Geert Wilders Speaks: Anti-Qur'an Film

[erlando]

Oh, it'll all blow over. All the Dutch moslems will come out and
demonstrate saying "Hey, we don't agree with this silly bigoted
little fellow's film, and we won't choose to watch it, but it's OK to
show it. We're civilized people and we do live in a free country, after
all" and Mijnheer Wilders can lay off his armed guards and walk
down to the shops whenever he wants.



And it'll rain whisky and naked ladies that day too.

Yes. That's exactly what happened when the danish newspapers printed some drawings. I'm still drunk after all the whisky and it's still raining.

And that dutch bank that removed a piggybank was really a front for AA. They didn't want it to rain whisky.


Extremist muslims should pick up on the fact that the rest of the world has moved from the 14th century into the 21st..

 

[-hp-]

I don't know what his stance regarding Jews and Israel is. But I would be very surprised if he went on record spouting anti-semitism, so also in that respect: no Alex Jones.

ddt appears to be somewhat better informed than I am so maybe he can shed some light on this issue...

Wilders is very font of Israel, he stated that Sharon and Tatcher are his examples. He went numerous times to Israel, he even lived there for a couple of years when he was an adolescent. He's an advocate for the administrative detention they have in Israel, some say he's even in love with Israel and the jews. Our intelligence agency, the AIVD, has raised some suspicions about his connections with Israeli representatives. The AIVD suspected he got instructions for his work in the parlement at the Israeli embassy in the Hague.

So yes, you can definitely say he's a strong advocate for Israel and the jews.

 

[Phaedrus74]

Wilders is very font of Israel, he stated that Sharon and Tatcher are his examples. He went numerous times to Israel, he even lived there for a couple of years when he was an adolescent. He's an advocate for the administrative detention they have in Israel, some say he's even in love with Israel and the jews. Our intelligence agency, the AIVD, has raised some suspicions about his connections with Israeli representatives. The AIVD suspected he got instructions for his work in the parlement at the Israeli embassy in the Hague.

So yes, you can definitely say he's a strong advocate for Israel and the jews.

Thanks for the info -hp- !!

 

[-hp-]

Thanks for the info -hp- !!

You're welcome

I'll give my two cents about our extravert advertiser for peroxide hair. I think he raises some good concerns about Islamic extremism, but I don't like his guerilla style. The standard tactic for Wilders seems to be to pop out of his cave once in a while, shouting how fascist the Qu'ran is and that it should be banned along with mosques and muslim immigrants, to hide again before even anyone has the change to debate him. He's like a sneering bully throwing spitballs at the Islamic world just to run away when he's confronted with more eloquent muslims who have a decent response to his rants.

 

[Phaedrus74]

You're welcome

I'll give my two cents about our extravert advertiser for peroxide hair. I think he raises some good concerns about Islamic extremism, but I don't like his guerilla style. The standard tactic for Wilders seems to be to pop out of his cave once in a while, shouting how fascist the Qu'ran is and that it should be banned along with mosques and muslim immigrants, to hide again before even anyone has the change to debate him. He's like a sneering bully throwing spitballs at the Islamic world just to run away when he's confronted with more eloquent muslims who have a decent response to his rants.

My sentiments exactly.

Regarding his debating tactics he reminds me of Pim Fortuyn. There is a significant difference, though. Fortuyn actually had a coherent view on politics and administration whereas Wilders seems to be one-issue only.

[For the record, I didn't trust Fortuyn either but I was very interested in seeing what would come of him as Prime-Minister. But then that dumb f$%^ felt it necessary to assassinate him.... ]

 

[mrbaracuda]

I read this interview (in German) with Ayman Mazyek (president of the German Muslim Council), and he seems a very sensible guy. So nothing wrong there.

Do you have any examples of points where such moderates differ from the official position? Or do you have links to articles by honest, credible sources? I don't think Wilders is anywhere near a credible source, as you may have guessed by now .

