My Opinion

In the Quran, there are only two passages that indicate the veil of the Muslim women. However, without precise specifications, how exactly this has to look. Everything else has been added in the course of time by Islamic theologians and women's conspirators, and served only to keep the woman in check and make her more controllable.

The most important question should be: What does it matter, whether this is so in the Quran or not, and whether this is true in Islamic law as prescribed?
Freedom of religion does not mean having to tolerate inhuman and anti-democratic matters in the name of religion because this has been demanded since 1400 years by a religious founder and his ideological descendants and is still regarded as exemplary by Orthodox Muslims (Sunnah). In a secular European state, universal human rights are the basis of our ways of thinking and laws, and the main reason why European states became democratic. Also blind adherence to Islamic rules is not contemporary. If reason and individual freedom are rejected as pagan by orthodox Muslims, the logical consequence must be: The modern democracy based on reason and freedom is also rejected by them.

The insistence on the traditions such as the burqa is the inroads within a European State in a reactionary Islamic parallel society. Needless to say, how little our concept of human rights is similar to an islamized conception of the same. We are so far that the women finally found their equitable place next to the man. At the same time, however, accepting burquas or other whole body veils can only be regarded as a mockery of all achievements in the area of women's rights. Already the sight of this form of concealment can cause in an enlightened man only misunderstandings and violent shaking of the head, since our modern image of freedom strongly contradicts it.

The modern European has its own history, which also speaks of a dark time, in which the "voluntary" submission to the Christianity of the churches was so advanced that almost all of the ancient knowledge from Plato to Pythagoras fell victim to it. It was hard to believe that there was an era when Islamic caliphs attempted to reconcile the Hellenistic secular knowledge with Islam (but eventually failed because the dogmatism of Islamic orthodoxy prevailed against reason and Reversed everything). But what is happening today, almost one thousand years later, no longer corresponds to this enlightened image of the caliph from this ancient time. Even today dogmatism is preferred to reason and a strong turn to Islam is preached. What is supposed to mean the salvation of Islam has always led to its decline in history and is now intended to lead to the rise of Muslim countries. The Islamic countries are scientifically and economically on the ground despite huge revenues from the sale of oil and their location on geostrategically important routes and seem to be incapable or unwilling to allow these billions of income to benefit science and their own population. As is often the case in Islamic history, wealth is divided within the ruling class. Magnificent palaces and mosques often adorn the cityscape. What the average Muslim can experience of this richness is the prayer among the vaults of the material wealth of decorated mosques.

In order to obscure this social injustice and the failure of Islamic societies, an external enemy gets used, which is sometimes rightly called, but often wrongly, as the cause of all existing problems. This is only to be explained by an anti-knowledge and authority, which alone recognizes the Islamic discourse as the only authority and fights discourses as "foreign" and liberal, Islam-threatening ideas. Thus the oppressed by the Islam becomes the greatest advocate of his own oppression, without understanding it. The fanatical belief in the inviolability of Islam makes him a blacksmith and a preserver of his own misery. The lack of rational thought led to a lack of self-critical thought makes him incapable of recognizing this.

The expansion of Islam over the whole world was the goal of Muhammad already 1400 years since he viewed Islam as the successor religion of all monotheisms known to him. Never was it as easy as today, one could think of spreading such an intolerant movement. And this, although the people (in the West) were never as enlightened as they are today. In the middle of Europe, a pretext for why this is to be tolerated is the reason why Islam is said to be good, although history could never confirm this. The criticism of Islamic imperialism and its goal of bringing Western societies under its influence is generally regarded as racism or "Islamophobia" - which seems completely absurd in the historical context. Several Western groups and ideologies based in Europe seem to have found an ally in Orthodox Islam, which has been lost in recent decades. In order to combat the alleged US imperialism, for example, Islamism is preferred as a partner, who now speaks openly about the world as soon as the chances for it exist. But there will not be much left of democracy, freedom of opinion and freedom of religion. The only common ground between Islamic and European anti-Western ideologies is the common enemy image. There can be no question of common values, since they do not exist.

It is worth pointing out the particularly high interest of the policies of various European countries with a relatively high proportion of Muslim immigrants who can play a decisive role in democratic elections. Once again, Orthodox Islamic associations, which are entitled to represent the Islamic municipalities, are once again the contact point. As a clientele they are granted a certain immunity in the form of religious propaganda. In order to win the Muslims votes, they are hardly openly criticized, even if there are obvious reasons for this. Thus the attempt to procure the majority necessary in democracies is weakened very consciously. This in turn means that trust in democracy is dwindling.

