They love my life, they say they are proud about my strength, about the awards I get, they have no problem with my being a single mother.
PC: What would you tell a girl in your situation to do at this time in history?
SA: I get asked this a lot. I say, if you have ability to change your family from within try to do so because it is much harder to do it after running away. But, if your family is not open to dialogue, your only chance is to go to a place far, far away from your family, let the family go through its crisis. It also depends on their age. I told a 13-year-old girl that she’s too young. As long as she is not facing being raped, being forced into an arranged marriage, being sent back to Turkey, not allowed to go to school, try to stay. Otherwise, the moment they insist on a forced marriage, she has to leave.
PC: Where can she go? Who will substitute for her family? Where will she find an intimate extended adoptive family?
SA: There are places in Germany. There are very good places. Social workers will help her start a new life. She cannot risk any contact with her family. But, we come from tribal culture. We have not learned how to be or live alone. Individualism is not valued. You are nothing without your family. But some very high-profile honor murders in Germany were due to re-establishing contact with a dangerous family. Often, the mothers would give their daughters a sob story to lure the girls home. The girls returned and were murdered. But your question is important. Some shelters offer only a nice place to stay, and that’s not enough, not even if you have the best furniture.
Phyllis Chesler (PC): What happened after you published your latest book?
Seyran Ates (SA): After the book went on the market, I got death threats in Turkish. People threatened to come and shoot me in the head. In the book, and in an interview about the book in Der Speigel, I talked about how proud Turkish families are about all the girlfriends their sons have. He’s a Casanova, a sex God. But if their daughters dare have one boyfriend—it’s like she’s a whore, a bitch. Turkish people asked me whether I wanted nice Turkish girls to sleep with every man? Freedom for girls is seen as prostitution.
If a Muslim or Turkish woman is westernized then, by definition, she is a prostitute. If a Muslim man lives like a German, he’s just a man, he’s just a good man. For most immigrant families, and I’m sure for the whole Islamic world, more than 50% of families don’t want to have a foreigner, a westerner, as a son-in-law.
PC: Do you cover homosexuality in your latest book?
SA: I interviewed some Turkish and Arab homosexual boys and men. One of them said that nowhere is it so easy to have sex with a man as in Istanbul. I explained what homosexuality is as an identity. Is it an identity? It is now an identity in Europe, it could be—but is not an identity in the Islamic world. Now, people are starting to talk about homosexuality as an identity, which they didn’t do even 10-20 years ago. But this doesn’t mean the homosexuality is legal. It is not forbidden in Turkey, but it’s not legal as it is in northern countries. There can be no same-sex marriage unless someone becomes transgendered in Turkey. It is still impossible to have a job and be openly homosexual.
But gay parties are more exciting, colorful, exotic, in Istanbul than in Berlin. That’s at night. During the day you will only see transgendered people.
PC: I am not a fan of the movement for same-sex marriage—too hopelessly bourgeois for me — but I am in favor of civil unions that will give all couples, gay and straight, married and unmarried, the same legal and economic rights. Actually, an uncoupled person should be entitled to the same rights too. Why discriminate against someone who is single?
SA: I am against marriage in general.
PC: Why?
SA: We don’t need this institution…we can just live together.
PC: Can we create stable family units?
SA: A small (nuclear) family concept is not good for children. An extended family is better. And, if you are a single mom, it’s a bad situation to grow up with only one person 24 hours a day.
PC: In your book, you say Muslims need to confront sex and issues of sexuality with understanding of what the West has to contribute, without fearing or stereotyping it.
SA: I don’t think Muslims have to copy the west or to look only to the west. By nature, human beings are looking for freedom and also for pleasure, fun, even fun with sex. This is a human right and a human feeling all over the world. In Iran, people want to live independent and free lives that are not controlled by religion. This doesn’t mean they want to copy the west.
PC: Why not copy what’s good in the West?
