Sir Arthur Conan Doyle om Fox-journalisterne der konverterede til islam

Mark Steyn skriver om tvangskonvertering – også som set af Sherlock Holmes’ far, samt Goethes Faust om at leve i nuet.

In 1895 Sir Arthur had taken his sick wife to Egypt for her health, and, not wishing to waste the local color, produced a slim novel called The Tragedy of the Korosko, about a party of Anglo-American-French tourists taken hostage by the Mahdists, the jihadi of the day. Much of the story finds the characters in the same predicament as Centanni and Wiig: The kidnappers are offering them a choice between Islam or death.  

Yet in the end, even as men with no religious convictions, they cannot bring themselves to submit to Islam, for they understand it to be not just a denial of Christ but in some sense a denial of themselves, too. So they stall and delay and bog down the imam in a lot of technical questions until eventually he wises up and they’re condemned to death.

Om videoen hvor 2 Fox-journalister konverterede til islam med pistoler for panden: 

If you’re a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling — that the West is weak, that there’s nothing — no core, no bedrock — nothing it’s not willing to trade. In his new book The Conservative Soul, attempting to reconcile his sexual temperament and his alleged political one, Time magazine’s gay Tory Andrew Sullivan enthuses, “By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live — now, which is the only time that matters.” That’s almost a literal restatement of Faust’s bargain with the devil:

“When to the moment I shall say
‘Linger awhile! so fair thou art!’
Then mayst thou fetter me straightway
Then to the abyss will I depart!”

Mere på Chicago Sun-Times via Islamic Evil

Ikke for at jeg siger, at journalisterne skulle være gået i døden, men artiklen viser noget om, hvad der står på spil.

4 Kommentarer

  1. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle var et fjols. Hans samtidige undrede sig ofte over, at en mand med et så begrænset intellekt kunne opfinde Sherlock Holmes.

  2. Hvilken forskel gør det, om disse journalister erklærer sig til Islam, asatroen, kristendommen, buddhismen eller satanismen.
    Kan det ikke være fløjtende ligegyldigt.
    Ingen af delene er videnskabeligt bevist.
    Alt er udtænkt for at beherske andre.
    Det hele er absurd.


  3. Du ved måske, at han ikke var et fjols?

    Manden troede på spritisme. Flyvende borde og den slags – og feer!: “Doyle’s belief in spiritualism, convinced many people that the creator of Sherlock Holmes was not as bright as his fictional creation.

    Some thought Conan Doyle crazy, but he defended the reality of fairies with all the evidence he could find. He counters the arguments of the disbelievers eloquently and at great length. In fact, his arguments sound surprisingly similar in every respect to present-day books touting the idea that alien beings visit us in UFOs. Robert Sheaffer wrote a clever article drawing these parallels beautifully.” (

    Og en lille sjov historie fra Wikipedia: “Doyle was friends for a time with the American magician Harry Houdini, a prominent opponent of the Spiritualist movement. Although Houdini insisted that Spiritualist mediums employed trickery (and consistently attempted to expose them as frauds), Doyle became convinced that Houdini himself possessed supernatural powers, a view expressed in Doyle’s The Edge of the Unknown. Houdini was apparently unable to convince Doyle that his feats were simply magic tricks, leading to a bitter, public, falling-out between the two.”

    Hæ hæ.

    Men jeg elsker Sherlock Holmes-historierne!

Leave a Reply

Din email adresse vil ikke blive vist offentligt.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.