Sharia über Alles versus Western Justice

October 23, 2011

By Andrew G. Bostom

How is it that intelligent people cannot see the lesson of history when sharia enters a non-Islamic society, step by step?  Yale Assistant Professor of religious studies Eliyahu Stern’s 9/2/11 NY Times op-ed (“Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”) vilifies those who seek fair, rational legislative remedies to the encroachment of Islamic law (Sharia) in America as “stigmatizing Islamic life”¹.  Stern’s vitriol is directed specifically at SB 1028, a bill which was recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly, and includes this straightforward language regarding sharia²:

 

This bill defines “sharia” as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence. Under this bill, any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali, Ja’afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.

 

Michael Nazir Ali was the first bishop of Raiwand in Pakistan’s West Punjab (1984-1986), who emigrated to become the initial non-white diocesan bishop in the Church of England.  During September 2009, he gave up his English bishopric to work full-time in defense of beleaguered Christian minorities, particularly within Islamdom.  Nazir Ali has authored Islam: A Christian Perspective (1984), Frontiers in Muslim-Christian Encounters (2006), and From Everywhere To Everywhere (2009)³.

 

Contra Stern’s distressingly uninformed polemics⁴, Nazir Ali offered these scholarly and experience-based observations from his adopted Britain (8/7/11) — observations which support Tennessee’s eminently reasonable legislative solution⁵.

 

To understand the impact of Sharia law you have to look at other [i.e., Islamic] countries. At its heart it has basic inequalities between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between men and women. The problem with Sharia law being used in tribunals [in Britain] is that it compromises the tradition of equality for all under the law. It threatens the fundamental values that underpin our society.

 

Karl Binswanger was a German scholar renowned for his pioneering 1977 study of the discriminatory and degrading conditions imposed upon non-Muslim “dhimmis” — predominantly Christians — subjugated under Ottoman Turkish sharia in the 16^th century⁶.  Binswanger describes the key role played by the creation of Muslim “satellite” colonies during the Islamization of these vanquished Christian societies^6a:

 

Geographic integrity is shattered by implanting Islamic nuclei.; The sectarian reference point of Dhimmi communities is removed, and further sectarian pruning occurs according to Islamic standards.; The autonomy of Dhimmis is reduced to an insubstantial thing… They are driven out the moment that Islamic nuclei appear in the area.; Dhimmis’ possession of their churches is granted.  These are closed or razed as soon as a mosque is established in their neighborhood…Regulations in the social area…demoralize the individual: [they] are consciously instituted for their degradation.; The social environment of the Dhimmis is characterized by fear, uncertainty and degradation.

 

During 1990, Binswanger published three remarkably prescient essays on the (primarily Turkish) Muslim immigrant community of Germany^6b.  Binswanger opens his 1990 essay, “Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects,” with this ominous illustration^6c:

 

“We reject reform and modernization.  We will keep fighting until a godly order is established!”  This quotation is not from Cemalettin Kaplan, the “Khomeini of Cologne”, but rather from Kadir Baran, the West German national vice-chairman of the “Idealist Associations” [“Idealistenvereine”], in other words, from a ‘Grey Wolf”.. [u]ntil the Autumn of 1987 the federation’s ideology was purely nationalistic, chauvinistically Turkish.  This is symptomatic of a development that one can observe among Turks in the Federal Republic of Germany, too, since Khomeini’s victory over the Shah:  Islamic fundamentalism is on the march…

 

He then demonstrates how the strident re-affirmation of Islamic identity within Germany’s Turkish immigrant population engendered^6d “an increasingly intense demonization of the culture, legal and social order of the host society: the image of Germans as enemies.”

 

Central to this disturbing process was the inculcation of validating Islamic (i.e., Koranic) motifs which promote hostility to non-Muslims^6e:

 

In this regard all the unions [i.e., the alphabet soup of Turkish Muslim organizations in Germany] exhibit an astounding congruence in their ideology, which ultimately is derived from the Qur’an.  The centerpiece of its preaching about the distance to be maintained from the “unbelievers” consists of three verses from the Qur’an, variations on which appear in publications, addresses and on the banners of all unions, either literally or in paraphrases and allusions.  The significant thing is that in all the unions these verses are always central to the discussion about models of integration.  Sura 5, verse 51 of the Qur’an prescribes:  “You believers!  Do not take Jews and Christians as friends.  They are friends with each other (but not with you).  When one of you joins them, he belongs to them (and no longer to the community of believers).”  “To join them” is interpreted today, however, as external adaptation to the European way of life (including New Year’s celebrations) and any form of integration/assimilation. Besides this purely normative prohibition of amicable dealings with “unbelievers”, two other Qur’an verses are frequently cited, which give a reason for keeping one’s distance (and therefore in the case of Turkish migrant workers:  self-isolation: “Jews and Christians will not be happy with you as long as you do not follow their profession of faith” (Sura 2, verse 120).  “You believers!  Do not take as your confidants and intimate friends people who are outside your community.  They never tire of causing disorder among you, and would like affliction to befall you.  Their own statements make their hatred plain enough, but the hatred and wickedness that they secretly harbor within them are much worse” (Sura 3, verse 118).

