The “Anti-Islamification” conference organised by a far right group in Cologne (Köln), Germany appears to have come a cropper. Tony Paterson in Berlin reckons “No British participants were scheduled”, which may be the case, but it appears certain that members of the BNP have gone anyway: Richard Barnbrook, a member of the Greater London Assembly, is one. “The Islamo-Marxists have been up to their usual tricks here in Cologne. Just like they did at the recent BNP RWB festival back home in Derbyshire” moans Richard on his blog. One rather obvious difference is the fact that tens of thousands, not many hundreds, are anti-Pro-Cologne, and Weyman Bennett isn’t the one giving orders. Thus a planned rally in the city centre has been cancelled by police in order to avoid further clashes with counter-protesters, while the poor old rightists are being harassed at every opportunity:
…Police said 40,000 people protested against the rally. It had been expected to attract 1,500 people but only dozens made it.
Most of the protesters were peaceful, although roads and rail lines leading to the centre of Cologne were blocked by demonstrators in sit-down strikes.
But a Friday evening gathering of Pro-Cologne participants on a Rhine River pleasure boat turned violent when stones hurled by leftist protesters from the shore broke windows. There were further clashes between small numbers on both sides on Saturday.
Left-wing demonstrators blocked a rail line which a group of 150 right-wing activists were using to travel into the city centre from the airport, police said…
…and ‘No Beer for Nazis’!
Meanwhile, around 150 bars in Cologne stopped selling Pro-Koeln members the local Kolsch beer with some taxi and bus drivers also refusing to transport delegates to the congress.
One hotel even cancelled bookings made by “undesirables.”
You forgot this in your report:
“I am the “eyewitness” you quoted in the story. I would like you to know that two Jews were beaten up. I am leaving Cologne with a broken rib. I was readily identifiable as Jewish from my Kippa. As they were attacking me, they were yelling “Nazi”. How odd is that? Two Jews beaten on the streets of Germany, by Germans who were calling us Nazis. All of this in [response] to us out there in the streets trying to protect their cultural heritage and right to exist.”
Nice friends you have there…
[(Seemingly) Original source:
Aviel Says: September 21st, 2008 at 7:47 am:
I am the “eyewitness” you quoted in the story. I would like you to know that two Jews were beaten up. I am leaving Cologne with a broken rib. I was readily identifiable as Jewish from my Kippa. As they were attacking me, they were yelling “Nazi”. How odd is that? Two [J]ews beaten on the streets of Germany, by Germans who were calling us Nazis. All of this in [response] to us out there in the streets trying to protect their cultural heritage and right to exist.
Also:
One, 9/20/2008 1:12 PM:
I am sitting in my hotel now after a long day in Cologne[.] I was attacked on [Einbahnstrasse] by Antifa thugs as I tried to make my way to Heumarkt where we were slated to meet for our conference. My friend Michael Kucherov was beaten up yesterday. I am utterly shocked by the behavior of the police who seem to be acting as a surrogate of Antifa. I am not writing a very coherent post because I am exhausted, in pain and just bewildered by how far gone Europe is at this point.
Two, 9/20/2008 3:19 PM:
I would like to say that I was beaten on Einbahnstrasse for trying to get to Heumarkt. The police would [love] to report that “only dozens made it” when in fact, they sat and watched as I was dragged about and beaten for trying to get to the conference. They sat and allowed the Antifa to attack another man, well into his sixties, who also tried to cross through their (Antifa) illegal street blockades. The police aided the violence, they did not stop it.
Three, 9/20/2008 3:44 PM:
…I have video and photo documentation for (GoV) if you are interested in posting it. I would also like to send a timeline and article over covering the events on Friday and those which are continuing as we speak. I have rested up and we are headed back out into the night to get some more footage of the madness. As I said, it is really a dark night for Germany and for Cologne.
Four, 9/20/2008 3:58 PM:
By the way, I forgot to add that the Police have removed the air cover which had been present for most of the day and a large number of the police have pulled back to the right side of the Rhine. This in spite of more and more Antifa pouring over the bridge towards [the] left side. In fact, the only arrests of leftists I have witnessed is when the Police themselves were personally [attacked].
Five:
Baron,
I will send you a full report by this evening. I got in late last night, and what I thought were sore ribs turn out to be a broken one. I will fly back to Paris this afternoon and then go to have some X-rays taken. Then I will send you a very detailed report in chronological order about the activities over the weekend here in Cologne. It may be too late for you to use but I assure you that it should be kept for future references. Things are getting very very bad now. Please forgive me for I am just not in the best of shape at the moment.
Aviel]
My friends? If you have any information regarding the identity of the person or persons responsible for assaulting “Aviel”, I suggest you kontakt ze German — or possibly Parisian — police Darrin.
Far Right extremists flee anti-mosque rally in Germany
David Charter in Cologne
The Times
September 22, 2008
A weekend gathering in Cologne of far-right European extremists ended in farce when the main rally was cancelled as the organisers fled for their own safety.
