Jörg Lau

Der iranische Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi, der im Jahr 2000 in Iran verhaftet und verurteilt wurde, weil er die Selbstmordattentate der Palästinenser abgelehnt hatte, schreibt in der refomorientierten Publikation Rooz:

„We need someone like Friedrich Nietzsche to hit us hard so we are awakened to the dangers brewing ‎within the Islamic world. And just as his declaration of ‘God is dead’ opened the aperture ‎to the dark world out there, today, the irreconcilable nature of the modern world with the ‎identity of Muslims has opened up the gates of horror to us.

Ahmad Zeidabadi‎

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in a country whose modern identity is built on ‎religion, is only a small example of the violence that appears to drown us, if permitted to ‎unleash. Some Muslims who have tasted this danger at close range know of its scope and ‎horrors. But unfortunately, there is no serious discourse among them and no practical ‎road map to deal with it. …

I am occasionally questioned for using the term ‘us’ whenever I use the term Muslim and ‎their violence. ‘It is they who perpetrate the violence and ‘we’ are not part of ‘them’’, ‎they protest. The reality is that when I read the writings of some of these secular thinkers ‎in the Islamic world I am astounded and perhaps even envious of how naïve they are in ‎the lines they draw between themselves and the Islamicists. They believe that by ‎changing their own views they acquire an identity that is independent from their native ‎culture and have a destiny that is different as well.‎

I think they have only eliminated the façade of the problem. Certainly this is one way to ‎simply shake off some of the baggage and tensions that they carry. I believe that anybody ‎born in a place that has the stamp of Islam on it is at least partly subject to the historic ‎and identity destiny of that culture, regardless of whether he accepts it or not.‎

Salman Rushdie may be among Muslims who denied having the same destiny and put ‎that in words that are said to be insulting to the prophet of the Muslims, but his destiny ‎has not turned out much different because Ayatollah Khomeini’s death fatwa has been ‎following him ever since, depriving him of his desired and normal life.‎

So there is a group that I label ‘we’ or ‘us’ which is undergoing a historic crises ‎vacillating in choice between the modern and the traditional worlds, roots, and identity – ‎or somewhere in between. This crisis boils in some violent and bloody spheres, and ‎ironically has even appeared in the centers of Western civilization.‎

…‎

So, a problem that is rooted in our world and had to be resolved by us, is now imposed on ‎others who will resolve it to their own benefit – if of course they succeed in resolving it. ‎In other words, we have been driven to the periphery in our own country of origin, while ‎this periphery is dangerous and unsafe.“

Ganzer Text hier.

Vielleicht könnte die Diskussionskultur in unserer Islamdebatte davon profitieren, wenn alle Beteiligten dieses T-Shirt tragen würden?

Hier zu kaufen.

Dank an The Onion:

Al Qaeda Also Fed Up With Ground Zero Construction Delays

Ian McEwan    Foto: Eamon McCabe

Der große britische Autor Ian McEwan (ich mochte „Saturday“ sehr!) über die „Unausrottbarkeit der Religion“ aus der Sicht eines nichtmilitanten Nichtgläubigen. Atheist will er sich nicht nennen, um sich nicht von etwas bestimmen zu lassen, an das er nicht glaubt:

„Do you see religion as ineradicable, or do you think there is a chance to change people’s minds on religion?

I think it is ineradicable, and I think it is a terrible idea to suppress it, too. We have tried that and it joins the list of political oppression. It seems to be fairly deeply stitched into human nature. It seems to be part of all cultures, so I don’t expect it to vanish. And yet at the same time, if it is built into human nature, why are there so many people who don’t believe in it? I think it is important that people with no religious beliefs speak up and speak for what they value. It is a bit of a problem, the title „Atheist“–no one really wants to be defined by what they do not believe in. We haven’t yet settled on a name, but you wouldn’t expect a Baptist minister to go around calling himself a Darwinist. But it is crucial that people who do not have a sky god and don’t have a set of supernatural beliefs assert their belief in moral values and in love and in the transcendence that they might experience in landscape or art or music or sculpture or whatever. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, it makes them give more valence to life itself. The little spark that we do have becomes all the more valuable when you can’t be trading off any moments for eternity.“

Ganzes Interview hier.

Den persischen Antisemitismus haben nicht die Mullahs erfunden, wie dieses Interview mit dem Schah von 1974 zeigt. Sie haben ihn nur religiös aufgeladen. Interessant auch seine Äusserungen zur Folter, die wiederum sehr an die amerikanischen Debatten der letzten Jahre über moderne Methoden der Informationsgewinnung erinnern.

Die New York Times berichtet, in den 10 ersten Tagen des Jahres seien im Iran bereits 23 öffentliche Hinrichtungen erfolgt.
Hingerichtet wurde auch trotz Protesten die 27 jährige Raheleh Zamami, Mutter zweier Kinder, die ihren Mann ermordet hatte. Sie war mit 15 verheiratet worden und nach Angaben ihrer Anwälte von ihrem Mann mißhandelt worden.
In Balutschistan, nahe der pakistanischen Grenze, wurden mehrere Amputationen vollstreckt, und zwar von der besonders grausamen Sorte – rechte Hand und linker Fuß gleichzeitig, so daß die Überlebenden nie wieder laufen können, nicht einmal an Krücken.

