Please dear Crocodile, eat me last!

Last Wednesday, the German newsmagazine FOCUS printed an article, which I have translated. My English hasn't deteriorated, it IS badly written, but the content is stunning nevertheless:

Internet Curse against Islam Critic
16.08.06, 12:12
The German Office for the Protection of the Constitution consider a curse at an Internet platform for Muslims as a license to kill. German judges don't even want to see it as defamation.

How subtle will a supposed call for the murder of an Islam critic have to be so that German judges won't even recognise it as a defamation of the target? The case, which the Higher Regional Court Oldenburg will have to settle within the next couple of weeks is a potential lecture about the limits of the freedom of opinion and speech.
Yavuz Özoguz from Delmenhorst [near Bremen] hosts one of the busiest Internet platforms for Muslims in Germany. He says that Muslim-Markt can boast 50,000 to 70,000 visitors per week. 2005 he had written a prayer in one of his Internet fora, which cursed the author and Islam-critic Hans-Peter Raddatz. The disputed lines go like this: "And if Mr. Raddatz is a hatemonger [literally: Hassprediger=preacher of hate] and liar, then the almighty creator may punish him for his crimes…" [I add the German text for clarity: "Und wenn Herr Raddatz ein Hassprediger und Lügner ist, dann möge der allmächtige Schöpfer ihn für seine Verbrechen bestrafen ..."]

Raddatz understood the item, declared to be a prayer, as a call for murder and took Özoguz to court. The Regional Court Oldenburg refused to proceed with the trial against Özoguz. The "prayer" is, according to the court, no call for killing Hans-Peter Raddatz. Although punishment is mentioned, that implies, so the court, an appeal to God in the afterlife... The judges didn't recognise a call for other Internet surfers to commit a crime.

State Attorney Submits Objection

The Oldenburg state attorney Staatsanwalt Rainer du Mesnil de Rochemont disagrees. He thinks that the Internet curse would be no problem if the addressees were exclusively people with a Western-European appreciation of culture and religion. As it is, he thinks: "Active Islamists will understand it as a call [for murder]." He has submitted an immediate complaint against the decision at the Higher Regional Court .

Herbert Landolin Müller from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of the state of Baden-Württemberg and one of the leading experts for extremist Islam in Germany argues in much the same way. A serious appeal to the conscience and the sense of duty of a Muslim would be sufficient for a call for murder.

"Irresponsible and Dangerous"

This triggers off memories of the [Mohammed] cartoon affair. Specifically at a time when various expressions of written and creative freedom are taken as blasphemy and part of a culture struggle, "such verbal attacks ad personam are irresponsible and dangerous", the man from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution advises in his 19-page expertise, which the Oldenburg judges had seen as well. The host of the Internet platform courts the risk that the Islam critic "will not just be intimidated, but become, as personified enemy, the target of 'punishment action' the consequences of which are incalculable.

His language betrays Özoguz, so Müller, head of the competence team for extremist Islam of the Stuttgart [state of Baden-Württemberg] Office for the Protection of the Constitution. He uses for the German author the same vocabulary ("liar", "criminal") like for the writer Salman Rushdie who is living under the threat of a "death fatwa" or for the Dutch director Theo van Gogh who was murdered by an Islamist… Apparently, reminding of a historical pattern is enough "to inspire potential perpetrators".

But the Oldenburg court wouldn't even regard epithets like "liar" and "hatemonger" as defamation of Raddatz. After all, hadn't the writer "frequently criticised Islam harshly". The author, who repetitively denounces a pro-Islam cartel in politics and society and who polemises against Islam's "useful animals" ("Islam-Nützlinge") is annoyed: "It's your own fault" seems to sum up the judges opinion.

Raddatz is subject to Personal Security

Since the Internet-threat, Raddatz is living under personal security
and has to report any travelling to the police. Funny enough, so he says, since this threat all other threats have ceased.

Raddatz, a scholar of Islamic Studies and representative of the Deutsche Bank in the Middle East for many years, isn't overawed. In his latest book "Iran. Persische Hochkultur und irrationale Macht" (Iran. Persian High Culture and Irrational Power) he states that the Quran includes a "manual for mass murder" ("eine Praxisanleitung für den Massenmord").

Please be reminded that German courts are not always that indulgent.