 

Arguably the most accomplished (and easily the most unapologetic) scholar of how the Ottoman Turks progressively imposed the sharia on non-Muslims, Binswanger became alarmed by the obvious modern parallels to that phenomenon he observed in the behaviors of their contemporary Turkish descendants in Germany.  Thus, he concluded in 1990^6f:

 

A clearly hostile image of German society is developing and is being preached to more and more Turkish migrant workers.  Simultaneously, however, all the umbrella groups reinforce the desire to stay permanently in the Federal Republic of Germany;  this then is possible only if the resident Turkish populace walls itself off from the Germans to a great extent — otherwise it would run into a conflict of faith.  The more they reduce their contact with the Germans, the more the Turks have to set up their own system — this explains the ever wider spectrum of union activities, whose declared goal is the “preservation of identity”.  Through the spread of fundamentalism the recreational clubs of the past have moved into the self-isolation of an all-encompassing “parallel society”.  It is a long way from the recreational clubs of the former bachelors, via the plain mosque unions when they began to bring a wife and a child later, to a closed society after politics took them under its care and the “Khomeini factor” reminded them that Islam is more than quiet prayer in your little room:  namely an all-encompassing rule of life willed by God that forbids any adaptation to, any friendly or trusting relations with “infidels” on an equal footing.  The expression of this change of consciousness (or new self-awareness) and of this heightened sense of worth is their self-isolation today, which for the religiously reawakened is a more authentic home than secularist Turkey.  Yet this is only a transitional stage, admittedly a necessary one, in order to reach the final goal of Islamic fundamentalism:  finally to create for oneself a homeland in which one can accomplish Allah’s will.  This is evident in the final examination of a four-year AMGT [i.e., The “National View Organization in Europe” founded by Necmettin Erbakan’s National Welfare Party as an offshoot of the youth organization “Akincilar” (roughly: “Blitzkrieg warriors”)]  course on the Qur’an and the “right” answer to it:  “Q. What day in the future would be in your opinion the holiest day?”  “Answer:  Our happiest day would be the day on which the Islamic State is founded and the Muslims get their Caliph again.”

 

Twenty-one years later, author and veteran television journalist Joachim Wagner has just published his analysis of the parallel sharia-based Islamic “legal” system burgeoning in Germany, entitled Richter ohne Gesetz (“Judges without Laws”).  Consistent with Nazir Ali’s assessment of the deleterious impact of Britain’s Muslim “tribunals,” Wagner’s alarming investigation — summarized in English during a two-part Der Spiegel series — elucidates how what he terms “Islamic shadow justice” undermines Germany’s Western constitutional legal system, ultimately abrogating even German criminal law^6g.

 

The parallel, indeed superseding application of sharia within Germany’s Muslim community is a widespread, dangerous phenomenon according to Wagner’s research⁷.

 

As far as I know, very prevalent. There are no reliable statistics, since these mediations take place almost exclusively in secret. But criminal investigators who specialize in organized crime and violence within Muslim immigrant families have confirmed for me that in nearly every conflict in this milieu, the first attempt is to find a solution outside the German justice system.

These arbitrators try to resolve conflicts according to Islamic law and to sideline German criminal law. We see witness testimony withdrawn (from German courts) and accusations trivialized to the point where an entire case runs aground. The justice system is “powerless,” partly because it hasn’t tackled the problem vigorously enough.

 

Sheikh Abu Adam, wife-battering⁸, polygamist⁹ imam of the Darul Quran Mosque in Munich, illustrates the tragic, dangerous perversity of Germany’s tacit acceptance of sharia as a “communal” alternative legal system.

 

A Munich-based arbitrator, Sheik Adam maintains that it is a religious duty to mediate among the Muslim faithful.  The imam, who lives with three women, and, in accord with classical Islamic understanding¹⁰, believes that Islam is an all-encompassing theo-political ideology, described to Der Spiegel how he applies his sharia-based legal method¹¹.

 

He invites both parties to visit him at the mosque, listens to both sides, and ultimately has them sign a peace treaty. The important thing, he says, is not who’s right and wrong, and evidence is no particular help — the important thing is to find a compromise. In nine out of 10 cases, the people respect his decision, he says.

 

Adam added unabashedly, despite ignoring accusations of running a shadow justice system¹²:

 

My judgment is fairer than the government’s. I tell my people, don’t go to the police. ‘We’ll take care of this conflict among ourselves.’ I’m making less work for the police.

