You are here

Islamo-Fascism

Summary:


European Court of Human Rights Judgement Summary: "sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights". 

As a result of that judgement, the ECHR upheld the banning of a political party that wanted to introduce sharia law. That was the ECHR fulfilling its original function of preventing the spread of totalitarian ideologies in Europe.

http://shariawatch.org.uk/?q=content/echr-judgement-relating-sharia-law-2003

This article gives an excellent summary of the mindset behind Islamo-Fascism:

“The belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity. Manifestation of a religious belief, for instance, which involved subjecting others to torture or inhuman punishment would not qualify for protection.”

The problem begins with a clash of definitions. To a citizen of a secular Western state, "injustice" means a lack of representation. To a Muslim, "injustice" means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence. A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law.

The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power... everywhere.

If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law-- then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under "atheistic" regimes and that "justice" demands that the world "revert" to Islamic rule.

It's why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam. Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law.

The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/dangers-of-legitimizing-islamic.html

Summary: 

There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

...

The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power... everywhere.

If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law-- then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under "atheistic" regimes and that "justice" demands that the world "revert" to Islamic rule.

It's why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam. Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law.

The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed.

Summary: 

This smearing nonsense has to stop.  I don’t like Islam and I have every right to feel that way.  As a woman who believes in free speech, it is entirely justified.  In order to preserve the rights and safety of women, and our right to speak our minds, I believe we must end immigration from Muslim countries.  Its not a conclusion I want to reach, but common sense tells me it’s unfortunately necessary.

I want to halt immigration from theocratic or tyrannical societies because I believe in freedom.  Freedom and totalitarianism, especially religious totalitarianism which gives itself the authority of the creator of the universe, cannot live side by side.  You must pick one.  I pick freedom, and I will fight to preserve it from all that threatens it.

This isn’t fascism.  This is commitment to liberty and democracy.  I will hold fast to this commitment and I will not cower down.  I will fight for our age-old liberties, and if I become leader, UKIP will be a party that fights for our age-old liberties.

Country: 
France
News Date: 
22/03/2018
Summary: 

On 19 March French newspaper Le Figaro published a pamphlet titled “No against Islamist Separatism“, signed by 100 French intellectuals, denouncing “a new totalitarianism threatening freedom in general.

What follows is a translation of the entire pamphlet, with the most notable segments highlighted:

Summary: 

NOTE: Citation of these arguments does not represent Sharia Watch endorsement of the authors nor any other views they may hold.

This article is partly based on the research undertaken by Graham Senior-Milne concerning the legal status of Islam in the UK.

Having considered all the arguments from Graham Senior-Milne’s research, it becomes obvious that if only the legal system would take these arguments into account, and find in our favour (as it undoubtedly should) then in addition to quashing the above-mentioned cases of Religiously Aggravated Harassment, we would solve a great many of our problems with Islam overnight. Considering that Islam is shaping up to be the world’s most intractable problem of the 21st century, this would be a most worthwhile goal, and one arguably deserving of a great deal of attention.

The basic argument is as follows: Islam should not be considered a religion in UK law because it does not meet certain criteria laid down by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which is currently the highest authority in our legal system.

In a case going back to 1982 it was stated that: in order to qualify for protection under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Freedom of thought,conscience and religion), religious and philosophical beliefs must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

If it is lawful to protect religious beliefs that meet these criteria, it must be unlawful to protect (via legal recognition) religious beliefs that do not meet these criteria, because such beliefs must either be not worthy of respect in a democratic society (Islam is unquestionably anti-democratic) and/or incompatible with human dignity (the dignity of women, for instance, who are mere chattels in Islam) and/or conflict with the fundamental rights of others (such as gays, including gay Muslims, who, under Sharia law, must be killed).

While Islam has been treated as a religion in numerous cases over the years, this issue has never been argued before a court; courts have just assumed that Islam is a religion in law. In other words, there is no binding precedent on this issue.

This may sound surprising, but you can perhaps understand why courts would avoid this issue like the plague, even if it occurred to them that they might consider it in the first place. But courts do not hesitate to apply these criteria to other philosophical or religious beliefs – so why should Islam be exempt?