It's not so much of where he differs, but where he denies things have anything to do with Islam, says "those aren't real muslims" and tap dances around questions. Go here and click on the ZDFmediathek-link where it says "Video Warum ist der Islam uns unheimlich?" to see Mazyek in action.

Oh and ignore that lesbian woman from the Green-party. She's just there to talk out of her ass, like probably all of the party's members, heh.

As for Wilder's, I don't know what to think of the guy yet and I'll wait for the movie. I haven't spend much time on him.

ETA: Here's some more Mazyek for you with analysis to his statements. Haven't read all, but I know the site and there were good ones in my opinion.

 

[ddt]

On Wilders:

He's an advocate for the administrative detention they have in Israel,

From the wiki page on Wilders:

Furthermore, Wilders has made some proposals in the Dutch Parliament inspired by Israel. For example, in 2005 Wilders proposed implementing Israel's administrative detention in the Netherlands, a practice heavily criticized by human rights group Amnesty International.

A paragon defender of our western liberties: advocating the abolishment of habeas corpus, to state it in US terms.

BTW, -hp-, your two-cents remarks on Wilders' tactics is perfectly spot-on!

 

[steverino]

Then it appears he is not anti-semitic.

 

[mrbaracuda]

On Wilders:

From the wiki page on Wilders:

A paragon defender of our western liberties: advocating the abolishment of habeas corpus, to state it in US terms.

BTW, -hp-, your two-cents remarks on Wilders' tactics is perfectly spot-on!

And what is wrong about this administrative detention?

 

[davefoc]

Perhaps a better comparison would be betweet Geert and Pat Buchannan instead of Alex Jones?

The Pat Buchanan comparison strikes me at least as reasonable.

At one point I thought that the one Republican that I would never vote for was Buchanan, partially because I was a social liberal, economic conservative type Republican and Buchanan is close to the opposite of that, but much more so because the guy is just plain divisive. I was surprised that he was given an opportunity to speak at the Republican convention. (This was before I realized that the current Republican Party is dominated by right wing religious zealotry and Buchanan's openly divisive and exclusionary rhetoric sits just fine with a lot of the Republican leadership).

The guy has been seriously accused of antisemitism. I'm generally skeptical of that claim because many prominent people have been accused of antisemitism at some point with very sketchy justification IMHO, but I went looking to try to figure out the basis for the accusation. I don't remember the details now, but I came away amazed at how close a national figure was to being antisemitic based on some of the stuff he had said. So even if he isn't antisemitic some of his rhetoric is close enough that it was going to piss off a lot of people.

 

[ddt]

It's not so much of where he differs, but where he denies things have anything to do with Islam, says "those aren't real muslims" and tap dances around questions. Go here and click on the ZDFmediathek-link where it says "Video Warum ist der Islam uns unheimlich?" to see Mazyek in action.

I've seen the video, the whole hour. While interesting topics, and interesting people to discuss these, one hour is far too short to cover this in any depth with five people around the table. As Interior Minister Dr. Schaüble said right in the beginning, it is too much to discuss both security -- with which the talk show started -- and integration in the same show. In fact, the whole integration debate is too big a piece to do.

The integration part started off with Dr. Everhart Rotter in a too provocative tone; his remark that "everyone has his good Turk" instantly reminds of this. While arrogant in tone and with his pointing finger, he seemed knowledgeable about what he said. I haven't been able to find anything substantial by him, though: an interview in Der Stern with his brother, a scholar of Islam, which doesn't amount to more than a tit-for-tat in historic trivia, and on his own website only three polemic "open letters".

When it came to discussing one sura, and Dr. Rotter said it was valid according to all islamic scholars, I noticed indeed that Mazyek didn't give a straight answer. In another moment, he did say, though, that sharia and hadith were not essential to Islam and could be done away with -- what was essential are the five pillars.