The 61-year-old Manfred van Hove had sheets of toilet paper stamped with the word "Koran", after the London bombings in July 2005, which he had sent to German television stations, magazines and some 15 mosques. In an accompanying letter he had called the Koran a "cookbook for terrorists". Van Hove used to work for 15 years in Arab countries as a construction site manager and there he learned, so he said, to despise Islam. "Did you watch an execution there?" he snapped at the prosecutor. He was given a one-year prison sentence with a probation period of five years plus 300 hours of community service in February.

Hans-Peter Raddatz, graduated in Islamic science from Bonn university and spent many years in the Middle East, representing international banks and corporations. His books on Islam and the West obtained wide recognition: "Von Gott zu Allah?" (From God to Allah), "Von Allah zum Terror?" (From Allah to terror), "Allahs Schleier Allahs Schleier - die Frau im Kampf der Kulturen" (Allah's Veil - Women in the Clash of Civilisations) and "Allahs Frauen" - Djihad zwischen Demokratie und Scharia (Allah's Women - Jihad Between Democracy and Sharia. Also; he is one of the few German contributors to "Encyclopaedia of Islam", the renowned standard reference work for scholarly researchers.

Of Hatemongers -- and Hatemongers

A rape epidemic of unveiled women is sweeping across Europe. Different from what the mainstream media would like us to believe, things like that DO happen and with increasing frequency. Thanks to FrontPage and a few other courageous media, however, the facts are not entirely swept under the carpet.

This FrontPage Symposium is of special importance to me, because participant Gudrun Eussner and Iris Raddatz, the wife of Hans-Peter Raddatz, another participant, are dear friends of mine of whose knowledge and wisdom I am standing to benefit on an almost daily basis.

However, it is not easy in this country to have and to maintain a principled anti-Islam stance. Chicanery and intimidation are ubiquitous. Gudrun Eussner's website was taken off the web by the (German) provider because she had published a bill of indictment against a man who was charged with having insulted the Muslim faith by selling lav paper with a "Koran" imprint and Gudrun is now, too, charged with a criminal offense, namely the publishing of a bill of indictment prior to the trial (§ 353d StGB -- German Penal Code). I reported that incident HERE.

Iris' husband, Hans-Peter Raddatz, is one of our leading Islam experts. His excellent, scholarly books are as far removed from "hatemongering" as possible, yet that is of what he is accused by a public hell-bent on dhimmitude. (He has, by the way, to live under police protection because he has received death threats. So WHO is the "hatemonger" here?)

Please read the following symposium carefully.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Symposium: To Rape an Unveiled Woman

By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com March 7, 2006

A Muslim rape epidemic in sweeping over Europe -- and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world. The direct connection between the rapes and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects. The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that there crime is justified since their victims were, among other things, not properly veiled.

What is the psychology here? What is the significance of this epidemic? And how do we face it when our own feminists, with a few exceptions, are deafingly silent about it?

To discuss this issue with us today, we are joined by:

Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the Palestinian Intifada. His new documentary, Suicide Killers, explores the psychology of suicide bombers. It is based on interviews with the victims of suicide bombers, the families of suicide bombers, would-be bombers themselves, and experts on suicide killer mentality.

Nancy Kobrin, an affiliated professor to the University of Haifa, Arabist, psychoanalyst and author of the upcoming book, The Sheikh's New Clothes: Islamic Suicide Terror and What It's Really All About;

Peter Raddatz, a German scholar of Islamic Studies and the co-author of the renowned “Encyclopaedia of Islam.” He is the author of many books, including From Allah to Terror? Jihad and the Western Deformation, Allah's Veil and The Turkish Danger. In a few months he will publish World Risk Iran.

and
Gudrun Eussner, a journalist with a Ph.D at Free University Berlin, specializing in mass communication and political science, and Iranian philology. She has experience working in numerous Muslim countries, including Bosnia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Usbekistan and others.

FP: Pierre Rehov, Nancy Kobrin, Peter Raddatz and Dr. Gudrun Eussner welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Peter Raddaz let’s begin with you.

A man sees a woman and she is not veiled. He thinks to himself: “Oh, I must rape her now.”

No matter how much I try to figure this out, I can’t. What’s the mindset here? If a person is upset that a woman is not veiled, it implies he wants some kind of supposed “morality.” But if he is thirsting for purity, how does perpetrating a violent sexual atrocity against the “immoral” one fit into moralizing her and the rest of society – and himself?

