propria estinzione terrena.
Questo non significa che la frustrazione sessuale o la misoginia intransigente portino direttamente all'eccidio. Se così fosse, vivremmo in un mondo decisamente pericoloso. Ma sono fattori che non possono essere esclusi. Per molto tempo si è ritenuto che i giovani privati del sesso fossero i guerrieri migliori, come i cani da combattimento nelle fosse. Tra le barbarie della guerra, nell'antichità come nei conflitti recenti, c'è la promessa a uomini affamati e brutalizzati che, una volta conquistata una città, le sue donne faranno parte del bottino. L'idea che fare sesso con le donne distolga gli uomini dalla lotta è abbastanza comune anche in ambiti meno violenti, come il calcio. Tra i grandi miti del calcio olandese c'è la storia dei Mondiali del 1974. Pare che alcuni calciatori si siano arrangiati con prostitute locali, e abbiano così perso la finale contro la Germania.
Il sesso con gli uomini è un'altra questione. Di norma, le società che promuovono il machismo e l'onore del maschio non vedono bene l'omosessualità. È tollerata, al massimo, ma solo il partner attivo, specialmente se è più vecchio e sposato, può uscire con onore da incontri omosessuali. Il partner passivo è come una donna: remissivo, debole, disprezzabile. Esistono però eccezioni alla regola. Alcune delle società più maschiliste della storia hanno elogiato i rapporti omosessuali. L'esercito di Sparta incoraggiava le relazioni d'amore tra soldati perché si riteneva che promuovessero la lealtà e il coraggio. Nel Giappone feudale il sesso con le donne andava bene, l'onore e la nobiltà si potevano trovare solo nei rapporti tra uomini.

Nel 2004 Johann Hari scrisse a proposito della «sovrapposizione» di omosessualità e fascismo: «Gli uomini gay sono stati al centro di tutti i principali movimenti fascisti». Abbiamo esempi che suffragano questa tesi: le truppe d'assalto naziste, le SA in camicia marrone guidate da Ernst Röhm. Röhm e molti dei suoi compagni erano omosessuali. Röhm era un convinto promotore dell'ideale spartano dell'accoppiamento tra uomini prestanti e combattivi. Come molti soldati tedeschi all'indomani della Prima Guerra Mondiale, si sentiva un perdente. Per lui le SA erano un modo di riguadagnare autostima. Vi vedeva un'élite di uomini superiori, scelti per controllare il mondo intero. Il sesso era un'espressione del potere e il potere veniva erotizzato. Secondo Hari nella natura dell'omosessualità c'era qualcosa che la rendeva particolarmente congeniale al fascismo.

Citando un pornografo gay, Bruce LaBruce, faceva riferimento al «culto del corpo, la venerazione del forte, un fanatismo per la crudeltà e le figure autoritarie». Ma questo presuppone che i desideri omosessuali si possano ridurre a un cartone di Tom of Finland in cui i personaggi vengono maltrattati da poliziotti brutali vestiti di pelle. Tali fantasie esistono, del resto, e il fascismo le ha sfruttate al massimo. Basta vedere le enormi sculture di atleti nudi nel complesso sportivo che portava il nome di Foro Mussolini a Roma, per farsene un'idea. Ma non bisogna dimenticare che gli omosessuali venivano perseguitati nella Germania nazista. Esiste una spiegazione più plausibile per l'attrazione che prova un certo tipo di omosessuale per l'elitarismo violento e le cause politiche estreme ed è il disgusto per la vita borghese.

Questa potrebbe essere la chiave al fascismo gay: l'estremismo è la rivincita del perdente sulla società. Chi siano i perdenti dipende dalla natura della società. Lo scrittore tedesco Hans Magnus Enzensberger ha scritto un brillante saggio sul «perdente radicale», generalmente un giovane, che si sente vittima del mondo intero e odia se stesso almeno quanto le forze che lo opprimono. Questi uomini sono bombe ad orologeria ambulanti. Qualunque cosa può farli esplodere, un'umiliazione sociale, la perdita del lavoro. E di solito l'esplosione uccide sia l'attentatore che i suoi nemici. Le circostanze determinano fino a un certo punto chi sono i nemici, «i soliti sospetti sono gli stranieri, i servizi segreti, i comunisti, gli americani, le grandi aziende, i politici, gli infedeli. E, quasi sempre, gli ebrei». L'unica cosa che manca nell'analisi di Enzensberger è il fattore sessuale, la psicologia del grande masturbatore, del criminale gay, del despota abbattuto. Forse questo elemento si spiega meglio ricordando l'omicidio ad Amsterdam del regista olandese Theo Van Gogh.

Il suo assassino, Mohammed Bouyeri, è nato in Olanda da genitori marocchini. Da ragazzino provò a conformarsi alla cultura della sua città natale. Si ubriacava, fumava marijuana e cercava di sedurre le ragazze olandesi. In fondo, tutto nella cultura, dalla musica pop agli spot pubblicitari, promette sesso. Questo mondo è molto diverso da quello di casa, dove la pia madre e le caste sorelle vanno protette da occhi lascivi. Ma le cose cominciarono a mettersi male per Mohammed. Le ragazze olandesi non erano facili come pensava. Perdeva progressivamente interesse allo studio. Ci furono aspri scontri con la polizia e sua sorella si trovò un ragazzo. Questo lo fece infuriare. Si sentiva disonorato, inutile, escluso. La ragione per cui Van Gogh divenne il bersaglio di Mohammed fu un cortometraggio girato con la politica di origine somala Ayaan Hirsi Ali, che ne scrisse la sceneggiatura. Il film, Submission, mostrava testi coranici proiettati sui corpi seminudi di donne velate che avevano subito maltrattamenti da parte di uomini. Hirsi Ali attacca l'Islam per la sottomissione sessuale delle donne e il maschilismo frustrato e maldestro degli uomini. Il suo approccio alla società europea secolarizzata è opposto a quello di Mohammed. Laddove lei vede liberazione — soprattutto liberazione sessuale — lui vede disonore, decadenza, impurità e confusione. La libertà della vita in Olanda ha permesso a lei di prosperare, mentre lui si è sentito piccolo e pieno di rancore. Ecco perché ha provato il desiderio di distruggerla, e con lei la civiltà che lo ha fatto sentire un perdente radicale.
©IanBuruma

Most people who know me are aware of the fact that buried under my fun, outgoing, beautiful, generally perfect exterior is the heart of a raging nerd. When given the opportunity, this nerd can go full force. (Most of my friends are like this, too, so I'm in good company.) In the summertime, when I have a lot more free time than I do during the school year, reading (second, perhaps, to drinking outside) is my favorite pastime. Maybe because I just finished a book that I absolutely loved, I feel like telling you people about some of my favorite books so far this summer. I'm adding my own cry-meter ranking for each of these books, because, while Kathleen medically can't produce tears (seriously), I am gifted with the ability to cry at anything. I happen to think that it's a good thing for a book to be so good that it brings me to tears. Some of my more notable cries: during an episode of Dancing with the Stars, when all the Spice Girls were there to cheer on Ginger Spice; during an episode of Lizzie McGuire; while watching the end of a marathon (with completely able-bodied runners, mind you); through the entirety of P.S. I Love You; etc. I once even fell asleep for all of Armageddon, then woke up during the sad part and immediately began sobbing. The point is, I cry a lot (I have an overactive heart, right Madeline?), so in honor of that I will be ranking these on a scale of one to five Christians (as in the lion, not the religious group; one being wet eyes and five being audible, full-body sobs). Here we go:

Water for Elephants, by Sara Gruen -- Even though I prefer my Sarah's with an h, I'll allow this particular Sara. I finished this book last night, so of course it's currently my favorite. In a few words, it's about a circus. In a few more words, it's about a great love story, an old man you'll absolutely adore, an elephant that makes you wish that somehow you could actually have an elephant for a pet, and more. It's a great read...not an insanely quick one, but not one you have to force yourself to get through. [4 Christians]

Infidel, by Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- This is a pretty intense read, but it's well worth your while. I'm fascinated by Muslim culture, so I'm a huge fan of books that deal with the topic (i.e. Nine Parts Desire, by Geraldine Brooks, and The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Sunsby Khaled Hosseini...you may have heard of him). The book is the true story of the author's life, from growing up in a strict Muslim family in Africa to escaping to the Netherlands and becoming a member of their parliament. Her writing is somewhat journalistic, but her stories are larger than life. It's interesting to see Ayaan's transition from a devout Muslim to a non-believer, and her reasoning behind that transition. An excellent, thought-provoking novel. [2 Christians]

The Secret Life of Bees, by Sue Monk Kidd -- Lent to me by my friend Annie, this is one of those books that I've been wanting to read for a long time, and I'm glad I finally got around to it. It tells the story of a young girl growing up in South Carolina in 1964 who, with her black nanny, Rosaleen, escapes from her abusive father and is taken in by three black sisters. The young girl, Lily, learns all about beekeeping, and starts to learn more about her mother, who died when she was young. Because of the setting, this book reminds me of To Kill a Mockingbird. [2 Christians]

Firefly Lane, by Kristin Hannah-- This sizable novel traces the lives of two best friends, Kate and Tully, through middle school, college, careers, and family life. It's a really fast read, and -- I think -- a must read for any girl who's pondered the career v. family dilemma. Great book for lounging poolside. [5 Christians]

Nineteen Minutes, by Jodi Picoult -- I finally broke down an read a Jodi Picoult book. I resisted partly because I was being a book snob, but after my sister told me about the plot of this one, I decided to give it a shot. Picoult is a great, easy-to-read writer, and I loved this story about a school shooting in a small town in New Hampshire. It tells the story from a variety of perspectives, and I was impressed that Picoult makes you consider every character's perspective. You'll close the book empathizing with all of the characters, and you'll think twice about the way our society handles school shootings. [4 Christians]

So uh, thanks for humoring my inner book critic. If you decide to take some of my recommendations, enjoy, and let me know what you think!

