| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Says Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Issues related to Islam - such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation — these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.
I hope she is right about that.
Here is the full statement, via Judeoscope, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.
What exactly did I want to achieve?
First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women — especially Muslim women - squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.
Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam - such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation — these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.
Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?
In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.
Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament - to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and — perhaps more importantly — for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.
But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?
It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.
Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.
I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.
I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with - the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.
You probably are wondering, what is my real name?
I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.
Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.
Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada — during a stopover in Germany — I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.
To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.
I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.
I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.
That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.
Posted by Robert at May 16, 2006 12:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It appears that there is a huge battle that has occurred within the Parliment and goverment in Denmark.
Stay tuned....a blanket toss may be occuring with more liberals getting the boot.
Posted by: alaskan1000![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 16, 2006 1:05 PM
Alaskan,
You might want to scroll down a bit. We have already posted 2 stories about that battle.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 16, 2006 1:08 PM
Disappearing illusions.
I wonder what Hirsi's IQ is. Over 170 I betcha. And I also wonder where she's headed. Undisclosed Locationville just got that much smaller, and that's a good thing.
Welcome to Idaho.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 16, 2006 2:10 PM
If you think the human race cannot sink lower than this, you ought to see the so-called report currently being given on this matter by Britain's Channel 4. It is a vicious thirty-second rehash of all the vile filth spewed against AH by her enemies, including not mentioning that she had admitted lying long ago. I am a Christian and believe in Hell. How do agnostics and atheists who do not believe in eternal punishment cope with evil like this? How do they accept that a man may be paid as much as these media filth in order to deliberately poison the minds of the public, and then die in their bed with no punishment or disgrace?
Posted by: Paolo at May 16, 2006 2:22 PM
According to the BBC, here are her 'lies':
"In the documentary, Ms Hirsi Ali said that when she arrived in the Netherlands she had come straight from Somalia, whereas actually she had lived in three different countries in the interim.
"Ms Hirsi Ali said she had already admitted lying to win asylum in the Netherlands when she was vetted as a candidate for parliament in 2002"
Pretty petty, if you ask me. This does indeed deserve to be called a political lynching, especially given Hirsi Ali's incredible courage. This is perverse, just as the new European fondness for anti-Semitism is perverse. Why does the continent that gave us such a glorious civilization also have these weird swings to Fascism and Marxism and now this?
Posted by: Benjamin at May 16, 2006 2:26 PM
A feeding frenzy in Holland
Netherlands - Bears killed and ate a monkey in a Dutch zoo in front of horrified visitors, witnesses and the zoo said Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_fe_st/netherlands_bear_eats_monkey
at May 16, 2006 2:29 PM
All this time you have been praising this woman for being the best you have against Islam. Yet her package of lies fell badly not only on her but also on you. That so much effort was spent on heaping praise on a compulsive liar - self admitted at that. Does not speak anything great about western civilisation. Can you find somebody truthful to wage war on Islam? You wont succeed.
Posted by: YoungWarrior at May 16, 2006 2:30 PM
Here in the UK we grant asylum to people who hijacked an airplane at gunpoint. These same hijackers are now living in luxury in London at taxpayers expense. I wonder if the BBC has anything to say about that?
at May 16, 2006 2:33 PM
Bears killed and ate a monkey in a Dutch zoo in front of horrified visitors, witnesses and the zoo said Monday. In the incident Sunday at the Beekse Bergen Safari Park, several Sloth bears chased the Barbary macaque into an electric fence, where it was stunned.
I too am stunned. Quite stunned. 3 questions:
1) The witnesses were Marxists, weren't they?
2) Why are we celebrating the cultural diversity of a safari in Holland fer Chrissakes?
3) When the Global Sharia wave rolls in, will the dykes hold?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 16, 2006 2:39 PM
There are a few people who speak up in the Netherlands:
'We are ashamed of our country': The rich and famous say it's ludicrous what is happening in an open letter. A big point in the letter is the fact that Mohammed Bouyeri will have won.
http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/42540351/Open_brief:_Wij_schamen_ons_voor_ons_land.html
All of Hirsi Ali's partymembers are supportive. Even Verdonk has said it's a human tragedy, but the law must be upheld, so at least she would have to get "naturalized" again.
