School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils Options

[mv]

Ex-muslims

by Hafid Bouazza

Some time ago I happened to see a talk-show in which a 'girl of halal' (of the ritual [untranslatable pun on the word gender] so to speak) scomfully stated that Ehsan Jami of the PvdA, who wants to form a comittee for ex-muslims, brings polarisation about. I zapped quickly away: the fragment gave me the spiritual equivalent of a swig of beer from a can that had been used as an ashtray.

That's how I know my muslims: after Pim Fortuyn's murder many spoke about the demonization of islam; now they have learned yet another new word: polarization.

Why the numerous islamic organisations would not be polarizing, but a comittee of ex-muslims would, is a mystery to me. If anything is polarizing, then it is the sectarian character of islam, with it's virulent, exclusive unitarianism of Allah.

Just as miraculous is, that a gifted director like Eddy Terstall, who nota bene co-wrote a pamphlet about the freedom of opinion, has himself been used by the PvdA to not only 'restrain' Jami, but, apparently, also to protect him against himself. Because he's still so young. Every right-minded artist should stand firm behind the freedom of expression -whether the expression charms him or not.

But who's being protected here, it's not Jami, but the muslims. These have, for already quite some time, been the noble savages for the PvdA, or rather: what animals are to Marianne Thieme, muslims are to the PvdA: a perfect screen to project meekness and infinite cultural understanding upon. A dangerous brand of sentimentality.

In the editorial of the Volkskrant (6/6/2007) also sidenotes were made about the fact that Jami takes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example. Rubbish and well-meant paternalistic gibberish. Why is it legitime to take an in mythical rags dressed prophet as an example yet not a real existing person of flesh and blood and brightness? Only because of anciënnity and massiveness?

Terstall called himself a Stasi; that was, in his own words, ironically intended. Yet it's the whole story: in politics there's no room for irony, since where irony grins, hypocricy flies. And hypocrisy and politics are best of friends of oneanother.

Holland has no knees left; it seems as if it has massively started to pray, direction Mekka - bottom towards the future.

It is that individuality has my highest priority, if not I'd join Jami's comittee. Via this medium I do want to give him and his my support though - and however small this support may be, it is unconditional.

http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/00000989.html

[maako]

Hmm. protestations/objectionsr/rejections ? there are similar held by EX-Christians/EX-Jews and "EX " whatevers .


The more I - (as an agnostic) - read , the less valid any of the mythical Abraham's derivatives sound or rather the MORE ridiculous they sound.

[mv]

The article was posted in this context:

Anyway, I will try to translate some more noteworthy articles from critical Dutch immigrant writers

Hafid Bouazza is an outstanding young Dutch writer of Moroccan descent.

[concheet]

I appreciate your contributing and translating for us mv. I liked this: "where irony grins, hypocricy flies..." Is that a Dutch proverb or original with the author?
It is great to read perspectives that we would otherwise not get due to the language barrier. Thanks for translating and posting it.

[mv]

It's original with the author.
And you're welcome.

[chase]

Hmm. protestations/objectionsr/rejections ? there are similar held by EX-Christians/EX-Jews and "EX " whatevers .
The more I - (as an agnostic) - read , the less valid any of the mythical Abraham's derivatives sound or rather the MORE ridiculous they sound.

Yeah, I've been noting the shift from atheist to agnostic yet you forget we know you're a self-professed Muslim backed up by BigTurk. Do you ever tell the truth?!

[chase]

Ex-muslims

by Hafid Bouazza

Some time ago I happened to see a talk-show in which a 'girl of halal' (of the ritual [untranslatable pun on the word gender] so to speak) scomfully stated that Ehsan Jami of the PvdA, who wants to form a comittee for ex-muslims, brings polarisation about. I zapped quickly away: the fragment gave me the spiritual equivalent of a swig of beer from a can that had been used as an ashtray.

That's how I know my muslims: after Pim Fortuyn's murder many spoke about the demonization of islam; now they have learned yet another new word: polarization.

