News

May 2020
17

But politics has little room for maneuver through laws and is therefore content with symbolic politics.

by agenttest in blog category

But politics has little room for maneuver through laws and is therefore content with symbolic politics.

But politics has little room for maneuver through laws and is therefore content with symbolic politics. But we have to go to the roots and fight fundamentalism. It’s an enormous task. At the end of my book I drew up a kind of Marshall Plan, where I show measures. It can be done, but it requires political and social strength and a lot of money.

Do you see the will to do so? Unfortunately, no. The crisis always has to come first and suddenly the billions start flowing. We are already in the middle of this crisis, we all feel and see it. But it has to get worse before politicians understand the integration misery and then unfortunately have to invest ten times as much.

You have been under police protection for years because of your openly expressed criticism of Islam. What does that mean specifically for you? Unfortunately, it has been a permanent condition for five years. I’m under one of the highest security levels, only drive in columns with armored vehicles, an armed officer always flies with me on the plane. The state would not do any of this if there would only be latent danger. Unfortunately, the danger for me is specific. I am in public and yet I am not intimidated. It is a shame and an expression of the failure of integration that a writer in the 21st century in the middle of Europe cannot write a critical book about a person who died 1400 years ago without having to face death. Politics has allowed political Islam to build its structures here in the name of religious freedom and that is the result. But still, although I may be restricted in my movement, I am more free in my head and thinking than ever before.

Read the focus “In the sights of the Islamists” in the current News 15/18

© Video: News.at

Read news for free for 1 month now! * * The test ends automatically.

More on this ▶

NEWS FROM THE NETWORK

Win true wireless earphones from JBL now! (E-media.at)

New access (yachtrevue.at)

8 reasons why it’s great to be single (lustaufsleben.at)

Salmon shrimp burger with wasabi mayonnaise and honey cucumber (gusto.at)

In the new trend: Shock-Down – how long can the economy withstand lockdowns? (Trend.at)

The 35 best family series to laugh and feel good (tv-media.at)

E-Scooter in Vienna: All providers and prices 2020 in comparison (autorevue.at)

Why the Chinese never cause problems, what that

headscarf

has to do with murder in children and why it is free, although he cannot even step outside the door alone – the well-known Islam critic Hamed Abdel-Samad in an interview.

News: Let’s start with your own story. You came to Germany from Egypt when you were 23. How did you manage what so many fail: integration. Hamed Abdel-Samad: Many people pursue the illusion that integration is a language and values ​​course.https://123helpme.me/ In reality, it is a long process, especially for people who come from cultures that are not necessarily compatible with the western one. Those who did not learn from childhood to deal with freedom and self-determination. In the culture from which I come, everything was regulated collectively and social control was very strong. And then I had to jump into the deep end and was overwhelmed. To me, freedom was like a car that I couldn’t drive and that I didn’t have a driver’s license for. So I got into a phase of radicalization, an aversion to the West.

Where was the point where you still got right and so many others wrong? It is an illusion to believe that you can unite two completely different cultures in one person without causing a conflict or explosion. I had to choose and part with certain parts of my culture and religion.

What exactly did that mean? I broke away from Islam’s rigid moral conceptions when it comes to sexuality. I stopped dividing the world into believers and unbelievers and judging people according to their beliefs. And I also refrained from considering historical hostility towards the West as part of my identity. Only then did I become free. And as a free person, I am easier to integrate.

Is Islam the greatest real existing obstacle to integration? Let’s be honest: with which groups of migrants do we have the biggest problems when it comes to integration? Not with Chinese or South Americans, not with secular Iranians in exile, even though they are Muslims. First and foremost, we have difficulties with people of Turkish origin and Arabs. And the symbiosis of religion and culture plays a major role here. It is about rituals of masculinity, which are covered by religion. And it’s about attitudes towards education. There are always many different factors, but one has to recognize that Islam and patriarchy are the greatest obstacles to integration.

“Islam is the obstacle”

What does this mean for the state’s efforts to integrate? First of all, that the migrant and his family also have to want to integrate. If they don’t want it because of their culture, you can do what you want. However, if the wish is given, the state must also provide services, i.e. education, courses, opportunities for advancement, elimination of discrimination. Islam is the obstacle. It is therefore a mistake to believe that integration can be achieved through Islam.

What do you mean by that specifically? That the Islamic associations are currently the first point of contact for the state when it comes to integration. The associations, their Muslim schools and kindergartens. But these are precisely the instances that promote disintegration because they have completely different interests.

What do you do with those who don’t want to integrate? Sanction, not promote. The opposite is happening in Germany. We support the most conservative Islamic associations and then we wonder why integration doesn’t work.

Where do you see the bigger problem: with those who have often been here for decades or with the newcomers to the refugee crisis two years ago? There are two groups that are problematic. One is the third generation children. If integration had succeeded there, we wouldn’t even have to talk about it. But we are shocked to see how great this generation is, for example, for Erdogan and his authoritarian system in Germany and Austria. It has to make us think about what we did wrong with these people. The other is newcomers. They cannot be lumped together collectively. There are many refugees who are willing to integrate. But there are also others who are overwhelmed with freedom. Especially with family associations where the father is afraid for the morale of his wife or daughter. We repeat past mistakes with these people. Simply by being stuck in asylum centers for years, where the seeds of the parallel society of tomorrow are already growing.