So why it is important to pronounce a burqua ban is now clear. As a visible element of Orthodox Islam, a prohibition would be an important sign. A clear denial of intolerance. A rejection of the obvious suppression of the (Muslim) woman and the religious immaturity of the Muslims, which here too are increasing proportionally and, as the majority creator of various parties, this rampant backwardness can spread unhindered to the whole society. As a further step, it will be necessary to provide the large group of secularized people from Islamic countries of origin with the possibilities and the help to organize and decisively oppose Islamic orthodoxy together with the enlightened Europeans. Up to now, these aid is only guaranteed to the Islamic associations, since religion, however serious it may be, enjoys state protection and is given an inviolable status in our democracies through the so-called "blasphemy paragraphs". Although it is usually no racism to reject intolerant religious representatives, Islam criticism is today used synonymously with racism and agitation and rejected.

Anti-Western racism among Muslims is widespread and leads to the secular "Muslims" being prevented from joining together with secular Europeans and forming a broad front. The most intolerant representatives of Islam are only too glad to rely on the "racism" against Europeans, in order to suppress any criticism of their approach and to prevent a necessary shoulder closure among the secular ones. With the pretext of racism, they live their own racism against Western, because non-Islamic ways of thinking. If they do not drive a wedge between people, they lose their own importance.

This assumption of racism is seldom questioned and gladly taken up by "anti-racist" groups in politics and media. These groups live from racism. If there were no racism, these groups would not exist, and they would lose their importance. All their campaigns are based on real but often also invented racism. For example, the already mentioned equality of all Islamic criticism with racism. In some cases even the self-evident requirement of a burqua ban is declared a racism.

As long as burqas and other conflicting symbols of extremist thinking are not get prohibited, they continue to remain as propaganda instruments of dubious groups, which are used only as pretexts and overshadow really important debates, while they at the same time they are weakening the democracy.

Alone in a so long to debate why the burqa, the symbol of backward thinking, should be prohibited at all, should show us that the anti racism debates of the "anti-racists" and Orthodox Islam societies drifted off already long ago in the absurd and is missing any enlightened thinking. That are only apparent debates and red herrings. Those who are boundlessly tolerant of accepting even the most intolerant ideas will ultimately only promote intolerance and give up tolerance.

If a man is not able to stand the view of a woman, he should wear blindfolds and not the woman a veil!!!

Whenever a suicide bomber blows himself and other innocents by yelling Allahu Akbar and having the Koran in one hand and an ax in the other one, Muslims always use the same and easily refutable standard excuses.

By using these standard excuses the stubborn Muslims even oversee that their religious duty is to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. As nobody in the Western World is so stupid and provides himself under a religious dictatorship this religious duty can get only fulfilled by force.

These brainwashed and uneducated Muslims even not get it that they are getting contradicted by their idiotic Imams, who are praying for the terrorists and who are calling their believers to murder.

Under these conditions, these idiots are expecting that others are more stupid than themselves and are believing the following excuses:

1. This has nothing to do with Islam

   With what does it have to do? Maybe with a beekeeper club? But certainly not with Islam. That the assassins are regular guests in mosques, know more about Islam than the hobby-Muslim next door, that does not matter. It has nothing to do with Islam, because it is not allowed to have for unbelievers something to do with Islam. If you continue annoying, you get marked as Islam hater and for the reason that the word comes from hate, you are already nothing worth and stamped as stalker. The Muslim goes to the next mosque for shaking hands with gay haters, Antisemites and Islamists. Every vote counts. This is true democracy.

2. These are not true Muslims

   A standard phrase, which you can always hear in pubs and bars when you drink with Muslims one over the thirst. As we all know, Mohammed has preserved his revelations (nicer words for lies and hate speech) in pubs, and was presumed to be dead drunk. How many true Muslims nowadays drink more than they pray? So, in the future, one may continue to listen to the hobby drinkers in the future, that the one who drinks nothing, pursues no gamble and otherwise tries to live as Islam compliant as possible, can not be a true Muslim. If a beer drinking and Shisha smoking Muslim says it, then that is just like that. The fact that the IS, Hamas, the Taliban and other Islamic pacifists rightly justify this prosecution of particularly different Muslims, we would rather not mention. This would be anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim racism and only evil Nazis do. So keep your mouth shut and continue to be good.