 

Sheikh Adam gave a lecture at Munich’s Catholic University entitled “An Islam which distances itself from violence,” shortly before being arrested (12/10/10) for allegedly assaulting his spouse so violently that she suffered a broken nose and shoulder and numerous cuts and bruises.  Media reports claimed that the woman, who has borne one of his ten children, wanted to live a more “Western” lifestyle, and was allegedly attacked by him after expressing this wish to her husband.  An icon of Germany’s Islamic parallel Islamic “justice” system, Sheikh Adam purportedly shouted Koran 4:34 at his wife as he beat her¹³.

 

(E.g., Shakir translation¹⁴: “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great[.]”)

 

Sheik Adam’s abusive (if Koran-sanctioned) misogyny (and polygamy; see Koran 4:3¹⁵) notwithstanding, there is no debating that his defiant rejection of Western evidentiary methods for establishing legal truth (and right versus wrong) reflects mainstream sharia-based jurisprudence.  Joseph Schacht (d. 1969), arguably the pre-eminent 20^th-century Western scholar of Islamic law, made these salient observations about evidence and legal proof according to the sharia in his classic “An Introduction to Islamic Law”¹⁶:

 

The emphasis of the Islamic law of procedure lies not so much on arriving at the truth as on applying certain formal rules…If both parties produce evidence, the number of the witnesses produced by each, beyond their minimum number, is irrelevant. There is no examination of the witnesses, or the likelihood of their testimony being true…[I]n cases concerning hadd punishments (i.e., defined by the Muslim prophet Muhammad either in the Koran, or the hadith  included¹⁷: (lethal) stoning for adultery; death for apostasy; death for highway robbery, when accompanied by murder of the robbery victim; for simple highway robbery, the loss of hands and feet; for simple theft, cutting off of the right hand; for “fornication,” a hundred lashes; for drinking wine, eighty lashes) the evidence of women is not admitted, and in the case of zina (“fornication”) four male witnesses are required (notably. if a woman claims to have been raped!)…the dhimmi (non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, and living under Sharia jurisdiction) cannot be a witness, except in matters concerning other dhimmis…

 

N.T. Coulson, another renowned 20^th-century scholar of the sharia, elaborated further on “matters of procedure” under Islamic law antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law^17a.  Coulson reaffirmed the flimsy nature of sharia-based “evidentiary proof” while elucidating, under the sharia doctrine of “siyasa” (“government,” or “administration”), which grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, how arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants were permissible to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects.  Moreover, plaintiffs too could be subjected to bizarre, and equally arbitrary and painful, procedural methods for ascertaining “legal truth”^17b.

 

[T]he strict Sharia rules of evidence, which in general terms limit legal proof to the oral testimony of two witnesses possessing the quality of adala (probity) and, failing such proof, give effect to the defendant’s oath of denial, are scarcely suited to the effective maintenance of law and order. Recognizing the need for these rules to be supplemented, particularly in criminal matters…the jurists admit the power of the ruler to employ such methods as the use of threats or the extortion of confessions by corporal punishment and imprisonment, finding the necessary authority in the practice of the early Islamic rulers. The Caliph Ali, it is alleged, in order to discover the truth of the plaintiff’s claim that he had been rendered dumb as the result of an assault, ordered that his tongue be pierced with a needle; if red blood appeared the plaintiff was lying, but if the blood was black he was indeed dumb. All such stratagems are, according to [the classical Muslim jurist] Ibn Farhun^17c [d. 1397], “good siyasa.”…Particularly harsh treatment is recommended for the individual of reputedly bad character whose guilt is suspected but cannot be proved in orthodox fashion. He should be subjected to rigorous examination, with beating and imprisonment if necessary, for [quoting Ibn Farhun] “were we simply to subject each suspect to the oath and then free him, in spite of our knowledge of his notoriety in crime, saying: ‘We cannot convict him without two adl witnesses [witnesses of probity]’, that would be contrary to siyasa Sharia.” Nor, in the event of the subsequent release of the suspect, is there any question of a remedy for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment. It is only where no proof is forthcoming and the person charged is of such high repute that none would normally suspect him of the alleged offense that the accuser will be punished…[I]dealing with defamatory statements other than the false accusations of unchastity or illegitimacy which entail a hadd penalty, certain jurists would prescribe twenty-five lashes for calling a person “a criminal” or “a wrongdoer,” ten lashes for calling a Muslim “a Jew,” and ten, fifteen, or twenty-five lashes for a false imputation of theft.

 

Clearly, Sharia “standards” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to extract “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

 

The late Kirsten Heisig, a juvenile court judge in Germany, underscored a year ago the inevitable consequences of relegating legal decisions to Muslim arbitrators such as Sheikh Adam¹⁸:

 

The law is slipping out of our hands. It’s moving to the streets, or into a parallel system where an imam or another representative of the Koran determines what must be done.