Oh and ignore that lesbian woman from the Green-party. She's just there to talk out of her ass, like probably all of the party's members, heh.

I really don't see what Ms. Künast's sexual orientation has to do the subject at hand. And to be straight with you: if I'd were to vote in Germany, I probably would vote Green, so I'd appreciate if you'd leave out unsubstantiated derogatory remarks.

In fact, I think Ms. Künast made some good remarks, e.g., about the problem of imams being imported from Middle-East countries, and that German muslims should strive to appoint German-bred and raised imams. This is something where the state and the muslim associations should cooperate on to realize it. Say, on the one hand the state takes care in expanding theology departments at universities to cater for the needs of islam theology, and on the other hand the state will ban in five years import of imams. (I'm assuming that in Germany, as in Holland, Christian pastors are educated at state-funded universities).

Likewise, if it's seen as a problem that the building of mosques is funded mainly from ME oil states, Germany has an excellent means of doing away with this: the church tithes which are collected by the tax office on behalf of the churches.

ETA: Here's some more Mazyek for you with analysis to his statements. Haven't read all, but I know the site and there were good ones in my opinion.

I read a couple of his blog posts, and they, too, are polemics. I noticed first of all that all his posts had very few comments, which strikes me odd. Then, he has ten different blogs, all about Islam -- the guy is really on a crusade? His introduction piece states essentially "I read some things about Islam, and now I detest it and I'm gonna write about that every chance I get". So we're left in the dark why he detests it, and if he has read the right pieces.

I'll comment on one piece in particular, on the five pillars of Islam. There, he argues that Zakat, the Islamic alms, one of those five pillars, also goes to those who do Jihad -- on the basis of a 14th century Islamic text. A lot can have changed since then. Wikipedia, an equally trustworthy source as this amateur, mentions none about this in its English or German versions; the Dutch page on Zakat mentions that some schools of Islam consider that Zakat may be used for Jihad. His comments that the poor don't need alms because the social security system takes care of them is quite debatable too -- Sozialhilfe is a bare minimum.

What's more, however, is that he claims on most pages that muslims don't exactly mean what they say. This strikes me as a dissonance with all those muslims who are successful, like Mazyek, and do uphold our western values.

I'm quite disappointed with the level of scholarship you pointed me at. To quote you from another thread, on Ms. Wafa Sultan:

Or would my own sister, who converted four years ago who's slowly going through a transition "from Western woman" to Sunni Man, be enough? Huh?

which may explain why this resonates so soundly with you. I feel sorry for you with your sister.

I'll give one quote from Dutch arabist and islam scholar Hans Jansen, who is very critical of Islam, from this article (in Dutch):

We now know it is possible in Holland to strike deals with catholics when it comes to abortion and euthanasia. On the other hand, everyone knows that it is utterly impossible to strike such a deal with the Vatican, the shepherd of pure catholism.
In the same way, it is possible to strike deals with muslims about jihad, stoning, etc. But the pure islam will not accept these deals, and keep calling for jihad. [...]
Fortunately, many muslims simply dismiss calls for terror, as jihad also is high treason. Therefore, it is not the case that muslims have everything to do with terror, but pure islam has.

 

[ddt]

And what is wrong about this administrative detention?

Must I really repeat my words? It's stated in the post you replied to: it is the suspension of habeas corpus.

 

[mrbaracuda]

When it came to discussing one sura, and Dr. Rotter said it was valid according to all islamic scholars, I noticed indeed that Mazyek didn't give a straight answer. In another moment, he did say, though, that sharia and hadith were not essential to Islam and could be done away with -- what was essential are the five pillars.

There were two moments where he evaded Rotter's question and the one of interest was about the fundamental understanding of our society, namely democracy and the constitution we have. He did not answer, but evaded the question and tried pandering to the audience with BS and that not only once.