Other politicians call it an outrage that Mrs. Verdonk is so strictly following the laws. Most of them plead for immediate naturalization.
A member of the VVD (both Verdonk's and Ali's party) has criticized Verdonk fiercely saying it's unbelievable that Verdonk is seeing this as a manhunt.
The most prominent (and probably the last :P) feminist of the Netherlands has publicly given her support to Ayaan.
The minister of Justice of the Netherlands (Donner) is trying to get Ayaan her maximum security house back by appealing to a higher court on the matter.
The prime minister of the Netherlands has said he's surpised at the whole affair and wants to make sure Verdonk followed all procedures correctly.
A prominent ex-muslim of the Amsterdam city-governing body has said that this is a very inhumane treatment that is obviously the result of being too uptight about the rules.
The leader of the pragmatic democrat party in the Netherlands pleads for a quick naturalization of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She says people like Ayaan should never be the victim of a small lie just to get to the Netherlands, especially since she is in so much danger now.
A philosopher specializing in the judicial system is considering to sue Nawijn, Verdonk and other politicians because they knew they it's not allowed for AHI to get a seat in the parliament, without being naturalized. They have never pointed this out before, for which they can be held accountable. He states AHI has done nothing wrong.
A famous Dutch lawyer, Mr. Spong, said even the minister of Justice could file charges against Verdonk.
Rightwing politician and islam-critic Geert Wilders has said this is no way of treating AHI. He holds Verdonk accountable and attributes her behaviour to the upcoming internal elections in the VVD party. Wilders, himself under heavy police protection for his part in criticising Islam, demands that Ayaan's security is guaranteed as long as she remains in the Netherlands.
Another politician from the VVD party, Mr. Weissglas blames the former neighbors of Ayaan for filing a lawsuit against her, because they couldn't cope with the security measures being taken.
All in all it seems as if Ali's roll in the Netherlands is long from over. Possibly even the Dutch government could fall. This would mean new elections and in the end probably the formation of a socialist led government.
The Dutch are not yet to be given up, as much as most of you would love to do that. It's so much easier to just criticise and never look at things that also happen in the Netherlands :P
Posted by: mr_atheist at May 16, 2006 2:42 PM
Re Joan of Arc
People often want to be told lies because the truth will require them to act. Cowards want to hear lies even if they know it means innocent people will be harmed because they are afraid to act.
In such situations a brave man or brave woman who tells the truth will stand alone, will be reviled, hated, even face death. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is hated for speaking the truth in a very utimely manner. That is her real offense.
But in the depths of their souls her listiners know that eventually they will have to act on her truth. In rejecting her the Dutch are really demonstrating how uneasy they are about the coming time when they will have to act.
at May 16, 2006 2:42 PM
It would be good if this were disseminated widely, read aloud in Congress (perhaps someone in a "Profiles in Courage" mood), reprinted in newspapers (but will it?), discussed on radio and television, assigned by the decent, ignored by the indecent, and in courses on "Women in Islam" and "Islam in the West" taught by apologists this speech can be circulated among the students, to show up and shame the instructors, more intent on protecting Islam than on speaking the truth.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali's farewell to Holland should be regarded not as the text on a tombstone marking the end of a career, but as a touchstone for future discussion of many topics: the subjection of women, individualism and collectivism in Isla and in the West, the totemic invocation of "tolerance," the slow achievement of the Rights of Man, the flat contradiction between Islam and those rights, and the reasons why the legacy of the West has come to be insufficiently appreciated by so many in that West.
But not by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2006 2:57 PM
YoungWarrior,
Here in the West, people are able to redeem themselves. This is not done by any great heroic deed but simply by confessing their wrongdoings. This admission of her does not in any way negate her views and her experiences of Islam. Ms Ali's reputation is based on her courage and determination to stand up to the evils of Islam. You do not possess those qualities.
I presume you are a good Muslim who practises taqiyya.
at May 16, 2006 3:05 PM
Young Warrior: "That so much effort was spent on heaping praise on a compulsive liar - self admitted at that."
Compulsive liar???