 

Moreover, Joachim Wagner’s “Judges without Laws” documents judges’ and prosecutors’ recollections of threats toward public officials and systematic interference with witnesses.  For example, Stephan Kuperion, a juvenile court judge in Berlin, noted, “We know we’re being given a performance, but the courts are powerless.”  And federal public prosecutor Jörn Hauschild provided this ominous warning: “It would be a terrible development if serious criminal offenses in these circles could no longer be resolved. The legal system would be reduced to collecting victims”¹⁹.

 

Wagner himself made this astute diagnosis of the current predicament to Der Spiegel, and proffered an uncompromising interim resolution²⁰:

 

They’re [German public prosecutors and judges]  overwhelmed, because they don’t know how to react. They’re in the middle of a legal case, and suddenly there’s no evidence. Eighty-seven percent of the cases I researched either were dismissed or ended with an acquittal when Islamic arbitrators were involved.

Prosecutors need to investigate Islamic arbitrators more intensively. If they had done so sooner, the arbitrators would have been convicted of obstruction of justice long ago. And certain lawyers need to stop behaving as if they were mere servants to a parallel justice system. They allow themselves to be directed by their clients’ desires, regardless of truth and justice. And finally, my plea would be for judges to hear witnesses earlier, which would reduce the arbitrators’ influence.

 

But Wagner is keenly aware of the more profound, fundamental incompatibility of Western law and sharia, the latter being²¹:

 

Very foreign, and for a German lawyer, completely incomprehensible at first. It follows its own rules. The Islamic arbitrators aren’t interested in evidence when they deliver a judgment, and unlike in German criminal law, the question of who is at fault doesn’t play much of a role.

 

Nearly six decades earlier, Robert H. Jackson, an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941-1954), who also served as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, made these more expansive, complementary observations in his foreword to a treatise on Islamic law²²:

 

In any broad sense, Islamic Law offers the American lawyer a study in dramatic contrasts. Even casual acquaintance and superficial knowledge — all that most of us at bench or bar will be able to acquire — reveal that its striking features relative to our law are not likenesses but inconsistencies, not similarities but contrarieties. In its source, its scope and its sanctions, the law [i.e., Islamic Law, Sharia] of the Middle East is the antithesis of Western Law…Islamic law, on the contrary, finds its chief source in the will of Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It contemplates one community of the faithful, though they may be of various tribes and in widely separated locations. Religion, not nationalism or geography, is the proper cohesive force. The state itself is subordinate to the Qur’an, which leaves little room for additional legislation, none for criticism or dissent. This world is viewed as but the vestibule to another and a better one for the faithful, and the Qur’an lays down rules of behavior towards others and toward society to assure a safe transition. It is not possible to separate political or juristic theories from the teachings of the Prophet, which establish rules of conduct concerning religious, domestic, social, and political life. This results in a law of duties, rather than rights…

 

Joachim Wagner’s modern study has led him to conclude that even the ostensibly limited application of sharia arbitration within Germany’s Muslim community nullifies the state’s Western conception of legal justice²³.

 

The problem starts when the arbitrators force the justice system out of the picture, especially in the case of criminal offenses. At that point they undermine the state… Islamic conflict resolution in particular, as I’ve experienced it, is often achieved through violence and threats. It’s often a dictate of power on the part of the stronger family.

 

Past as prologue to the present, application of the sharia has had obviously negative societal repercussions, for both Muslims and non-Muslims.  How this undeniable truth somehow escapes the mental and moral calculus of Western sharia apologists such as Yale’s Eliyahu Stern ²⁴ is astonishing and reveals the frightening, delusively self-righteous cultural relativist mindset of the American academy.  If Stern was truly desirous of protecting the unique Western freedoms many Muslim immigrants to the U.S. cherish in common with non-Muslim Americans, he would applaud the Tennessee state legislature’s bill SB 1028²⁵ instead of condemning it.*

 

(*POSTSCRIPT: It is perhaps an ironic footnote that the language about sharia which Professor Stern fulminated against was actually pruned out of the final Tennessee bill (House Bill No. 1353) when state legislators came under intense pressure from local Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated “advocacy” groups.  House Bill No. 1353 never mentions the words “sharia,” “Muslim,” “Islam,” or “Islamic law.”  Sharia dictates that non-Muslims in particular have no right to criticize this divine, perfect, and immutable “law”²⁶.)

 

---

¹ Eliyahu Stern. “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”, The New York Times, September 2, 2011

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/opinion/dont-fear-islamic-law-in-america.html?_r=1&ref=global)

² SB 1028

(http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1028&ga=107)

³ For a mini-biography of Michael Nazir Ali, see, Sharia in the West, edited by R. Ahdar, N. Aroney, Oxford, 2010, p. xi.