[Posted by Mallory]

Un film sur les circonstances du meurtre de Théo Van Gogh. Van Gogh et Hirsi Ali ont tous deux reçu des menaces de mort suite à la sortie du film «Soumission». Van Gogh ne s'inquiétait pas de ces menaces. Il ne voulait pas laisser les fous d'Allah l'intimider. Que vous soyez d'accord ou non avec les opinion de Van Gogh, il avait le droit inaliénable de les exprimer.

Beaucoup d'autres qui critiquent l'Islam et appellent à sa réforme vivent dans la peur, sous de constantes menaces de mort. Irshad Manji, dans le cadre de son «Opération Ijtihad» à lancé une pétition en soutien de ces gens et de la liberté d'expression. Je vous invite à la signer.

Ceci est le film écrit par Ayaan Hirsi Ali et réalisé par le cinéaste Théo Van Gogh. Il traite du sort des femmes en Islam. C'est la prière d'une femme, condamnée au fouet pour adultère, après avoir été violée par son oncle. Son témoignage valait seulement la demi de celui qu'elle accusait à la cour. Il en est ainsi partout où règne l'Islam.

Peu après la sortie de ce film, un matin, Théo Van Gogh a pris sa bicyclette pour aller travailler comme à tous les jours. Quelqu'un l'attendait. Mohammed Bouyeri, le tueur, l'a blessé par plusieurs balles avant de l'égorger et ensuite d'épingler une lettre de menaces à l'endroit d'Ayaan Hirsi Ali sur sa poitrine avec un couteau. Les islamistes ne supportent pas la critique...

Le manifeste des douze : "Ensemble contre le nouveau totalitarisme"

Après avoir vaincu le fascisme, le nazisme, et le stalinisme, le monde fait face à une nouvelle menace globale de type totalitaire : l'islamisme.

Nous, écrivains, journalistes, intellectuels, appelons à la résistance au totalitarisme religieux et à la promotion de la liberté, de l'égalité des chances et de la laïcité pour tous.

Les évènements récents, survenus suite à la publication de dessins sur Mahomet dans des journaux européens, ont mis en évidence la nécessité de la lutte pour ces valeurs universelles. Cette lutte ne se gagnera pas par les armes, mais sur le terrain des idées. Il ne s'agit pas d'un choc des civilisations ou d'un antagonisme Occident – Orient, mais d'une lutte globale qui oppose les démocrates aux théocrates.

Comme tous les totalitarismes, l'islamisme se nourrit de la peur et de la frustration. Les prédicateurs de haine misent sur ces sentiments pour former les bataillons grâce auxquels ils imposeront un monde liberticide et inégalitaire. Mais nous le disons haut et fort : rien, pas même le désespoir, ne justifie de choisir l'obscurantisme, le totalitarisme et la haine. L'islamisme est une idéologie réactionnaire qui tue l'égalité, la liberté et la laïcité partout où il passe. Son succès ne peut aboutir qu'à un monde d'injustices et de domination : celle des hommes sur les femmes et celles des intégristes sur les autres. Nous devons au contraire assurer l'accès aux droits universels aux populations opprimées ou discriminées.

Nous refusons le « relativisme culturel » consistant à accepter que les hommes et les femmes de culture musulmane soient privés du droit à l'égalité, à la liberté et à la laïcité au nom du respect des cultures et des traditions.

Nous refusons de renoncer à l'esprit critique par peur d'encourager l' « islamophobie », concept malheureux qui confond critique de l'islam en tant que religion et stigmatisation des croyants.

Nous plaidons pour l'universalisation de la liberté d'expression, afin que l'esprit critique puisse s'exercer sur tous les continents, envers tous les abus et tous les dogmes.

Nous lançons un appel aux démocrates et aux esprits libres de tous les pays pour que notre siècle soit celui de la lumière et non de l'obscurantisme. »

Signatures :
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

Manifeste publié dans Charlie Hebdo le 1er mars 2006

I probably do.

Er ... anyway, moving right along, a question of priorities. British commentator Mark Steel, writing for The Independent, notes,

It's so difficult, apparently, to work out how to solve the food shortages in Africa. Because the price of food has just gone up, the way prices do sometimes, caught by a freak gust of wind or flare from the sun or something and whoosh, up they go, whether it's oil or an Olympic Games or rice and it's just bad luck.

Combined with the growing population, it means there's no simple way of stopping millions of people starving. But fortunately the same laws don't apply to other essential items, such as arms. That's why you never get reports saying: "What with the booming population and rising prices, there just aren't enough weapons to go round.

"The crisis is so deep there are now allies of America without access to a single cluster bomb, and in one region of the Congo warlords have to share one flamethrower between two. Charities have sent out truckloads of Tomahawk missiles to Uzbekistan but the queues of government officials go back across the hills, and the fear is that for some this shipment may have come too late."

And aid programmes require summits lasting several days, followed by statements about tying aid to trade deals, that begin: "You don't solve the problem of hunger simply by giving people food."

So while getting food to the hungry seems impossible, there has been a 37 per cent increase in global arms spending in the past 10 years, which raised last year's tally to $1,204bn. Those of you who don't understand economics might wonder why there can't be an agreement to only spend $1,203bn instead, then wander round Sainsbury's buying a billion dollars' worth of food and take it to people who are starving, especially as Sainsbury's currently have a special offer of a free box of Shredded Wheat if you spend a billion dollars or more.

One of my favorite barstool speculations is simple enough, and I find myself reviving it of late as the world faces what seems aptly described as a food crisis. Simply, the problem is not necessarily that there is not enough food. Rather, the problem is the system of distribution in place. Indeed this idea has seen practical expression of late. Bill Maher made a frustrating point in April on an episode of Real Time, discussing the food issue with guest Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

ALI: And children in African countries, famine drought, standing on garbage heaps, is the kind of most familiar picture I know. So, when I listen to Americans and other people in the west, you know, talking about poverty here and things being bad in America, I always think, oh, wait until you get to Africa or parts of Asia, parts of Latin America. So, it’s very relative, all of that.

Biofuels – when I – I was born in 1969 – when I was growing up, biofuels wasn’t a problem. What was a problem was the whole subsidizing of farmers in the west, and them—

MAHER: [overlapping] Still goes on.

ALI: [overlapping]—that still goes on. What was also, and has never been spoken about, is the habits, religious dogmas and the way of life of the people who are starving themselves. So, if you look at the current crisis now, you’d say, “Okay, listen to the World Food Program. Give them – give them the $700 million they’re asking for. Take care of the – take the emergency out of the way, then deal with the dumping and the subsidies. But, then ultimately, we have also to get down to the choices that people make, and the dogmas, the ignorance, the superstition, the mistreatment of women. And all of that combined is what brings people in so-called "developing countries" go from one crisis to the other.

MAHER: And, could I add one more thing that starves people? Eating meat. Because the amount of grain it takes to feed the cattle, when you eat that high up on the food chain, it starves people lower on the food chain. It takes an enormous amount of resources to make a pound of meat.

More recently—okay, earlier today—bioethicist Pete Singer considered the issue for American Public Media's Marketplace:

Why are we in the midst of a food crisis when world production of food per person has actually grown steadily since the 1960s?

The answer is that we're not eating the food we grow, sometimes not eating them at all, sometimes wasting at least 80 percent of them.

100 million tons of corn is turned into biofuels that go into our gas tanks. That's a lot less corn for people to eat.

But most corn isn't eaten by humans; it's eaten by animals and that's the biggest part of the problem. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 756 million tons of grain plus most of the world's soybean crop are fed to animals and that amount has increased sharply in recent years as Asian nations have become more prosperous and their populations have started eating more meat.

When we use animals to convert grain and soy into food we can eat, they use most of the feed to keep warm and develop bones and other parts we can't eat. So we're wasting most of the food value of the crops we feed them. In the case of cattle, at least nine-tenths of the grain they eat is squandered.

Now here's the thing: I don't actually disagree with Maher or Singer. In a time when basic necessities are brought into such sharp focus, we cannot turn our backs on celebrity moralizing or utilitarian analysis simply because it seems trendy or cold. But I do think there are aspects of the meat question that tread back to the problem of priorities.

When I was in ninth grade, our school attempted to incorporate some economics into our social studies curriculum. It was a disaster, as near as I can recall, leading to my idea for a Museum of the Insane and Deranged, which seems rather redundant given the availability and nature of modernism and avant garde. Nonetheless, one factoid that stuck with me over the years is that even in our corner of the Universe, in the farm country east of the Cascades, large quantities of grain were going to waste; small mountains of wheat, for instance, going to waste because nobody bought it.

And while many of the lessons of my youth—in this case, my father's explanation of news media content, "Somebody's gotta pay for it"—will haunt me to my dying day, something about that wasted grain has always bothered me.

In truth, I do not know how much grain goes to waste in eastern Washington these days. I do not know how the numbers look for farmland across the nation. And I certainly have no reasonable clue about how much grain could be produced if we dropped American farm subsidies put in place to ensure that the market never suffered too great a surplus.

Add that all up: Is there 756,000,000 tons of grain to be found there? (How much does a bushel of corn or wheat weigh?)