She lied on an asylum application and later freely acknowledged doing so. Please identify the other lies she has told that would qualify her as "compulsive"?
Posted by: Cornelius at May 16, 2006 3:12 PM
The indignation about "lies" Ayaan Hirsi Ali told (lies told in order to escape Islamist-Nazis) are greeted with glee by the Islamist-Nazis and the Dutch so they don't have to examine why she told those lies. Their glee about her lies is to hide deeper-lethal Islamist-Nazi lies and for the Dutch to avoid acting on her truths.
I guess Ann Frank and the people who protected her were liars? Why did they lie to the Nazis?
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 3:24 PM
Cornelius-
Bum Warrior has to seize on such "lies" with glee so he does not have to look at her truths. He's not very bright.
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 3:41 PM
Nine Muslim hijackers, together with their families are allowed to stay in Britain. I was urged on this thread to consider, as a mitigating circumstance, the fact that Mr Hijacker brought on board Mrs Hijacker and the junior Hijackers, the better to produce baby Hijackers, but I was less than sympathetic.
This courageous and intelligent woman is thrown out of Holland. Has the world gone mad? Even if she were not courageous and intelligent, she is at least not a hijacker, nor a hijacker's moll.
On the same thread, I was asked:
So does the decision on asylum depend on the virtue of the person seeking asylum?
I will repeat what I said then:
In my view, yes it does. This is a crowded island. We can't take everybody, so why not pick people whose values are most likely to accord with ours.
If they're Muslim, forget it. There are plenty of Christians and other non-Muslims. who would be desperate to come here who should get first priority. Let Muslims seek asylum in other Muslim countries.
The same goes for Holland. A tiny, crowded country, with people clamouring to get in. Why, of all the asylum seekers in all the world, would Holland - or Britain - take Muslims? Unless they are apostates, it is madness.
Let's give asylum to people who appreciate the West and its values. And in seeing so clearly the major threat to the West from Islam, and in speaking so courageously against it, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is exactly the sort of citizen that Western countries should be taking in. Asylum? We should be begging her to live here.
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 3:44 PM
And I was the one who asked you, Interested.
I think the Hirsi Ali affair is appalling.
And it illustrates my point that one should look into the totality of the circumstances surround a person who seeks asylum -- even if that person has done something illegal.
Obviously a hijacking is far far more grave than lying on a questionaire at immigration. But if the hijackers were fleeing prosecution by a fascist group (and there is no factual question) I would hope that we would take that into account.
at May 16, 2006 4:03 PM
Timing is important with truth and oliticians are not well known for courage. Profiles In Courage is not a thick book.
Re Ayaan Hirsi Ali: In some parallel universe Ayaan Hirsi Ali may speak the same truths as she speaks now and be cheered by the same people who now reject her. In a parallel universe it might not cost the Dutch anything to cheer her.
The cost of facing her truths are too high now. She's untimely. That's her problem. However, I think she will be cheered in Holland and elsewhere someday in the future. May the Almighty be with her and protect her till then.
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 4:09 PM
The above is adressed to himself (AKA Hugh).
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 4:11 PM
"This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me."
If this is not slavery, what is?
Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 16, 2006 4:15 PM
Obviously a hijacking is far far more grave than lying on a questionaire at immigration.
Er, just a bit. It makes a huge difference.
But if the hijackers were fleeing prosecution by a fascist group (and there is no factual question) I would hope that we would take that into account.
Only, in my view, if they are apostates. There are plenty of non-Muslim, non-hijackers fleeing "fascist groups". The latter is slightly misleading. The Taleban were not "fascists", they were card-carrying members of the sharia party: Muslims.
To take in Jews fleeing Nazi Germany is one thing. To take in Nazis another.
at May 16, 2006 4:29 PM
Raw Data - don't bother arguing with Interested; she is a shallow, opinionated, vain and arrogant person to whom others' arguments are incomprehensible. She is really and truly not worth dealing with.
