Here is a hostile review by one Ulrich von Schwerin, a freelance writer based in Istanbul, of Thilo Sarrazin’s just-published Feindliche Übernahmen (Hostile Takeover), which is a sequel to Sarrazin’s best-selling Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself), published in 2010. The first book’s theses on integration and immigration sparked a heated debate in Germany. Von Schwerin didn’t like that book.
Von Schwerin doesn’t like this book either:
In the [new] book, the former Berlin senator of finance and former member of the executive board of the Bundesbank claimed that Muslim immigrants had educational deficits and refused to integrate. While Sarrazin already explained why he perceived Muslims as a threat to Western societies in his previous book, he did not deal explicitly with the religion of Islam. He now tackles the religion more directly in his new book.
His initial question — to determine if Islam plays a role in the violent acts of Muslims — is understandable considering the world’s current events. Trying to find out if the religion itself has anything to do with the lower level of education, the lower rate of innovation and the weak economic development of certain parts of the Islamic world are also legitimate discussion points, which are also being debated by many Muslims.
Certainly the lower educational level of Muslims, as compared to non-Muslims, can be explained by a number of factors. First, girls in most Muslim countries are not offered the years of education, and then the kind of professional training, available to boys. Their main task is to be mothers and wives. The more secular the Muslim country — as Tunisia or Bosnia or Turkey (despite Erdogan) — the greater access females have to more years of study.
Second, many Muslims devote part of their early education to religious studies, consisting of rote memorization of the Qur’an, with those who commit the whole to memory being honored with the title “hafiz.” The enormous amounts of time and mental energy devoted to this leaves less of both for secular study.
Third, the “lower rate of innovation” in Muslim societies is a direct result of the hostility in Islam toward “bid’a” or “novelty.” Originally this referred to “innovation” in theological matters — Muslims already had the perfect faith, and there was no reason for any “innovation” to be offered. Over time, this opposition to “bid’a” extended to other areas beyond matters of faith — new ways of doing things, or thinking about things, were a threat. For many Believers, the ideal society was already achieved 1400 years ago, in the days of the earliest Muslims.
However, the author’s claim that his book provides a sober and impartial study of Islam quickly proves to be an empty assertion.
He explores Islam through the Quran, which he claims to have read in its entirety. Even though this approach sounds correct, his claim to be able to determine the core statements of Islam by reading the Quran without any knowledge of Arabic or theological background is an absurd presumption. Sarrazin openly admits that his analysis “exclusively” follows his own “direct understanding of the text,” as if the Quran were really to be understood without taking into account the context of its origin and the history of its reception.
Why is it an “absurd presumption” to read the Qur’an “without any knowledge of Arabic”? 80% of the world’s Muslims are non-Arabs; almost all of them read the Qur’an without such knowledge and no one accuses them of misunderstanding the Qur’an. When a non-Muslim is critical of Islam — such as Thilo Sarrazin (or Robert Spencer) — then that person’s not knowing Arabic suddenly makes them unqualified to discuss Islam. Are nearly 80% of the world’s Muslims unqualified to discuss Islam? Are they unqualified to call themselves Muslims? Are their beliefs mistaken because they don’t know Arabic?
He ignores everything that doesn’t fit into his own interpretation. He does not discuss the ambiguity of the text nor its poetic dimension. Instead of looking at the Quran as a whole, he takes individual excerpts out of context and reorganizes them under selected themes.
The “religious content” of the Quran is “very simple, the guidelines for the faithful are therefore very clear,” writes Sarrazin. His conclusion: The Muslims’ holy book is obsessive about questions related to sexuality, and it is full of hatred for unbelievers and calls for violence.
Why is Sarrazin’s reorganization of themes — as “jihad,” “Jews,” “Christians,” “deception in war,” “terror as a weapon,” “Meccan verses” — illegitimate? There is no other way to make sense of a book whose suras are arranged neither chronologically, nor thematically, but only by their length in descending order.