3. This kind of Muslims don't exists

   It is true that the majority of the Muslims form the idea that Muhammad's life should be imitated and the Muslims will take over the world, as Muhammad envisaged. If one imitates the life from Muhammad and cuts off the head from others then it has at first nothing to do with the Islam, at second is this one not a real Muslim and at third such Muslims don't exist. So you can run a double strategy that you deny at the same time that it has not been Muslims at all, but because you do not always come through, such Muslims simply do not exist. So you can excuse himself on a different and less beautiful flow of Islam.

4. Islam is peace

   Nobody is interested in that the core of Islamic ideology actually means submission. If it is for example interesting for a girl, her brother will exorcise her until she will subjugate herself. Here, the brother forms, that he is Islam, because in fact, Islam is the pretext for a transient wannabe macho, in order to exert power on others. Preferable against weaker ones because against stronger ones will it be hard to win. Who knows, if the 40 cousins have time to beat the one guy?

   It is simple a fact that all countries with a Muslim majority and religious parties are acting in a pacifist way. At least, when you're on drugs and can spot colorful lights in the air. Saudi Arabia beheads, Iran is stoning, Turkey locks away for years, Afghanistan is stoning too (but in even uglier clothing), Indonesia takes the truncheon, Egypt genitally mutilated over 90% of girls and women. Apart from these few exceptions, any Islamic society is truly peaceful and tolerant. Who denies that Islam means peace, must simply be reminded by force. It finally serves a good cause, the world peace.

5. You son of a bitch, I fuch your mother

   For everything, for which there is (no) excuse, or the old excuses do not work because of the more educated Islamic critics, this sentence fits. But as you hear it from every fourth Muslim and not from all (there are indeed a lot of Muslims that you like), these are only isolated cases.

With the interpretation that the Vatican was primarily critical about fascism are Pope Pius XI and historians cleaning up thoroughly.

Pope Pius XI. (1922-1939) is well known to most by his encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (English: "With Burning Concern"). The fact that he protested strongly against the discrimination against Jews is what historians call a "comforting narrative". On the contrary: "The Vatican played a central role in making the Fascist regime possible and keeping it in power," wrote a historian.

A prerequisite for investigations concerning the period under Pius XI was the opening of the Vatican archives in 2006. For more than seven years, historians have been researching there and in other archives.

An the beginning are the career and presuppositions of two men who shaped the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s: Achille Ratti, later pope Pius XI, and the fascist leader "Duce" Benito Mussolini.

Historians are portraying Pius XI. as an choleric power-man, feared by his colleagues, temper and stubborn. With these properties he was not dissimilar to the "Duce". Very vividly about the appearance of the dreaded papal temper tantrums: "Finally, he stood up and protested, screamed as loud as he could. He gasped and almost burst from anger..."

Cardinal Ratti became the head of the Roman Catholics at a time when the papacy had still not overcome one of its lowest points in history: During 1870, the church state got militarily annexed and Rome was declared to be the Italian capital. Humiliated and disempowered, the following Popes had to remain within the confines of today's Vatican state.

The First World War had overthrown Italy into a serious political and economic crisis; the socialists lost power. Mussolini, with the march to Rome in 1922, seized power. Against this background and under the impression of the October revolution in Russia, which worried about Communism throughout Europe, historians explain how the disastrous partnership between the Church and the fascists could come about.

This collaboration reached its peak in the Lateran Agreements concluded in 1929. They regulated the Constitution of the Vatican and the relations between the Church and the Italian State (Concordat). In addition, the Treaties included a financial compensation for the loss of the Church State.

Pius XI. counted on the Fascists because he hoped for the best possible protection for his church: he expected little from the traditionally close church-center party. With democracy as such, the pope did not much care about. He wanted to strengthen the Catholic Church again. Very important for him was the Catholic Action, the youth organization of his church.

Mussolini was aware about the Pope, whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy. With the help of sugar and whips, Mussolini was aware of the Pope whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy: the Fascist's leader, with the help of sugar and whips, ensured that the Fascist Party was officially friendly to Pius, who often teeth-crunching, made publicity for the Fascist Party by showing a good face to the evil game.