Of course, there is far worse than her. I will repeat what I already said on another thread: Young Warrior, I am taking your pseudonym seriously, and I call you out. Let's step out, you and I, and have it out. Not you and ten other valiant Muslim warriors against a lone child or an old woman, but one man against another. I am a fat, unfit, middle-aged Italian, but I promise you I will break your neck for you and send you to your seventy virgins ahead of time. Or are you, like so many of your co-religionists, all mouth and no trousers? And if you want to know why I have this desire to dance a tango on your face, which I did not have for any other Muslim troll, I will tell you: your vile and cowardly slurs on Hirsi Ali. Attacking a lone woman is bad enough; hitting one when she is down is something that no right-minded male human being, unperverted by your vicious parody of a religion, will let pass. Put up or shut up, eunuch.
Posted by: Paolo at May 16, 2006 4:36 PM
Interested
What are you more exercised about? The fact they were hijackers or the fact they were Muslims? I only ask because you repeat the word five times in your initial post.
A significant number of those who fled the Taliban were Sikhs. What if they had hijacked a plane and forced the pilot to fly to Britain?
Posted by: Effractor at May 16, 2006 4:40 PM
Raw Data - don't bother arguing with Interested; she is a shallow, opinionated, vain and arrogant person to whom others' arguments are incomprehensible. She is really and truly not worth dealing with.
Intrested may be the most intelligent poster on this website. She named the name. She called a Moslem a Moslem. What more could you possibly ask?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 16, 2006 4:43 PM
Paolo, go easy on the hyperbole. You're in danger of sounding like a comedy Italian from a Monty Python sketch.
all mouth and no trousers...
I've never been able to understand why this is a bad thing.
What are you more exercised about? The fact they were hijackers or the fact they were Muslims?
The fact that they were both Muslims and hijackers. Two things we don't want.
Incidentally, have any Sikhs, Hindus or Jews hijacked a plane lately? Doesn't tend to happen, does it?
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 4:44 PM
It doesn't tend to happen, no, but that's not to say it couldn't happen. So the answer to the second question is...?
Posted by: Effractor at May 16, 2006 4:50 PM
Interested, you do not understand - as usual. I really do want to pulp Young Warrior's face, break his neck and kick his ribs in. He is an abomination, a pretense of human being; and he has made me sick in a way that the worst of Mohideen Ibramsha, ia786, Naseem and you, combined, never managed. If he is in Britain, I want him.
Posted by: Paolo at May 16, 2006 4:55 PM
The answer to the second question is, cross that bridge when we come to it.
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 4:55 PM
Paolo - you haven't seen the worst of me.
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 4:56 PM
So, Interested, you are sanguine about imitating Moslems and having one law for them and a different law for everyone else?
That's the implication of your statement about crossing the bridge later.
Posted by: Raw Data at May 16, 2006 4:59 PM
YOu flatter yourself. I have seen enough of you never to want to have a discussion with you about anything. I have seen enough of you to want to cross the road to avoid you. Raw Data, poor sod, has not yet got to that point.
Posted by: Paolo at May 16, 2006 5:01 PM
So, Interested, you are sanguine about imitating Moslems and having one law for them and a different law for everyone else?
One law for Muslims and one law for non-Muslims?
Why not? Islam is a hostile creed. Certainly, when it comes to immigration, Muslim immigration should be stopped forthwith. When it comes to asylum, we are a tiny, crowded country. Why prioritise asylum seekers who are carriers of a hostile creed? I keep asking this question, and have not had an answer. Of all the asylum seekers in all the world - and God knows, they all seem to want to come to London - why Muslims?
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 5:04 PM
...cross that bridge when we come to it.
So, in effect, what you are saying to our hypothetical group of Sikhs fleeing the Taliban, is - flee that despotic murderous regime if you must, but if you want to be guaranteed asylum in the UK you'll have to come by land, not air.
Correct?
Posted by: Effractor at May 16, 2006 5:08 PM
Interested, you are awesome. I kiss your feet and scowl Molem-like at the pro-Islam morons who imagine Sikhs plummeting innocent infidel into the mountainside.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 16, 2006 5:09 PM
you'll have to come by land, not air
You make it sound so nice. Come by air my Lord, come by air..
These Muslims hijacked a plane at gunpoint.
Come on then, you hypothetical Jewish, Sikh, Amish and Quaker hijackers. Try me.
Posted by: Interested at May 16, 2006 5:12 PM
Thanks. I'll leave it there, I think.