What I'm getting at is that while a crusade against eating meat will certainly make some short-term differences in the availability of some grains, this sort of pop-culture grasping after straws will not have much impact in the long term. After all, somebody's gotta pay for it.

And let's face it: In the marketplace, scarcity keeps prices high. Indeed, for years, the worst possible disaster our domestic food production could face was a massive surplus leading to a collapse of prices. Our priority over the years has been to manage prices. High prices, obviously, are something Americans are willing to work with, but heaven help us if the prices ever fell too low.

The question, then, was financial. The priority, in the end, was money.

Which brings us, after a fashion, back to Mr. Steel's consideration of weapons and food. Quite obviously, a basic concern such as food is a lesser priority than the arms trade. It often seems that the basic components for human prosperity are game pieces moved strategically about the board in pursuit of higher priorities, the things that really count: money and power.

Of the dogmas, ignorance, superstition, and mistreatment challenging the developing world, it seems that people might never recover or catch up if they are forever scrabbling over the next mouthful. Certainly, a billion dollars at Sainsbury's plus a bonus box of Shredded Wheat will not solve the problem. But as economic and aid policies look to fostering trade—asking hungry people to work themselves out of hunger—it seems damn obvious that such plans will go better if, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali put it, we "take the emergency out of the way".

And while the cynic might point out that certain interests—e.g., the arms industry—might have reasons to want people to stay hungry, would that not be part of the point? How is it that making war, with all its nationalistic and patriotic trappings, is of such priority? Economically, there is no future in solving hunger; this, at least, seems to be the conventional wisdom of today. I sincerely hope to be wrong about that, and in the long run I expect I am. Because when people are producing economic resources instead of consuming them, when they are working instead of waiting in relief lines, there will be that much more money to go around, that much bigger a financial pie to slice up and fight over.

Which, of course, will lead us back to guns if the fight gets fierce enough.

If the human endeavor ends in extinction, our epitaph should read, "This is what we wanted."

After all, these are our priorities.

The imams aren't necessary:  There are still Muslim prisoners who speak of going to the Middle East when they're released and joining terrorist camps.  Of course most of this isn't to be taken very seriously, but the problem is more inclusive.  The America-hating and irrationality is much more common among non-Muslim prisoners.  I know self-professed Christianprisoners who love Barack Obama's plan of cozying up to terrorist supporters like Iran and Syria, who say that America deserved 9/11 (those secretaries and filing clerks got what they deserved, damn them), and who otherwise sympathize with Islamic terror.

Perhaps it would be better if there was a radical imam here in this prison; that would make this type of attitude more understandable.  To me, it's a whole new kind of bad when this viewpoint is actualized simply by watching the BBC and listening to Rosie O'Donnell.

Mr. Steyn also makes the point that Islam is more appealing to prisoners because: "...a wimp church like the Congregational crowd doesn't have much appeal to the average jailbird."  This is most definitely true - many prisoners see Christians as pansies who turn the other cheek, and the Christian chapel services as havens for child molesters (whom most prisoners despise).  This doesn't mean there's an inclination to embrace a radical form of Islam as a replacement, but it does give some of them another reason to have antipathy towards "white Christian" America.

Since I quite often take the "controversial" position of defending America, I hear it all.  Guys in here have told me quite seriously that George Bush and John McCain are the real terrorists.  Standard America-hating fare, I suppose, but what's hilarious is that these same people who are making moral judgements about Bush and McCain also tell me that Muslim extremists blowing up innocent people is okay because it's "the only way they have of fighting a powerful nation like America."

In other words, they're incapable of creating anything of value themselves.  Countries like Iran and Syria produce little more than starving multitudes, subjugated women, and intolerant ideology, then use the money of hard-working Westerners who purchase their oil to prop their "economies" and fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.  I have an idea:  Rather than resort to civilian murder to hurt a powerful nation, how about you become a powerful nation yourself?  Oops - the Islamic fascists haven't yet accepted the fact that their religious ideology is the very thing that keeps them from rising above the level of parasites of Western markets and technology.

How about this:  If you're moralizing the murder of babies to defeat your foe, then by comparison your foe doesn't seem quite so bad anymore, does he?

It's amazing.  The "military" tactics of these terrorists consist of nothing more than slaughtering civilians, exploiting the West's tolerance and opportunity, and destroying themselves for the reward of popping seventy-two cherries.  For this, they're called brave heroes.  In contrast, America is called evil and cowardly for using its unparalleled military might to wage the softest, most humane, politically-correct war we possibly can against a global movement bent on destroying our entire way of life.  Go figure.

J'inaugure donc une nouvelle catégorie en l'honneur de ces réformateurs. Je compte parler de plusieurs d'entre eux et de répandre leur message. Je ne peut pas imaginer de meilleur sujet pour ce premier billet que la déclaration de St. Petersburg, que plusieurs de ces réformateurs ont signée, et que j'ai glanée des sites Point de Bascule et Bivouac-ID.

Déclaration de St. Petersburg

Publiée par les délégués au Sommet de l’islam laïque tenu à St. Petersburg en Floride le 5 mars 2007

Nous sommes des musulmans laïques et des personnes laïques de sociétés musulmanes. Croyants, sceptiques et non-croyants, nous sommes engagés dans une lutte sans merci qui oppose non pas l’Occident et l’Islam, mais les principes de liberté et de non-liberté.

Nous affirmons l’inviolabilité de la liberté de conscience individuelle et nous croyons en l’égalité de tous les êtres humains.

Nous insistons sur la séparation de la religion et de l’État et le respect des droits humains universels.

Les traditions de liberté, de rationalité et de tolérance sont ancrées dans la riche histoire des sociétés préislamiques et islamiques. Ces valeurs ne sont pas l’apanage de l’Occident ou de l’Orient ; elles forment le patrimoine moral commun de l’humanité.

Nous ne voyons ni colonialisme, ni racisme ni ce que l’on appelle « islamophobie » dans le fait de soumettre les pratiques islamiques à la critique ou de les condamner lorsqu’elles bafouent la raison ou les droits humains.

Nous appelons les gouvernements du monde à :

rejeter la charia, les tribunaux édictant des fatwas, le gouvernement des religieux et les religions d’État sous toutes leurs formes ;

s’opposer à toutes les sanctions pour blasphème et apostasie, conformément à l’article 18 de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme ;

éliminer les pratiques qui contribuent à l’oppression des femmes, telles que l’excision, le crime d’honneur, le voile forcé et le mariage forcé ;

protéger les minorités sexuelles contre la persécution et la violence ;

réformer l’éducation religieuse sectaire qui enseigne l’intolérance et le fanatisme à l’encontre des non-musulmans ;

favoriser un espace public ouvert où tous les sujets peuvent être discutés sans coercition ni intimidation.

Nous exigeons la libération de l’islam de l’emprise des ambitions totalitaires d’hommes avides de pouvoir, et du carcan rigide de l’orthodoxie

Nous enjoignons les universitaires et les intellectuels partout dans le monde à se livrer avec courage à l’étude des origines et des sources de l’islam et à propager les idéaux de la recherche scientifique et de la quête spirituelle libres par le moyen de la traduction interculturelle, de l’édition et des médias de masse.

Aux croyants musulmans, nous disons : l’islam a un noble avenir en tant que foi personnelle, mais pas en tant que doctrine politique ;

Aux chrétiens, juifs, bouddhistes, hindous, baha’is ainsi qu’aux membres de groupes confessionnels non musulmans : nous sommes à vos côtés en tant que citoyens égaux et libres ;

Et aux non-croyants : nous défendons votre droit inaliénable à la contestation et à la dissidence.

Avant d’être membres de la oumma, du corps du Christ ou du peuple élu, nous faisons tous partie d’une communauté de conscience ; nous sommes ceux et celles qui doivent faire leurs propres choix.

Signée par :

Mona Abousenna, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Magdi Allam, Mithal Al-Alusi, Shaker Al-Nabulsi, Nonie Darwish, Afhin Ellian, Tawfik Hamid, Shahriar Kabir, Hasan Mahmud, Raquel Evita Saraswati, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Mourad Wahba, Manda Zand Ervin, Bonafsheh Zand-Bonazzi,

Source : Secular Islam Summit

On circumcision, atheism, Satan, Islam.

Self-censorship, typically called ”showing respect for religion” or “responsible free speech”, in this case basically comes down to a voluntary internalization of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what kind of speech regarding Islam is “respectful” or “responsible”? Why, that would be Muslims.

Hate speech legislation, or laws against “defamation of religion”, basically comes down to a government’s official adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws. Who decides what speech regarding Islam is “hateful” or “defamatory”? Why, that would again be Muslims.

It’s difficult to imagine how anyone could think Muslims should determine what non-Muslims can and can’t say about Islam, any more than Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or any other group of people should decide what non-members can and can’t say about their ideology. This notion is indefensible on its face, and to even consider going down that road is to take the fist step toward a theocracy.

Muslims don’t get the notion of what constitutes an outrage out of thin air, but from centuries-long traditions of dhimmi laws, subjugating non-Muslims under Islamic rule. Just one small part of this subjugation is controlling non-Muslims’ speech. Andrew Bostom notes, following Muslims’ outrage over the Pope quoting Pope Benedict XVI:

The ultimate source of the convulsive reaction to the Pope’s speech is the Islamic belief that spiritually and physically debauched infidels have no right to express opinions—least of all negative opinions—regarding Islam’s sacred text, the Koran, the Muslim prophet, Muhammad (Ecce Homo Arabicus), or the sacred Islamic Law (Shari’a), which includes the permanent institution of jihad war.