SA: Turkey is becoming more Islamist, less free. There are two worlds going on in Turkey – one that is copying Iran and the fundamentalist Islamic world, and one that is a modern, Western society. The latter Turkey believes in small families, that it is normal to have sex before marriage, the girls and boys are equal. Both worlds seem strong. We don’t know what’s in the future. The government is Islamic but on the street, people don’t agree with everything. Yes, there are more mosques and more headscarves, but Islam never rejected sexuality as Catholicism did. In fact, Muslims talk more about sexuality because Muhammad had an active sexuality and talked a lot about sex practices and had so many wives.
PC: Yes, but that’s all about male sexuality, male lust, male promiscuity, male entitlement.
SA: True. But Islam is essentially pro-sex—but not outside of marriage. Of course, polygamy and concubinage are permitted.
PC: And temporary marriages, which are so popular in Iran.
SA: I discuss this in my book. Having fun with sex is meant for men, not women, in Islam. And yet, there is a sentence in the hadith: don’t go to women like a dog, and don’t start sleeping with her radically, do it step by step, with foreplay. Al-Ghazali’s 12th book about marriage makes some pro-woman points. But don’t read the last five pages. They are a patriarchal nightmare. He expects women to stay home and obey the man.
PC: Tell me about all your books. Do you deal with sexuality as well as politics?
SA: Yes. In my first book, I describe the situation of women, how the worst night for so many Muslim women is when they are married and lose their virginity.
My second book came out twenty years after my first book. I look at what has and has not changed. I used my real name for this book—in fact, the title, Große Reise ins Feuer. Die Geschichte einer deutschen Türkin, is a translation of what my name means in Turkish: My first name means “big vacation” and my last name means “fire.”
By now I was a lawyer. I promoted the ideas in this book on television and in public forums. I was ready to shout “fire” from the rooftops.
PC: You came to Germany before a massive wave of Turkish immigration, did this allow you to integrate?
SA: There were some children in our neighborhood who were not integrated. They went to another school with special classes for Turkish-speaking children. We were lucky. We went to a German school for Germans. At the time, Germans thought that the Turkish guest workers would be there only temporarily and did not envision integration. They assumed that the Turks would return home. In Germany, only after 9/11, did Germany wake up to the fact that Germany is an immigrant country.
PC: And your third book?
SA: This is about a multicultural society. The title is The Multicultural Error.
I condemn political correctness and the idea that it is OK to live side by side but not to live together. It is a plea for integration. And, if you really want to integrate immigrants, you have to look at situation of women, otherwise integration will never work. Many imported brides never learn to speak German and never leave the house. The Turkish Germans women who do want to integrate are punished, sometimes even honor murdered.
PC: Now I understand why you were so happy to hear me [at a recent Rome conference – ed.] reject multicultural relativism as essentially racist and anti-feminist, not at all in keeping with our original feminist vision of universal human rights.
SA: I am attacked by left wing feminists in the West and by Muslim fundamentalists in Europe and in Muslim countries. For example, in one left-wing newspaper, a Turkish woman reviewer presented me as someone who has psychological problems, who has an identity problem, or who is depressed. Women reviewers psycho-analyze me, but do not deal with the issues I raise. German people who are in favor of the headscarf hate me for what I write. Germans, not Turks, are fighting for the right to wear the headscarf.
Then there are the native-born left-wing German feminists who say that arranged marriages are actually very happy unions. Coming from the left wing – this is crazy! This undermines my morale. Some people say: Why call it an “honor killing” when a Muslim does it but call it “domestic violence” when a non-Muslim German does it. They do not understand. And when I explain that an honor killing is not the same as domestic violence, they do not answer. They are silent.
PC: Give them my study on this very subject. Translate it into German. It might be useful. These feminists sound like those who also say that wearing a headscarf is a form of resistance to colonialist oppression. Meanwhile, Muslim men walk around dressed as westerners, with cell phones, i-phones, computers, girlfriends, etc.