Why the numerous islamic organisations would not be polarizing, but a comittee of ex-muslims would, is a mystery to me. If anything is polarizing, then it is the sectarian character of islam, with it's virulent, exclusive unitarianism of Allah.

Just as miraculous is, that a gifted director like Eddy Terstall, who nota bene co-wrote a pamphlet about the freedom of opinion, has himself been used by the PvdA to not only 'restrain' Jami, but, apparently, also to protect him against himself. Because he's still so young. Every right-minded artist should stand firm behind the freedom of expression -whether the expression charms him or not.

But who's being protected here, it's not Jami, but the muslims. These have, for already quite some time, been the noble savages for the PvdA, or rather: what animals are to Marianne Thieme, muslims are to the PvdA: a perfect screen to project meekness and infinite cultural understanding upon. A dangerous brand of sentimentality.

In the editorial of the Volkskrant (6/6/2007) also sidenotes were made about the fact that Jami takes Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example. Rubbish and well-meant paternalistic gibberish. Why is it legitime to take an in mythical rags dressed prophet as an example yet not a real existing person of flesh and blood and brightness? Only because of anciënnity and massiveness?

Terstall called himself a Stasi; that was, in his own words, ironically intended. Yet it's the whole story: in politics there's no room for irony, since where irony grins, hypocricy flies. And hypocrisy and politics are best of friends of oneanother.

Holland has no knees left; it seems as if it has massively started to pray, direction Mekka - bottom towards the future.

It is that individuality has my highest priority, if not I'd join Jami's comittee. Via this medium I do want to give him and his my support though - and however small this support may be, it is unconditional.

http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/00000989.html

Remembering Pim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nC-JEM_3dM

[mv]

Remembering Pim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nC-JEM_3dM

Good that he's being translated. Now the international press can be ashamed as well.
Btw, what you think of his remarks about US foreign policy, Chase?

[chase]

Good that he's being translated. Now the international press can be ashamed as well.
Btw, what you think of his remarks about US foreign policy, Chase?

Which foreign policy are you talking about? Pim spoke about one and it's not even pertinent now. Is it the biggie - our support of Israel? If not, which one? Now ask me what I think of European Foreign Policy - I can sum it up in three words.

What did you think of the credit Pim gave to Judeo-Christian morals, values and the enlightenment? The factoids omitted from that holy of holies the EU Constitution.

I'm a little surprised you supported Pim considering your recent condemnation of Wilders?

[mv]

Djeez Chase, it was a simple question, without any intentions (other than my curiosity), about the remarks he made in this little movie: that he was against US presence in Saoudi Arabia in particular or in the Middleeast in general.

Btw, I didn't so much support Fortuyn as in vote for him (or rather: would have voted for him), I supported his criticism of what he called 'The Leftwing Church'. I voted against the ones who demonized him, by portraying him as a fascistoid, racist, xenophobic populist. The MSM press did that too, nationally and later on internationally, to which I was referring.
Fortuyn was the first victim of the multicultural doctrine.

[Al-Muhmin]

Lebanese Christians; politely decline to be designated as "Arabs," and remind those who call them by that name that they are descendants of the Phoenicians who were in Lebanon long before the Muslim conquerors arrived from Arabia.

Now in Egypt there is a movement stemming from similar principles. "Scores of Egyptian intellectuals and vocational members formed a party called 'Egypt the motherland' ( Mesr al-Um) for dismantling Egypt from its Arab identity.

"Lawyer Mohsin Lutfi said that he will apply to the Parties affairs at the Shoura council after Eid al-Fiter for licensing the party. He explained 'we are a party which says: we are Egyptians and not Arabs.. The Arabs are our friends and neighbors and we have common destiny.. but we are not Arabs.'" . . .

"Lutfi calls for reviving the Heoglyphic and Coptic languages and has been teaching scores of students the Heroglyphic language in his house since 10 years. He studied Heroglyphic language at the French Surrbornne university after he had graduated in 1948 from the law faculty, Fouad 1st university ( the current Cairo university). He also studied at London's university for more than 3 years."