Raddatz: Your questions concerning mindset and morals put us right into the middle of the problem. They are the terms any culture's collective psychology is basing on. In the case of prevailing orthodox Islam we are faced with a deep division between the sexes. With Allah's unlimited ruling licence the males are entitled to be the masters of the females. The Koranic order says that the man has to "go to the woman" whenever he likes, to "enjoy her however he likes", and to discipline her in case she develops her own ideas like sexual self-determination.

Over the centuries this basic frame had been filled with a lot of "prophetic" instructions as to what disastrous role the woman could play if the man as Allah's deputy does not carry out this divine licence of fertilizing control. Insofar the woman is looked upon from a "higher" biologistic viewpoint regarding her as "seed field" that - under strict male surveillance signalled by "Islamic correct" veiling - guarantees for the continued survival and expansion of Islam.

We are dealing here with premodern, partly archaic thinking that divides its world into two Manichaean halves. Irrespective of the usual statistical remnant of liberal "dissidents", the orthodox ideology bases on an Islamic half that accords to Koran and "prophetic" tradition and a non-Islamic half consisting of unbelievers and disobedient women. The religious war - known as "jihad" - against the latter two groups belongs, therefore, to the most prominent duties of the "believing" Muslim. Its "religious" dimension is boosted enormously by customary family "honor" installing male control from early youth on, often widening into brutal raping, sometimes incestuous punishing patterns. Here a complicated interaction between father, mother, son and daughter comes into play about which, I guess, Dr. Kobrin will give us quite interesting insights.

Thus, the ontological being in Islam is not defined by individual right but clearly as integral part of the community in terms of a whole and "holy" entirety. In this context the primary form of human being is seen in the male that assumes the right and duty to assist Allah in conserving and expanding his "umma", meaning his community.

Its biologistic "thinking" demands the "pure" man as the real human dominating the "impure" woman as a lower form, rather close to some animal-like existence. Therefore, sexuality cannot be sublimated and has to serve - aside from ramifications into homo-, paedo- and sodo-variants - a basic double function: fertilizing and punishing.

This paradigm expresses itself not only in highly standardized family patterns but also in an equally conformistic education system. All contents, in school and university of almost every Islamic country, are ultimately restricted and tied to Islamic purposes, thereby avoiding abstract thinking categories that could relativate and jeopardize the dogma's absolute uniqueness. By the same token, however, and this is the core of "modern" Islam's tragedy, the male controllers are confined to physical methods of "sublimation" whenever problems arise. Aside from the usual bombing "protest" against Western "arrogance" and "unbelieving morals", the current rape wave is the vital expression of an ongoing jihad against women who under Western influence may drift slowly out of the grip of male Muslim hands.

The war character of this behaviour may become clearer from its archaic punishment perspective that has come out of use generally but survived in Islam until present times. During the Algerian independence war the freedom fighters used to publicly sodomize French officers in order to achieve the enemy's maximum degradation. The same applies to the woman as a possible internal enemy containing even a double danger: her alleged disobedience is a bio-political security risk for the Islamic entirety and her independent "devilish" sexuality represents a religious blasphemy, contaminating male purity. Both have to be dealt with accordingly: beating, raping, torturing, stoning, killing.

While some UN organizations keep on complaining about this, the Western feminists keep silent because they are not interested in the general problem but rather concentrate on clutching to their few elitarian privileges, mainly in business. Doing this they are simple part of a greater Western mainstream that has started to adjust to Muslim immigrant political "sharia" demands based on the growing radical Islamist influence as well as oil price pressure. And mind you: keeping Muslim women obedient through male "honor" might also sustain their "seed field" fertilization rate thereby compensating for the Western "morals" of pornography and weak reproduction. In this respect global elite ideology, antisemitic "new age" fascism and Islam are not so far apart.

FP: Thank you Dr. Raddatz. Dr. Eussner?

Eussner: Thank you, Jamie. I agree with Peter: The survival and expansion of Islam worldwide is the main goal of Islam since its invention by Mohammed. In this respect, the history of Islamic conquest is self-explanatory. The other aspect is the lack of appreciation for the individual as such. For both, men and women, it is true, that there are no individual rights, but for women it is even worse.

It may sound harsh, but the distinction between "fertilizing" and "punishing" a woman is evident. On the one hand you have sexuality as a tool serving the expansion of Islam, and on the other hand there is sexuality as a weapon against disobedient and non-Muslim women, both categorized as "unbelievers". Against them jihad is the duty, and what to do with women "conquered" in jihad, this may be read in the Qur'an: they become slaves to be used by the victors.

