Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Pretending the Problem Is Not There



Facebook  Twitter  RSS
Gatestone Institute
In this mailing:

Pretending the Problem Is Not There

by Douglas Murray
October 1, 2013 at 5:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
After all, Islam is not a pacifist religion. Its founder was not a Quaker. There are many of the opinion that this problem should be out in the open, discussed and tackled. Not least in order to assist those Muslim scholars who are preaching against the extremists.
Is it ever acceptable to tell a lie? If you believe the answer is "no" then this is an area in which you disagree with our political class. The recent terror attack in Kenya -- and the reaction to it -- is only the latest evidence. When it comes to the truth about Islamic violence, our politicians evidently believe the truth is something we, the general public, cannot handle.
The latest example occurred this past weekend, when Islamic militants stormed a shopping mall in Nairobi. At the time of writing it is unclear just how many scores of people they have killed. What we knew from the start was that the culprits separated out Muslims from non-Muslims, allowed the Muslims to go free, and massacred the rest. This was a slaughter along specific religious lines: Muslims slaughtered Christians and other "infidels." As if to reinforce this point, at the same time in Pakistan two suicide bombers blew up dozens of Christians as they left church.
Anyone wishing to observe anything striking in all this was warned off by David Cameron. While the Kenya siege was still going on, and the brutal nature of the selection already known, our PM took to the airwaves. "These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion -- they don't. They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world. They don't represent Islam or Muslims." Very few people think they do represent all Muslims. But after so many years and so many attacks it is worth questioning why our leaders think the "nothing to do with Islam" lie is a remotely noble one.
At least the Prime Minister did not go as far as the distinguished journalist Sir Simon Jenkins, who blamed shopping malls themselves for the Kenya terror. But Cameron was still standing in a now decade-long tradition of deceit.
Convinced that "Islamophobia" is the real problem, and an anti-Muslim "backlash" the real concern, it has become almost impossible for Western politicians to have any rational discussion about what is both a local and global problem. When four young Muslim suicide bombers blew up the London transport system in July 2005, the smoke had not cleared before the then police-chief, Brian Paddick, told a press conference:"Islam and terrorism do not go together."
Two years later, when Islamic extremists tried to car-bomb a London nightclub and Glasgow airport, the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, said what happened was, in fact, so contrary to Islam's teachings that such acts should henceforth be termed "anti-Islamic activity." It does not matter which party the politicians are from (Jacqui Smith is Labour, Cameron a Conservative), the lie is always the same.
In May this year, when Drummer Lee Rigby was decapitated in South London by men shouting "Allahu Akhbar" ("Allah is Greater"), David Cameron immediately tried to scotch any unhelpful inferences by stating, "There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act." London Mayor Boris Johnson assisted by stressing that it was "completely wrong" to associate Islam in any way with the killings.
One positive interpretation of this response is that since, with each attack, the fever-pitch of the politicians -- their absolute insistence that this has nothing to do with Islam -- increases, perhaps they intuit that their lie is getting ever harder to sustain. They must sense they are losing us.
It is unlikely, after this latest massacre in Kenya, that more people believe Islam is a wholly quietist and peaceful religion this week than they did the week before. Likewise, in May, after everyone in Britain woke up to blanket front-pages of two wild-eyed maniacs covered in blood, waving meat-cleavers, would you imagine that more people believed Islam to be a religion of peace that morning than the day before? Or a couple fewer?
In some ways you have to feel sorry for the politicians. They simply do not know how to speak to this difficult issue. They see that we have millions of Muslims in our countries. They also see -- rightly -- that the vast majority have absolutely no connection to such acts of violence. And although they undoubtedly over-worry about the potential of a popular "backlash" against Muslims, the longer the problem goes unaddressed, the more it appears that theirs is not an entirely unfounded fear.
Yet what the politicians cannot say -- and a very small number of public figures are willing to even hint at -- is that the actions of terrorists in Pakistan, Kenya and around the world on a daily basis most certainly are connected to Islam. In particular they are connected to a war of interpretation that has raged within Islam for 1400 years.
Islam is not a pacifist religion. Its founder was not a Quaker. People like to make comparisons at this point, so one might as well join in. Allow me to put it at its clearest: The history of Christianity has been quite bloody already. But it would have been far bloodier still if, rather than telling his followers to love their neighbour, Jesus had ordered them to "slay the infidel wherever you find them," as the Koran directs Muslims to do. What if Jesus, rather than telling his followers to "turn the other cheek," had -- as Mohammed did -- slayed and beheaded his enemies personally?
Does this mean that all Muslims follow Islam's violent strictures? Of course not. The Koran and sayings of Mohammed contain peaceful, as well as violent, admonitions. A complex battle continues over which interpretation of these texts and traditions should win out, and where and when. It is not only mistaken, but downright untrue, to pretend the problem is not there. The truth that politicians believe we are not ready for is that, although the extremists have a wicked and -- for everyone -- obviously disastrous interpretation of Islam, it is not an implausible interpretation. The extremists do not get where they get to from nowhere. Unfortunately for the politicians, an increasing number of voters can see this.
There are many of the opinion that this problem should be out in the open, discussed and tackled. Not least in order to assist those Muslim scholars who are preaching against the extremists. Many will only jump if they are persuaded that they must in order to safeguard the future of their religion. Rather than apply such pressure, and provide some assistance, our politicians have chosen another way. They have chosen to lie. There are only two ways that lie will stop. When the Islamists prove them wrong more markedly on their own doorstep. Or when popular anger tells the politicians that their lies are transparent. It is interesting to consider which eventuality will be more uncomfortable for them.
Related Topics:  Douglas Murray