And yes, he says the five pillars are essential. Now read here about one of the five pillars, the belief and what they have to say about that:

Der Koran ist die verbale Offenbarung Gottes 3.
Die Muslime glauben, dass sich Gott über Propheten wiederholt geoffenbart hat, zuletzt im 7. Jahrhundert westlicher Zeitrechnung gegenüber Muhammad, dem "Siegel der Propheten". Diese Offenbarung findet sich als unverfälschtes Wort Gottes im Koran (Qur´an), welcher von Muhammad erläutert wurde. Seine Aussagen und Verhaltensweisen sind in der so genannten Sunna überliefert. Beide zusammen bilden die Grundlage des islamischen Glaubens, des islamischen Rechts und der islamischen Lebensweise.

Not to mention that their charta, which was written to show what their position on our constitution is, starts off with the "Islam is peace" crap, this basically means they can't just scrap the hadith, nor the sunnah or eventually schari'a, which is based on the quran, sunnah and ahadith and base their life on what the Quran and Muhammad say or said. And I think you know what that means.

Overall their charta sounds more like "we'll be nice to you until we got the upper hand then turn this into another Afghanistan". Note #8 which is titled

Daher ist der Islam Glaube, Ethik, soziale Ordnung und Lebensweise zugleich

Islam is belief, ethics, social order and way of life altogether.

Let's see #10 called "Das Islamische Recht verpflichtet Muslime in der Diaspora"

Muslime dürfen sich in jedem beliebigen Land aufhalten, solange sie ihren religiösen Hauptpflichten nachkommen können. Das islamische Recht verpflichtet Muslime in der Diaspora, sich grundsätzlich an die lokale Rechtsordnung zu halten. In diesem Sinne gelten Visumserteilung, Aufenthaltsgenehmigung und Einbürgerung als Verträge, die von der muslimischen Minderheit einzuhalten sind.

Well that's nice that they tell muslims how to behave in foreign countries based on something that, let me quote you, "could be done away with" so easily like he said on TV.

His introduction piece states essentially "I read some things about Islam, and now I detest it and I'm gonna write about that every chance I get". So we're left in the dark why he detests it, and if he has read the right pieces.

No, his introduction piece states essentially that he didn't think something's wrong with Islam, only knew it through Karl May's Winnetou novels but the more he read the more he arrived at the position he's at now. And to be honest with you, the last part of your sentence scares me (emphasis).

What would be "right pieces"? The one's that don't even mention that jihad is also something else than the struggle with yourself?

I'll comment on one piece in particular, on the five pillars of Islam. There, he argues that Zakat, the Islamic alms, one of those five pillars, also goes to those who do Jihad -- on the basis of a 14th century Islamic text.

Yes, on a 14 th century Islamic text. Your point?

A lot can have changed since then. Wikipedia, an equally trustworthy source as this amateur, mentions none about this in its English or German versions; the Dutch page on Zakat mentions that some schools of Islam consider that Zakat may be used for Jihad. His comments that the poor don't need alms because the social security system takes care of them is quite debatable too -- Sozialhilfe is a bare minimum.

Yes, a lot can have changed since then, but has it actually? Anyway, his five pillars analysis is not what I was referring to, it was more the moral inversion III thing as well as the other one you get when you follow my original link.

What's more, however, is that he claims on most pages that muslims don't exactly mean what they say. This strikes me as a dissonance with all those muslims who are successful, like Mazyek, and do uphold our western values.

Well not all, but it looks like the official spokesmen don't or use "Nebeldeutsch", which that blog is about. I don't want to get into a conspiracy, but when my sister hears from me for the first time that jihad actually also is war against non-muslims, my statement based (not only, but it can't get better than this) on the shafi'i school, well, then I think there's something fishy and people aren't telling their people everything there is to know about Islam and its teachings. Probably to safeguard themselves (mosques, organisations) from the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the likes, because let's face it, no one likes people talking on German soil in mosques about waging war, overthrowing the country etc.

I'm quite disappointed with the level of scholarship you pointed me at.