Why is the raping of unveiled women, either Muslim or non-Muslim, now spreading widely in our countries?

The conduct towards these women is due to the new developments initiated by Salafists like Tariq Ramadan. He has invented and introduced a new definition for the Western countries: they should no longer be seen the traditional way as Dar ul-harb, the space of war, but as Dar el-dawaà, the invitation to Islam, or Dar ash-shahâda, the space of testimony.

While orthodox Sunni Muslims, stuck to the unchanged application of the tradition are not at all in line with this "modern" interpretation, the "scholar" Tariq Ramadan has paved a soft way for Muslims to taking possession of countries formerly belonging to the Dar ul-harb. When living in Dar ul-harb there are two alternatives for the Muslims: either conquer the land by force and rule it by Qur'anic law or, if not strong enough, keep quiet and wait, not touching the property of the enemy.

Dar el-dawaà and Dar ash-shahâda are two of the trickiest inventions ever to reach the goal of conquest: at a quick and superficial glance it means resigning from the conversion of the West to Islam, permitting everybody to keep on in his belief, but on closer examination that means what the French call "l'entrisme", unnoticed penetration.

The Muslims are not living any longer in a hostile surrounding, they are almost in Dar ul-Islam. Profesor Nezvat Yalçintas, member of the Istanbul parliament, made an interesting statement. During the inauguration of the Murabitun mosque in Granada, Spain, in July 2003, he told the audience that Paris, Rome, Madrid now were components of the Islamic world due to the erection of new mosques.

But as Muslims are still obliged to wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit, the jihad is continuing in Dar ash-shahâda, and people not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws have to be punished. The trick of introducing these new definitions has a severe impact on Muslims' consciousness, especially on young Muslim men. People not behaving according to the Qur'anic laws are to be punished even stronger now. The Muslims are not any more restricted by the laws of Dar ul-harb, that has evaporated without notice, merely by changing the definition. The inhabitants of our countries are to obey to Muslim male supremacy and Qur'anic laws. What better a justification for conduct towards women?

The jihad against the infidels is conducted on each and every level, not only as terror and suicide bombing. The jihad against women, who by their behaviour in the public sphere, are "asking for rape", as the Danish mufti Shahid Mehdi, a Qur'an teacher of joung Muslims in Copenhagen, put it in 2004, and/or towards their husbands, by their alleged disobedience are challenging the survival and expansion of Islam, of the "Ummah", is a must for the Muslim men.

As far as the Western feminists are concerned, they seem to be hovering in other dimensions, in absolute arrogance, learned from ethnologues like Claude Lévy-Strauss. For them, freedom is that each "culture" may it be as inhuman as can be, is entitled to prosper even on our soil, and the next act in this surrealistic piece of stage play is the unlimited understanding the Norwegian Professor Ms. Unni Wikan shows for Muslims raping Western women: Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes, as they are not dressing and behaving according to Muslim understanding. The Norwegian women, in her view, are to realize that they live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it, as Mark Steyn reported already in 2002.

To read the entire symposium click HERE.

Counterstatement/Gegendarstellung Dr. Hans-Peter Raddatz

The Editrix gladly passes on the following information:

Gegendarstellung des Orientalisten Hans-Peter Raddatz

Hans-Peter Raddatz, Orientalist und Buchautor erklärt, daß er entgegen der heutigen Meldung im Wall Street Journal nicht in die Vereinigten Staaten emigriert ist. Er wird solange in Deutschland bleiben, wie die Verfassung dieses Landes nicht durch die Scharia ersetzt wird.

Hans-Peter Raddatz, scholar of Islam and multiple book author, announced today, contrary to the Wall Street Journal Information, that he has not left Germany and will stay there as long as the constitution of his country has not been replaced by the Shari'a law.

Dr. Hans-Peter Raddatz
München, den 18. Mai 2006

All interested parties, please forward!

Jumping through The Hoop

Every language contains the words it needs. The German word gemütlich has only a very inadequate translation in cosy, as has Schadenfreude in spitefulness. I always think that is because Schadenfreude (i.e. gloating at other people's bad luck) isn't one of the main states of mind of the Anglo Saxons and because they have a different understanding of what is considered gemütlich. The term Gemüt, from which gemütlich is derived, is well nigh untranslatable because English speakers don't deal in soppiness, the simple term Körung needs at least a major historical essay about the role of governmental control in every aspect of German life to become understandable, and the German word Waldsterben has found its way into the English language presumably because English speakers don't seem to worry enough about it to coin their own term.