This is a strong rejection of the general Islamic contempt for the pre-Islamic history of Muslim nations. And many in Egypt are well aware of this: "The Egyptian writer Jamal Badawi strongly criticized the idea of the new party in the Egyptian daily al-Wafd issued on Tuesday, saying 'those of the Pharos trend do not care what form of government there is, rather what is of concern to them is to cancel the Arab era from Egypt's history.' He added they 'are not brave to show off their hostility to Islam, and therefore they concentrate their arrows on Arabization, and put the Arabs in one bunch along with the foreign forces which occupied Egypt.'"
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/...2003110624.html

Interesting...slowly but surely people are beginning to shrug off this Pan-Arabization yoke saddled on them by conquering Arabia and preferring their former Phoenician and Pharo roots. Not unlike the Iranians who prefer to be called Persians.

Sorta reminds one how the indigenous natives (not the pretend native Americans you see online) of this continent Navaho, Chippawa, others were all renamed to Indians and the Inuit were renamed Eskimos. Later on, they are just called Americans.....even though they were here long before white trash brought Amerigo Vespucci and the subsequent hoards here.


Ring a bell?

[chase]

Sorta reminds one how the indigenous natives (not the pretend native Americans you see online) of this continent Navaho, Chippawa, others were all renamed to Indians and the Inuit were renamed Eskimos. Later on, they are just called Americans.....even though they were here long before white trash brought Amerigo Vespucci and the subsequent hoards here.
Ring a bell?

ROTFLMAO Yeah, in Alaska (and Canada) they're beheaded if they don't adhere to the proletariat decrees in not only names but how they use the bathroom

Ring a bell?

I am exactly who I say I am - just like you are who you say you are. If I'm not who I say I am you're not who you say you are - geddit? I've asked you repeatedly to start a thread on Native Americans as well as Slavery as you sabotage most threads on both these topics. You have yet to do so - wonder why? HA!

PS: You can even use the fake Native American - Ward Churchill - as a source. How much easier can I make it for you?

Now STOP sabotaging threads!

[chase]

Djeez Chase, it was a simple question, without any intentions (other than my curiosity), about the remarks he made in this little movie: that he was against US presence in Saoudi Arabia in particular or in the Middleeast in general.

Btw, I didn't so much support Fortuyn as in vote for him (or rather: would have voted for him), I supported his criticism of what he called 'The Leftwing Church'. I voted against the ones who demonized him, by portraying him as a fascistoid, racist, xenophobic populist. The MSM press did that too, nationally and later on internationally, to which I was referring.
Fortuyn was the first victim of the multicultural doctrine.

Oh, okay then... Put it down to habit. Good for you in supporting Pim - as for the MSM - they're a bunch of brain-washed idiots who don't geddit or think that appeasement will gain them an easy ride. Fools! Remember al-Jazeera and CNN in Bagdad with Saddam? Or Alan Johnson in Palestine? I know of excellent reporters who are banned from Palestine - one of them Michael Totten. Why? Because they'll report exactly what they see and not what they're ordered to report. So what was with your supporting Pim and not Wilders? I know we had a conversation about it and couldn't figure out your stance as to why one and not the other.

[mv]

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. I was first! lol

[chase]

I'll answer your question after you answer mine. I was first! lol

This is what you wrote:

QUOTE(mv @ 06/08/07 11:44 AM) *
Good that he's being translated. Now the international press can be ashamed as well.
Btw, what you think of his remarks about US foreign policy, Chase?

Djeez Chase, it was a simple question, without any intentions (other than my curiosity), about the remarks he made in this little movie: that he was against US presence in Saoudi Arabia in particular or in the Middleeast in general.

My response:

Which foreign policy are you talking about? Pim spoke about one and it's not even pertinent now. Is it the biggie - our support of Israel? If not, which one? Now ask me what I think of European Foreign Policy - I can sum it up in three words. [...]

Dunno which policy you're talking about - the one he spoke about is no longer relevant.

BTW, I was wayyyy first - see the other thread.

PS: I also lost the thread where you were asking me about evolution.

