German man kills Muslim thug who was attacking him, the police let him go because he acted in self-defense, and Muslims swear vengeance
What is there left to say about the below? It’s all been said, and it’s made no difference: Muslims do not belong in the West, Muslims should not have been allowed into the West, and the Muslims who are now in the West should be encouraged or made to leave. Outside the “racist Islamophophic right,” none of these points are remotely grasped by anyone in the West (including the mainstream-conservative Islam critics), and nothing will be done about them. The die is cast. The future of Europe is rivers of blood.
Putting different German sources together … it seems that this is what happened:
In Neukölln, Berlin, a group of young Turks got into a fight amongst each other because they could not agree on who should retrieve a ball that had flown across a fence. Two Germans, Sven N. H. and Oliver H., passed by and tried to stop the fight. The Turks turned their anger on the two Germans, and Sven received a fist blow. The two Germans reacted by beating up the Turks. Some of the Turks called their cousins, who rushed to the place armed with knives. Even more Turks arrived, and Sven and Oliver had to flee to Oliver’s house. The Turks knew where Oliver lived, and armed with knives and daggers, they arrived at his house and started throwing things at the house and shouting threats at the two Germans. Oliver fled through the garden, but Sven chose to stay. An adult Turk yelled to Sven that the young Turks outside the door just wanted to talk. As Sven came out, the Turkish group started beating him up, and Sven tried to flee down the street. Sven fell, and the pack of Turks attacked their fallen enemy. Sven stabbed Yousef Al-Abed (18) with a kitchen knife, and Yusef died. Sven was admitted to the hospital with skull fractures. The state prosecutor said that Sven was acting in self-defence and that Yusef was among the most aggressive of the attacking Muslims.
3,000 Allahu-akhbaring Muslims attended the funeral of Yusef and thereby transformed Neukölln into something out of the Gaza Strip.
The first two minutes of the video shows thousands of well-fed, beefy young Muslim men walking quietly in the funeral procession. Starting at 1:55, where I’ve set the video to begin playing, the crowd gets more active and contentious and chants the Islamic war cry, “Allahu Akhbar.” Remember, this is not happening in the Middle East, it’s happening in Germany.
You see, if non-Muslims defend themselves from Muslim violence, Muslims see that as an act of war against the Islamic community. This is not because Muslims are bad people, it’s because they are good Muslims. As good Muslims they believe that for non-Muslims to exist, anywhere in the world, and to defend their existence, is to make war against Islam.
Here is a followup posted by Sennels this morning after the decision not to charge Sven N. was announced.
Meanwhile the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” And how do the conservatives at the Washington Times and American Thinker respond? They complain about the double standard. You know, “How would Muslims and the liberal media react if the Pope called for the destruction of all mosques in Europe?” Muslims are at war, eternal war, with us, while our conservatives and patriots eternally whine about the double standard.
- end of initial entry -
Daniel S. writes:
You wrote:
Meanwhile the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia has declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” And how do the conservatives at the Washington Times and American Thinker respond? They complain about the double standard. You know, “How would Muslims and the liberal media react if the Pope called for the destruction of all mosques in Europe?” Muslims are at war, eternal war, with us, while our conservatives and patriots eternally whine about the double standard.
An important observation, which is sadly missed by most self-styled conservatives. The thinking behind the Saudi mufti’s bold claim is something that certainly warrants an investigation as to his justification for seeking the destruction of all churches in the region of the Arabian peninsula. Fortunately Raymond Ibrahim saves us the time and work:
Accordingly, the Grand Mufti “stressed that Kuwait was a part of the Arabian Peninsula, and therefore it is necessary to destroy all churches in it.”
As with many grand muftis before him, the Sheikh based his proclamation on the famous tradition, or hadith, wherein the prophet of Islam declared on his deathbed that “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula,” which has always been interpreted to mean that only Islam can be practiced in the region.
In other words, for the mufti there is no double standard, he is simply restating what Muhammad said over a thousand years ago. So why the lack of clarity and understanding on the part of conservatives?
The Grand Mufti’s rationale for destroying churches is simply based on a hadith. But when non-Muslims evoke hadiths as authoritative—this one or the countless others that incite violence against and submission of the “infidel”—they are accused of being “Islamophobes,” of intentionally slandering and misrepresenting Islam, of being obstacles on the road to “dialogue,” and so forth.
Which leads to perhaps the most important point: Islam’s teachings are so easily ascertained; there is no mystery in determining what is “right” and “wrong” in Islam. The Grand Mufti based his fatwa on a canonical hadith, which Muslims and (informed) non-Muslims know is part of Islam’s sources of jurisprudence (or usul al-fiqh). All very standard and expected. And yet the West—with all its institutions of higher learning, including governmental agencies dealing with cultural and religious questions—is still thoroughly “confused” as to what Islam teaches.
Among the masses of the perpetually confused are the bulk of conservatives, who cannot or will not take Muslims at their word and continue to operate under the illusion that Islam at its core is moderate and a religion of peace.
LA replies:
Yes, you would think that the vast and unambiguous record of Islamic jihad, consisting of the authoritative jihadist teachings of Islam on one side and of jihadists practicing and citing those teachings over the centuries on the other, would make it obvious to anyone what Islam is. Why then do liberal Westerners not see it? They have many rationalizations, chief among them that the Bible is violent too, yet Jews and Christian became peaceful and tolerant liberals, so the same can happen with Islam. When it’s pointed out that this has not happened, that Islam is still a religion of war, the liberals reply that there is nothing to stop Muslims from becoming liberals. After all (as Jim Kalb has characterized this liberal argument), we are all aiming at the same human good, there really is no way to be other than to be a liberal, so we just have to work harder at assimilating Muslims into the modern liberal order. And besides, not to believe that Muslims are wannabe liberals at heart is to say that a major part of the human race are our irreconcilable enemies, which, if we believed, would make us the worst bigots in the world. So on one hand there is the belief in liberalism and in the idea that everyone’s destiny is to become a liberal; on the other hand there is the horror of not being a liberal. These two combine to make it easy for liberals not to see what Islam is.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 20, 2012 08:43 PM | Send