Such deep-seated intolerance has always predominated under Muslim rule....

Blasphemy laws and their first cousins, heresy laws, are currently used to persecute religious minorities including Christians, Hindus, and Bahais. Accusations of blasphemy can also provide cover for the murder of non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

Many observers have commented about the dangers to non-Muslims of restricting our speech concerning Islam in the West.

Islamic Blasphemy Laws Are Bad for Non-Muslims. But Are They Good for Muslims?

It may seem as though blasphemy laws are bad for non-Muslims, but good for Muslims. However, the question is: Which Muslims? Unorthodox Muslims are among the primary victims of blasphemy laws. For example, in Muslim countries, the peaceful Ahmadiyya sect is typically deemed heretical and is stifled, even in a “moderate” country like Indonesia. Other “heretical’ sects are persecuted elsewhere in the Muslim world, such as the Alevis in “secular” Turkey. Then there are the well-known conflicts between the Sunnis and Shias, much of which is kept alive through charges of blasphemy. Pretty much any Muslim sect can be considered heretical by other Muslim sects.

In addition to heretical sects, individual Muslims are punished for blasphemy. Arifur Rahman, a 20-year-old cartoonist in Bangladesh, was recently sentenced to six months amid public demonstrations calling for his death. He wrote a cartoon making fun of a local custom involving the name “Mohammed”. Parwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old Afghan student journalist, has faced the death penalty for downloading and distributing articles that were said to question some tenets of Islam. (So far as I know, he is still in prison pending final appeals.) Street thugs sometimes mete out punishment vigilante-style: Naguib Mahfouz, an Egyptian novelist, was stabbed in the neck by a Muslim who was angry at his portrayal of God. Jawaad Faizi, a Pakistani journalist in Canada, was beaten for criticizing an Islamic organization. Mohammed Ahmed Mohammed Taha was kidnapped and killed in Sudan for publishing an article which he personally disagreed with, questioning the ancestral lineage of Mohammed. These are just a few examples.

Muslims who choose to leave their religion, even in the West, had better keep quiet about their thoughts on Islam. Just ask Salman Rushdie.

Muslim and ex-Muslim reformers are often hurt by blasphemy laws and Muslim vigilanteism. Rashad Khalifa in Tucson, Arizona, founder of the “Submitters” sect, was declared to be an apostate due to his blasphemous ideas and assassinated. Farzana Hassan Shahid, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress who receives death threats from other Muslims for her views, explained: “There is an underlying fear all the time...that uneasy feeling is part of my daily life. I have been declared an apostate twice, for opposing the Sharia [Islamic law]....” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the well-known Somali ex-Muslim, wrote “...the reformists are shunned by their families and communities and live under the constant fear of assassination.”

Of course, blasphemy laws and fear of vigilante punishment also cause immeasurable harm to all the unorthodox Muslims we don’t know about because they dare not speak or publish their views freely.

Islamic blasphemy rules for non-Muslims are somewhat different from those for Muslims, because non-Muslims endure the added element of dhimmi subjugation, as noted above. Certain things could be considered blasphemous for non-Muslims to say, but not for Muslims to say. Nevertheless, all Islamic blasphemy laws share a common assumption: the Islamic orthodoxy gets to regulate what people can and can’t say about Islam. Any time the West gives any credence to this assumption, we strengthen and legitimize it.

So even if, in a fit of madness, we non-Muslims cared nothing about our own interests and only about the interests of Muslims, we would still need to decide which Muslims’ interests would be important to uphold. It would be absurd to throw the peaceful Ahmadis and reformers under the bus, to “respect” the religious thought police who would persecute them. Given the harm caused to unorthodox Muslims by blasphemy laws, we should think twice before adopting them ourselves. We may not be able to do a lot for the Ahmadiyya sect in Asia or for young cartoonists like Rahman, but at least we can set a good example by protecting freedom of expression in the West. If we do not protect it here, freedom of expression may well disappear from the world.

In my view, they're cowards for a bigger reason.  Some people like to say that these suicide bombers are brave for choosing death to further their cause, but how is it bravery if you're given an eternal reward?  Where's the sacrifice?  They're dying to attain paradise and a bevy of virgins.  They're materialists.  Their highest aspiration is a beautiful place to love and indiscriminate sex.  They want what they're too "pious" to attain in real life.  They're ashamed of their earthly lust, but somehow it becomes okay to own seventy-two prostitutes if the price you pay is your life.  (I've always wondered: What exactly do the seventy-two virgins get out of the deal?)

They're worse than the American materialists that they constantly shriek about.  At least us Americans only want material things in thislife.  Even the silliest Christians aren't under any illusions about heaven being full of gold mansions and pliable maidens.  These terrorist "martyrs" want divine paradise because it justifies the humanity they openly despise  Is divine materialism somehow nobler than earthly materialism.  I think not.  I'm a de facto atheist and I still understand that tainting the divine this way is a travesty.  If your spirituality consists of behavior to earn an award that you aren't allowed to pursue on earth, what's the point?

I'll give you an example of real bravery, realy martyrdom.  How about dying for a cause here on earth when you know oblivion waits for you?  How about defying an unjust God and gladly facing damnation for your conviction?  That's courage.  When you get nothing out of the deal but the knowledge that your death helped accomplish whatever goal or point you deem so important.  A father who willingly goes to his death to save his child isn't thinking about what awaits him, is he?  He doesn't care about being a martyr, or pleasing God, or all the virgins he gets to deflower in heaven.

That's courage.  That's a hero.  That's what makes a martyr: caring about something or someone else more than you care about yourself.  If you get a wondrous eternal reward out of the deal, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose?

this film about muslimism will go over well in the medina i'm sure.

It was really through the compassion and faith of this devoted youth worker that I began considering the claims of Christianity. Kathy was just so nice, and she believed so much, how could Christianity not be true? And so, over time, I came to believe more and more of the Christian message. Understand I was an adolescent and didn't comprehend everything, nor did I embrace it all at once. But over time through my interactions with Kathy and other Christians, I decided that I too was a Christian.

Granted, my conversion was a bit more complex than that. It wasn't just my interactions with Christians. But that was a key component. So then is religious conversion really justified by the committed relationship of another to their religion? I've been reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography Infidel about her journey through Islam. One of the parts I found fascinating was her interaction with a Muslim Girl's School teacher named Sister Aziza. The influence of Sister Aziza upon Ayaan was very similar to the influence of Kathy upon me.

The first thing Sister Aziza asked was, "How many of you are Muslims?" The whole class put up their hands up, of course. We were clearly Muslims, had been since birth. But Sister Aziza shook her head sadly, and said, "I don't think you are Muslims."

We were startled. Not Muslims? What could she possibly mean? She pointed at me. "When was the last time you prayed?" I quaked inwardly. It had been over a year since I had ritually washed myself and put on the white cloth and prostrated myself for the long ritual submission to God. "I don't remember," I mumbled. Sister Aziza pointed to other girls in the class. "And you? And you?" All but a few said they couldn't remember.

We were not true Muslims, Sister Aziza sadly informed the abashed and suddenly silent classroom. Allah did not look on us with delight. He could see into our hearts, and He knew we were not dedicated to Him...

Sister Aziza believed in Hell, there was no question about that. But she didn't emphasize fear, as all the other preachers did. She told us it was our choice. We could choose to submit to God's pureness and light and earn a place in Heaven, or we could take the low road.

Her classes were very compelling, but I didn't become an instant convert. And what was so great about Sister Aziza was that she didn't mind... She didn't mind if we didn't pray five times a day. She told us God didn't want us to do anything-not even pray-without the inner intention. He wanted true, deep submission: this is the meaning of Islam. "This is how ALlah and the Prophet want us to dress," she told us [referencing her hidjab]. "But you should do it only when you're ready, because if you do it earlier and you take the robe off again, you'll only be sinning more. When you're ready for it, you'll choose, and then you'll never take it off."

Certainly Sister Aziza was a good woman. And she was incredibly devoted to her faith. Sister Aziza was unlike many of the other local religious leaders because she desired for her pupils to come to appreciate their faith rather than simply memorize the Qu'ran. Sister Aziza genuinely cared for her students. These qualities all applied to Kathy as well (swap Qu'ran for Bible, Allah for Jesus, etc.). Both women were intelligent, compassionate, devoted followers to their religions--but to two opposing religions. This underscores for me that religious experience is simply unreliable in determining religious faith.

What I find interesting is that many (not all, by any means) youth workers from religious sects are very high quality people. With little (if any) pay or praise, these men and women dedicate their spare time (or more) to edifying the next generation. But as often as not, they have no justifiable reasoning to support their religious beliefs. They propagate those beliefs hoping to make the world a better place. What is interesting that if Muslim youth workers and Christian youth workers (add any other religious sect you desire) are hoping to make the world a better place by propagating their beliefs in the next generation, and these sects are by definition opposed to one another, aren't they simply creating a religiously schizophrenic and incredibly confused future generation?

As I mentioned, Kathy was an incredibly positive influence on my life. Additionally, it was another youth pastor who convinced (and somewhat coerced, heh) me into attending college. Likewise Sister Aziza was a profoundly positive influence on Ayaan. Meanwhile, however, these people filled both Ayaan and myself with a lot of baggage. Wouldn't it have been better if Russ had worked with me through Big Brothers/Big Sisters and Kathy had influenced me through a community center? I think so.