SA: They just don’t think that human rights are universal. They believe in cultural relativism. This way of thinking became worse and worse and made it harder for me to do my work. I don’t just have to fight against Muslim fanatics but against left-wing Germans who explain to me what I have to do, explain that who I am is sick.
PC: How do the radical or fundamentalist Muslims sound?
SA: Yesterday, I read an article about a study which found that 60% of Turkish men did not believe a woman should go out of the house without her man and more than 60% of Turkish men said the should ask permission. I also read a study in which 30% of Turkish university students believe that honor killings should be allowed. Imagine what less educated Turkish men might say.
PC: I agree with you. The fight for women’s rights is a symbol for all the important battles of the 21st century. The fight for real democracy as opposed to totalitarianism, for human rights and individual freedom will be won or lost on the battlefield of woman’s rights.
SA: I hope the West does not give in. But I am worried. There seems to be some confusion in America.
I don’t know why the West is only taking baby steps against fundamentalist Islam. Why not be strong like the Islamic world and say, this is how we want to live.
PC: The West is in major apology mode – for racism, colonialism – so therefore we refuse to call barbarism by its own name.
What a triumph of the human spirit that you went back to defending battered Muslim girls and women. I know you could not return to work at that same location, but what happened next?
SA: I didn’t stop my political work. My left arm was paralyzed for 6 months. I had to take care of my body first. I needed six years of rehabilitation. I also suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome. But, I finished my studies and, in 1997, opened my own law office. I also helped some girls who needed refuge, who would otherwise have been honor murdered. In 2006, I and my client were again attacked in my office. Then, I stopped practicing law. I never knew when someone else might try to kill me or my clients. It is not possible to do this work without living with the fear of being beaten, wounded, maimed or murdered. I became very vigilant about who was entering the office.
PC: You don’t seem like the kind of woman who would back down.
SA: Then I didn’t have a child. Now I do. So I say: Now I don’t have the right to risk my life anymore. It’s different once you have a child. So, I closed my law office when I became a mother.
PC: Why do you want to found a different kind of mosque?
SA: At the end of my book, I describe my personal relationship to religion. It is our responsibility to redefine Islam, to use Islam to end the oppression of women. I want to pray without wearing a headscarf, a place where both women and men feel welcome. Maybe it is too dangerous to do this in Berlin. Maybe it can be done in New York. Having a woman-friendly mosque is not enough for me. I want a mosque where Sunni and Shii’a can pray together, where we can invite Jews and Christians for interfaith dialogues and for prayer. Why do I need a headscarf? When I’m praying, I am not thinking about sex. I am thinking about God. A headscarf should definitely not be required at this time.
PC: How do other Muslims react to your ideas?
SA: Some agree with me. Many don’t. It hurts me to hear all the time “you are not a Muslim.” They don’t have the right to say that. Only God does. I had a special experience in my life when I was 21, when they shot me.
PC: Seyran, my dearest guest: And now, you can’t appear in public without risking your life or the life of your precious family members. What lesson must we learn from this? That once a hero speaks out and is truly heard, that she then has to hide so that she can continue her work more quietly? How paradoxical, how maddening!
SA: We learn that at this time it’s not easy to have an open discussion with the Islamic world. They say we want to destroy Islam. This does not mean we should stop our work.
This interview was first published at Human Rights Service. The rights belong to the author and the piece may also be found at my website www.phyllis-Chesler.com
Bourgeois-shmourgeois! If marriage is too bourgeois for some people, they don’t have to do it. On the other hand, since marriage exists for heterosexuals, it should also exist for homosexuals.
The asymmetry is a political statement that one doesn’t want to make.
The United States was conceived in liberty. Allowing gays to marry is an expansion of liberty. Besides, gay marriage doesn’t hurt a soul in the world.
What inspirational heroism. We in the West do not value the freedom we have, that it must be cherished and guarded.
1963. Quite the year. JFK and C.S. Lewis depart, as well as others, and Seyran Ates, myself and others, arrive on the scene.