It's a blog. I never said anything about scholarship.

To quote you from another thread, on Ms. Wafa Sultan:

which may explain why this resonates so soundly with you. I feel sorry for you with your sister.

Pardon me? With her current knowledge of Islam she'll probably burn in hell anyway.

I'll give one quote from Dutch arabist and islam scholar Hans Jansen, who is very critical of Islam, from this article (in Dutch):

We now know it is possible in Holland to strike deals with catholics when it comes to abortion and euthanasia. On the other hand, everyone knows that it is utterly impossible to strike such a deal with the Vatican, the shepherd of pure catholism.
In the same way, it is possible to strike deals with muslims about jihad, stoning, etc. But the pure islam will not accept these deals, and keep calling for jihad. [...]
Fortunately, many muslims simply dismiss calls for terror, as jihad also is high treason. Therefore, it is not the case that muslims have everything to do with terror, but pure islam has.

Oh wow, we can strike a deal with a certain percentage of muslims to abandon their jihad stuff. For how long? Maximum of 10 years? Some kind of hudna?
It's just the same with the Catholics, right? They're out to kill every non-Catholic, right?

What a load of crap.

Anyway, in case you want to sit through another hour of Mazyek, be my guest. Topic there is the squarrel about a "mega mosque" in Cologne and well, it boils down to Islam anyway.

 

[ddt]

There were two moments where he evaded Rotter's question and the one of interest was about the fundamental understanding of our society, namely democracy and the constitution we have. He did not answer, but evaded the question and tried pandering to the audience with BS and that not only once.

The other one was where Rotter started off with his "good Turk" remark, said he didn't understand what "kernel of democracy" the Muslim Council supported, and made some other remark. IIRC, he started reacting on the last remark, Rotter interrupted him, and then the discussion drowned with about everyone chiming in.

As to Rotter's question about that "kernel of democracy", I don't quite understand what he meant by that; I read in their charta #11:

Ob deutsche Staatsbürger oder nicht, bejahen die im Zentralrat vertretenen Muslime daher die vom Grundgesetz garantierte gewaltenteilige, rechtsstaatliche und demokratische Grundordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, einschließlich des Parteienpluralismus, des aktiven und passiven Wahlrechts der Frau sowie der Religionsfreiheit. Daher akzeptieren sie auch das Recht, die Religion zu wechseln, eine andere oder gar keine Religion zu haben. Der Koran untersagt jede Gewaltausübung und jeden Zwang in Angelegenheiten des Glaubens.

which lists all constitutional aspects of democracy and rule of law, AFAIK. What is Dr. Rotter missing then?

Not to mention that their charta, which was written to show what their position on our constitution is, starts off with the "Islam is peace" crap, this basically means they can't just scrap the hadith, nor the sunnah or eventually schari'a, which is based on the quran, sunnah and ahadith and base their life on what the Quran and Muhammad say or said. And I think you know what that means.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're getting at here. The "Islam is peace" is supported by parts in the Quran, isn't it? And yes, it contains also a lot of stuff to the contrary. But isn't it possible that Islam also renders inoperative these parts, just as (most) Christians and Jews have done with the less savory parts of the Bible?

Overall their charta sounds more like "we'll be nice to you until we got the upper hand then turn this into another Afghanistan".

For the benefit of the rest of the world: English version of the charta. Personally, I don't read it that way; maybe you think I'm naive, but then, point me to some well-reasoned essay why this has to be so. I'm also at a loss how they can get the upper hand in, say, your or my lifetime. Currently, 4% of German residents are muslim, many of them nominally. They are second or third generation, mostly of Turkish descent, from immigrants who were dirt poor. They do have a higher birth rate than native Germans, so their percentage numbers will rise, but immigration is minimal with current laws. I haven't done the math exactly, but say, optimistically: a doubling in 25 years, that's 8%, and equal representation in the institutions, and equal socio-economic standing. How do you see them take over?