Posted by: Effractor at May 16, 2006 5:18 PM
The foulmouthed Dutch people are the biggest liars of all: They have a bi-cultural hellhole and they try to sell it openly as a multicultural heaven.
Die in your glee and arrogance Europe, die !
at May 16, 2006 5:28 PM
One law for Muslims and one law for non-Muslims?Why not? Islam is a hostile creed. Certainly, when it comes to immigration, Muslim immigration should be stopped forthwith. When it comes to asylum, we are a tiny, crowded country. Why prioritise asylum seekers who are carriers of a hostile creed? I keep asking this question, and have not had an answer. Of all the asylum seekers in all the world - and God knows, they all seem to want to come to London - why Muslims?
Posted by: Interested
I second Alarmed Pig Farmer. In fact, on the lines of suggestions I've come up with on other threads, I suggest taking the Shariah law, flipping the words "Muslims" and "Kafir" wherever they appear, and then applying the resultant law to Muslims.
No discrimination between different types of infidels - Anglicans, Catholics, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Rasfarantians, et al. However, as far as Muslims go, they should be at the receiving end of their Shariah, instead of the delivering end.
at May 16, 2006 5:50 PM
I just spoke to someone who returned from Nairobi two days ago. He frequently flies in and out of there. While waiting for his flight, he observed yet another plane filled with Somalis that was headed for the USA. He says that he has witnessed dozens of these flights. Most of the women were covered from head to foot. What will or can these "refugees" bring to the USA except more demands and demographic changes that most Americans do not want.
Bring Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the USA. She will make a great contribution to the conversation about Islam that must be continued. Send the plane of militant Muslim men and their veiled women back to Nairobi and let them drive taxis there.
Posted by: maryrose at May 16, 2006 5:57 PM
Ann Frank and Ayaan Hirsi Ali share a common fate...
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 8:26 PM
DP111
Re:
"A feeding frenzy in Holland
Netherlands - Bears killed and ate a monkey in a Dutch zoo in front of horrified visitors, witnesses and the zoo said Monday."
The bear may have gotten ahold of certain book where God says that Jews are monkeys. God said it..and that's all the bear needed to know...he's a regular thinker that bear...
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 9:11 PM
DP111
Re:
"A feeding frenzy in Holland
Netherlands - Bears killed and ate a monkey in a Dutch zoo in front of horrified visitors, witnesses and the zoo said Monday."
The bear may have gotten ahold of certain book where God says that Jews are monkeys. God said it..and that's all the bear needed to know...he's a regular thinker that bear...
Posted by: Frank at May 16, 2006 9:11 PM
Hirsi Ali deceived to save her life. Somewhat like Anne Frank's family. Compare that to what far too many of the so-called "YoungWarrior's" fellow Muslims have shown themselves willing to support: deception in aid of mass-murder.
Was that statement by Hirsi Ali translated into English by someone else, or does Hirsi Ali speak and write the language? I want to get her book Caged Virgin which I think is already available at Amazon.
Posted by: traeh at May 16, 2006 9:24 PM
Young Warrior:
It's easy for you to sit at your keyboard in a first world democracy drinking your latte and facilely condemn Miss Ali and characterize her as a congenital liar. The truth is you did not come from an Islamic country, you are almost certainly not a female from a third world country with an abysmal human rights record and you have no idea of what it is like for someone like her to survive the circumstances she faced. It is doubtful (that being a man) you would ever have to deal with a death by stoning or other such horrors doled out by Islam. If you did, you would be whistling a very different tune I am certain.
Miss Ali would almost certainly have been condemned to a life of oppression as would anyone who believes in the values of the western world be. Eventually this woman would have met an untimely death. There is never any room in any Islamic society for a person who holds freedom dear as she does. Anyone who truly wants to live in freedom deserves the opportunity to do so. Isn't the quest for freedom what brought the Pilgrims across the Atlantic to Plymouth on the Mayflower? Isn't that what eventually led to the founding of the United States of America?
Although she did originally tell a lie in 1992, she has since made up for it by representing those women and others facing oppression in the Islamic nations and taking action on their behalf. How often do people do this anywhere? Should they be discouraged for any reason? I think not.
