Articles

ECHR Judgement Summary: "sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights"

Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”

Summary: 

In 2005 the Danish Muhammed cartoons sparked a heated international debate on the relationship between free speech and protection against religious discrimination. Whilst such tensions continue to be a source of conflict in the UN today, Marie Juul Petersen and Heini í Skorini look at what lies behind the actions of one of the key players in this debate, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

“Freedom of expression does not justify in any way whatsoever the defamation of religions.”  The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an intergovernmental umbrella organisation of 57 Muslim-majority states, was unequivocal in its condemnation of the Danish Muhammad cartoons, published in a press release a few months after the cartoons had been printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten in September 2005.

....

The OIC is also alarmingly quiet when it comes to discrimination, intolerance and outright persecution in the organisation’s own member states. No OIC countries have criticised Saudi Arabia’s ban on churches. Nobody has directed attention to the increasing violence against Hindus in Malaysia. Nobody has spoken out against Egyptian newspapers for printing anti-Semitic cartoons. Nobody has criticized the many victims of the strictly enforced blasphemy laws in powerful OIC member states such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and Egypt. Not even clear examples of discrimination of Muslim minorities in OIC member states can bring the OIC to speak. Sunnis in Iran, Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan and Shias in Saudi Arabia enjoy little protection against discrimination and persecution.

Summary: 
  • The report implies that deradicalization, either in specialized centers or in prisons, does not work because most Islamic radicals do not want to be deradicalized.

  • Although France is home to an estimated 8,250 hardcore Islamic radicals, only 17 submitted applications and just nine arrived. Not a single resident has completed the full ten-month curriculum.

  • By housing Islamists in separate prison wings, they actually had become more violent because they were emboldened by "the group effect," according to Justice Minister Jean-Jacques Urvoas.

  • "Deradicalizing someone does not happen in six months. These people, who have not been given an ideal and who have clung to Islamic State's ideology, are not going to get rid of it just like that. There is no 'Open Sesame.'" — Senator Esther Benbassa.

  • "The deradicalization program is a total fiasco. Everything must be rethought, everything must be redesigned from scratch." — Senator Philippe Bas, the head of the Senate committee that commissioned the report.

Country: 
France
News Date: 
23/02/2017
Summary: 
  • "I am not ashamed of what I am. I am a Muslim, that is to say, submissive to Allah who created me and who by his grace has harmoniously shaped me." — Salah Abdeslam, a Belgium-born French national of Moroccan descent and the main suspect in the November 13, 2015 attacks that killed 130 people in Paris.

Executive Summary

What are we to learn from the above? If we are wise, it will be this:

  1. There are individuals and organisations in Britain who seek much greater accommodation of, and adherence to, Islamic norms in our society

  2. Efforts to subversively introduce Islamic norms and practices to British schools have already been undertaken, and been successful

  3. The accommodation of Islamic norms etc. in British society will inevitably mean a loss of democratic free speech and an erosion of the rights and protections of women and girls

  4. The British public sector is shaped by state demands for tolerance, inclusion, multiculturalism and diversity. These are of the utmost importance in the mind of the state

  5. Many British teachers, including the profession’s largest union, have expressed anti-Western and anti-British sentiment and openly support the concept of multiculturalism

  6. Activist groups who seek the Islamisation of British schools, use the language of multiculturalism and diversity to advance their arguments and in doing so, successfully sanitise and legitimise notions that are wholly in opposition to the values of British society

The fact of the matter is that there is an ideological aim to Islamise Britain and the British state is lending a helping hand. In its consistent prioritising of “diversity”, the Government has ignored the detail and has little understanding of what this idea means in every day life. The British Government has effectively decided that religion is good, regardless of what it teaches.

If this problem is to be fixed, a complete political and cultural shift is required in Britain. Schools must return to teaching literacy, numeracy, the sciences, as priority, and teachers’ political leanings should have no bearing in the classroom. It is right that pupils learn about religion, but in the interests of truth, it cannot be that they learn a sanitised or moderated version that can be constructed and approved by those with their own agenda.

Teachers should be required to teach the values of Britain to children (to which we need to add equal rights between genders as a matter of urgency), regardless of their feelings, and to teach accurate history and current affairs. If Israel-Palestine is discussed, then the charter of Hamas should be included, as well as the genocidal intent of global jihadis against the Jewish state.

Furthermore, children should be reminded that they are British, and all of the positive things that this entails.

Most importantly, Government must move away from the notion that all religions are a force for good, and look instead at what is actually being taught. Government must be honest and open and when it sees problems developing, look at the facts without colouring them with multicultural dogma.

Parents have a right to know the culture in which their children are being schooled, and we all have a right to know how the minds of future generations are being formed. At present, they are being schooled in multiculturalism, unquestioning respect for all minority groups irrespective of their practices, and something close to disdain for their own history, identity and heritage.