⁴ Stern, “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”

⁵ Jonathan Wynne-Jones. “Sharia: A Law Unto Itself”, The Telegraph (London), August 7, 2011

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8686504/Sharia-a-law-unto-itself.html)

6 Karl Binswanger. Untersuchungen zum Status der Nichtmuslime im Osmanischen Reich des 16. Jahrhunderts : mit einer Neudefinition des Begriffes “Dimma”, München: R. Trofenik, 1977. Beiträge zur Kenntnis Südosteuropas und des Nahen Orients, 2. (Investigations on the Status of Non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire  of the 16^th Century, With a New Definition of the Concept “Dhimma”)

^6a Ibid, pp. 327-328 (English translation by James Hodge)

^6b “Islamischer Fundamentalismus in der Bundesrepublik. Entwicklung-Bestandsaufnahme-Ausblick” [“Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects”], pp. 38-54;   “Ökonomische Basis der Fundamentalisten”, pp. 81-93;  “Fundamentalisten-Filz-Getrennt marschieren-vereint schlagen”, pp. 129-148. All three essays were published in Im Namen Allahs. Islamische Gruppen und der Fundamentalismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Koln, 1990

^6c Binswanger, “Islamic Fundamentalism in the German Federal Republic: Development, Inventory, Prospects,”, p. 38. (English translation by Michael J. Miller)

^6d Ibid, p. 41

^6e Ibid, pp. 50ff

^6f Ibid, p. 53

^6g Part 1. “Islamic Justice in Europe” — ‘It’s Often a Dictate of Power’ “, Spiegel Online, 09/01/2011

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783843,00.html);

Part 2. Maximilian Popp. “Parallel Justice — Islamic ‘Arbitrators’ Shadow German Law”,  Spiegel Online, 09/01/2011

(http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,783361,00.html)

⁷ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

⁸ Allan Hall. “Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife”, The Daily Mail, December 2, 2010

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335024/Muslim-imam-Sheikh-Adam-lectures-non-violence-arrested-wife-beating.html)

⁹ Popp, “Parallel Justice”

¹⁰ Joseph Schacht. “Sharia”, in H.A. R. Gibb, J.H. Kramers, The Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam,  1953/2008, p. 743 ff.; G-H. Bousquet. L’éthique sexuelle de l’Islam. [The Sexual Ethic of Islam] Paris,  Maisonneuve 1966/1990, pp. 10-11.

¹¹ Popp, “Parallel Justice”

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Hall, “Muslim imam who lectures on non-violence in Germany is arrested for beating up his wife”

¹⁴ Shakir Koranic translation of verse 4:34 at:

(http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=shakir&layout=auto&searchstring=004:034)

¹⁵ Shakir Koranic translation of verse 4:3 at:

(http://www.quranbrowser.com/cgi/bin/get.cgi?version=shakir&layout=auto&searchstring=004:003)

¹⁶ Joseph Schacht. An Introduction to Islamic Law, New York, 1982, pp. 195,198,132.

¹⁷ Thomas Patrick Hughes. A Dictionary of Islam, London, 1885, p. 153.

^17a N.J. Coulson. “The State and the Individual in Islamic Law”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1957, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 49-60.

^17b Ibid, pp. 57-58

^17c Born about 760/1358 into a scholarly Medinan family of Andalusian origin, after travels to Egypt and Syria Ibn Farhun became a jurist in Medina in 793/1390 and is claimed to have revived the Maliki (one of the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence) rite there.  He died in 799/1397.  His Tabsirat al-hukkam fi usul al-akdiya wa-manahid̲j̲ al-ahkam is a sort of manual for qadis containing details of procedure, rules of evidence, etc. (See, J.F.P. Hopkins. “Ibn Farhun”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman; Th. Bianquis; C.E. Bosworth; E. van Donzel; and W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2011. Brill Online. Brown University. 30 September 2011 [http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_SIM-3160].)

¹⁸ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Robert H. Jackson. Foreword to Law in the Middle East. Edited by Majid Khadduri, Herbert J. Liebesny. Washington, D.C., 1955, pp. vi-vii.

²³ “Islamic Justice in Europe”

²⁴ Stern, “Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America”

²⁵ SB 1028 (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB1028&ga=107)

²⁶ State of Tennessee, Public Chapter No. 497, House Bill No. 1353

(http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/107/pub/pc0497.pdf)

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/10/sharia_uber_alles_versus_western_justice.html at October 23, 2011 – 11:21:31 AM CDT

Islam in Europa – Eurabia Rising

Es ist 2 vor 12!!!

Für unsere Sozialisten, grün-linke Politiker, so genannte Menschenrechts-Kämpfer, für unsere liberalen Journalisten und Juristen, unsere toleranten Kirchenvertreter, all den  Asylanten-NGOs , für all die Zuwandererlobbyisten in der Wirtschaft und Politik, alle Mutlikulti-Träumer, ……..
folgenden Film widmen wir Euch:

Sie, liebe Leser, verbreiten diese Bilder weiter und weiter –
unser Widerstand hat erst zu rollen begonnen,
aber er nimmt an Fahrt zu……..!