When it comes to marriage, I see that Seyran’s views are like Ayn Rand’s, but other than that I can worth work with her, so that the West does
not succumb to those who tread the path trod by Yassir Arafat’s uncle who was the Mufti of Jerusalem during the Second World War.
PART I
Happy she fights for ISLAM and for ISLAMIC women and for their Rights, not necessarely considering the West, who cares, but doing it IN THE WEST and THANKS TO THE WEST, otherwise, since “who cares of the West”, she could do it in her beloved ISLAMIC Countries, among her beloved ISLAMIC Communities, talking between ISLAMIC people only (and about the Westerners: who cares? They are – and their World – just wallpaper and ornaments. And uselsess ones. Western Values are not Western Values: they are universal Values, adoptable by Islamic people and world, too, as soon as they want and wish. The West itself, is Nothing and, above all, it is basically useless. Democracy exists without the West, universal human Rights exist without the West, children’s Rights’ Chart exists without the West, women’s Rights’ movements exist without the West, anti Slavery’s movements exist without the West, everything good and moral, modern and evolved, exist without the West – it simply falls down from the Sky, where the Ruler is Allah, of course, and its most loved created Being is Muhammed “I love XXX”, of course).
About no marriage and extended families insted I just wonder: does she support the kidnapping of children from their Non-islamic mothers, by their ISLAMIC fathers (helped by their beloved ISLAMIC Community), who are brought in ISLAMIC Countries and Communities, living in their father’s extended family, without being able too see her Non-islamic mother anymore, or even listen to her (because “their” beloved extended ISLAMIC family forbit it to them, maybe telling them “your mother is dead”, while the mother is completely alive, but she’s going to die for the Pain caused by the kidnapping of her children, by gruesome/sadist/selfish/… “extended ISLAMIC family” with hypertrophic Ego, in the name of ISLAM, its God and his/its most loved Being, where “marriage with a foreigner” isn’t best wished – but Racism there doesn’t exist. I mean, in Islamic Countries and in Islamic Communties. Racism is a typical Western bad Quality only, which has to be pointed out as “Western” and/or “made in the West”. Right? -.
PART II
It happens I knew one of these women/mother, and the fact that “a lot praised” Seyran Ates “fighting for ISLAMIC women’s Rights” and “for Islam” and “for extended families” and for “universal (non Western at all) Values”, living in the West and from the West, almost makes me angry instead of an admirer of her!
Like other Islamic women (or allegedly Ex-islamic women) who call themselves a human Right Activist, and a women’s Rights Activist, she just fight for ISLAMIC (people’s) Rights, she disregards the West and its Culture, its Values, its Struggles, its Achievements, but there she lives and from there she fights her (personal 100% Islamic) fight. I find all of that little laudable: sorry if I care about the West … and … why not … about Western women, too.
Sorry because I think that Islam has nothing good to sexually teach to others, neither to Christianity. I think Wafa Sultan is one who really well exposed the bad sexual behaviour of ISLAMIC “prophet” whom, on the other hand and appearently, Seyrant Ates appreciates so much: she appreciates him and his XXX teachings.
If ISLAM is a Threat to ISLAMIC women, it is even a greater Threat to Non-islamic (i.e. Western) women and … people in general.
HOW COMES NO ONE (AMONG ISLAMIC “HUMAN RIGHT/WOMEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS”) SEEMS TO WORRY ABOUT “THE REST OF THE WORLD”, THE NON-ISLAMIC ONE (AND THE REST OF THE WOMEN)?
I’m controversing and you know, this has to do with:
. the whole Islamic/Islamist problem worldwide in general (where “the vast Majoritiy” of “Peace loving” people remains deafening silent about);
. the Swiss citizens’ ban of Islamic phallocratic Symbols, which has been harshly criticized by Eurabians and Islamic/Islamist people and Communities – maybe by so called (Islamic) Moderates and Reformists, too?