Well that's nice that they tell muslims how to behave in foreign countries based on something that, let me quote you, "could be done away with" so easily like he said on TV.

See also #11 quoted above.

No, his introduction piece states essentially that he didn't think something's wrong with Islam, only knew it through Karl May's Winnetou novels but the more he read the more he arrived at the position he's at now. And to be honest with you, the last part of your sentence scares me (emphasis).

I stand corrected on the intro, I did this from memory. As to the bolded part: "and if he has read the right pieces", I meant the right books, the valid interpretations of Quran and Hadith, etc. It's not for nothing that theology is an academic study; there are huge piles of literature. That's why I'd rather trust an Islamic scholar than a blogger.

Yes, on a 14 th century Islamic text. Your point?

Yes, a lot can have changed since then, but has it actually?

That's what I'm asking. Do you know? Does that blogger know?

Anyway, his five pillars analysis is not what I was referring to, it was more the moral inversion III thing as well as the other one you get when you follow my original link.

OK, I'll come back on those out later.

Well not all, but it looks like the official spokesmen don't or use "Nebeldeutsch", which that blog is about. I don't want to get into a conspiracy, but when my sister hears from me for the first time that jihad actually also is war against non-muslims, my statement based (not only, but it can't get better than this) on the shafi'i school, well, then I think there's something fishy and people aren't telling their people everything there is to know about Islam and its teachings. Probably to safeguard themselves (mosques, organisations) from the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and the likes, because let's face it, no one likes people talking on German soil in mosques about waging war, overthrowing the country etc.

And your sister hadn't heard of jihad before she converted? I agree with you, of course, that there's something wrong when they don't tell this -- and your explanation may very well be spot-on.

But of course, there's a difference between the conservative strand your sister is ended up with and the liberal strand that Mazyek represents.

Pardon me? With her current knowledge of Islam she'll probably burn in hell anyway.

Well, sorry for trying to show empathy.

Oh wow, we can strike a deal with a certain percentage of muslims to abandon their jihad stuff. For how long? Maximum of 10 years? Some kind of hudna?
It's just the same with the Catholics, right? They're out to kill every non-Catholic, right?

What a load of crap.

Well, it was the intro to a discussion evening he sported. He's written some very critical pieces on Islam, which I won't translate all here. And I tend to trust someone with 35 years of academic study on the subject more than a blogger, to be frank.

But now the other side to your tale about your sister: she doesn't even know she should be out to kill every non-muslim! But when the time is ripe, she will get an AK-47 from her imam and follow his orders? Sorry, this scenario reeks a bit after CT.

From the bits and pieces I have read, I do indeed see there are fundamental issues between Islam and western democracy. I also see that, in practice, most muslims here don't care about such parts.

I see, BTW, that you haven't commented on the issue of German-schooled imams, and neither on the issue of financing.

 

[mrbaracuda]

But now the other side to your tale about your sister: she doesn't even know she should be out to kill every non-muslim! But when the time is ripe, she will get an AK-47 from her imam and follow his orders? Sorry, this scenario reeks a bit after CT.

I never said she'd pick up an AK then and only meant the part about ommissions. Problem is like the following: I asked her whether or not homosexuals should be put to death. She vaguely said no, but that it's unnatural. My Shaf'i-schari'a book has the following (it's not all, but you get the idea) to say about the matter, which I told her about:

p17.0 “SODOMY AND LESBIANISM”

p17.1 In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

p17.3

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

(1) “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

(2) “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

(3) “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

After being confronted with it, she wasn't so sure how to answer my question anymore.

From the bits and pieces I have read, I do indeed see there are fundamental issues between Islam and western democracy. I also see that, in practice, most muslims here don't care about such parts.

In relation to my example above: They might not care about such parts, but would they care to defend democracy? Or would they follow a well established, officially accepted interpretation, out of fear of god?
At least the devout muslims like my sister would at least tolerate the killing of homosexuals or whatever because Muhammad said so.