Mit großem Dank an unseren Patrioten!

A Month in the Life of Islam in Europe

courtesy Hudson NY

by Soeren Kern
May 5, 2011 at 5:00 am

The controversial Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi is moving to Norway to help Muslims in the polar regions of the country establish their prayer times. Qaradawi, who has been banned from entering Britain and the United States for his defense of suicide attacks against Jews as “martyrdom in the name of Allah,” will work to determine the five daily Muslim prayer times, which are calculated according to the position of the sun.

In the polar regions of Norway and other parts of Scandinavia, the sun shines for twenty-four hours during the summer months and there is permanent darkness during the winter. In recent years, when the Islamic month of Ramadan has coincided with the summer season, Muslims in the northernmost parts of Europe have had to break their fast, eat their pre-dawn meal and pray the evening prayer all within the span of one hour. The Islamic Council of Norway hopes al-Qaradawi can find a solution to this problem in a country where Islam is now the largest minority religion.

Al-Qaradawi’s trip to Norway is just one of hundreds of Islam-related news items that made the headlines in Europe last month. A perusal of just a few of these headlines offers insights into how Muslim immigration is transforming the continent, and the different ways in which Europeans are responding to the rise of Islam in their midst.

In Denmark, the President of the International Free Press Society, Lars Hedegaard, was found guilty of racist hate speech for comments he made about Islam. He was ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 Danish Kroner (about $1,000). Hedegaard’s legal problems began in December 2009, when he remarked in a taped interview that there was a high incidence of child rape and domestic violence in areas dominated by Muslim culture.

Although Hedegaard has insisted that he did not intend to accuse all Muslims or even the majority of Muslims of such crimes, and although he was previously acquitted by a lower court, Denmark’s thought police refused to drop the case until he was found guilty. After the court handed down its verdict, Hedegaard said: “The real losers today are freedom of speech and Muslim women. How can we speak up for them if we risk getting a state sanctioned label of racism?”

Also in Denmark, a new poll shows that a majority (72%) of Danes believe foreigners in Denmark should “predominantly adopt local Danish customs.” The poll comes after Danish Integration Minister Søren Pind publicly rejected the idea that Denmark should be a multicultural society. At the same time, it was announced that 100 employees of the Danish Tax Authority would take a course entitled “Operational Culture and Islam” to improve tax collection in Muslim neighborhoods.

In Britain, Islamic extremists intent on imposing Islamic Sharia law in London are threatening non-Muslim women who do not wear headscarves with violence and even death. The so-called “London Taliban” are also targeting homosexuals by plastering public walls with posters stating: “Gay free zone. Verily Allah is severe in punishment.”

In one instance, an Asian woman who works in a pharmacy in east London was told to dress more modestly and wear a veil or the shop would be boycotted. When she talked to the media about the abuse she was suffering, a man later entered the pharmacy and told her: “If you keep doing these things, we are going to kill you.” The 31-year-old, who is not a practicing Muslim, has since been told to take a holiday by the pharmacy owners, and now fears she may lose her job.

Elsewhere in Britain, an electrician in West Yorkshire may lose his job for displaying a small cross on the dashboard of his van. Colin Atkinson, who has an unblemished work record, is facing a full disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct, which could result in dismissal, for attaching an 8-inch-long cross made from woven palm leaves to the dashboard shelf below his windshield. His employer fears the cross could offend Muslims.

In Sweden, the artistic director for Stockholm’s premier cultural venue, Kulturhuset, apologized for hastily cancelling a feminist performance in which women were set to dance to a score that included recitation of verses from the Koran set to music. Eric Sjöström said his decision to cancel part of a two-day performance piece, entitled “Celebration of Womanhood,” was taken out of concern for public safety. The event will now go forward in May, but without the parts that recite the Koran.

One of Sjöström’s sharpest critics, the musician and former Abba star Björn Ulvaeus, said there is now “an unofficial prohibition against blasphemy” that only applies to Islam, and that Kulturhuset had put religious sensitivities ahead of art, free speech and women’s rights.

The Church of Sweden, meanwhile, has sent out a letter to pastors in Sweden advising them to avoid christening Muslim asylum seekers who have converted to Christianity due to the risk of reprisals in the case of repatriation.

In France, the much-debated “burqa ban” entered into force on April 11. The new law prohibits the wearing of Islamic body-covering burqas and face-covering niqabs in all public spaces in France. However, French police have been warned not to arrest any women wearing Muslim veils in or around mosques.

