Islamism - 7

[Husky]

Piece in Elsevier by Afshin Ellian.

Thought the reaction of the 2 muslims in politics was interesting, as also noted by the writer. (In fact, one of the responses visible on the first comments page describes that Ahmed Marcouch's objection to the NL visit by the paedophile imam is mere taqiyyah.)



The original is at www.elsevier.nl/web/Opinie/Afshin-Ellian/324620/Mag-pedoimam-niet-zeggen-wat-profeet-zegt.htm

Approx. translation (with comments in purple):

Is the paedophile-imam not allowed to say what the prophet says?

Friday 9 Dec 2011 - 09:41



Do politicians work as per the rules of logic? Below follow two reports that exceed the limits of logic:



"Tweede Kamer* member Kadija Arib (of party PvdA) is disconcerted that the imam Mohammed al-Maghraoui - who is very controversial in Morocco - who approves of marriages with 9-year old girls, is allowed to attend a conference just like that in The Hague around christmas. Arib wants the government to refuse a visa to the imam."



(* "Tweede Kamer" - literally Second Chamber - is like the equivalent of "House of representatives".

First Chamber is sort of the equivalent to the "Senate".)



Festival

The salafist mosque As Sunnah is host to this Moroccan imam. Why is this mosque organising a festival?



According to the media, the mosque has seriously expanded and, for the purpose of inaugurating the new construction, is organising a five day Arabian conference at the end of this month with as theme 'The muslim between steadfastness and temptation'.



Nice title: temptation. Apparently, the temptation of salafism is so great that the mosque had to be seriously expanded.



Fatwa

What crime has Al-Maghraoui committed? In 2008, he issued a fatwa wherein he supports/aligns with girl-marriages (to be understood as being from 9 years onwards).



He was charged in Morocco for encouraging paedophilia and rape. For Chamber member Ahmed Marcouch this was reason (enough) to tweet: "Reprehensible opinion. Don't give a visa to NL (NL = The Netherlands)".



Al-Maghraoui defends himself with the following argument: "I am a theologian, I am not making this up. It is the prophet who said this before me." This was the second report.





Ayaan

Intermezzo: Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said that prophet mohammed - when measured according to our western standards - was a paedophile and a perverse tyrant.



Khadija Arib was then in the Chamber. Like most of the brave, politically-correct Moroccans, she then had only criticism for Ayaan. But now she suddenly takes a stand for children who are not to fall prey to islamic paedophiles.



(Measuring) standards

Measured by our western standards, imam Al-Maghraoui is right when he says: "I am a theologian, I am not making this up. It is the prophet who said this before me."



Is it true what he says? We're here asking the question concerning the *veracity* of a pronouncement.



Listen to the "mother of all the faithful", Ayesha:

"The prophet married me when I was six years old, and he had intercourse with me when I was 9. When we had arrived in Medina, I had been weak for a month and had lost my hair, but it was already back to shoulder-length. My mother came up to me while I was playing with my little girl companions. She called out to me about something and I walked toward her, not knowing what she wanted. She took me by the hand and let me stand briefly at the door so that I could catch my breath, because I was totally panting. Then she took me inside, and there I met with a few women who congratulated me and wished me all good. I was left behind in their company: they washed my head and made me presentable. The prophet has never surprised me without my being made up, except once before the afternoon. Then they handed me over to him."



Pure [true/unadulterated] islam

This is also islam - the true/pure islam even. Don't Khadija and Ahmed approve of islam anymore? Was the prophet a paedophile?



They're allowed to think that, IMO. But the problem is that this prophet with his life - which together with the koran forms the basis of the sharia - enjoys the western concept of religious freedom.



And, indeed, islam has a political and judicial appearance/manifestation that is in essence incompatible with democracy and the culture of human rights.



Perfect **

It is not logical if we bear in mind that the Chamber *has* granted an unconditional visa to mohammed and his islam, but does not now want to extend a visa to an imam who perfectly states what mohammed has done and come up with.

Yes, but that is in conflict with the law!

And the violent stories and verses about the unbelievers, the Jews and people of other views - are they not in conflict with the law?

(** Don't know how to translate "keurig" in general. In the context it's used however, "perfectly/in perfect manner" suffices. Better to get a professional translator.)



Remonstrate/object

Ahmed Marcouch could object that he does not consider such rules and pronouncements applicable any more.



OK Ahmed, in that case, I have for you a long list of violent, discriminatory, inhuman rules and imperative pronouncements belonging to the prophet mohammed that need to be declared invalid. What then remains of the koran and mohammed?

Indeed, Donald Duck (is all that remains). In other words: a humanistic modern protestantised Arabian church. Ahmed, if you're consistent, you would by now <have joined up with> Geert Wilders.



Kindred spirit

The imam can come. He is merely member of a club that was once instituted by a kindred spirit of Robert M. (Link goes to an article titled "Police cracks (down on) child-porn network of Robert M.")



To the prophet mohammed, the whole world - including the Netherlands - was a big creche. If you don't like the imam, then take on the instigator of all this misery. And that is prophet mohammed.

It seems logical to me.



- Afshin Ellian

Afshin is targeting the leftist type liberals, essentially saying that "Since you think islam is okay, you should be okay with <insert uncomfortable islamic pronouncement that leftist liberals wouldn't be happy supporting>".

Hindus should argue in *this* manner to the seculars in India also. "Hey, don't you know it's *Mohammed* who said that? The islamic who offended you just now is a mere parrot. How *dare* you hurt muslim sentiment and censure islam by saying that Mohammed's own statement is against the law/against humanity/against democracy....? You fanatic/fundamentalist/nazi posing as a secular! You ... you pseudo-secular!"



About the writer, taken from the same link -

Afshin Ellian (1966) is professor of Social cohesion, citizen-ship and multiculturalism at the University of Leiden. Every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, you will find here a contribution of this stubborn poet and thinker who has been living in the Netherlands since 1989. Until 1 January 2008, Ellian took care of this blog as part of a duo with Leon de Winter. This last wanted some time again (and an empty head) to finish off his novel, so he - temporarily - dropped off (see here the old blogs of Ellian & De Winter). De Winter blogged since the starting days (November 2004) at this site, under the name "The Free West". It is now up to Ellian to defend the ideals and freedoms of western culture.

(If anyone thought Ellian and Elst sound a bit alike in tone, it's because the similarities are owing to a typically Dutch/Flemish way of thinking/writing/arguing/critiquing.)