(ETA) There's also a trend among the young muslims and generations of Turkish migrants, who are becoming more religious than their parents or grandparents.

I see, BTW, that you haven't commented on the issue of German-schooled imams, and neither on the issue of financing.

I don't see how changing the language in which its message is spread will change Islam. Especially not when the citations in Arabic will stay. They imported Turkish imams because the muslims were and are predominently Turkish.

What issue of financing? I will respond to the other parts later.
Oh and currently there's one university that offers Islamic studies / "Orientalistik" and produces imams as far as I know, which is in Cologne. I know this mainly because my sister studied there for a semester.

ETA: Until I've answered your questions, may I invite you to watch this documentary about a young convert, who grew up in a Christian/Catholic family. He has gone through a transition from moderate to fundamental. They followed him over the course of three years.

The outcome of my sister is not decided, but she's been living in her little parallel society in London for half a year now with Indian and Arab muslims who for example hold some for her shocking views about the Palestinian / Isreal conflict, so I doubt it'll be the moderate choice.

 

[ddt]

ETA: Until I've answered your questions, may I invite you to watch this documentary about a young convert, who grew up in a Christian/Catholic family. He has gone through a transition from moderate to fundamental. They followed him over the course of three years.

I think you've forgotten to put the link in here?

 

[mrbaracuda]

I think you've forgotten to put the link in here?

Indeed I have.



I'm reading on islam.de (owned by the ZMD) about jihad right now and for me the description is very shady. See here section x, #16.

 

[mrbaracuda]

The other one was where Rotter started off with his "good Turk" remark, said he didn't understand what "kernel of democracy" the Muslim Council supported, and made some other remark. IIRC, he started reacting on the last remark, Rotter interrupted him, and then the discussion drowned with about everyone chiming in.

Which Mazyek in my opinion welcomed.

As to Rotter's question about that "kernel of democracy", I don't quite understand what he meant by that; I read in their charta #11:

which lists all constitutional aspects of democracy and rule of law, AFAIK. What is Dr. Rotter missing then?

I don't know about you, but when I'm questioned about my position as a muslim and my relation to the country I live in, I wouldn't start my charter (which was as far as I know written exactly because of this) with "Islam is the religion of peace" and put the important (as in relevant) parts on position 10 and the following. I'd also not use schari'a as a basis for the question why a muslim should accept the local rules etc., or end with demands that will be fulfilled naturally with integration in my opinion.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're getting at here. The "Islam is peace" is supported by parts in the Quran, isn't it? And yes, it contains also a lot of stuff to the contrary. But isn't it possible that Islam also renders inoperative these parts, just as (most) Christians and Jews have done with the less savory parts of the Bible?

As far as I know, the four schools of thought are still officially accepted by muslims and have these "less savory" parts in them. The ZDM mentions those schools in their charter.

I don't mind the ZDM trying to establish some European Islam - question just is, why should they be able to reinterpret Islam more adequately than the four schools have over centuries? I heard the ZDM actually only represents a tiny minority of German muslims.

For the benefit of the rest of the world: English version of the charta. Personally, I don't read it that way; maybe you think I'm naive, but then, point me to some well-reasoned essay why this has to be so. I'm also at a loss how they can get the upper hand in, say, your or my lifetime. Currently, 4% of German residents are muslim, many of them nominally. They are second or third generation, mostly of Turkish descent, from immigrants who were dirt poor. They do have a higher birth rate than native Germans, so their percentage numbers will rise, but immigration is minimal with current laws. I haven't done the math exactly, but say, optimistically: a doubling in 25 years, that's 8%, and equal representation in the institutions, and equal socio-economic standing. How do you see them take over?

Well, I wouldn't say naive and I don't have a well-reasoned essay and I might also be wrong about the ZDM, but especially Mazyek, the offical spokesperson comes across rather shady in my opinion. His statements you can find on the Nebeldeutsch-blog are part of it.