Abu Imran, the leader of a group called Sharia4Belgium, responded to the ban by posting a message on the Internet in which he called on French First Lady Carla Bruni to convert to Islam and wear the niqab. “We are coming to say: Oh Sarkozy, enemy of Allah, dog of the Romans, son of the unbeliever, we are on our way. We are coming to take back what belongs to us, to regain our land and purify it of unbelief and of the unbelievers. We are coming with ‘There is no god but Allah.’ We are coming because we reject democracy. We do not accept democracy. We accept nothing but the tawhid of Allah. We accept nothing but: ‘There is no god but Allah.’ We accept nothing but the Sharia of Allah.”

Meanwhile, French Interior Minister Claude Guéant faces a lawsuit for saying that the growing population of Muslims in the country “poses problems.” Muslim immigrants have accused Guéant of Islamophobia for saying that “the question [of Muslim immigration] worries our citizens: there are many who think the rules of secularism are being stretched.” Muslim groups reacted to Guéant’s comments by distributing five-pointed green stars to Muslims in districts of Paris in an effort to equate themselves with the persecution suffered by the Jews in the Holocaust.

Also in France, researchers have found that use of anonymous CVs without personal information like name, address and age does not reduce discrimination in recruitment. Researchers say that people of foreign origin and those who live in underprivileged areas are less likely to be invited to an interview if their CV contains no name or address.

Elsewhere in France, a man in Strasbourg went on trial for burning and urinating on a Koran. The prosecutor asked for three months’ suspended sentence and a fine of €1,000 ($1,500) for incitement to racial and religious hatred. According to an official at the Strasbourg Mosque, “He told me ‘We are in France and we can burn a book on Winnie the Pooh, in the same way we can burn the Koran.’ He was totally coherent and he didn’t seem to realize the impact of his acts.”

At the same time, a 21-year-old Jewish man was seriously wounded in an anti-Semitic attack by two North African youths in the town of Villeurbanne, in southern France.

During a summit in Rome on April 26, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi sought to ease tensions over North African immigration by calling for the reimposition of passport controls for travel within the European Union. So far this year, approximately 25,000 North African immigrations have arrived in southern Italy on overloaded fishing boats. Once inside the European Union, migrants can move freely around 25 European countries.

In Switzerland, three Hindus, who announced their intention to burn the Koran and the Bible on Bern’s Parliament Square last November, were acquitted by a Swiss court. The judge ruled that the men could not be prosecuted for simply announcing their intention to burn the religious texts. However, the three were asked to pay half of the court costs, on the grounds that they had overstepped the boundaries of personal freedom and injured the religious feelings of others.

In Germany, police arrested three alleged members of al Qaida on suspicion that they were plotting attacks in Germany. Local media reported that the three were Moroccans living in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, and were caught with “large amounts of explosives.” Citing security sources, the newspaper said the suspects were targeting the Eurovision Song Contest, which will be held in Düsseldorf on May 14.

Meanwhile, the trial of eight people accused of spreading Islamist propaganda over the Internet opened in Munich on April 12. Prosecutors say the defendants used Internet forums and blogs to call for a holy war.

In response, German Education Minister Annette Schavan says she wants to promote “European Islam” by having Muslim clerics teach courses on Islam in public schools. The German government is also financing the creation of four new institutes devoted to Islamic theology. They will be located at the universities of Tübingen, Erlangen, Osnabrück, Münster and Frankfurt.

In Finland, the nationalist True Finns Party won more votes than the governing party in parliamentary elections on April 17. The party has drawn Finland’s political map with a platform of opposition to multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.

Meanwhile, the Finnish Ministry of the Interior has launched a new Internet site focused on immigration. The politically correct objective is to “give a boost to factual and serious debate and information on the issue,” and “to get away from an ‘us and them’ position as well as from preaching and guilt attitudes.” Of course, the site does not have a discussion forum.

In Belgium, the Chamber of Deputies — the lower house of parliament — approved a bill that would ban all clothing that covers or partially covers the face. It would prohibit Muslim women from wearing burqas and niqabs in all public spaces in Belgium. The bill was passed by a vote of 136-1 and two abstentions. If approved by the Senate, Belgium would become the second European country after France to put such a law into practice. Violators of the law would be subject to a fine of up to €25 ($35) and/or imprisonment for up to seven days.

Also in Belgium, the Turkish Embassy in Brussels has condemned the anti-immigrant Vlams Belang party for using posters depicting Turkish and Moroccan immigrants as sheep being kicked out of Europe. The Turkish Ambassador to Belgium said the poster was racist and “thus constitutes a crime under Belgian law.” Speaking at a conference on April 10, Vlaams Belang leader Bruno Valkeniers said that Flemish cities have begun to look like Moroccan cities, with mosques mushrooming over the region. He also proposed the establishment of an anti-immigration network bringing together other like-minded parties across Europe.