Consider the sheer idiocy of the proposition that a set of beliefs which are incompatible with the human rights of others (say, sacrificing babies on the first Tuesday of every month), which would not be protected under Article 9 ECHR as philosophical beliefs, would be protected simply because they are ‘religious beliefs’.

See also: https://eclj.org/religious-freedom/pace/la-charia-est-elle-compatible-avec-les-droits-de-lhomme-

Summary: 
  • My father's generation in Iran lived in an environment in which the Islamist party of the country's clergy cunningly depicted themselves as intending no harm, supportive of the people, and not interested in power. So, before the revolution, many Iranians did not think that Khomeini's party would be committing the atrocities that they are committing now or that they would have such an unrelenting hunger for power. Instead, during this time, the country thought it was on a smooth path towards democracy, with no expectation of ever returning to a barbaric era. Even the then-US President Jimmy Carter viewed Khomeini as a good religious holy man.

  • Iranians did not just submit to these new laws; they rose up in protest. This uprising was met with torture, rape, and death. With the regime eager to wipe any who dared to resist, the people had no choice but to surrender. Everyone's daily activities were now under the scrutiny of the Islamists.

  • Many will still think it is impossible for something like this to happen in their country. What they fail to understand is that Iran is an example of exactly how successful this meticulous grab for power can be. Islamists in other countries including the West are pursuing the same techniques on the path to seizing power. It is a quiet, and subtle process, until the moment you wake up with no rights, a culture of fear, and no promise that you will live in freedom or even to see the next day.

Summary: 
  • The irony, of course, is that so many people, have adopted a way of interpreting human rights and liberal values in a manner that often undermines them.

  • It is time for some home truths. Islam has been at war with the West for some 1,384 years, with very little respite. When Muslim Arab armies invaded Syria in 634, went on to destroy all but a rump of the Christian Byzantine empire (which it finally defeated when the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453), took control of Spain, Portugal, Sicily and other lands on the north Mediterranean coast, it was the start of endless jihad wars.

  • Most importantly, we seem unable to understand that Islam is, above all else, a totalitarian project covering all aspects of human life from the spiritual to the material, from law to government to clothing to food to sex to taxation and more. This totalitarianism rejects democracy in the most basic way, as having come from mere humans rather than divinely, from Allah.

  • Unfortunately, concluding that modern terrorism "has nothing to do with Islam" or that "Islam is a religion of peace" visibly contradicts the historical record.

Country: 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)
News Date: 
14/12/2015
Summary: 
  • ISIS has reportedly issued fatwa ordering disabled children be killed
  • Iraqi activist group claims more than 38 disabled children already killed
  • Nazis murdered disabled because they were a 'burden'
  • See our full news coverage on ISIS at www.dailymail.co.uk/isis 
  •  
Country: 
Germany
News Date: 
29/11/2017
Summary: 

Faced with recurring attacks by Muslim gangs, Jews in the northwestern German city of Bochum have decided to stop wearing the kippah, the traditional Jewish skullcap that identifies them as Jews in public.

According to the local German broadcaster Radio Bochum, members of the community are “routinely faced with insults on public streets when they are recognized as Jews.” The news outlet identified the perpetrators as “Muslim youths.”

Summary: 

"Not long ago Professor Koopmans found that as much as seventy percent of Muslims find Islamic rules more important than secular laws." -- Geert Wilders Research also points out that 11 percent of Dutch Muslims in the Netherlands are prepared to use violence on behalf of their religion. That is a 110,000 people, twice the size of the Dutch army!" – Geert Wilders I personally believe there are extremist people and moderate people. But I do not believe in two kinds of Islam. There is only one.... You get your head chopped off should you wish to interpret Islam....People who want to come to the Netherlands from Islamic countries should think: this is not a place we want to go to! And we do not do this to bully Muslims, but to keep the Netherlands of the future a free Netherlands." -– Geert Widers

Summary: 
  • What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.

  • The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship -- secular or theocratic -- as a world leader.

  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with "the people of the book" -- Jews and Christians -- but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.

  • Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.

  • Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

Pages

Subscribe to Islamo-Fascism