Quote of the day

A relatively old quote, from 2002, but it was new to me:

”The people has by majority decided to implement Islamic law, and the rest of the world therefore has to accept it. I agree that stoning is a cruel punishment, but it doesn’t change the fact that according to Islam the practise has been ordained by our Creator. We are not in a position to change this. Things that are stated unambigiously in the Koran or by the Prophet Mohammed are not open to debate among Muslims. The moment we would accept to discuss these matters, we at the same time would have declared that we do not believe in Allah and his messenger and in doing so we would have put ourselves outside Islam.”

Abdul Wahid-Pedersen

Rose calls the cooperation between islamists and the radical left “a strange alliance”. In a way it is, because of the whole religion/atheism thing. But it’s not really that strange, the two groups have a lot in common, and I do not see the alliance breaking down anytime soon – as I have stated before.

One thing to keep in mind is this: The left is perhaps not as radical as it used to be. Very few people openly states that something like this was (/is) a good idea:

But even so, as a collective they act very much the same way now as they, or their parents, did back then. They ignore the “problems” with islam as they, or their parents, ignored the “problems” with communism. They choose the easy way out, by ignoring the problems and hoping that they will just go away by themselves.

They won’t. And they should not be allowed to pretend so. Silence is a crime, not in a legal sense, but certainly in a moral sense. Ignorance is dangerous, because it is infective and removes the focus from problems that need to be discussed. What the rest of us should remember to keep in mind is this: This is what the imam defends. No, he has not changed his mind.

Why have no one asked Asmaa Abdol-Hamid during this election campaign what she thinks about these things? I watched the Danish Broadcasting Company’s news not long ago. There was an interview with her, staged on a pedestrianized street in Odense. These problems were not addressed, she was not asked about sharia, even if most people know that she has been both ambiguous and vague when it comes to these questions. People, including the supposedly “critical” journalists, simply accept that she will not state openly what she thinks. This accept is poison to democracy. It is a disgrace.

Some would say that we needn’t waste our time on these things, there are more important things to discuss during an election campaign. We shouldn’t give these people and subjects more attention than they deserve. Perhaps so. But it is important to keep in mind that ignorance can be a very dangerous thing. To me, to have anti-democrats elected into our legislative body is no small matter not worthy of discussion.

As to Wahid-Pedersen: It is nobody’s “fault” that he thinks like he does. To ask why he believes the way he does is to miss the point entirely: The views he holds are a disgrace to the human race. No matter why he thinks the way he does, his views are despicable. There should be no doubt about this.