Pro-Cologne, a group counting some of Europe’s most prominent hardliners in its ranks, had intended to campaign against the construction of Germany’s largest mosque, due to be completed in 2010 in the Ehrenfeld district of the city.
The building has attracted controversy because of its size, aiming to cater for up to 4,000 worshippers under a dome 37m (121ft) high and two 55m minarets – although they are shorter than the twin 157m spires of the cathedral that dominates the skyline of Cologne.
Politicians invited to the protest included Filip Dewinter, head of the Belgian Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party, Andreas Mölzer, an MEP from the Austrian Freedom Party, and Mario Borghezio, an MEP in the Italian Northern League. Two members of the British National Party were also in town, including Richard Barnbrook, its sole member of the London Assembly.
A press conference to launch the pan-European movement against “Islamification” descended into chaos when its secret location – on board a Rhine river cruiser – was leaked. Left-wing activists arrived en masse to disrupt the event and were so successful that only two Pro-Cologners made it on board before the captain cast off in panic and headed for open water.
A Pro-Cologne spokesman said: “Stones, bricks and paintbombs were thrown and the panoramic windows of the Moby Dick were shattered.”
The group had then planned to tour the site of the mosque but this was stopped by the police on the ground that a busload of right-wing extremists cruising through a predominantly Muslim area might not be conducive to law and order.
So the only chance that Pro-Cologne had to make an impact was at its main rally on Saturday afternoon in the Heumarkt square. The organisers hoped for about 1,500 people. They had not reckoned on 40,000 screaming anti-fascists trying to break into the square to remonstrate with them.
With leading delegates stuck at the airport and the Heumarkt besieged, the rally was called off after only 45 minutes. The organisers began dismantling their microphones and stage, hoping that the security cordon would hold as police battled against the more violent protesters who were throwing paintbombs and snatching batons.
Although some of them were spirited away, many were penned in for several hours, unable even to get a beer as the bar owners in the square refused to serve them. Finally the BNP representatives got out, scuttling out the back of some of the buildings lining the Heumarkt, their attempts to present a united European front against Islamification in tatters.
“This was a victory for the democratic forces in this city,” Fritz Schramma, the Christian Democrat mayor, said. The city has a 120,000-strong Muslim community, part of the three million Muslims who make up about 4per cent of the German population.
Another attack – in the name of whose Islam?
Irfan Yusuf
The [Islamist] Age
September 22, 2008
ANOTHER deadly terrorist attack in a Pakistani city. This time a truck laden with a tonne of explosives crashed into the entrance of Islamabad’s Marriott Hotel on Saturday night, killing at least 60 and injuring hundreds. The timing of the attack – during the last 10 nights of Ramadan – could not have been more sacrilegious. Even pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the month of Ramadan as sacred, a time when tribal wars would cease. Yet for Islamist terrorists, no time is too sacred to pursue their ends through bloodshed…
“The timing of the attack – during the last 10 nights of Ramadan – could not have been more sacrilegious. Even pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the month of Ramadan as sacred…”
Apparently Mohammad didn’t hold to the same ideal:
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not”. [Quran 2.216]
They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: “Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.” Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter… [Quran 2:217].
That is why there is extreme violence during the supposed holy month.
“My friends? If you have any information regarding the identity of the person or persons responsible for assaulting “Aviel”, I suggest you kontakt ze German — or possibly Parisian — police Darrin.”
Gee @ndy, I’m only playing the same game of “associations” that you play.
1)
The English translation you’ve provided of those two verses appear to be derived from a translation by some bloke called Abdulluh Yusuf ‘Ali, dated April 1934, and published as The Holy Qu’ran in the ‘Wordsworth Classics of World Literature’ series.
Another translation, derived from the Online Quran Project:
That last bit about “Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” appears to be from elsewhere… the phrase appears twice in ‘Ali’s translation, but not that of A. J. Arberry’s. In either case, it doesn’t appear to occur in the chapter titled ‘The Cow’.
Anyways: the first verse appears to be pretty straightforward in its meaning. That is, ‘you, the believer, may not like fighting, but sometimes it’s necessary. And the distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is really only known to God, not Man’. As far as I can tell, that’s pretty standard for any form of theism, and hardly unique to Islam. What it’s got to do with Irfan Yusuf’s argument… I dunno.
Regarding the second quote, it appears to re-confirm the proposition that, at least as far as Mohammad is concerned, fighting is bad, mmmkay? But, as suggested in the prior quotation, there are exceptions to this. Which, in this case, appears to revolve around preventing Muslims from worshipping, and in fact expelling them from their place(s) of worship. Whether the reference to the Holy Mosque is intended to refer to a particular mosque or mosques in general, is hard to say. Or at least, I can’t tell. Anyway, to turn from Islam is really bad, and those who do so will go to Hell (‘Fire’); again, hardly unique to Islam.