British schools have numerous problems, but their utilisation as an advancement of jihadi ideology is a problem for us all.

Summary: 

Why does our government recoil “at the notion that we might actually want to scrutinize an ideology that fuels anti-American militarism”?[3] The purge of “Islam,” “jihad,” “sharia,” and other related words from our National Security documents, counter-terrorism training, and intelligence analysis is eerily reminiscent of the warning George Orwell described in his seminal work – 1984.[4] “The purpose of Newspeak was…to make all other modes of thought impossible…by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meaning”[5] This policy is the “Ostrich Complex,” a synonym for Jihad Denial Syndrome (JDS).[6] [7]

Both the Bush and Obama administrations have effectively ascribed to a “see no evil” policy when it comes to Islam.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] The problem is that “words convey reality,” and it is our duty as military officers to be connected to reality.[20] Our oath requires us to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”.[21] Yet this administration has tasked us to focus on the euphemistic “violent extremists”, which aside from being woefully ambiguous, ignores those who may not meet the narrow definition of violent extremists – yet still meet the broader threshold of being enemies.[*][22]

Summary: 

The purpose of this article is to decipher the ominous, but heavily camouflaged language embedded within the English text of a recent scholarly document, published on the website of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), which is entitled Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap (aka the Roadmap).

As a 40-year specialist in the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement (GIM) and founding member of the Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection (retired), my intention is to ‘pull out the threads’ of references in the Shariah-compliant Roadmap that are derived from the Quran and Hadith (and other academic sources), so that the general public sees more clearly that the AMJA is more than a simple ‘home-grown’ American Islamic organization.

Summary: 

As news of fresh Islamist plots hit the newspapers over the weekend, we should remember when, last month, the Prime Minister made British values central to the fight against extremism.He didn’t refer to the abstract values liberals love to promote such as ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ that are so vague as to be of limited value. Instead he clearly articulated historically rooted British values:

  • democracy
  • the rule of law,
  • freedom of speech,
  • freedom of the press
  • freedom of worship

He also insisted that these apply to all regardless of their race, sex, sexuality or faith i.e. in this county we have equality before the law and one law for all, not shari’a for some and British law for others. This of course is not something new: these are historic British values because they have emerged over the centuries and become embedded in our institutions. In that sense they are deeply rooted. But too be honest, we have often lost sight of them.

Summary: 

Over the past few years, Western leaders whose knowledge of Muslim scripture is scanty in the extreme have repeatedly been obliged to pose as experts on Islam. The atrocities currently being committed by jihadis in the Middle East have prompted them to a particular slew of commentary. John Kerry, speaking recently in Iraq, was typical. The Islamic State, he declared, “claims to be fighting on behalf of Islam but the fact is that its hateful ideology has nothing to do with Islam.” A reassuring assertion, and one that almost everyone, including the vast majority of Muslims, would desperately like to believe – but wishful thinking, all the same.

The grim truth is that sanctions can be found in the Qur’an, in the biographies of Muhammad and in the histories of early Islam for much that strikes the outside world as most horrific about the Islamic state. “Kuffar are afraid we will slaughter yazidis,” a British jihadi tweeted recently from Syria, “our deen [religion/ law] is clear we will kill their men, take their women and children as slaves insha Allah.” That this reading of assorted qur’anic verses and episodes from the life of the Prophet is the most brutal one imaginable does not necessarily invalidate it. To be sure, there are other, richer, more nuanced interpretations possible – and yes, the bone-headed literalism of those who would interpret the Qur’an as a license to maim, enslave and kill represents a challenge to everyone who prizes it as a revelation from God, supremely compassionate and supremely wise. That is no reason, though, to play the jihadis’ own takfiri game, and deny them a status as Muslims. The very appeal of their sanguinary interpretation of Islamic scripture is far too lethal to permit such a tactic. It is not enough to engage with the jihadis solely on the battlefield. They must be defeated as well in mosques, and libraries, and seminar rooms. This is a battle that, in the long run, can only be won by theologians.

Country: 
Germany
News Date: 
08/11/2016
Summary: 

The popular Sunday political talk show Anne Will has sparked outrage in Germany after an appearance by a known radical Muslim wearing a full-face niqab veil to debate on the radicalisation of young German Muslims.

I learned the worth of a woman under Islam the day I sought a divorce in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I was worth less than a man, worth only half of a man. That day, somewhere in the United States, girls my age were making sure their clothes and hair were just right for a day in 7th grade (Year 9 in England). Not I. I stood before a judge in an Iranian courtroom as a married woman beaten brutally every day of my short “marriage” by my husband, a mentally unstable, older man to whom I had been sold for the financial profit of my family.

Pages

Subscribe to Front page feed