In related news:
Egyptian Parliament Okays Female Genital Mutilation

(IsraelNN.com) Conservatives in the Egyptian parliament have made female genital mutilation (circumcision) legal again in Egypt. The conservatives succeeded in striking several laws that had been passed by the parliament's religious Shura Council in the past. The laws canceled also include a law limiting marriage age to 18 and up, a law permitting a mother to register a child on her name and a law allowing neighbors of a family that beats its children to report the beatings to the police.

One of the parliament's members said that the law permitting a mother to register a child on her name "encourages adultery."

A Cairo appellate judge who is also the legal advisor to the Council for the Mother and Child said that the decision to strike the laws contravened international agreements signed by Egypt.

Backwards and barbaric! No two ways about it.

Islam & Nazism: Past, Present & Future(?)

Some of my favorite excerpts:

The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence.
There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

Excerpt 2:

In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs."

Read the article here 

P.S. Sam Harris looks like Ben Stiller...

After a while of searching and compiling, a centralized source is now available.

It is useful if:

1. You are Religious and want to learn more on Atheism/Agnosticism. If you wish to discover what we believe on a given subject, chances are you will find the answer in one of my links because many believers have asked the questions before you. The reality, is that the same themes arise time and again. Curious? Follow my link at the end of this entry and see for yourself.
2. You are Agnostic/Atheist and know little of the work available.
3. You are Agnostic/Atheist and have already seen many videos on the subject.

The descriptions that come with the links are fairly self-explanatory. I have amassed many hours worth of video and arranged them first under General (which includes documentaries) and later under Individuals (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Ayaan Hirsi Ali).

If you have a link you believe is good enough to be added, include it in your comment.

Feed your mind.  Access my Atheism Video Resources page here.

"The Bible is either the word of God, or it isn't. Either Jesus offers humanity the one, true path to salvation (John 14:6), or he does not. We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so. If Christianity is correct, and I persist in my unbelief, I should expect to suffer the torments of hell. Worse still, I have persuaded others, and many close to me, to reject the very idea of God. They too will languish in 'eternal fire' (Matthew 25:41). If the basic doctrine of Christianity is correct, I have misused my life in the worst conceivable way. I admit this without a single caveat. The fact that my continuous and public rejection of Christianity does not worry me in the least should suggest to you just how inadequate I think your reasons for being a Christian are." -Sam Harris

Sam Harris succinctly states his position (and my own as well) right on the first page. I am sufficiently unconvinced of Christian doctrine to not lose any sleep with angst over eternal damnation. Moreover, my skepticism directly influenced my younger sister's Christian deconversion years ago (she is now an Atheist) as well as that of a former significant other who is now a pantheist. My current offline friends whom also attended Catholic schools right up until their High School graduation, are now Atheists as well.

“If I were to turn into a deeply religious believer, my wife has threatened to leave me.” -Richard Dawkins

Hearing him say the above, gave me a chuckle.

He brings up an interesting point. How important is it for an Atheist that their romantic partner be Atheist/Agnostic?

My first significant other was a Mormon who had done missionary work in Africa. The missionary work had the opposite effect on their Faith. When we met, I was calling myself Agnostic and they confided that they had been having serious doubts about their Faith for several years since. We had many discussions about Religion and by the time our friendship turned to romance, they were defining themselves as Agnostic as well.

The sheer terror they felt at confessing their Agnosticism to their parents--much less that they were dating an Agnostic--greatly disturbed me. The fear was justified. I feared for their life as well. In the end, that former significant other died without the family knowing of their Agnosticism--or my existence for that matter. I could not even attend the funeral.

It is baffling that in many parts of the world, one can fear for one's life for simply refusing to believe in absurdities. That people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali must live under armed guard for the crime of reason, is disgraceful.

In my case, I cannot respect and therefore accept an individual as a potential romantic partner if they see enough justification for belief in a personal God. That level of cognitive dissonance greatly diminishes their desirability. Even with the ex that was a Catholic, by the time we began dating, Christianity was out the window.

So, for Atheists, how important is lack of religious cognitive dissonance in a mate? Would you date a Theist? Would you marry a Theist? If the answers to the last two questions differ, why so? In the mate selection process, does extent of religiosity make a difference? Does the type of Religion make a difference? Let us exclude Buddhism from the list as it resembles a philosophy more than a Religion.

http://ayaanhirsiali.org/

Too often people seek out the voices of those who are not Muslim or who are Muslim in name but express alot of rage towards Islam and their fellow Muslims. Women like Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and allowed free reign to talk about what it means to be a Muslim and a Muslim woman and people listen to them, claiming that they are the only voices around. This is absolutely not true, and the lie is thrown out when you see the beautiful and diverse posts I am about to share with you, mashaAllah. Each of these posts is written by a practicing proud Muslimah. We can and do speak for ourselves!

So - go - go to the carnival .. just click here.

067

أسلم تسلم

Aslim Taslam!

Aslim taslam!

Accept Islam

and you will be saved

Aslim, taslam!

Convertis-toi

et tu seras sauvé

Aslim Taslam!

Unterwirf dich, sei Muslim

und du wirst verschont

Der Drohbrief an

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Aus dem Niederländischen übersetzt und

kommentiert von Cees van de Duin

Der Drohbrief an

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Am Morgen des zweiten November 2004 um halb neun fallen Schüsse in der Amsterdamer Linnaeusstraat. Passanten schauen entsetzt in die Richtung der scharfen Knallgeräusche: Zwei Radfahrer scheinen beteiligt, einer strauchelt neben parkenden Autos zu Boden, schleppt sich über die Straße? Der andere, stürzt er sich nicht wie ein Angreifer über ihn? Doch, ein metallenes Hiebwerkzeug in der Hand, eine Art von Machete. Einige erregte Rufe oder Schreie. Dem am Boden Liegenden sticht er in die Kehle, säbelt? Eine Frau schreit zum Täter: „Das kannst du doch nicht machen!“ Der zweite, der Täter, eher noch jung, südländischer Teint, marokkanisch anmutendes Gewand, antwortet kalt: „Doch, kann ich! Und so geht euch das in Zukunft!“ und verlässt langsam den Ort in Richtung Oosterpark. Im Körper des Toten oder auch Sterbenden stecken anscheinend mehrere Messer. Irgendjemand telefoniert bereits erregt nach der Polizei. Wenige Augenblicke danach und wenige Schritte weiter fallen wieder Schüsse und die ersten Polizisten umstellen das Gelände des angrenzenden parkartigen Rasengrundstückes. Zwei Ordnungshüter werden angeschossen und auch der mitten auf der Wiese stehende Attentäter verletzt. Stille. Keine Schüsse mehr. Da er keine Kugeln mehr hat, lässt der Attentäter sich, innerlich gefasst wie es scheint, gefangen nehmen.

Der junge Islamist Mohammed Bouyeri hatte dem durch eigenwillige und regelmäßig provokante Gesellschaftskritik landesweit bekannten Filmemacher Theo van Gogh aufgelauert, mit dem Ziel, ihn zu töten. Der gebürtige Niederländer Bouyeri war in ein für traditionelle Marokkaner wie auch für radikalislamische Salafisten typisches kittelartiges Gewand gekleidet und benutzte sein kittelverträgliches Damenfahrrad.

Der zur Zeit der Mordtat 26-jährige Bouyeri wurde 1978 in Amsterdam als Sohn von Einwanderern aus dem Rif-Gebirge geboren, einer von der Kultur der Berber vom Volk der Rif-Kabylen geprägte Region Marokkos mit armen Bergdörfern, in denen die Frauen Analphabetinnen sind und kaum ein Haus elektrischen Strom hat. Vater Hamid war einer der ersten Einwanderer in die Niederlande gewesen und hat seine Gesundheit mit allzu harter Fabrikarbeit ruiniert. 2001 starb seine Frau, Mohammeds Mutter. Man lebt in den Niederlanden, doch Hamid heiratete selbstverständlich nach kabylischer Tradition die Schwester seiner Frau, Fatma.

Der junge Bouyeri wusste, welchen Weg der Regisseur jeden Tag nehmen würde. Die Schusswaffe war einsatzbereit. Das Gesicht des Regisseurs kannte in den Niederlanden jeder. Boyeri schoss mehrere Kugeln auf den auf seinem täglichen Weg zur Arbeit befindlichen van Gogh, schnitt ihm, als dieser bereits auf dem Pflaster lag, die Kehle durch und stach anschließend ein weiteres, kleines Messer mit einem mehrseitigen Brief in den Leichnam, in dem die Ermordung mit van Goghs Film „Submission“ und mit van Goghs Ansichten über den Islam begründet war.

In diesem Brief rief Bouyeri beziehungsweise rief der oder riefen die Verfasser die Muslime aller Welt auf zum Dschihad gegen alle, die nicht an den Allah-Gott glauben, gegen die Vereinigten Staaten, gegen Europa, die Niederlande und gegen die Politikerin Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Bei seiner Verhaftung wurde Bouyeri, der inzwischen sein Magazin leer geschossen hatte, von einem Polizisten ins Bein geschossen. „Du kannst von Glück sagen, dass wir dich nicht getötet haben!“, sagte einer. Bouyeris eiskalte Antwort war: „Aber genau das war doch meine Absicht.“ Auch bei der Gerichtsverhandlung am 12. Juli 2005 räumte Bouyeri unumwunden ein, gerne als Märtyrer gestorben zu sein. Er hat den herbeihalluzinierten Platz im Paradies einem Leben in den Niederlanden vorgezogen.