Last week, an interesting article by the author and Islam-critic Hans-Peter Raddatz was published in the Frankfurter Neue Presse. The headline "Zwischen Dialog und Dressur" alone is a manifesto and – virtually non-translatable. How can Dressur be translated? Between Dialogue and Dressage? Hardly, because this is not about horses and riding. Between Dialogue and Training then? Even less, because the English word training is not burdened with a negative overtone, whereas Dressur (in any other than a horsey context) is. Here we are talking about the kind of training to which – say – a dancing bear is subjected or a lion until he finally jumps through a hoop. I have chosen to translate "Dressurelite" as "hoop jumping elite". I could have as well termed it "dancing bear elite". Should somebody know the correct English term I would be grateful to receive it.

When it comes to the "dialogue with Islam", apart from the headscarf there is hardly any other topic that causes the same sort of stir like the building of mosques, which are supposed to turn Germany and Europe into a "Land of Peace". Not without force, a pressure group of "advisers", "agents" and other "experts" are propagating in the name of their organisations – party, foundation, university, church, media – the message of Islamic "tolerance", which is entitled to demand "respect" from the West.

This is ensured by the Islamic side as well, who has not just oil and money as convincing arguments. As the Turkish Ditib [Turkish-Islamic Union in Germany] told the Chancellor lately, it are the Islamic representatives on whom the security of the Federal Republic is depending. No wonder that the German pro-Islam pressure group performs successfully as one of those "hoop jumping elites" who are acting in the interest of the opposite side… [This] means, in effect, that the "dialogue" demanded and sponsored in this country is not a tool for discussion, but for education of the masses.

Therefore it becomes obvious why a super-organisation emerged, who are fending off any resistance against the call to jump through the hoop as "Islamophobia". This strategy, which ought to be rather called "demophobia" because it reduces "the people" to a racist bar room politicking mob, has, without doubt, its rewards. When it comes to the building of prayer rooms, the "silent minority" has, since 1970, jumped almost 3000 times through the ever-alike hoop called "tolerance" and "freedom of religion" in Germany alone.
[…]
The "hoop jumping elites" can be quite laid back about the fevered discussions, present and past, covering outsized mosques in Munich, Cologne and Frankfurt. All they need to know is that the nose ring "right wing extremism" works a treat when it comes to the effectiveness of their control language and the disciplinary action against the public.

Within this context, a treadmill as peculiar as efficient becomes obvious, a hamster wheel of intercultural trophy hunting, in which the "advisers" are battling for the favour-laurels Islam is awarding.

Even people critical of Islam and the mantra of multiculture seem to have grown weary of the ubiquitous anticipating obedience which has become the standard attitude towards minorities and their members, I certainly have, but the example Raddatz cites at the end of his article is rather frightening and should jolt even the most jaded bystander out of his lassitude. The laurel for a hoop-jumping effort of Ringling Brothers Barnum and Bailey The Greatest Show on Earth dimensions goes to the public prosecutor's office in Hamburg.

Following [the statement of the public prosecutor's office in Hamburg], a Muslim perpetrator "does not reject the national legal system because he is lacking a law-abiding disposition", but "because he feels the higher call of the faith, which he has to follow." This will have to lead to a "retreat of the penal law" should the conflict between the obligation to abide the law and a religious commandment result in an "emotional hardship compared to which the punishment for a criminal act will turn into a societal reaction, which is effusive and thus violating his human dignity."

And nobody laughed.

In plain terms: A call for abiding the law can potentially violate a Muslim's human dignity and any Muslim who appeals to his faith has carte blanche to commit any crime within the jurisdiction of this public prosecutor – the logic of a dancing bear.

Solidarity with Ralph Giordano

This is the, so far, last chapter of the Cologne mosque drama. What started as a travesty has developed into a major tragedy in the meantime.

Like many other people critical of Islam, German-Jewish anti-Fascist journalist and writer Ralph Giordano, a Holocaust-survivor now in his 84th year, has been subjected to death threats.

Why? because he, too, had denounced the building of the mosque at Cologne.

This petition takes up his words and arguments. It is online now in English and French as well.

The help and support of all courageous and wellmeaning people all over the world is needed.

To: Politicians & Media

We, too say: "No, no and no again!"