[Michael]

Fortuyn was the first victim of the multicultural doctrine.

Wasn't that Van Gogh? Thinking of that Pim was killed by a Dutch animal rights-activist-vegetarian?

[mv]

BTW, I was wayyyy first - see the other thread.

PS: I also lost the thread where you were asking me about evolution.

I had answered your question already over here.
I could add to that f.e. one issue that clearly distinguishes Wilders from Fortuyn: Wilders wants to repatriate criminal Dutch born 2nd generation immigrants to the country they descent from. That would effectively mean deportation and would violate every basic of a constitunional state.
Fortuyn did explicitely state the opposite, as good as verbatim: "they're our youths, hence our problem".

(Btw, the creation/evolution Q is here.)

Wasn't that Van Gogh? Thinking of that Pim was killed by a Dutch animal rights-activist-vegetarian?

No, Fortuyn was being demonized (which means as good as outlawed) by the multiculturalists and eventually assasinated by a far-left 'activist', read terrorist. The multicultural doctrine would do that to any dissenting voice. Even for simply stating a fact, f.i. (and this is historical) that 60 percent of prisons were peopled by non-native Dutch, you would be called a racist, just like Galileo wasn't allowed to state that the earth orbits the sun because it didn't fit in the ruling doctrine.
As for Theo van Gogh, he wasn't precisely a victim of this doctrine, but rather of it's fruits. Van Gogh was a direct victim of islamist terrorism, which of course could flourish in such circumstances.

[Michael]

No, Fortuyn was being demonized (which means as good as outlawed) by the multiculturalists and eventually assasinated by a far-left 'activist', read terrorist. The multicultural doctrine would do that to any dissenting voice. Even for simply stating a fact, f.i. (and this is historical) that 60 percent of prisons were peopled by non-native Dutch, you would be called a racist, just like Galileo wasn't allowed to state that the earth orbits the sun because it didn't fit in the ruling doctrine.
As for Theo van Gogh, he wasn't precisely a victim of this doctrine, but rather of it's fruits. Van Gogh was a direct victim of islamist terrorism, which of course could flourish in such circumstances.

I see your point and agree. Fortuyn was after all a person that I had barely heard of before his assassination and I agree that he was heavily blackmailed as a fascist and far-rightist by the media, even if it's clear to me now that he deeply despised those ideologies and was rather a man who wanted to protect Holland's liberal and open-minded values from ultra-conservative Islamists.

[Michael]

Now ask me what I think of European Foreign Policy - I can sum it up in three words.

The EU foreign policy is a mess, but we should remember that this is much because of the "fact" (which has led to the saying that I heard quite frequently when Chirac still was in power: France decides and Germany pays) that EU foreign policy was very heavily influenced by France, which in turn was led by Chirac who saw the US more like a competitor rather than as a friend.
But as I said earlier: I hope that this will come to an end when Sarkozy has taken the lead, but he has to rebuild France's economy and social system at first which was neglected by his predecessor. Brown in Britain is apparently a great friend of the US and said in the last Time Magazine this about the US: "I believe the shared interest that is founded on shared values is a very potent foundation for all relationships in the future". So the future looks bright and I hope for the best.

What did you think of the credit Pim gave to Judeo-Christian morals, values and the enlightenment? The factoids omitted from that holy of holies the EU Constitution.

Remember that neither the US Constitution says anything about Judeo-Christian values as that's a concept which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (yes, I checked in on Wikipedia) if you want to know ), is over one hundred years older than the US constitution and still the Christian religious life works very well in the US. I'm strongly in favor of the traditional liberal ideas of the enlightenment philosophers which to me led to the modernization of Christianity which made it, to me, the world's best religion.
Secularism isn't bad to me - I can go to church whenever I want and most of my friends are religious and my personal ideas are always respected - so I don't worry if the Judeo-Christian concept is in the Constitution or not, what is important to me is that the Churches in Europe would become more active, like in the United States, and participate more openly in the community work than they are now, that way will Christianity be a strong force in Europe in the future too.