Von Schwerin claims that Sarrazin thinks the Qur’an is “obsessive about questions related to sexuality.” Now might he think that because of such verses as these?:
Virgins await those who enter paradise. 2:25
It’s permissible to have sex with your wives during Ramadan (at least after sunset). In fact you must “hold intercourse with them.” All of them. It is your sacred Muslim duty. 2:187
All good Muslim men should stay away from menstruating women And don’t have sex with them while they’re menstruating. It disturbs Allah just to think of it. 2:222a
After the women clean up you can have sex with them whenever you want. Allah loves clean men as much as he hates menstruating women. 2:222b
In the mind of Allah, women are like a field for men to plow. Plow them whenever you like (as long as they’re not menstruating, of course.) 2:223
When a man dies, his wives can’t have sex for four months and ten days. After that, if they’re not pregnant, it’s no sin for the dead man if his wives have sex again. 2:234
“Pure companions, and contentment from Allah.” Virgins await those who enter paradise. 3:15
Lewd women are to be confined to their houses until death. 4:15
If any of your women are lewd, cut off their inheritance. 4:19
If your slave wives are guilty of lewdness, punish them half as much as you punish your lewd free wives. 4:25
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Women must obey men, and if they refuse they must be punished. A husband may withhold sex from a disobedient wife. Disobedient wives may be beaten 4:34
Virgins await those who enter paradise. 4:57
Adam and his nameless wife (Eve?) didn’t know they were naked until they ate from the tree. 7:22
Lot offers his daughters to a mob of angel rapers. 11:78 and 15:71
“She bolted the doors and said: Come!” 12:23
You don’t have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls “that your right hand possess.” 23:6
The single-minded slaves of Allah will enjoy a Garden filled with lovely-eyed virgins. 37:40-48
Female companions await those who enter the Gardens of Eden on the Day of Reckoning. 38:52
Allah will reward faithful Muslims after they die with “fair ones with wide, lovely eyes.” 44:54
Allah will reward those in the Garden with beautiful wives with wide, lovely eyes. 52:20
Allah will give those in the Garden women of modest gaze whom neither man nor jinn have touched. 55:56, 55:72-74
Those in the Garden will be attended by immortal youths with wide, lovely eyes. 56:17-23
Allah made virgins to be lovers and friends to those on his right hand. 56:36-37
“O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives?”
Allah says that Muhammad can have sex with any of his wives whenever he wants. 66:1
Those in the Garden will be waited on by immortal youths, as beautiful as scattered pearls. 76:19
Those in the Garden will have maidens for companions. 78:33
christa says
I am German.
This brave man has paid a heavy price for his courage.
He is hunted and slandered in all the media. His wife – a schoolteacher – lost her job.
I have so much admiration for his cool logic in all situations.
eduardo odraude says
I wish his books were available in English.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
On what conceivable grounds did his wife lose her job?
Ursula says
Guilt by association. This is how Germany deals with silencing opposition.
Three videos to watch. My cousin tells me they don’t see it on German media.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/video-germans-complain-to-politician-about-dangers-from-muslim-migrants-she-calls-them-nazis.
gravenimage says
Terrible, christa.
simpleton1 says
Very good as always H.F.
The koran outs itself when googled about its chronological order , and picking up on the
abrogation verses.
Still a terrible book to read, but the chronological order does sort out what Mohammad deeds, actions,and sayings, and how to rate the rate the importance of his guidance with much better context.
Thanks to Thilo Sarrazin, as knowledge and truth needs to be spread far and wide.
eduardo odraude says
Yes, the standard Qur’an is not in chronological order. The chapters are ordered by length instead. That makes them even harder to understand. But here is a chronological qur’an accompanied by links to explanations by Robert Spencer and Ibn Ishaq.
http://chronquran.blogspot.com/
For the Qur’an, perhaps even better than chronological order is reverse chronological order — which is what Tommy Robinson and a co-author did with their published version of the Qur’an. I guess they understood that most people will not read all the way through, so they put the chronologically last chapters first, because those chapters, especially Sura 9, have the final say for Muslims and are the ones non-Muslims most need to know.
eduardo odraude says
Not “ibn Ishaq” — I meant “Ibn Kathir,” perhaps the most popular Qur’an exegete of all time.
Valley of the Bones says
Either way does the Book have a great opening line? , something like
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a young man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of several wives…
simpleton1 says
Thanks eduardo
last chapters first, because those chapters, especially Sura 9, have the final say for Muslims which abrogated the peaceful early verses, and show how Mohammad’s success was based on terror.
That is how islam has expanded, by the sword, terror, wars, battles, hudna (truces and “false treaties”) deception.
Also the promises of rewards, woman, sex, slaves, riches, paradise. etc. of practicing terror for so called Allah’s peace.