Following the murder of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh and the death threats against Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, the Dutch cabaret artist Ewoud Jansen and many others, the Islam-inspired madness has arrived in Germany some time ago already. Muslim fanatics are out to kill Hans-Peter Raddatz, Seyran Ates and Ekin Deligöz and are now targeting Ralph Giordano: The journalist and writer received death threats because he called for "the cancellation of the plans regarding the building of a major mosque in the Cologne suburb of Ehrenfeld, because they are transporting a false image of the real relationship between Muslim minority and the majority of the German society.

Like Ralph Giordano we therefore ask:

- Where are we that we have to check first whether radical Muslims will approve of what we do or leave?
- Where are we that we let religious and other fanatics decide what we are allowed to say and what not in anticipating obedience?
- Where are we that we are caving in to those Islamic ire- and outrage-collectives, obviously retrievable-on-demand by some local Mullahs between Cairo, Iran and Bali, as the Danish "Mohammed cartoon brawl" revealed?

Like Ralph Giordano, we are fed up with the "traditions, customs and habits, which are bastardising any criticism and turn it into insults, but are as quick as extravagant when it comes to name-calling of people of a different faith“. And we, too, are fighting back a "potential blackmailing capacity, which wants to keep us under Islamic supervision and which reaches with its tentacles from the Near- and Middle East right into the heart of Europe."

We therefore stress:

We will not submit freedom of expression to Sharia law!
There is no place anywhere for death threats, antisemitism and Holocaust denial!

We there fore ask politicians and the media:

1. to preserve without trade-off the 200-year-old European achievements of unrestricted personal freedom, freedom of opinion and expression. No person has the right to threaten somebody else with murder because he doesn't like the other person's views;

2. to prosecute without taboo all conditions and circumstances within the Muslim minority that are against the German constitution (Grundgesetz) and therefore inimical to integration, first and foremost the unacceptable status of women;

3. to embark upon a critical examination of those imams and stakeholders who are abusing the liberal framework and tolerance of a free constitution to push through totalitarian views of state and religion within their enclave, who are undermining the conventions of rule of law and constitution, who are teaching hesperophobic indoctrination in line with Sharia law and who reject the standards of democracy such as co-education, sex-education, gym classes, school trips and the equality of the sexes;

4. to embark upon a critical examination of the Koran and the biography of Mohammed;

5. to support all secular Muslims who intend to pave the way to integration by means of reform;

6. to tackle the official integration-, antisemitism- and right-wing-extremism policy in Germany on state- and federal level single-minded- and openly.

We, too say: "No, no and no again!"

Cross-posted at MNM and IBA.

Bogeyman Muslim, Bogeyman Jew

The Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung in Berlin (Center for the Research of Antisemitism) is about to stage a conference equating hatred of Jews with discrimination against Muslims: "Feindbild Muslim, Feindbild Jude".

Gudrun Eussner tears, in the Danish Europenews, the scientific claim of the conference to shreds. The translation is mine but ought to be taken with a grain of salt because those "self-made" terms are difficult to translate without corrupting their meaning. I have tried to do my translating best:

The attendants can now ... talk about circumstances they have created themselves and dubbed with self-created terms ... bogeyman Muslim, bogeyman Jew, ... Islam-enmity, bogeyman Islam, Jew-enmity, Islam-hostility, "Islam-criticism" (as in quotes, this is a criticism that isn't really one according to the ZfA), Islam-enemies, Islamophobia, enmity towards Islam, self-styled scholars of Islam (for Prof. Dr. Benz the [renowned and courageous] orientalist Dr. Hans-Peter Raddatz...), trivialisation of the Holocaust, Jewish cause (anywhere where the International Jewry can be found), prejudice against Jews (something Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benz and his staff want to dispel). Antisemitism and criticism of Islam, the only acceptable terms to serve as a basis, have been eliminated from the conference's agenda already.

That the Zentrum is funded by the German taxpayer makes only sense, as it gives him exactly the feeling for which he is craving: Doing something outwardly noble (politically correct), yet ultimately detrimental to the Jews.

I wonder whether some older findings of Benz' own institution will be discussed as well:

Dr. Juliane Wetzel, chair of the Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Technical University of Berlin, agreed that anti-Semitism among young Muslims in Germany has been rising in the past five years. "Since the Muslim community in Germany is largely of Turkish origin, there is a lot less hatred toward Israelis and Jews than in comparable communities in Europe," she said. "But in recent years, the youth here have apparently been influenced by Islamic Internet sites and satellite channels, and absorbed certain anti-Semitic stereotypes that they did not have in the past."

As reported by us in 2006.