This did not work all the time. If the case happened that it did not work, fascist beating groups acted with brutal violence against priests and Catholic activists. They destroyed church institutions, beaten priests or forced them to drink castor oil - a perfidious and embarrassing torture which has been in vogue in Italy. Several times a foaming Pope made phone calls to Mussolini, protesting against such an action. He then Mussolini hid himself behind the alleged "People's temper" of his fascists and made demands.

But at least to a certain point, the pact also paid off for Pius XI He looked for Mussolini's support in order to prevent unpleasant book appearances and to enforce the "decent" behavior of women (for example, about offensive bathing clothes).

The Pope was silent on the anti-Semitic racial laws adopted in 1938. It was not easy for him, the racist theories from the Nazis and Fascists stood in contradiction to Christian doctrine.

In "With Burning Concern" the persecution of the Jews did not get mentioned, emphasize historians. On the other hand, the "Duce" granted the church privileges. Thus every fascist youth group had a priest, church expenses were paid with tax money, and Catholic clergymen always took a place of honor at state events.

Again and again this balance of benefits and costs threatened to tilt. On the other hand, Pius XI. Mussolini openly criticized in speeches or paused the signing of a document sulkingly. The Pope, for example, took the splendid reception which Mussolini Adolf Hitler prepared in Rome in 1938. Pius XI. Hitler and the Nazis hated Hitler's tendency to paganism, and he repeatedly complained to the Duce about the bad treatment of Catholic clergy in Germany.

There were several papal adlates for the balance between the two difficult leaders. Among them is Pietro Tacchi Venturi, an antisemitic Jesuit priest, who often served as a mediator and tried to maintain the relationship between Pope and Duce. The inglorious role of Catholic newspapers such as the Jesuit magazine "La Civilta Cattolica" also describes "The First Deputy". The paper kept bobbing against Jews and Protestants.

According to the latest findings, a papal adviser is not well off: Pius XI. Cardinal Secretary Eugenio Pacelli - his successor, Pope Pius XII. (1939-1958). Pacelli's role was that of a "system holder" in the effort to preserve Mussolini's favor. The events described in "The First Deputy" could have a definite influence on the possible canonization of Pacelli. Toward the end of his life Pius XI. Apparently, that he had miscalculated: the racial laws, which were also applied to formerly Jewish Catholics, and the massive persecution of the Jews shocked the pope.

When he turned to Mussolini, he was scorned by the fact that the Fascists would not treat the Jews as badly as the church had done in the past. Pius XI was already seriously ill. Secretly at a recent encyclical, which should contain sharper criticism of fascism and racism. But there was no more. He died on February 10, 1939.

Thousands civil rights activists in Saudi Arabia have demanded in a petition of King Salman abolish the guardianship system in the ultra-conservative kingdom which allows men extensive rights over women.

They demanded in the petition, the king should establish "an age of majority of women", "from which they are grown up and take responsibility for their actions," the retired academic Asisa al-Yusuf said on Tuesday. Nearly 15,000 people have signed the petition calling for the "fully as citizens" to deal with tens of millions of women in the country. Their attempt to present the petition to the Royal Cabinet failed. Jusuf said. Instead, they now will send them by E-Mail.

Women are dependent on male relatives

In Saudi Arabia, a particularly strict interpretation of Islamic law, the Sharia law. For women, this means that they need even for everyday trifles the consent of their legal male guardian, may not work or travel. Until they are married, the father takes over this function, then the husband. Widows depend on the decisions of her son or another close male relative.

Already this rules are showing that the Quran did not get written on the command from any God. God, however you'll call him, will never differ between the genders. These stupid fundamentalists are only hiding themselves behind a religion for dominating the women. This fact shows that the women had in the old time more intelligence then the men and the men have been afraid losing all their possibilities in dominating the females. For this reason they have invented the religion called Islam where they like to suppress all others. It shows how stupid and stubborn these Islamic fundamentalists are and nobody will miss them and their stone age culture if they will disappear from the world. In the rest of the world are such people called "eternally yesterday's people" or "stupid born and nothing learned". As the Islam is nothing else than only a form of totalitarian regime, worse than a dictatorship, should get the recognition as a religion removed from the Islam.

A in the summer from the human rights organisation published a report on the current situation of women in Saudi Arabia. Human Rights Watch (HRW) stir and prompted a group of activists to launch the petition of "#IAmMyOwnGuardian" (I am my own guardian).