The Unpredicted Consequences of the German Elections

by Peter Martino
October 1, 2013 at 4:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Because of the "5% hurdle," Germany's new coalition will be to the left of the previous coalition, while voters had clearly indicated they wanted German to turn to the right.
The German elections had two important consequences, one predicted, the other one unpredicted. As expected, the number of Islamic members of the Bundestag, the German Parliament, has increased.
The Christian-Democrat CDU of Chancellor Angela Merkel now has its first Muslim parliamentarian. Cemile Giousouf, the 35-year old daughter of a Turkish immigrant, was elected in Hagen, a city in the industrial Ruhr area with a foreign population of 40%.
Germany has 800,000 Turkish voters. The Turks make up the largest ethnic group within Germany's Muslim population of some 4 million people, Previously, the Turks had five parliamentarians out of 630 Bundestag members; in the 22 September general elections, this number more than doubled to eleven. Ten of them belong to the left or far-left – five are members of the Social-Democrat SPD, three of the Green Party, and two of the Communist Die Linke (Left Party) -- and one is with the center-right CDU.
The number of Bundestag members with an immigrant background rose from 21 to 34, with Die Linke having the highest percentage of immigrant politicians in their ranks followed by the Greens.
Ms. Giousouf's Islamic convictions -- her "religious otherness" as she calls it -- did not pose problems for a party that claims to be founded on Christian-Democrat principles. Her candidacy was challenged, however, by another female candidate on grounds of seniority. Despite the other candidate having been active in the party for three decades, the CDU leadership preferred to give the prominent position on the party list to Giousouf because of her ethnic background. Ms. Giousouf defended this decision by stating, "If we immigrants are forced to put up campaign posters for the next 30 years, there won't be any [immigrant] representatives in the Bundestag."
For the first time, two black candidates were elected in the Bundestag. One of them, Charles Muhamed Huber, for Merkel's CDU, the other, Karamba Diaby, for the Social-Democrat SPD. Both Mr Huber and Mr Diaby are of Senegalese origin.
While the international media devoted relatively little attention to Mr. Huber -- despite his self-declared sympathy for the American Black Panther movement -- there was huge interest in Mr Diaby, who was born in 1961 in the Muslim village of Masassoum. Through his political activities at Dakar University in the early 1980s, he came into contact with a Communist organization. In 1985, he was given a scholarship to study in Communist East Germany, where he subsequently settled.
Mr Diaby joined the SPD and became the national chairman of Gemany's Immigration and Integration Council (Bundeszuwanderungs-und Integrationsrat). Two years ago, he gained prominence when he advocated the imprisonment of Thilo Sarrazin, a fellow SPD politician and a former member of the Executive Board of the Bundesbank, Germany's central bank. Mr. Sarrazin had authored a book, Deutschland schafft sich ab [Germany Abolishes Itself], in which he said that Islamic immigration is threatening Germany's prosperity and freedom. Mr. Sarrazin argued that most Islamic immigrants are unwilling to integrate and tend to rely more on welfare benefits than do other immigrant groups.