Mit seiner doppelten Staatsbürgerschaft hätte ihm ein Übersiedeln in das sonnige Rif-Gebirge jederzeit offen gestanden und ein Leben an der frischen Luft als anständiger Bergbauer. Doch Bouyeri Junior zog es vor, die niederländische Raumordnung und Landespflege islamisch mitzugestalten. Dazu greift man als radikaler Muslim die kulturelle Moderne und deren exponierteste Vertreter engagiert an. Denn die Moderne ist unübersichtlich. Und der Islam ist die Lösung.

Nun zum Bekennerschreiben und Drohbrief. Eingerückt und klein das für den Mordvorgang angefertigte Original niederländischer Sprache, dem übrigens eine arabische Übersetzung beigefügt war. Schwarz und groß die Übersetzung ins Deutsche vom 17. April 2008, schwarz und kursiv meine Kommentare. cd

In Naam van Allah de Barmhartige, de Genadevolle.

Im Namen Allahs, des Barmherzigen, des Gnadenreichen.

Feierliche Eröffnung islamischer Prägung. Der Mord wird zur sakralen Handlung stilisiert, zum soldatisch praktizierten heiligen Eifer (Dschihad).

Oder ist Islam überhaupt nur eine militärpolitische Doktrin und die geschnörkelte Floskel die vorweggenommene Ausrufung niederländischer Scharia?

Vrede en zegeningen op de Emir van de Mujahideen, de lachende doder Mohammed Rasoeloe Allah (Sala Allaho alaihie wa Sallam), zijn familie en metgezellen en degenen die hen oprecht volgen tot aan de Dag des Oordeels.

Friede und Segen sei auf dem Führer der Kämpfer Gottes, dem Gesandten Allahs: Dem lachenden Töter Mohammed (der Friede sei auf ihm), seiner Familie ihren Freunden und all denen, die ihm standhaft folgen bis zum Tag des Urteils.

Dem lachenden Töter? Wirklich, lächelnder Menschenmörder, „laughing killer“. Aha, der Prophet brachte also schon mal Menschen um. Historisch korrekt. Und er lachte dabei, vornehmer: Er lächelte. Das ist dieses sakrale Schweben, das der provokant überirdisch daherkommende Terroristenführer bin-Laden an den Tag legt, der seine Visage mit Videobändern und Fotos zur Ikone des „laughing killer“ geadelt hat, zum weltbekannten Markenzeichen. Ein entrücktes zartes Grinsen, aber bitte ohne gerauchten Kiff und am besten unmittelbar nachdem man einem Ungläubigen den Kopf abgetrennt hat. Das ist diese sanfte Führungsstärke. Fast ein bisschen Prophet. Und schon fast die Garantie auf einen Platz im Paradies.

Er is geen agressie behalve tegen de agressors.

Es gebe keine Feindschaft, ausgenommen gegen die Feindseligen. Nur gegen Aggressoren ist uns Muslimen Aggression zulässig.

Es ließen sich, ohne ihm Unrecht zu tun, dem frommen Sprecher diese Sätze in den Mund legen: „Islam heißt Frieden. Islam kennt damit keinen Krieg. Nur gegen Angreifer sei eben doch Krieg. Wenn wir Unschuldsengel also islamisch Krieg führen, dann war immer zuerst der böse Angreifer da. Der Islam bereitet der Gerechtigkeit den Weg, der gerechten Gesellschaft. Allah ist schön.“

Vorsicht, Ironie: „Islamlogik. Raumordnung und Landespflege auf gut islamisch. Nachher gibt es keine Nichtmuslime mehr. Das ist wirklich besser für alle.“

Het volgende:

Zur Sache:

Vrede en zegeningen op ieder die de Leiding volgt.

Frieden und Segen jedem, der der Rechtleitung folgt.

Auch: Der der Anleitung folgt, der Führung. Dazu hat man ja auch seit zwei Jahren nicht mehr die muffig-weichgespülte Amsterdamer Moschee besucht, zu der sein Vater regelmäßig geht, sondern die radikale Tawhid-Moschee der Tawhid-Stiftung (Tawhied-Moskee, Tawhied-Stichting), die den Wahhabiten ebenso nahe steht wie den Salafisten und deren Bau mit Geld aus Saudi-Arabien finanziert worden war.

Geert Wilders (damals VVD) stellte bereits im letzten Quartal des Jahres 2002 der niederländischen Regierung die Anfrage, ob ihr bekannt sei, dass saudisches Geld die Fourqan-Moschee und die Tawhid-Moschee finanziert habe. Diese Frage wurde bejaht. Die Waqf-Stiftung beziehungsweise „Waqf el Islamia“ habe die Fourqan-Moschee nebst angeschlossener Schule (!) finanziert, die saudische Stiftung „El Haramain“ zur Tawhid-Stiftung beigetragen, welche auch die as-Siddiq-Schule betreibt. Die Besucher beider Moscheen seien großteils als ultraorthodox und radikalislamisch einzustufen. In diesen Wochen, in denen Wilders seine Frage stellte, betrat Bouyeri wohl zum ersten Mal die Moschee, die, wie wir heute wissen, Treffpunkt der in Ermittlerkreisen „Hauptstadtgruppe“ (Hofstadgroep) genannten Terrorsympathisanten gewesen ist. Erst im folgenden ganzen Jahr, 2003, fand Bouyeris persönlicher Radikalisierungsprozess statt. Wilders Anfrage geschah damit ziemlich genau zwei Jahre vor der schrecklichen Tat.

Geert Wilders wurde zeitnah geantwortet („Beide moskeeën zijn een verzamelplaats voor bezoekende orthodox-radicalen die weinig op hebben met de westerse samenleving en de daarin geldende normen en waarden“), übersetzt: „Beide Moscheen sind Versammlungsort von ultrakonservativen und radikalen Muslimen, Leuten, die wenig im Sinn haben mit der westlichen Gesellschaft und den in ihr geltenden Normen und Werten.“ Quelle:

http://www.minbzk.nl/actueel/kamerstukken?ActItmIdt=4435

Soweit zum im Drohbrief verwendeten Wort „Rechtleitung“, wörtlich durchaus als „Führung, Leidung“ zu übersetzen.

Dit is een open brief aan een ongelovig fundamentalist, Ayaan Hirshi Ali, van de Thaghoet partij VVD.

Dieses ist ein offener Brief an eine ungläubige Fundamentalistin, Frau Ayaan Hirshi Ali von der Partei der Sünde, der Abirrung und der Verworfenheit namens VVD.

Der Drohbrief bzw. das Bekennerschreiben verwendet durchgehend die Schreibweise „Hirshi“ statt „Hirsi“, hier (blaue Schrift, groß) beibehalten.

طاغوت, ṭāğūt.

T(h)aghoet oder Taaghoet ist für niederländische Wahhabiten und Salafisten unter Berufung auf den Koran (4:76) die militärpolitische Parteinahme gegen Allah und für den Satan. Sure 4 Aya (Vers) 76 bezeichne mit Thaghoet (Taaghoet) die widergöttliche Ideologie der Gegner der Kämpfer Allahs und damit die satanische Lehrmeinung der Kämpfer gegen den Islam. Thaghoet sei das Zu-Verwerfende, bevor einer überhaupt die Schahada, das islamische Glaubensbekenntnis aussprechen könne oder jedenfalls bevor die ausgesprochene Schahada von Allah angenommen werden könne.

Thaghoet kann auch als Abgötterei oder Teufelsanbeterei aufgefasst werden, als Schirk (Polytheismus, Beigesellung), jedenfalls Ridda (Apostasie). Das niederländische Online-Lexikon Wikipedia nennt Thaghoet im April 2008 ausführlich, das englische Wikipedia („Taghut“) in aller Kürze.

Die bürgerliche Regierungspartei VVD sei also die Partei (Hizb …) der In-die-Irre-Gehenden. „Du, Wähler der Partei der parlamentarischen Verworfenheit“ wäre eine ganz neue Art, Wahlkampf zu machen. Machen wir uns nichts vor: Die islamischen Parteien werden in ganz Westeuropa kommen.

Geachte mevrouw Hirshi Ali,

Sehr geehrte Frau Hirshi Ali,

Sinds uw aantreden in de politieke arena van Nederland bent u constant bezig om de Moslims en de Islam te terroriseren met uw uitlatingen. U bent hiermee niet de eerste en zal ook niet de laatste zijn die zich hebben aangesloten bij de kruistocht tegen de Islam.

U heeft met uw afvalligheid niet alleen de Waarheid de rug toegekeerd, maar u marcheert ook nog eens langs de ranken van de soldaten van het kwaad. U steekt uw vijandigheid tegen de Islam niet onder stoelen of banken en hiervoor bent u door uw meesters beloond met een zetel in het parlement. Zij hebben in u een medestander gevonden in hun kruistocht tegen de Islam en de Moslims. Een medestander die hen alle ''kruit'' aanreikt zodat zij hun handen niet zelf vuil hoeven te maken. Aangezien u verblindt bent door de brandende ongelovigheid die in uw woedt, bent u niet in staat om in te zien dat uw slechts een instrument bent van de ware vijanden van de Islam.

Seit Ihrem Antreten in der politischen Arena sind sie ununterbrochen damit beschäftigt, die Muslime und den Islam zu terrorisieren. Damit sind Sie nicht die erste und werden auch nicht die letzte sein, die sich dem Kreuzzug gegen den Islam angeschlossen hat. Nicht nur der Wahrheit haben Sie mit Ihrem Abfall vom Glauben den Rücken zugekehrt, jetzt formieren Sie sogar die Aufstellung der Heere der Soldaten des Bösen. Ihre Feindseligkeit gegen den Islam haben Sie nun wahrlich nicht verheimlicht, vielmehr zum Lohn für diesen Frevel von ihren politischen Meistern einen Platz im Parlament erhalten. In Ihnen haben diese einen Parteigenossen, einen Unterstützer gefunden, der ihnen das Schießpulver anreicht, sodass sie sich selbst nur ja nicht die Hände schmutzig machen müssen. Verblendet durch den in Ihnen wütenden lodernden Unglauben sind Sie nicht in der Lage zu erkennen, dass Sie nichts als ein Werkzeug der wahren Feinde des Islam sind.

