Those who have achieved something, who have made it big, now live with the fear of losing it again. Europe is afraid. This has been the case for 100 years, ever since Oswald Spengler’s “Decline of the West”. The ageing and weak continent is hunkering down and taking up a defensive position, sometimes against the USA, sometimes against the terribly industrious Chinese, and more recently preferably against Islam. This gives rise to the standard question in enlightened political discourse as to whether a genuine revolution with the participation of the people can still be approved of if it means that Sharia law is subsequently reintroduced, as will probably be the case in Egypt.
I don’t know much about Sharia law. I only know this much: if an idiot today has no idea about religion, politics or anything else – he always talks about “Sharia”. When it comes to Islam, every village idiot is suddenly a specialist in matters of faith, oriental studies and Islamic studies, even Arabic. In every discussion forum on the Internet, there are fascist agitators who quote Koran suras supposedly from the original to prove how terrible and dangerous Islam is. This meticulousness is reminiscent of Eichmann’s Jewish department in the Reich Security Main Office of the SS, where the most comprehensive collection of Judaica was compiled over time and the most diligent among the murderers had even learnt Hebrew. They knew the Talmud better than any Jew. And it’s the same today. The Muslim-eaters can quote Koran suras that are certainly unknown to a Muslim.
Breivik has many brothers in spirit.
It can be assumed that the Koran does indeed contain some unpleasant rules. But that is the case with all monotheistic religions. Before there were a whole bunch of gods, one for war, one for love, etc. Now there is only one. Now you only had one. In order to still be able to live according to the precepts of the doctrine, you needed a single religious book in which all the vicissitudes of life are taken into account. And that means that, as in the farmer’s calendar, for every rule there is another that says the exact opposite. Books on religion are guides for all situations in life.
Depending on the situation in life, you choose the right passage in the religion book, one always fits. If you can kill your enemy, you take “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. If you would rather not mess with your enemy because he is stronger, you take “turn the other cheek”. Or Jesus as an angry citizen fits in better with your own interests, i.e. the story of how he drove the merchants out of the temple. On the one hand, faith and those in power benefit from this flexibility; on the other hand, it means that wars become even more violent than before because it is no longer just about material things, but about the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
I’m neither Bible-savvy nor could I recite the Ten Commandments. I’m not interested in these religious books. I want to know what makes people tick, and I know that. I know that Allah is big – but a Cadillac is bigger. Iran is interested in nuclear weapons, not pious slogans.
We know the lazy magic from reunification. First the Ossis said that they were about freedom, another religion. I would have put up with that. But then they realised what they really wanted, namely our Deutschmark. And friendship ends with money.
In general, the horror at the piety of Muslims is characterised by a total lack of self-awareness. When the news reports that an Islamic party has won the election in an Islamic country, it is not without an undertone of concern.
Is it any different here? We live in a country where a Christian Democratic Party and a Christian Social Union are in government together with the FDP, and where the “Christian image of man”, which characterises our constitution, is constantly waved around.
And what about homosexuality in Germany? Let me quote Wikipedia:
“Section 175 of the German Criminal Code existed from 1 January 1872 (entry into force of the Reich Criminal Code) until 11 June 1994, criminalising sexual acts between persons of the male sex. Until 1969, it also penalised ‘unnatural fornication with animals’ (transferred to Section 175b from 1935).”
I remember the time when hoteliers were only allowed to rent a double room to couples who could prove that they were married, because otherwise they were liable to prosecution for prostitution. And it wasn’t that long ago that an “illegitimate mother” – as she was called back then – was socially ostracised. Children had to come from the sacred bond of a lifelong marriage. If not, it was a stigma not only for mum, but also for the children.
So denigrating Muslims helps Westerners to suppress their own dark past and sweep the dirt that is still lying around under the carpet. Or it helps to be close to the object of one’s own desires by being indignant about it with other people.
This can be seen, for example, in internet forums on the topic of “forced marriages of underage girls by their parents”. “The libertine and the spotless innocence” – the stuff of old men’s dreams. There are plenty of them here, but they’d rather fly to Thailand, where you can have fun with young vegetables without getting a life sentence.
It’s funny that nobody feels sorry for the man who was forced into marriage. The same violence that brought him the young girl prevents him from separating from the woman who hates him and will savour her hatred when the time comes for the age matriarchy.
Of course, it is bitter for the woman to have to take a man she doesn’t want. But this also happens without forced marriage. Namely when the man she wants doesn’t want her. Lovesickness used to be a common motive for suicide.
The point of the story: In Turkey, the topic is even more popular than here. It provides the material for a sensationally successful telenovela that is a talking point throughout the country. The audience suffers with the perfectly cast beautiful young girl and loathes the equally perfectly cast much older and disgusting man. The series would probably also be a success in Germany, and it will certainly be a success throughout the Middle East.
It’s a shame that we no longer have heart & pain stories of comparable quality. Perhaps the jus primae noctis should be reintroduced, just so that we can once again savour the moral triumph that comes with the abolition of this injustice. Wonderful times, when revolutionaries were faced with such easily solvable tasks. But those times are over, not only here, but also in Egypt. The kingdom of freedom is certainly not dawning in the Arab countries. Rather, a few rearguard actions are underway there that have already been concluded here. And the end of the story will be capitalism, whether it calls itself Christian, Islamic, Confucian or something else.
Of course, on the one hand you can say that revolutions have only made things worse. The French Revolution brought nationalism and universal conscription to mankind. The latter made it possible for the carnage in the two world wars to eclipse all previous ones. And without democracy, there would have been no Nazi regime. On the other hand, nobody knows what would have happened to us without the French Revolution.
In any case, people cannot be expected to put up with the despotism and torture chambers of a Mubarak regime. They have every right to overthrow it by force, without considering what will come afterwards. And perhaps it won’t be as bad for them as it has been for us.