Turkish and Islamic organizations accused Sarrazin of "racism," but were unable to get him sentenced in court. The SPD leadership twice attempted to throw Mr. Sarrazin out of the party, but both attempts were unsuccessful. Polls indicated that Sarrazin was backed by an overwhelming majority of the Germans, including SPD members. Mr. Diaby petitioned the Bundestag, demanding that German criminal law be changed to ensure that statements such as those made in Sarrazin's book would be punishable with a prison sentence. The German lawmakers, however, failed to do so. The SPD leadership subsequently gave Mr. Diaby a prominent place on its electoral list, which enabled him to be elected as a lawmaker, so that he is now in a position to try to change German laws from within the parliament.
While the growth of Islamic influence within the German political system, including the Christian-Democrat Party, was predicted, an unpredicted consequence of the September 22 general elections was the Bundestag's swing to the left, despite the electorate's swing to the right. This is the result of the German electoral system with its 5% electoral threshold.
The biggest winners of the elections were Chancellor Merkel's center-right Christian-Democrats. They won 41.5% of the vote -- far better than in the 2009 general elections, when they had 33.7%.
The biggest losers were the Liberals. The German Liberal Party FDP, which is economically to the right of Merkel's CDU, fell from 14.6% in 2009 to 4.8%. The electorate punished the FDP, which had promised its voters tax cuts but, despite forming a government coalition with Ms. Merkel, failed to deliver on this promise.
Although the FDP won over 2 million of the 43.7 million votes, as the party was unable to make the 5% hurdle, and as a result it did not get a single parliamentary seat. The same applied to the conservative Alternative fuer Deutschland party (AfD), a newly established party, critical of the euro. AfD won 4.7% of the vote, an unexpectedly high result for a new party, but not a single representative. The far-right NPD won 1.3%. Taken together, 10.8% of the electorate voted for a party to the right of Merkel's Christian-Democrats, but not a single parliamentarian to Merkel's right got elected.
Merkel's Christian-Democrats, the FDP, AfD and NPD combined won 52.3% of the vote (51%, excluding the far-right NPD). However, in the Bundestag the parties of the Left -- SPD, Greens and the Communists of Die Linke – hold 50.7% of the seats.
That the FDP fell just below the electoral threshold deprives Merkel of the possibility to form a center-right coalition. Theoretically, the left is able to form a coalition with the far-left, but as the SPD had ruled out governing with Die Linke, Germany is left with just two choices: Either a coalition of Merkel with the leftist Greens, or a so-called "grand coalition" of the CDU with the center-left SPD.
In any event, Germany's new coalition will be to the left of the previous CDU-FDP coalition, while the voters had clearly indicated that they wanted Germany to turn to the right. The future looks promising, however, for AfD. Never before has a party that was established barely a few months before, done so well in the elections. And given that Merkel will be forced to move to the left, the prospect of disenchanted conservative Christian-Democrats flocking to AfD are huge. There is little doubt that AfD will gain seats in the European Parliament in next year's European elections. If the AfD leadership manages to avoid internal quarrels, in 2017 the party will likely enter the Bundestag.
Related Topics:  Germany  |  Peter Martino