Neither quote has anything to do with Irfan Yusuf’s argument, which still stands, and which he concludes by stating (quite reasonably in this atheist’s opinion):
“Neither quote has anything to do with Irfan Yusuf’s argument, which still stands, and which he concludes by stating (quite reasonably in this atheist’s opinion):”
This is because you do not understand Islam and the relationship between the sources, being the Qur’an, the ahadith and the sirat. It’s always interesting to see somebody who disdains authoritarianism defend the same.
Muhammad had broken the Arab tradition of not fighting during the “holy month” and came under criticism from fellow Muslims and (pagan) Arabs after some of his men attacked a trade caravan on the last day of Rajab, as noted in the Sirat (p.286) and Tabari VII (p.17).
Muhammad knew his reputation and credibility was suffering in the eyes of his followers and the pagans and was uneasy until Allah sent him verse 2:217, with that the prophet was relieved of his anxiety (about the attack) and gave orders to distribute the booty and ransom the prisoners. There are also many other occasions where Muhammad broke the “holy month” taboo, and being that Muhammad is considered al-Insān al-Kāmil, Muslims who commit acts of terror during Ramadan are really only following their prophet’s example.
“Gee @ndy, I’m only playing the same game of “associations” that you play.”
Uh-huh. If so, you really need more practice.
No, that’s because neither quote has anything to do with Yusuf’s argument, which you fail to address. Your interests don’t interest me, and your assertions prove nothing.
lol, poor @ndy. Yusuf argued “The timing of the attack – during the last 10 nights of Ramadan – could not have been more sacrilegious. Even pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the month of Ramadan as sacred,”
In other words, Yusuf is arguing that attacks during Ramadan go against the teachings of Islam and Muhammad, when in actual fact, attacks during that period are in accordance to the actions of Muhammad.
Here is another example:
“A raiding party led by Zayd set out against Umm in the month of Ramadan. During it, Umm suffered a cruel death. Zyad tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman.”
Tabari VIII, 96
Yusuf’s core argument concerns the nature of contemporary Islam, and the extent to which those who planned and undertook the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad last weekend may be considered as acting in accord with Islamic teachings, and which reflect Islam as understood by the bulk of the Muslim world. Contra this, Yusuf argues that the interpretation of Islam which “Islamist terrorists” employ is one shorn of any real understanding of the religion. Among other things, he also claims:
“most victims of Islamist terror are themselves ordinary Muslims.”
“…as the recent terrorism trials in Melbourne illustrated so well, it was Muslim community members whose evidence proved crucial to the prosecution’s case. Further, the experience in Australia, Canada and across the Western world has shown that extremists wishing to recruit disaffected youngsters are often most easily recognised by others from the same congregations.”
“If a recently leaked UK intelligence report is any indication, it seems Muslim extremists drawn to terrorism have as little knowledge of Islam as their non-Muslim – and too frequently anti-Muslim – cultural warrior equivalents.”
In other words (as I understand his argument):
there are competing interpretations of Islam;
the religious justifications which are typically employed by “Islamist terrorists” (including those who bombed the Marriott) are ‘fundamentally’ in error;
they do not reflect the consensus among Australian Muslims who, with very few exceptions, renounce terrorism.
Thus:
“The report – produced by MI5’s behavioural science unit – contradicts many widely held assumptions and confirms less prejudicial assessments on why some young people are attracted to fringe theologies and extremist violence. It looked at several hundred people “involved in or closely associated with violent, extremist activity”. Most had a secular upbringing, lacked “religious literacy” and openly engaged in irreligious behaviour including drinking and taking drugs.
The report states: “We cannot make assumptions about involvement in terrorism based on the colour of someone’s skin, their ethnic heritage or their nationality.” Terror recruits are almost never foreigners or illegal immigrants, rendering much ethnic and ethno-religious profiling ineffective.”
Of course:
“That is not to say that we should ignore religious factors. So much of today’s terror happens in the name of Islam. But we must always ask the question, whose Islam? Is it the Islam of the first London bombing victim to be buried, the 20-year-old bank clerk Shahara Islam, who bore the name of the religion in whose misguided service the terrorists killed her and 50 other innocents? Is it the Islam of many of those killed in the weekend’s Islamabad bombing who had gathered at the Marriott Hotel to break their Ramadan fast?
Modern political Islam’s ideologues occupy the theological fringe…”
You, on the other hand, argue the opposite.
That’s the difference.
PS.
As it turns out, my article contained an error. Ramadan was not one of the months during which pre-Islamic Arabs put their swords down. The mistake was pointed out to me by a respected scholar of Islamic history from Christchurch in NZ who speaks fluent classical and modern Arabic and who happens to be an ordained Presbyterian minister.
The point, however, remains. This act was extreme sacrilege, whether done inside or outside Ramadan and whether it killed Muslims and/or non-Muslims. I’m not aware of any legal system which doesn’t treat the deliberate killing of an envoy or ambassador as less than an extremely criminal act.
Indeed, I’d be prepared to put money on the fact that if there were an election tomorrow in Pakistan, the Taliban would gain even less votes than Darrin Hodges did in the last Council elections.
Bloody Presbyterians!