I START THINKING THAT WHEN IT COMES TO ISLAM, AND ISLAMIC/ISLAMIST PEOPLE, EVERYTHING ONE DOES, HE/SHE DOES IT FOR HIM/HERSELF AND HIS/HER COMMUNITY, PERIOD. OTHERS ARE THERE JUST TO BE EXPLOITED [WESTERN WOMEN FIRST].
While I fundamentally disagree with Ms. Ates views on marriage, I think her contentions about multiculturalism and feminism have merit. Overturning thousands of years of history is a little too Hegelian/Marxist for me to buy into.
One problem I see with many Islamic feminists is that since many or even most of them are unable are unable to be feminists in Islamic countries, they try to be Islamic feminists in Western countries and that’s just not possible.
Before Islamic countries can be expected to respect basic rights such as life & liberty, we must have Western countries that do so and we do not. Not that Westerners do not have these rights but that they do not think EVERYONE deserves them. Or wants them…whichever. Until Western governments and feminists stop selling out to left-wing nihilism, nothing will change anywhere else in the world and Islamic feminists will be whistling into the wind. If we do not BELIEVE in inalienable rights, why should anyone else?
Not to fill the last refuge of freedom with anything is our most holy duty (Klevius 2004)! This (negative) human right stays in sharp opposition to ALL forms of islam. Islam/Koran incites to racist “infidel” hatred. Islam is a collective/totalitarian, not a personal “faith”, using mob/gang/political etc. power manipulation, hence violating the individuals Negative Human Rights outlined in U.N.’s 1948 declaration. Ask muslims if they think infidels are equals to them! Islam hides behind West’s human rights (which it aims to destroy when not needed anymore) while OIC (57 islamic states) does everything (via UN etc)to criminalize criticism against islam & has introduced its own Sharia “human rights” (Cairo Declaration 1990) in which Western human rights given to both men & women, are limited for girls/women in accordance with Sharia “duties” & “responsibilities”.
What many seem to forget is the simple fact that the only feasible explanation to islam’s initial success was a sex & booty jihad moralized via “infidel” racism & reproduced via rapetivism (segregation of girls/women for securing as many islamic pregnancies as possible & the kids made muslim under the threat of Sharia & apostasy ban).
Part 1)
7. Slveryder: I agree with you on many issues. About marriage I wanted to remember that Seyran Ates illogically claims that Islam is better when it comes to Sex (compared to “the West” or to “Christianity”), that she doesn’t believe in Marriage, and that Islam (allegerdly is better because) allows Sex just within Marriage (“which is better, of course”) – just mentioning that there are two little (sort of unimportant and maybe even laudable) options called Concubinage and Poligamy [*].
Therefore: is she in favour of Marriage or not? What about her Concept of “better Sexuality” (for both males and females?) in Islam (compared to other “Philosophies”): is it freer or imprisoning? Freer Sexuality is better than imprisoning one? What exactely about the Concept of Responsibility when it comes to sexual Intercourses: is it important or not? Is it more/less valued in freer or in more imprisoning Sexuality? Which is the Role of Marriage when it comes to Responsibility? How she likes Islamic freer Sexuality, she rejects Marriage, but she can islamically make Sex just within Marriage? Is Marriage taken in a responsible Way or not – has it to be taken in a responsible Way or not: has it Sense to altogether keep this Insititution (Marriage) alive, or not? [Yes for Sex, no for else? If so: does it - feministically and humanly - make any Sense at all?].
[*] I mean: a Feminist, and Activist for women’s Rights, doesn’t realize the – bad – implication of Concubinage for the woman? Doesn’t she think that Islamic Marriage and sexual Rules are simply another way to advantage men and disadvantage women, and therefore definitely rejectable?
I actually “logged in” to ask the following:
is it Right that – from “Extremists” to “Moderates”, from Misogynists to Feminists, from Islamic/Islamist people to alleged “Ex-muslims”, their “Logic” is -:
Part 2)
if there is something Clever/Good/Beautiful (on Earth, in Life, …), the West has nothing to do with it;
if there is something Illogical/Evil/Ugly (on Earth, in Life, …), Islam has nothing to do with it?