The Ethnic Cleansing of Christians in Egypt

by Michael Armanious
October 1, 2013 at 3:00 am
Be the first of your friends to like this.
By not acting in the face of atrocity, the U.S. has unintentionally given the signal that it is retreating from the region. The implication of this retreat is that violence against Christians and other minorities can proceed with impunity.
Iskander Toss, who had lived all his life in the town of Delga in Upper Egypt, last week was kidnapped, severely beaten, and dragged on the dirt roads of the village until his spirit left him.
His crime? As in the Kenya mall massacre last week, he was a Christian.
A few days later, the Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] jihadists opened his grave, pulled his body out, and dragged it through the village until the majority of the Coptic families fled in terror.
What is unique about Toss's death is that people know is his name. Throughout the land of the Nile, murders like his are taking place on a regular basis.
Delga, located 150 miles south of Cairo, is one of the oldest and the largest towns in Egypt. Out of over 100,000 inhabitants, 25,000 are Christians. Delga had a number of churches [4-5], some going back to the 4th century. Almost all of them have been destroyed.
For the past 75 days, since Morsi was forced out of office, members of the Ikhwan and its affiliates have cordoned off the village. They forced some Christians to pay "Jizya," the extra poll tax that Christians and other non-Muslims are required to pay (like a shakedown fee for "protection.") Members of the Ikhwan make life intolerable for Christian community in the village.
On September 16, 2013, the Egyptian armed forces moved in to free Delga from the Ikhwan and its supporters. The armed forces waited that long because of what happened earlier in Kerdasa, another village south of Cairo and the home of many Christian families.
In Kerdasa, members of the Ikhwan, starting in a police station, took 11 policemen and soldiers hostage. They tortured and shot them dead on camera, and set the station and the village's churches on fire. Christians fled the village of Kerdasa.
The government's strategy was to wait to give the world chance to see what the Ikhwan is capable of.
Ehab Ramzy, a Coptic attorney in Egypt, provided the context. He stated in a televised interview that his office building was set on fire along with 50 churches and 1,000 Christian businesses. They were destroyed in Upper Egypt, Ramzy explained, on the day that Morsi was forced out. This was the Ikhwan strategy, he said: to punish the church for not supporting Morsi.
Since the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, the problem has only intensified: anti-Christian violence now manifests itself in Egypt with increasing regularity.
Since ouster of Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, what happened to the Christians in Delga and Kerdasa, has been happening throughout Egypt.
The Christians of the village of Marinab in the Aswan Governorate, 700 miles south of Cairo, were also placed under siege by jihadists in October 2011. Their food supplies and contacts with the outside world were cut off until they agreed to have their church demolished because they violated the building code by displaying a cross, which the jihadists said was offensive.
The death of Iskander Toss and the ongoing attacks against Christians in Egypt demonstrates a troubling reality in the Middle East:
On September 19, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, adviser to many leaders in the Middle East, stated in televised interview that most countries in the region owned chemical weapons, the poor nation's weapon of choice.
Heikal also stated that in the short run, President Obama's incoherent foreign policies in the Middle East will threaten the stability of countries such as Lebanon, especially its Christian minority; and in the long run, the Persian Gulf countries. He added that what happened in Delga is not just an indicator of what the Ikhwan is capable of, but of what is coming.
The issue came to a head with the current U.S. administration's response to the sarin gas attack that killed several hundred people on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.
By not attacking Assad, a puppet of Shiite Iran, the U.S. has not only strengthened America's adversaries, Russia and China, but also emboldened the mullahs in Iran and Sunni extremists in Syria and Egypt, who now apparently think that the radicals' war of attrition with the U.S. -- which has been going on for decades -- is finally bearing fruit.
While the British and American people have made it clear that they do not support a strike on the Assad regime in Syria, Christians in Syria and in the rest of the Middle East have also been unanimous in their opposition to such a strike: they fear it would unleash the forces of jihadists and cause the total destruction of Christianity in the region.
There is an irony here: by failing to act against the Bashar Al-Assad after stating it would, the U.S. policy has not only put religious and ethnic minorities in the region at even greater risk; it has also put moderate, reform-minded Muslims in even greater danger.
By speaking about the use of chemical weapons as a red line, and Assad's days being numbered, the U.S. gave leaders in the Middle East an expectation that it would act in the face of atrocity.
By not acting, the U.S. has unintentionally given the signal that America is retreating from the region. The implication of this retreat is that violence against Christians and other non-Muslims can proceed with impunity.
U.S. President Barack Obama's recent speech, given on the eve of the twelfth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, did nothing to disabuse global jihadists of this notion. As American credibility in the region has deteriorated, Islamist violence against Christians in the Middle East has escalated.
The problem is particularly evident in Syria, where Christians have been driven from their homes in Maaloula by Sunni jihadists associated with Al Qaeda. Earlier this year, the Christian quarter of Homs was completely destroyed and emptied of all of its inhabitants -- more than 100,000 people were evicted from their homes. Churches dating back to the second, third and fourth centuries were destroyed.
If the violence against Christians in the Middle East continues without a meaningful response from the U.S. administration and leaders in the Middle East, it will indicate to jihadist cells currently residing in Europe and North America that their hour has finally arrived.
Although the Ikhwan has now been outlawed and driven from the halls of power in Egypt, as an international organization, it is still a force to be reckoned with: even if it is blocked in Egypt, its stated plan is to create problems for Western democracies.
If the American people and the current Administration turn their backs on the Middle East region, the destruction of both Christianity and freedom there is a virtual certainty.
Michael Armanious is US based analyst and a video producer. He was born in Egypt.
Related Topics:  Egypt, Syria  |  Michael Armanious

To subscribe to the this mailing list, go to http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/list_subscribe.php
Posted by solsticewitch13 at 10:45 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)