„Amputation has been a punishment in Iran since the Islamic revolution of 1979 installed Islamic law, but Iran’s judicial authorities have rarely publicized examples of its use and have rarely ordered double amputations. In the newly publicized instances, the courts ordered the right hand and left foot cut off, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the condemned to walk, even with a cane or crutches.

A statement by the Judicial Branch in Sistan-Baluchistan Province, where the convicted robbers were punished, said it hoped the double amputations would “teach a lesson to other criminals,” the news agency ISNA reported.

It was not clear when this week the amputations were carried out. Reports said doctors watched to limit bleeding and infection during the procedure.

“It doesn’t matter how often these sentences are issued; even once is not acceptable, and our laws should change,” Ms. Ebadi said. “We have constantly protested the existence of such punishments in our penal code. But the government ignores our protest.”

Esra aus Bahrain schreibt auf Mideastyouth über einen neuen Kiosk (Coldstore) in seiner Nachbarschaft, der den Namen des Hisbollahführers Hassan Nasrallah trägt (wahrscheinlich, weil der Besitzer den Mann verehrt):

„Nasralla coldstore, folks! Free home delivery! Grenades! Israel! Lebanon! Fat people in capes!

They have the cheapest galaxy bars, but everything in there conjures up images of dead people being blown up for no apparent reason. Don’t turn this post into a political debate of Israel vs. Lebanon vs. your mom or whomever. I’m posting this here because I don’t understand why he’s being treated like a prophet – people still have his pictures hanging out of their windows and cars. You can’t make a joke about him without people biting your head off, as if you insulted the Prophet Mohammed or something to that effect. Now I have to suffer a coldstore bearing his name next to my house. Urgh.“

Da tun sich gewaltige Geschäftsmöglichkeiten auf. Ein Hisbollah-Parfüm hat es auch schon gegeben.

Dem Observer hat Gordon Brown am letzten Sonntag ein Interview über seine jüngsten Pläne für das kommende Jahr gegeben. Darin findet sich ein bemerkenswerte Passage über die Notwendigkeit, „die Herzen und Köpfe“ der Muslime zu gewinnen. Brown hat offenbar das großartige Bekenntnisbuch des Hizb-ut-Tahrir-Aussteigers Ed Husain gelesen.

Zitat:

Brown, who says he is determined that the battle against terrorism should involve a campaign to win the ‚hearts and minds‘ of Muslims, even indicates that he can understand why young people are attracted to Islamism.

Asked about Ed Husain, the young Muslim who wrote a book about how he supported and then abandoned the hardline Hizb ut Tahrir organisation, Brown says: ‚When you read Ed Husain there was a ferment of activity around colleges and around certain mosques and institutions. And it’s hardly surprising that lots of young people are drawn into that, not just because of the excitement, because of the pressures that are upon them.‘

The Prime Minister adds that more needs to be done to persuade Islamists that their image of Britain is distorted: ‚We ought to be … part of that debate. And the more we can have these roadshows that are encouraging the debate and discussion, the better.‘

Roger Stern gibt heute in der Herald Tribune zu bedenken, dass das Teheraner Regime durch den Ölpreis gestärkt wird – der wiederum von Kriegsrhetorik in die Höhe getrieben wird.

Wer die Mullahs schwächen will, sollte also alles tun, um den Ölpreis zu drücken und ihre Eskalationsstrategie durch Verhandlungsangebote unterlaufen.

Zitat:

„Tehran seems unimpressed by administration war talk, perhaps because it has confidence in its navy. Lots of other people are scared, though. Take oil traders. Oil prices used to have a tight relationship with Saudi spare capacity. When capacity went up, prices went down. After two years of escalating threats between Tehran and Washington, however, new capacity no longer calms the market.

Under the old market rules, prices would be $50, not $100. So war talk sends an extra $20 billion a year to Tehran. The Bush administration’s bellicose rhetoric thus makes a mockery of the president’s pledge to „do everything in our power to defeat the terrorists.“

If it wanted to honor this commitment, the administration would stop saying things that drive up oil prices. As it is, the long parade of threats just makes the mullahs richer.

Yet they spend their $90 a barrel windfall faster than ever, trying to buy legitimacy with pork. Deeply unpopular, the Iranian regime now relies on constantly rising oil prices for survival.

Its spending has quadrupled in the last six years, a remarkable rise that’s evolved in lockstep with oil prices. Here, at last, is our adversary’s weakness: An oil price decline would be a mortal threat.

If Bush wants to hit the regime where it hurts, conciliation should become his byword. In the price collapse that would follow, he’d find a brand new Iranian appetite for negotiation.

This is because, unlike sanctions that might take years bite, a peace initiative would threaten the mullahs tomorrow. Talking peace, which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will certainly scorn, would also help reformers in the approaching Iranian elections.“