According to this “Logic” I wonder how can actually the West “fight back” and how can the West “never give in”. I wonder, I really wonder. [What do they want from the West? Islam immigrated there causing enormous problems
(about women's matters we have been sent back to centuries ago; about human Rights there is a Cairo Declaration which clearly shows Islam refuses to respect anything which is Non-islamic/islamist - I saw no Riots against this discriminating Declaration; many Resources we could use for Invalids, Elderlies, Refugees, Poverty, had to be spent for "Islamic/Islamist matters"; ...)
but this should allegedly not be a problem (on the other hand, "the Right" should be, "Geert Wilders" should be, "Western" Feminists should be, "Western" Left should be - yes, how weird: both "Western" Right and Left should be the problem -. Not Islam/Islamism, not Islamic/Islamist Immigration, not Islamic/Islamist Communities, never).
The West exists not. It wellcomes them (them), it gives them a platform where to speak and drive their Campaigns (everything pro Islam, pro Islamic Immigration, pro Islamic women, pro Islamic Communities - no one else), ... but the West exists not. It has no merits.
Mercì. Danke. Shokran, thank you, gracias, grazie, ....
[I now wonder: this - veiled or not - Hate or Disregard for "the West" ... hasn't it maybe to do with former Cold war? Hasn't it maybe to do with an Islamic Alliance with former Soviet Block? Hasn't it maybe to do with a more and more tight Relation between Islamic/Islamist world and Russia? I wonder. I'm really wondering.]
In Islam, marriage is 13th century, like purchasing a wife. You can have up to four and divorce them at will. You can get a short-term marriage to sleep with a prostitute and then divorce them. The women has to ask permission from her husband about everything – its not like he can write a check or sign a contract. She can be jailed and beaten for being out without her husbands permission. So given how negative marriage is for Islamic women, that likely helps explain her view – its not exactly I Love Lucy.
Anyway great to see people standing up for what’s right – rare but inspiring. I think many people are scared to speak out for a variety of reasons.
“Allowing gays to marry is an expansion of liberty. Besides, gay marriage doesn’t hurt a soul in the world.”
Classic propaganda. A fact followed by the Big Lie.
It’s nice to see a professional at work.
Gay marriage would legitimize what is deviant, anti-social behavior. Homosexuality is a CHOICE, NOT a civil right. Arson is closer to homosexuality then race, religion, gender or color. If homosexuals have the right to screw like rabid weasels, then don’t arsonists have the right to burn down verything in sight? Both actions are based on ‘it feels good so do it’ theory of life. Hedonism is the technical term.
I would consider the millions that have died from AIDs/HIV to have been harmed.
Then there is the yet to be explored connection between serial murders and homosexuality. Or would you have people believe that it is a co-ink-see-dink that 9 out of 10 serial killers are homosexual? How about the young boys that are seduced then raped by older men? Normal people would consider them as having been harmed.
We won’t even get into the social effects of having employees promoted on their willingness to perform casual sex in a broom closet instead of merit. A classic example of that would be FNMA. One homosexual in Human Resources and in a year or two, the bathrooms are full of 4 legged employees, who aren’t doing the work they are being paid for.
Business do not survive when the profit motive is replaced by getting your nut.
Rights of any sort belong to those strong enough to fight for and hold them.
Blacks in America are not slaves because about 600,000 White Males died for their freedom. Blacks were not strong enough to win it themselves. Blacks ARE strong enough to keep what those 600,00 white males died to give them.
Females have rights because of the males that fought alongside them to gain those rights. They keep those rights because they have the strength to.
It’s a sad fact that in the real world, right makes right.
Civilized people pretend that moral value outweighs a strong arm. The fact is it doesn’t.
Nazi Germany did not stop murdering Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and undermench because they suddenly had a moment of moral clarity. The Allies bombed their cities to rubble, destroyed their industry and killed enough Germans to go in and shut down the death camps.