U wordt gebruikt om allerlei vijandigheden over de Islam en de meest edele mens, Mohammed Rasoeloe Alla (Salla Allaho aleihie wa Sallam), uit te spuien.

Sie werden benutzt, um mancherlei Feindseligkeit über den Islam und seinen edelsten Menschen, Mohammed, den Gesandten Allahs, auszuspeien.

Dit alles mevrouw Hirshi Ali neem ik u niet kwalijk, als soldaat van het kwaad doet u slechts uw werk.

Dies alles, sehr geehrte Frau Hirshi Ali, nehme ich Ihnen noch nicht einmal persönlich böse, denn als Soldatin des Bösen tun Sie nichts anderes als Ihre ureigene Arbeit.

Ach wie ritterlich, den Feind zum anstehenden Schlagabtausch feierlich zuzulassen. Aufschlussreich das Schwarz-Weiss-Denken nach dem Grundsatz „Wer nicht für mich ist, ist gegen mich“, und „ich“ als niederländischer Dschihad-Aktivist bin selbstverständlich auf der „guten“ Seite, somit kann Hirsi Ali nur Kriegerin des „Bösen“ sein.

Het feit dat u zo openlijk uw kwaad uit kunt spuien is niet aan uzelf te danken, maar aan de Islamitische Ummah. Zij heeft haar taak van verzetten tegen het onrecht en het kwaad laten liggen en ligt haar roes uit te slapen. Al uw vijandelijkheden tegen de Islam is dus alleen de Islamitische Ummah kwalijk te nemen.

Die Tatsache, dass Sie öffentlich Ihre Bösartigkeiten ausspeien können, verdanken Sie nicht eigener Leistung oder Begabung, sondern dem Versagen der islamischen Ummah (Weltgemeinschaft). An ihr liegt es damit nun endlich auch, viel zu spät Widerstand zu leisten gegen all das Unrecht und Böse, das Sie mit verschuldet haben. Die Ummah, die ihre Aufgabe, gegen Sie einzuschreiten wie im Rausch bislang verschlafen hat, ist damit jetzt berechtigt und aufgefordert, all Ihre Feindseligkeiten gegen den Islam übel zu nehmen.

Deze brief is Insha Allah een poging om uw kwaad voor eens en altijd het zwijgen op te doen leggen. Deze geschreven woorden zullen Insha Allah uw masker doen laten vallen.

Dieser Brief ist, so Allah will, ein wohlwollender Versuch, Ihnen die Chance zu geben, Ihr permanentes Fehlverhalten zu beenden und mitzuhelfen, Ihre Missetaten ein für alle mal zum Schweigen zu bringen. Zugleich sollen diese hier verfassten Worte mit Allahs Willen dazu beitragen, Ihre Maske der Täuschung abzureißen.

Man ist human und gewährt die Möglichkeit der Reue und Umkehr. Das ist im Koran bei Apostasie so vorgegeben, angeblich also vom Allah-Gott selbst verfasst. Islam pur: Du Apostat hast drei Tage lang Zeit, dich öffentlich zu unterwerfen („Islam“)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali wird wahrheitswidrig des betrügerischen Spiels bezichtigt, der bewussten Täuschung. Wiederholung der Figur: „Sie haben uns angegriffen, wir verteidigen uns nur!“ Ob die fundamentalistischen Verfasser des Drohbriefes das wirklich glauben oder diese Rhetorik mühsam konstruieren? Vielleicht „glauben“ sie diesen Wahn wirklich.

Ik zou graag willen beginnen bij uw onlangs opgegooide voorstel om de Moslims te screenen op hun ideologie bij sollicitaties.

Ich werde also gerne damit beginnen, Ihren unlängst geäußerten Vorschlag zur Rolle der Muslime und des Islam zu analysieren.

Uw voorstel is zeer interessant, temeer daar de invoering hiervan het rotte gezicht van uw politieke meesters tevoorschijn laat komen (wanneer het natuurlijk eerlijk op hen zou worden getoetst en zij openlijk hun ware ideologie kenbaar maken).

Dieser Ihr Vorschlag ist durchaus aufschlussreich, vor allen Dingen deshalb, weil er das verkommene Gesicht Ihrer politischen Meister zum Vorschein kommen lässt.

Die mit Mord bedrohte Hirsi Ali habe Auftraggeber, „politische Meister“, sie werde ferngesteuert oder jedenfalls vorgeschickt. Erfahrungsgemäß folgt unter radikalen Muslimen einer solcher Denkfigur (von Auftraggebern vorgeschickt) rasch die gehässige Bemerkung „vom Satan“ oder „von den Juden“ oder auch „von den Juden, also vom Satan“. Satanshass und Judenhass überlagern sich in Islamistenkreisen, vgl. „Großer Satan – kleiner Satan“, die Vereinigten Staaten – Israel. Nun, wird sich der Verdacht der Judäophobie oder vielmehr des radikalislamischen Rassismus und radikalislamischen Antisemitismus noch erhärten können?

Het is een feit dat de Nederlandse politiek gedomineerd wordt door vele Joden die een produkt zijn van de Talmud leerinstellingen; zo ook uw politieke partijgenoten.

Denn es ist eine Tatsache, dass die Politik der Niederlande durch viele Juden beherrscht wird, die, nicht anders als Ihre Parteigenossen, durch die Lehren des Talmud indoktriniert worden sind.

Das ging aber schnell. Die (angebliche!) kausale Entwicklung des Sachverhalts aus dem vorangehenden halte ich für derart beabsichtigt, dass ich den Satz mit einem „denn“ beginnen möchte.

Aangezien u altijd ''de hand in eigen boezem'' propageert, zullen we dus uw voorstel in uw eigen politieke omgeving toetsen. Dezelfde politiek die met haar beleid zich heeft aangesloten bij het terrorisme tegen de Islam en Moslims. Ik zou u graag de volgende vragen willen stellen:

Wo Sie doch immer das „Jeder kehre vor seiner eigenen Türe!“ beziehungsweise das „Die Schuld zuerst bei sich selber suchen!“ propagieren, wollen wir uns doch einmal den Menschen in Ihrem engsten parteipolitischen Umfeld zuwenden. Ja, eben die Politik, die sich mit ihrer Art der Amtsführung dem Terror gegen den Islam und die Muslime angeschlossen hat. Aus diesem Grunde möchte Ihnen gerne die folgende Frage stellen:

Man bemerke die seitens des praktizierenden islamischen Terroristen theatralisch wehklagend vorgetragene Wendung „Terror gegen den Islam“. Der Täter also heult medienwirksam „Wir sind Opfer!“ Die Fähigkeit zu solchem Theaterspiel ist eine im weltweiten Vergleich ausgesprochen islamtypische und mag durch den als gottgefällig eingestuften Auftrag zur politreligiösen Lüge (Taqiyya) unterstützt werden. Vielleicht entspringt sie auch einem (pervertierten, demokratiezersetzenden) „hohen Rollenbewusstsein“, einer (boshaft berechnenden) „Effizienz und Effektivität“. Man lässt eine Bemerkung voller Widerhaken wie beiläufig fallen. Mag sie die nichtislamischen Gegner durch Streit (Fitna) schwächen, mag sie die Sache der Ummah („Fitna unerwünscht“) stärken.

Wat vindt u van het feit dat van Aartsen een ideologie aanhangt waarin niet-Joden als niet-mensen worden gezien?

Was sagen Sie uns zur Tatasche, dass Herr van Aartsen einer Weltanschauung beipflichtet, in der Nichtjuden als Nichtmenschen angesehen sind?

Jozias van Aartsen, gegenwärtig Bürgermeister von Den Haag, war zwischen 1998 und 2002 Außenminister der Niederlande. Van Aartsen gehört der liberalen und gemäßigt rechten Partei VVD an, einer der bedeutendsten Parteien der niederländischen Politik. Hirsi Ali war, für die Partei VVD, bis Mai 2006 Mitglied der Zweiten Kammer des niederländischen Parlaments. Dass van Aartsen gar kein Jude ist, darauf kommt es für Bouyeri und sein radikalislamisches Umfeld nicht so genau an. Radikale Muslime (nicht anders übrigens als nichtmuslimische Alt- und Neonazis) verwenden das antisemitische Bild einer „jüdischen Verschwörung“ ganz gerne und tradieren es.

Baba Mezie 114a-114b: Alleen Joden zijn mensen (''Alleen jullie zijn mensen genoemd''). Zie ook Kerlthoth 6b ondr sub-kop (''Oll of anointing'') en Barakath 56a, waarin Gentile (niet-Joden) vrouwen dieren worden genoemd ('vrouwtjes-ezels'').

Baba Mezie 114a-114b aussagt, nur Juden alleine seien Menschen („Nur Juden? Mögen Menschen genannt werden“). Vergleiche Kerltoth 6b ondr-sub-kop („Oll of anointing“) und Barakath 56a, Textstellen, in denen die Frauen der Nichtjuden Tieren gleichgesetzt werden (‘Eselinnen‘).

Yebamoth 92a: Alle Gentile kinderen zijn dieren.