End PC says
Can’t understand why the abrogation verses don’t immediately make it clear to anyone not an idiot that the Qur’an is phony baloney. Allah is saying in 2:106 that he couldn’t get many verses right the first time. Just absurd.
acs says
My favorite is Sura 111 from Quran. You should read it whole. It’s an answer to the following event:
“Abu Lahab said (to the Prophet) “May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?””
So can you imagine, the answer to this is one of the “eternal truths” that Allah “always had” and the “Prophet” “revealed”(!):
“The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
And his wife, the wood-carrier,
Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.”
It’s the kindergarten level of thinking. And people believe.
eduardo odraude says
Over at National Review today there is an article by John Fund about the immigration problems in Sweden. Shamefully, that article does not mention Islam or jihad even once. That is the kind of thing that makes me want to spit on National Review as a bunch of cowardly or ignorant *&%$#!
Westman says
The last time principals of the National Review were writing about Islam they convinced a President to start a disastrous war where they claimed the US would be praised as liberators by an appreciative public.
Maybe they don’t want another epic illustration that their ideas are no better than average.
Buraq says
Understanding that Islam’s agenda could be written on the back of a cigarette pack is crucial to finding a way to deal with the problem. Sarrazin’s critics know that clarity and simplicity brought to bear on Islam and its agenda will make it more vulnerable. To that end, I offer the following:
Islam runs like a machine, unimpeded by moral concerns; that is, the ends justify the means, no matter how brutal. As a self-generating belief system, Islam has one fatal weakness – the inability to adapt its doctrine, teaching and ideology in a changing world.
From generation to generation, Imams and commentators of Islamic texts study Islamic theology and preach it, or disseminate it. Shariah, Islamic law, establishes religious norms through force. All areas of life are covered, from dress codes to eating habits to government. Error correction imposed by this immutable religious legal system is evidenced through its consistent and brutal application.
An abundant supply of future believers is ensured by the ratio of 1 man with up to 4 wives. Slaves and dhimmis leverage the reproduction of believers by diversifying the gene pool, as well as making up for deficiencies in skill sets.
Women join the production line as child bearers from the age of 9, in imitation of Islam’s prophet, Muhammed. Reproduction from the age of 9 assures no wastage of the years of fertility, while depriving women of education keeps them 100% dedicated to the role of reproduction. Since women are the ‘bottleneck’ in terms of human reproduction, they must be used to maximum effect.
Islam’s efficiency is reminiscent of an ant colony or a bee hive, the Ummah acting as a single larger organism with tasks sub-divided between fighters, ideologues, and reproductive units (women). And given that there is 1 man with up to 4 women and any number of sex-slaves, a comfortable margin of men are born who can be sacrificed to jihad without a significant drag on reproductive capacity. The propagation of the religious culture also continues through migration into new territories, like Europe and America, while maintaining strict religious practices in these new countries through Madrassas or the cynically named, Faith schools. Buying time to establish itself, the Muslim immigrant declares Islam to be peaceful (taqiyya) while attacking the host country at all levels, steadily weakening the host culture it seeks to subjugate.
One inherent disadvantage, however, is lack of intellectual development due to Islam’s anti-intellectual characteristic – Boko Haram is a prime example. A huge amount of intellectual potential is wasted (that of women), and anyway, Islam’s focus on destruction of competing societies and religions results in the weakening and finally the destruction of complex societies which have elevated forms of intellectual activity evidenced through Music, Philosophy, Literature and Art.
Islam compensates for its intellectual poverty by taking what it lacks in terms of innovation and creativity from the societies it conquers and claiming them for itself. Even religious texts central to its theology are a collection of plagiarized documents taken from pre-existing religions. Originality is not one of Islam’s strengths!
However, Islam’s fatal flaw is its inability to adapt. The dogmatic mindset abhors innovation or change. So, when financial resources dry up – oil prices plummet, for example – or competing cultures race ahead technologically, Islam’s agenda comes under severe pressure. A solution would be to adapt to new circumstances and change aspects of the religion that no longer resonate with a new age of thinking and feeling. Christianity and Judaism did this. They still survive, albeit altered.
In fact, adaptability is the key to survival. However, Islam is structured so that the belief-system itself would rather become extinct than for it to survive in a different, more peaceful form. Islam’s impetus and rationale is derived from conquest and war. Without that, it cannot continue.
That is Islam’s fatal weakness! In other words, Islam’s demise is an integral part of its religious DNA. We only have to wait, and resist.
simpleton1 says
wait and resist
We must know ourselves, our culture, our history, our strengths and weaknesses..