As for the aforementioned description of Jihad: When they mention schari'a in their charter and even go as far as to use it as a guideline as to why muslims should adhere to German law (although unspecified, but I think I read that before, too), why can they not mention what the four schari'a schools say it is, denounce these positions and then explains how to see it?

I think I know the answers: Because it is just impossible without being a cleric who is accepted to such a high degree as to perform "ijtihad", which is in simple terms and if I'm not grossly mistaken to found a new school of thought by interpretating the Islamic sources (Koran, sunnah and ahadith) anew.

The remaining question though is: How can they arrive at a different position than the other schools, when for example the difference between the Shaf'i schari'a and the other three according to the manual of classic Islamic law I own is about 25% and only in minor things?

And it's not about my lifetime, it's about the lifetime of my fellow Germans, my children I will most likely have one day and their children.

I stand corrected on the intro, I did this from memory. As to the bolded part: "and if he has read the right pieces", I meant the right books, the valid interpretations of Quran and Hadith, etc. It's not for nothing that theology is an academic study; there are huge piles of literature. That's why I'd rather trust an Islamic scholar than a blogger.

Sure. The Nebeldeutsch-blog is about the shady statements by muslim spokespersons of muslim organisations though, not about Islam as a whole. I've not read any of the articles on the other "sister-blogs" he seems to have.

That's what I'm asking. Do you know? Does that blogger know?

Since there are no new or officially accepted schari'a schools other than the four and basing this on my sister's behaviour and her reliance on those in (ETA:) not only legal questions, but basically everything in her daily life, as far as her knowledge permits her (she even says she'd rather have schari'a than the current system and that every (devout) muslim wants this, where I think I agree when we talk about devout muslims), yes, I think I know and have to say nothing has changed. As I said, I think a lot, and I really mean a lot depends on having a caliphate; like an open jihad and not the jihad al-Qaeda is waging, although you could call a lot of things jihad, like I've seen a blog today and this memri-article about "the media jihad".

That the muslim countries aren't on especially good terms with each other and the hatred between sunnis and shiites plays a huge role as to why there is no caliphate in my opinion.

And your sister hadn't heard of jihad before she converted? I agree with you, of course, that there's something wrong when they don't tell this -- and your explanation may very well be spot-on.

But of course, there's a difference between the conservative strand your sister is ended up with and the liberal strand that Mazyek represents.

Sure, but what backing or weight can Mazyek enjoy compared to the "muslim world", when facing four well established schools that interpret true Islam the way we can and should not accept in our midst?

I mean, I wish him good luck and all, and I might conflate the other official spokesmen like Alboga from DITIB (basically the longer arm of the Turkish ministry of religion; they finance mosques and imams that get exchanged every 5 years) and think too suspicious of the ZDM, but what use does his endeavour have if they cannot even acknowledge parts about Islam that can be sourced back to Islamic legal rulings etc. that are still used? Exactly this is what makes the ZDM and others ring hollow.

Well, sorry for trying to show empathy.

I didn't really get what you said there, but thank you. She's so paranoid she won't even read books based on Islamic texts. She then says "you only want me to get away from my religion! that book is anti-Islamic!". She also called be an islamophobe while having breakfast, which was fun and made me laugh for quite some time.

Well, it was the intro to a discussion evening he sported. He's written some very critical pieces on Islam, which I won't translate all here. And I tend to trust someone with 35 years of academic study on the subject more than a blogger, to be frank.

What a shame, heh. Thanks for translating the part though.

the issue of financing.

Has been solved then?

 

[mrbaracuda]

Oh and currently there's one university that offers Islamic studies / "Orientalistik" and produces imams as far as I know, which is in Cologne. I know this mainly because my sister studied there for a semester.

It's not in Cologne, but in Münster. Not far from Enschede (~1h by train).