In Austria the government wants one

Headscarf ban

introduce them to kindergartens and elementary schools. Opponents object that there are not many affected girls and speak of symbol legislation. Right? There are also few murders and yet they are not allowed. That’s not an argument. It remains wrong to force an underage girl into such a corset. This is an early sexualization of the girl. The idea of ​​the headscarf is known to everyone: the woman has to cover her charms so that the man does not get stupid thoughts. If this is already allowed with children, a girl will of course say as soon as she grows up that I wear this headscarf voluntarily. But voluntariness presupposes freedom and this does not exist in such a system. The German Basic Law states that the state guarantees the free, personal development of every person. This must also apply to children with a migration background. Kindergartens and schools should therefore rightly be places where not only knowledge is imparted, but where people can experience freedom, even if this may contradict what happens in some families at home.

“The headscarf debate basically reveals a dilemma”

But shouldn’t Orthodox Jewish boys also be banned from wearing the kippah as a consequence? I am a secular person and would therefore take all religious symbols out of schools – both for children and teachers. The headscarf debate basically reveals a dilemma: How should a liberal society react to a steadily growing number of conservative Muslims? We feel that the problem is growing. But politics has little room for maneuver through laws and is therefore content with symbolic politics. But we have to go to the roots and fight fundamentalism. It’s an enormous task. At the end of my book I drew up a kind of Marshall Plan, where I show measures. It can be done, but it requires political and social strength and a lot of money.

Do you see the will to do so? Unfortunately, no. The crisis always has to come first and suddenly the billions start flowing. We are already in the middle of this crisis, we all feel and see it. But it has to get worse before politicians understand the integration misery and then unfortunately have to invest ten times as much.

You have been under police protection for years because of your openly expressed criticism of Islam. What does that mean specifically for you? Unfortunately, it has been a permanent condition for five years. I’m under one of the highest security levels, only drive in columns with armored vehicles, an armed officer always flies with me on the plane. The state would not do any of this if there would only be latent danger. Unfortunately, the danger for me is specific. I am in public and yet I am not intimidated. It is a shame and an expression of the failure of integration that a writer in the 21st century in the middle of Europe cannot write a critical book about a person who died 1400 years ago without having to face death. Politics has allowed political Islam to build its structures here in the name of religious freedom and that is the result. But still, although I may be restricted in my movement, I am more free in my head and thinking than ever before.

Read the focus “In the sights of the Islamists” in the current News 15/18

© Video: News.at

Read news for free for 1 month now! * * The test ends automatically.

More on this ▶

NEWS FROM THE NETWORK

Win true wireless earphones from JBL now! (E-media.at)

New access (yachtrevue.at)

8 reasons why it’s great to be single (lustaufsleben.at)

Salmon shrimp burger with wasabi mayonnaise and honey cucumber (gusto.at)

In the new trend: Shock-Down – how long can the economy withstand lockdowns? (Trend.at)

The 35 best family series to laugh and feel good (tv-media.at)

E-Scooter in Vienna: All providers and prices 2020 in comparison (autorevue.at)

Why the Chinese never cause problems, what that

headscarf

has to do with murder in children and why it is free, although he cannot even step outside the door alone – the well-known Islam critic Hamed Abdel-Samad in an interview.

News: Let’s start with your own story. You came to Germany from Egypt when you were 23. How did you manage what so many fail: integration. Hamed Abdel-Samad: Many people pursue the illusion that integration is a language and values ​​course. In reality, it is a long process, especially for people who come from cultures that are not necessarily compatible with the western one. Those who did not learn from childhood to deal with freedom and self-determination. In the culture from which I come, everything was regulated collectively and social control was very strong. And then I had to jump into the deep end and was overwhelmed. To me, freedom was like a car that I couldn’t drive and that I didn’t have a driver’s license for. So I got into a phase of radicalization, an aversion to the West.

Where was the point where you still got right and so many others wrong? It is an illusion to believe that you can unite two completely different cultures in one person without causing a conflict or explosion. I had to choose and part with certain parts of my culture and religion.

What exactly did that mean? I broke away from Islam’s rigid moral conceptions when it comes to sexuality. I stopped dividing the world into believers and unbelievers and judging people according to their beliefs. And I also refrained from considering historical hostility towards the West as part of my identity. Only then did I become free. And as a free person, I am easier to integrate.

Is Islam the greatest real existing obstacle to integration? Let’s be honest: with which groups of migrants do we have the biggest problems when it comes to integration? Not with Chinese or South Americans, not with secular Iranians in exile, even though they are Muslims. First and foremost, we have difficulties with people of Turkish origin and Arabs. And the symbiosis of religion and culture plays a major role here. It is about rituals of masculinity, which are covered by religion. And it’s about attitudes towards education. There are always many different factors, but one has to recognize that Islam and patriarchy are the greatest obstacles to integration.

“Islam is the obstacle”

What does this mean for the state’s efforts to integrate? First of all, that the migrant and his family also have to want to integrate. If they don’t want it because of their culture, you can do what you want. However, if the wish is given, the state must also provide services, i.e. education, courses, opportunities for advancement, elimination of discrimination. Islam is the obstacle. It is therefore a mistake to believe that integration can be achieved through Islam.

What do you mean by that specifically? That the Islamic associations are currently the first point of contact for the state when it comes to integration. The associations, their Muslim schools and kindergartens. But these are precisely the instances that promote disintegration because they have completely different interests.

What do you do with those who don’t want to integrate? Sanction, not promote. The opposite is happening in Germany. We support the most conservative Islamic associations and then we wonder why integration doesn’t work.

Where do you see the bigger problem: with those who have often been here for decades or with the newcomers to the refugee crisis two years ago? There are two groups that are problematic.

Archives
Categories