Miss Ali in her speeches to the VVP does NOT come across as a pathological liar. In fact, she comes across as a person of substantial integrity. And that is almost certainly what proved her undoing in Europe. The EU today speaks with a forked tongue.
We welcome Miss Ali to America! Long may she shine!
Posted by: pythagoras at May 16, 2006 9:46 PM
Paolo-
Sounds like time for some sit-ups.
If Islam does them 5 times a day.
We must do them 6.
Mens sano in corpore sano.
What we do not transmute into our strength becomes their strength.
Young W/imp/arrior-
You lie about your concern about lying.
Nothing new in that from a mendacious Mohammedan.
What a feeble excuse for a brain stem is perched, like a rotten walnut, on the top of your scurrilous spinal column. ("War is deceit" your lying "prophet" himself declared.)
Go take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut, nutjob.
(Or at one of those "Roses of Allah" -formerly known as a "Danish"- in truth-loving Iran.)
When there are 1,000,000 lying Muslims in The Netherlands, the Hollanders, in their breathtaking cowardice and world-historical imbecility, decide enforce their immigration laws, this one time, in order to harass the only person who tells the truth about their deceiving Islamic invaders.
Krankzinnigheid!
(That's "Insanity!", in the native tongue.)
Hirsi Ali's statement is moving, measured and mature.
She now needs to shake the Dutch dust off her shoes and come to the U.S.
Where we understand the difference between a white lie to save your skin from intolerant savages, and the black lie that is at the heart of Imperialistic Islam.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2006 10:07 PM
"Was that statement by Hirsi Ali translated into English by someone else, or does Hirsi Ali speak and write the language?"
-- from a posting above
She speaks a very clear and attractive English.
Posted by: Hugh at May 16, 2006 11:20 PM
Young Warrior. Shame. Shame. I will take one of her and leave your mindless, hating hordes to Amsterdam. I'm sure the hordes will appreciate the art, will add creativity and zest to life. I'm sure you'll add much to science, the pursuit of truth. I'm sure, Young Warrior, your ilk will be kind and decent to Kaffirs. And best of all, Young Warrior, your ilk has a tremendous sense of humor. You will show Johnny Carson a thing or two. It hurts to have your hate fest parade punctured by not only a Muslim, but, worse yet, from a woman! Why don't you and your crowd move back to the wonderful Moslem lands of Saudi and Pakistan and leave the rest of us alone.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 16, 2006 11:52 PM
Effractor sez:
"...A significant number of those who fled the Taliban were Sikhs. What if they had hijacked a plane and forced the pilot to fly to Britain?..."
Rubbish. No Sikhs in Afghanistan, they left long ago or were killed off long before the Taliban. Are there Sikhs left in Pakistan? Don't think so.
Some years ago, there was ONE Jew left in Kabul, probably in all of Afghanistan.
No, you better do your homework mate...
I've been there (Herat, Kandahar, Kabul) 3 times. can you say that for yourself?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 17, 2006 2:51 AM
sheik yer'mami
The Sikhs along with the Hindus had at one time controlled the currency markets in the main cities.
But all that changed with the advent of the mujahideen fighters who overthrew the Soviet regime and then the arrival of the Taleban.
"The overthrow of Najibullah's regime in 1992 and the fighting between the warlords hurt us very badly," Mr Singh says.
"The constant violence forced many Sikhs to flee, mostly to India, some to Pakistan."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3138282.stm
Never let the facts etc
Posted by: Effractor at May 17, 2006 4:32 AM
Effractor,
During my travels through these countries in 1969/70 I have often been to the bazaar in Kabul to change money, and honestly, I do not recall seeing any Sikhs. If Al Bebezeera reports that there are a few hundred of them it must be true!
However, the article suggests that they ARE DOING IT TOUGH and they have been, as with all minorities, systematically decimated. In other words, the jihad continues....
Anyway, thanks for pointing that out to me. I do accept facts, I am not a Mobot!
at May 17, 2006 9:03 AM
sheik yer'mami
The jihad certainly continues. Which, in a roundabout way, was the point I was making.
I never thought you were a Mobot!
Posted by: Effractor at May 17, 2006 10:19 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)