According to Jusuf, the petition was signed by some religious leaders believe that the strict laws in Islam are anchored, but assumed in the Royal House. There again, there are some open entirely for reforms family members, which would however be outvoted by conservative leaders, citing the Koran.

Small steps towards more rights

"#IAmMyOwnGuardian" is not the first spectacular initiative, in addition to international protests resistance against this system, around 2013, when petitioned in vain for the right of women to drive a car, was formed in Saudi Arabia in the past again and again. In March 2014, a similar initiative had pointed to the unequal treatment and called, inter alia, to proceed against the marriage of minors, as well as sexual harassment.

Even though it is still a very long way to equal rights for Saudi women, but small improvements are characterized. Since the end of last year the Royals granted also women who were completely excluded from political processes, the right to vote. But in a very restricted democracy: the men can cast their vote only since 2005, and only in municipal elections. The influence of the elected bodies is low, the powers extend beyond little road construction, public facilities, and garbage disposal. Political parties and even demonstrations are banned in Saudi Arabia.

Rights of religious police restricted

During spring time Saudia Arabia earned a rare praise of the human rights organization HRW for reducing the rights of the religious police. The dreaded moral guardians who are monitoring compliance with the strict rules in the general public, though are still active, but may since this year they are not allowed to arrest somebody, they need to report violations to the police.

HRW called it a "positive step for the people of Saudi Arabia", but called on the Saudi Government to curtail the rights of authority for the promotion of virtue and prevention of Vice.

Since Erdogan got elected as President from the Turkey the country is showing their true face. The country is changing from a democracy into a dictatorship. It seems that this dictatorship does not stop at the border from Turkey. Erdogan tries to take the whole world into hostage for his own interests. The hillbillies are thinking that they can even put other countries under pressure. So it happens that they even not understand the freedom of press, which is one of the basic rights in the Western World.

So it has happened that the Austrian daily newspaper "Kronenzeitung" has reported about actual cases happened in Turkey. For promoting their business they have a display showing their captions at the airport in Vienna - Schwechat. At this display are got shown the caption "Who makes vacation in Turkey, supports Erdogan" and at the time the Turkish supreme court canceled made the sex with children legal by canceling the children abuse law: "Turkey allows sex with children"

The Turkish resort Alanya and the community Schwechat had 15 years long a city partnership. This partnership got now canceled from the Turkish partner for the reason of the promotion from the private newspaper "Kronenzeitung" and the private airport company "Flughafen Wien Betriebsgesellschaft". The community has no influence on both companies.

For the case you have a Turkish business partner you should be aware that this business partner will act the same way. He will simple cancel contracts for a reason where you even have no influence on it. With Erdogan as president from the Turkey the Turkish people are feeling themselves as the masters of the world. Such people are not really trustful in making business and you should verify as often as you can that your business partner is fulfilling his duties.

Everybody has the right cancelling a contract, but using a reason on what you have no influence for it shows you how trustful the coward has been.

My personal opinion about the attempted coup from the military against the Turkish president Erdogan is that it has been only a staged show or the Turkish military is so incompetent and unable to do something. The first case has given Erdogan only a reason to remove his opposition by putting them into jail as we have seen it by following the news. For the second case remains for me the question how bad is the Turkish military trained? How will such a military be able to protect a country and their borders?

Update September 5, 2016: The Turkey shows with the following decision again that they are already a dictatorship and not a trusted partner for the Western World. In the news gets found the following article:

By order of the Turkish Foreign Ministry an archeology team had to end its excavations in the ancient city of Ephesus west coast, like the Turkish news agency Dogan reported yesterday. The reason for this statement are the tensions between Vienna and Ankara.

The excavations were completed on 31 August - two months before the regular end of the project. The activities of the Austrian Archaeological Institute (ÖAI) in Ephesus has a very long tradition, such work will take place since 1895th participate annually to the 250 scientists from up to 20 countries to the archeological major project.

With this step, the freedom of science is continuing to decline.

Update September 8, 2016: Another case shows that Turkey is far away from a democracy and cannot be in any community. The broadcaster Deutsche Welle has made an interview with the Turkish Minister of Sport. After the interview the recordings got immediately confiscated from the Turkish authorities. It seems that the Turkish Minister of Sport does not know how the freedom of press is one of the basic rules in a free world.

Such a moves only shows that Turkey is not a serious partner for anything. Therefore, not one can offer such people joining any community.