We must reaffirm ourselves, so that strength is built up together and weaknesses discarded,
Free speech is a major weapon for us, and a major problem for islam.
We must safeguard and even enhance free speech.
Then we must know islam, so that our resistance can be most effective, and that is just in the bounds of using free speech, showing up the brittleness of islam.
There is a price in this, and we have to support each other in this, protect each other, like the ww2 1000 bomber raids, stay in formation, on target, and ultimately use ‘free speech’ that can rent islam like nuclear bombs.
The koran exposed, the companions of Mohammad exposed in the hadith, and history exposed.
All thanks to Hugh Fitzgerald, Robert Spencer, and many other posters and commentators here, being “pathfinders” lighting up the information with flares, over the target.
Now it needs the rest of us to deliver the load of information and knowledge with all our skill, to all and sundry, muslim and non muslim.
rubiconcrest says
Well, it sure is taking a long time to die from lack of adaptability. Which is to say I don’t agree that Islam has a fatal flaw. It exploits our human weakness and fears and those are not changing.
Michael Copeland says
“Islam’s demise is an integral part of its religious DNA.”
One of the few prophecies Mohammed made is:
““The strongholds of Islam will be knocked down, one after another …… Islam will crawl back to Medina, like a snake….”
http://answering-islam.org/Mna/frag1.1.html
gravenimage says
Fine post, Buraq.
el Cid 2 says
Seconded. Fine post, Buraq.
But I have yet to see the fatal flaw in Islam. While our flaw is that we allow our freedoms to be used against us. (Freedom of religion is one example. We must understand that Islam is an ideology and not a true religion – The NAZI ideology had true believers, as does Islam – but that did not stop us from recognizing the evil therein).
el Cid 2 says
Seconded. Fine post, Buraq.
But I have yet to see the fatal flaw in Islam. While I do see the flaw (hopefully not fatal) in our response to Political Islam and Jihad. We are allowing our freedoms to be used against us (e.g. – our freedom of religion. We must realize that Islam is primarily a Political Ideology, rather than a religion. NAZI Germany had it’s true believers, much as Islam does – but that did not prevent us from recognizing the evil therein).
End PC says
You miss the main point about Islam’s survival in a changing world: it doesn’t really try to adapt since its scheme is to conquer (via demographics) without assimilation until the Muslim’s political & resultant intimidation power is so great they force everything to adapt to Islam. Especially doable in countries (unlike the USA) where the citizenry is forced to be unarmed.
henrik arboe jensen says
islam is a Berlin wall in ppls heads. it is plantet in childhood through neglect and violence.
to snap out a hole lot of love is needed, the world is but also conserned about competition and have limited love resources.
the sex prohibotion towards homosexuals in saudi yemen iran etc. is installed by victorian brittish. testiment to islams stallmate.
Martin says
Watch his entire press conference for the book launch. It was spectacularly clear-sighted and incisive.
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article181360800/Feindliche-Uebernahme-von-Thilo-Sarrazin-SPD-Politiker-dringen-auf-Parteiausschluss.html
rubiconcrest says
The media and those in power have painted themselves in a corner from which there is no exit. The truth about Islam cannot be ignored. The ‘people’ know and are slowly demanding changes in policy and as their political power increases changes are occurring. those changes could come with much less effort and pain if reviewers such as Von Schwerin were not afraid to tell the truth.
mortimer says
Fitzgerald wrote: ” Are their beliefs mistaken because they don’t know Arabic?”
Answer: Yes their beliefs are mistaken if they don<t know Arabic, but also if they do.
Islam is anti-rational, unhistorical and self-referentially incoherent… an entirely obscurantist system.
TKF says
It’s always hilarious to watch Muslims twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain away all the numerous call to violence, holy war, misogyny and outright murder contained in their holy books. When big Mo said to kill all the unbelievers, I really don’t think he meant to hug it out with them. What a farce. Deal with it Muzzies….it says what it says.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Thilo Sarrazin Confounds His Critics with Common Sense (Part I)
……………………….
This sounds like a fine book.
gravenimage says
Here’s more from Ulrich von Schwerin, implying that that only reason Turks (he never uses the word “Muslim”, of course)–support Erdogan and turn their backs on Germany is because the Germans are so ‘bigoted’:
https://en.qantara.de/content/germanys-turkish-migrants-the-need-to-be-somebody
What a dhimmi tool.
Steve says
The first thing to understand about DW is that it really stands for Devil Worshippers, it is a very wicked outfit.