Yebamoth 92a: Alle Kinder der nichtjüdischen Völker sind Tiere.

Die Deutung zu Yebamoth mag stimmen oder auch nicht, sogenannte heilige Schriften der Menschheit, auch islamische, kommen bisweilen exklusiv oder gar arrogant daher. Als Mörder in Amsterdam jedoch betätigt sich nicht ein jüdischer Yebamoth sondern ein muslimischer Bouyeri. Aber einfach mal die alten oder neuen Hebräer beschuldigen, das von Blut tropfende Messer in der Hand: „Der böse Jude hat angefangen. Ich Muslim bin schuldlos und rein. Ich beseitige nur den jahrhundertealten Dreck der gotteslästerlichen Juden. Ich bin ein Saubermann, geradezu ein Saubermacher“ So ‘reinigt‘ islamischer Antisemitismus die Welt, so wird die Dar al-Islam auf Kosten der Dar al-Harb Territorium für Territorium ausgeweitet.

Wat vindt u van het feit dat er een burgemeester in Amsterdam aan het roer staat, die een ideologie aanhangt waarin Joden tegen niet-Joden mogen liegen?

Was sagen Sie uns zur Tatsache, dass ein Bürgermeister der Stadt Amsterdam an den Hebeln der Macht sitzt, der einer Ideologie angehört, die besagt, dass Juden alle Nichtjuden belügen dürfen?

Von der dem Allah-Gott angeblich wohlgefälligen heiligen Lüge, der Taqiyya, möchte der Verfasser des Drohbriefes uns nichts mitteilen? Erstaunlich.

Baba Kamma 113a: Joden mogen leugens (''listen'') gebruiken om een Gentile te misleiden.

Baba Kamma 113a: Juden sollen List, also Lüge, anwenden, um Nichtjuden irrezuführen.

Der Verfasser des mit einem eigens mitgeführten speziellen Messer in den erkaltenden Körper des ermordeten Filmemachers gespießten Briefes, des Briefes also, den wir gerade lesen, wiederholt sich inhaltlich und glaubt, dieses mit einer anderen jüdischen Textquelle belegen zu können. Womöglich in den Minuten des Attentates auf hunderte von Metern gar kein Jude anwesend. Die Planer des Mordes indes scheinen jüdische Menschen wirklich nicht zu mögen. Doch die Somalierin Ayaan Hirsi Ali ist keine Jüdin, auch nicht der gelbhaarige Niederländer Theo van Gogh, noch nicht einmal Bouyeri selber. Ein Niederländer, ein terroristischer Sohn von Marokkanern, eine Islamkritikerin aus Nordostafrika. Was soll Baba Kamma dazu sagen?

Wat vindt u van het feit dat u deel uitmaakt van een regering die de Staat steunt met een ideologie dat genocide bepleit?

Was sagen Sie dazu, dass Sie integraler Bestandteil einer Regierung sind, die zu Völkermorden geradezu aufruft, sie jedenfalls religiös rechtfertigt?

Jetzt übertreibt er aber. Ach so, Bouyeri verhindert einen Völkermord im letzten Moment, indem er den Filmemacher von Submission erschießt und ihm, wochenlang sorgsam geplant, die Kehle mit einem nepalesischen Kampfmesser aufschlitzt. Wahrscheinlich wollten die Niederlande in Marokko einmarschieren und die Muslime ausrotten. Das war knapp. Man verzeihe mir den bissigen Ton.

Mir gelingt es kaum, nicht ins Ironische abzugleiten.

Seit der Ausrottung eines jüdischen Stammes im Umland von Mekka noch zu Lebzeiten des „Propheten“ Mohammed haben Muslime auf ihrem immer sehr persönlichen Dschihad Hunderttausende von Juden beschimpft, diskriminiert, erpresst, ausgeplündert, verletzt, versklavt und ermordet. Noch 2007 stieß in Frankfurt ein junger Muslim einem als orthodoxen Juden erkennbaren Rabbiner nach einem kurzen Fluch ein Messer in den Bauch. Solcher Art ist, leider und weltweit, die muslimischerseits gewünschte Realität von interreligiösem Dialog. Die besondere Grußbotschaft sind Kassam-Raketen aus der EU-subventionierten Stadt Gaza nach Sderot.

Und nicht vergessen: Islam heißt Frieden.

Bekommen wir noch mehr hebräische religionswissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse angeboten? Ja, eine darf es noch sein:

Sofarim 15, regel 10 (Minor Tarcctates): Dit is de uitspraak van rabbijn Simom ben Yohai: Tod shebe goyyim herog (''Zelfs de beste van de Gentiles zouden gedood moeten worden'').

Sofarim 15 Regel 10 (Tarcctates der Jüngere) schreibt: „Dieses aber sagte uns Rabbiner Simom ben Yohai: Tod shebbe goyyim herog, selbst die Besten der Nichtjuden werden wir zu töten haben.“

So weit die uns durch Bouyeris zuteilgewordene Kurzfassung der mehrtausendjährigen Geschichte der jüdischen Theologie. Und in 2000 Jahren jüdischer Anwesenheit im christlichen Europa hat einfach kein Jude einen der Schlechtesten oder auch Besten von uns Gojjim ermordet, ungeheuerlich! Bouyeri veröffentlicht, die Juden betreffend, einen höchst unzuverlässigen Brief. Wir sind ziemlich enttäuscht. Die radikalislamische Seite der Integration betreffend jedoch spricht Bouyeris Handeln sozusagen für sich, da ist Verlässlichkeit Thema.

Aangezien u een voorvechtster bent voor gelijke rechten, zult u waarschijnlijk (nadat deze kennis tot u is gekomen) bij uw Joodse meesters in de kamer pleiten om de leerstellingen van de Talmud te verwerpen. U zult er waarschijnlijk ook meteen werk van maken om dit ook bij de Joodse gemeenschap van Nederland te bepleiten.

Sie (sehr geehrte Frau Hirsi Ali) als Vorkämpferin der Gleichberechtigung und Gleichstellung werden nun, sobald der Inhalt dieses Briefes Ihnen bekannt geworden ist, schnurstracks in zu Ihren jüdischen Meistern im Parlament laufen, um dafür zu plädieren, die Lehrsätze des Talmud ein für alle mal zu verwerfen. Sie werden dieses wohl auch gleichzeitig bei der jüdischen Gemeinschaft der Niederlande einvernehmlich durchsetzen.

Vermutlich so etwas wie feine gemeine Ironie. Andererseits islamische Rechtleitung für die Islamkritikerin Hirsi Ali. Sie soll wirklich dementsprechend handeln, um nicht getötet zu werden. Der Satz ließe sich im Sinne der Verfasser wohl so erklären: „Das ist ihre letzte Chance, wenn Sie als Politikerin gegen die jüdisch-talmudische Kultur sprechen, wenn Sie die talmudischen Lehren im Parlament unglaubwürdig machen, dann ermorden wir Sie nicht, inch`a Allah.“ Islam heißt Frieden machen.

Uw optreden verraadt zo nu en dan uw laffe moed waarmee u aandacht vraagt vooor uw strijdt. Zo heeft u de laffe moed gehad om Islamitische kinderen op school te vragen om een keuze te maken tussen hun Schepper en de grondwet.

Ihre ganze Haltung jedoch entlarvt Niedertracht, mit der Sie den unmoralischen Kampf gegen uns anzutreten gewagt haben. So haben Sie beispielsweise die Heimtücke an den Tag gelegt, muslimische Kinder in der Schule aufzufordern, sich zwischen ihrem Schöpfer und der Verfassung zu entscheiden.

Hirsi Ali soll angedichtet werden, Kinder der Einwanderer unter psychischen Druck gesetzt zu haben. Die Absicht wird eine rufschädigende sein, nach dem unmoralischen Motto: „Ich sage zwar erkennbar überwiegend die Unwahrheit, aber etwas bleibt immer hängen.“

Ärgerlicherweise ist, probieren Sie es mit ihrem Nachbarn einmal aus, mindestens die Hälfte der Muslime in den Niederlanden und Deutschland wirklich nicht in der Lage, diesen Sachverhalt zu verstehen oder jedenfalls zuzugeben: Muslime sind weltweit (aber wie schuldhaft?) dazu bereit, eine jede Kritik an der demokratiegefährdenden islamischen Sunna oder eine Kritik an den zahlreichen islamistischen Hasspredigern als Verletzung des geliebten Allah-Gottes zu „erleben“, die einen pflichtschuldigst zum theatralischen „schmerzlichen Aufheulen“ zu bringen hat. Man will man nicht geächtet werden. Und man will Beute einstreichen, Dhimmis beherrschen, Territorien.

Nahezu alle Muslime lassen sich von den Radikalen erpressen. Islam ist die Kultur und der Kult des Sich-Erpressens. Angeblich für den Platz im Himmel, der dem letzten leeren Stuhl im bekannten Kinderspiel mit dem aufschlussreichen Namen „Reise nach Jerusalem“ zu gleichen scheint: Zwei Muslimas müssen im traditionellen Islam nicht anders als im Dschihadismus sich als Konkurrentinnen um den „letzten freien Stuhl“ begreifen. Der Wangenkuss unter patriarchalen Muslimas entspricht damit dem christlich-biblischen Judaskuss: „Ich gebe dich zum Abschuss frei, ich ziehe an die vorbei auf den letzten freien Platz im Paradies!“ Muslimische Männer verhalten sich üblicherweise nicht besser in Kollegialität und angedrilltem Lebensgefühl. Und Männern