Without the might that made right, those death camps would still be working.
The Islamic world isn’t going to recognize Human Rights just because it is the ‘right’ thing to do. In their mind it isn’t the right thing to do, that if Human Rights was needed, Allah would have said something about it to Ol’ Mo the goat roper.
Muslim have NO CHANCE of beating the West in a fight. So eventually the West will get tired of fooling around with Islam and either exterminate all Muslims or force them to convert to some other religion. Which is about the same thing. Not for a while yet. Another couple of centuries.
In the meantime, all we need from the Islamic crescent is OIL. What with Brazil slowly coming on line, and the Shale OIL available in America and China, it will be possible by 2040 or so to tell the Muslims to pound sand and embargo the entire religion. No contact either way. Let them eat their OIL.
If a woman is truly a feminist, she can not logically be a practicing Moslem. It is contradictory. How any woman would willing choose to adhere to this radical and misogynist political philosophy, masquerading as a religion, is beyond me. I say this because having lived and travelled in the Middle East, I saw first-hand how women are treated. A “moderate” Moslem former colleague used to joke at the office that when his pregnant wife complained too much, all he had to do was repeat “I divorce you” several times and he would be free to marry more than one woman. (except me) What I found to be even scarier that his comments, was the level of laughter coming from the sexist morons that I worked with.
I do not trust Ms. Ates who speaks as if one can be a Muslim and at the same time deny the words and deeds of the founder of Islam and the Allah that is worshiped by the people at the mosques.
Denying that women are less value than men their testimony worth half, denying that women are the main occupiers of Hell, denying that woman should be used like a field or domestic animal, denying that women can be struck, denying that woman will be sexual slaves in paradise would be denying the words of Mohammad and Allah. That would be a denial of Islam.
Allah and Mohammad also commands that Muslims will fight the Jews until the end of time where Allah will cause the rocks and trees to cry out “Here is a Jew!”, “Here is a Jew!”, “Come and kill the Jew!” To deny that command would be to deny Mohammad, Allah and Islam.
I don’t trust her words because she talks double speak against and for at the same time, therefore I don’t trust her.
Without a doubt the future of what is Presently the Islamic World depends largely on the future of its women. She Who is Needed is Muslima Lysistrada. -S-
The truth shall set us free….
NEVER should truth seekers be intimidated by the jackals at our throats. In fact, the MORE fear we show, the MORE they come after everything which resembles civilized society.
Kudos to this brave woman and all those who follow in her footsteps!!
As we say in Judaism, from strength to strength….
From Israel (Jewish State) comes a comment saying that Swiss vote against the building of minarets is the worst thing happening after Holocaust [even if the banning of Islamification's bayonets could be a Jews-friendly vote and even if some Islamic Clerics which call for another Holocaust against Jews, therefore there is little need for Jews to fight for Islamification of Europe, to defame Swiss vote against Islamic bayonets, to compare Jews situation during worldwide hitlerian Nazism with Islamic bayonets' situation during Swiss Democracy in Switzerland];
from Islamo-Turkey (Seyran’s native Country) comes a call to all (Islamo-)Turkish people living in Switzerland, suggesting them to move all their bank accounts away from Switzerland and to Turkey [even if many of them benefited of Swiss Socialwelfare in the past or still do so] – I am aware of the fact that Russians have very good Relations with alleged moderate Islamic world/Countries, and I wonder if this Islamo-Turkish statement isn’t influenced by Russian anti Western (see: neverending Cold War) feeling (or agenda), considered that there already is a very Islamo-Turkish anti Western Culture agenda.
Or: is that all happening according to an hidden Eurabian plan (damaged by the 60% Swiss’ vote against Islamic bayonets)? Or has it to do with Bilderberg Club’s decisions (and the Swiss’ vote destabilizes them)?
What can/must Feminists (which hope the West never gives in) do against (or for!) the anti 60% Swiss citizens’ vote plot?