In the Nethrlands, Queen Beatrix said in a speech that “in our country we make every effort to promote tolerance.” Of course, that tolerance does not extend to Dutch lawmaker M.P. Geert Wilders, whose anti-Islam hate-speech trial resumed in Amsterdam on April 13. His trial was halted in October 2010 after it emerged that one of the judges attempted to influence an expert witness before the trial. Even though the public prosecutor says there is not enough evidence to indict Wilders, politically activist judges now insist that the trial must proceed.

Wilders is facing five charges of inciting racial and religious hatred for remarks which include equating Islam with fascism, and other remarks calling for a ban on the Koran and a tax on Muslim headscarves. Viewed more broadly, however, the Wilders trial represents a landmark case that likely will establish the limits of free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

Wilders has articulated what is at stake in this case: “I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticize an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom.”

Europe’s Muslim Lobby

Hudson New York

by Soeren Kern
January 20, 2011

Europeans often fantasize about America’s so-called Jewish lobby, which they claim has a chokehold over American finance, media and politics and is responsible for all manner of conspiratorial evil. But few Europeans like to talk about the growing influence of Europe’s Muslim lobby, a conglomeration of hundreds of Muslim political and religious organizations — many of which are media-savvy mouthpieces for militant Islam that openly pursue anti-European, anti-Western and anti-Semitic agendas and often receive financial support from Islamic fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.

In a Europe where Islam is the fastest-growing religion, and where the number of Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years, Europe’s Muslim lobby is becoming increasingly assertive and skilled at pressuring European policy-makers into implementing countless pro-Islamic policies, especially ones that institutionalize Islamic Sharia law. Muslim lobby groups are, in fact, transforming European society in ways unimaginable only a few years ago; critics say their ultimate goal is nothing less than the Islamification of Europe.

Some of the most effective Muslim lobby groups are located in Britain, home to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe, and include organizations such as the Muslim Council of Britain [MCB], Britain’s largest Muslim umbrella body with around 500 affiliated national, regional and local organizations, mosques, charities and schools. It recently pressured the British government into adopting Islamic law and giving Sharia courts full powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The British government has quietly sanctioned the powers for Sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whereas previously, the rulings of Sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims, rulings issued by a network of five Sharia courts are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Sharia courts with these powers have been set up in Birmingham, Bradford, London and Manchester and the network’s headquarters are located in Nuneaton, Warwickshire; and two more courts are being planned for Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Overall, at least 85 Islamic Sharia courts are now operating in Britain, almost 20 times as many as previously believed. A study by the Civitas think tank found that scores of unofficial tribunals and councils regularly apply Islamic law to resolve domestic, marital and business disputes, many operating in mosques. The study warns of a “creeping” acceptance of Sharia principles in British law.)

Although the MCB, which represents half of the country’s 3 million Muslims, presents itself as the moderate face of Islam in Britain, the group has its origins in the extreme orthodox politics of Pakistan. The MCB and some of its affiliates sympathize with, and have links to, conservative Islamist movements in the Muslim world, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood and Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami, a radical party committed to the establishment of an Islamic state in Pakistan ruled by Sharia law.

Far from promoting moderate Islam, the MCB’s real objective, critics say, is to help Muslims in Britain become more radical in their beliefs.

Among other positions, the MCB believes death is the appropriate penalty for apostasy and homosexuality. The group recently endorsed a pro-Hamas declaration that calls for Jihad against Jews and Israel, and condones attacks on British troops. The MCB also regularly makes headlines for boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day ceremonies in Britain; it is also campaigning for the establishment of an alternative Genocide Memorial Day that will “incorporate similar tragedies.”

Another Muslim group, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom (MPACUK), has the outspoken aim of mobilizing Muslim voters to affect the outcome of British elections. During the general elections in 2010, MPACUK was pivotal in de-seating six members of parliament (MPs) who were perceived as being not sufficiently pro-Muslim.

During the 2005 general elections, MPACUK launched a smear campaign against Labour Party MP Lorna Fitzsimons. MPACUK distributed a leaflet claiming that Fitzsimons had done nothing to help the Palestinians because she was Jewish. Another leaflet said: “Lorna Fitzsimons is an ardent Zionist and a member of the most powerful anti-Muslim lobby in the world, the Israel lobby.”

Fitzsimons is not in fact Jewish, and MPACUK later withdrew the leaflet. But MPACUK did succeed in unseating Fitzsimons; ever since then, many British MPs have been bending over backwards to appease Muslim voters.

MPACUK recently worked with Britain’s Channel 4 television to produce a documentary titled “Operation Muslim Vote.” With the aim of pressing for a larger participation of Muslims in British politics, the documentary tells the story of two MPACUK activists who head to northern England to take on the safe seats of several “pro-Zionist war mongering MPs.”

MPACUK’s website says its work is defined by the core principle of anti-Zionism: “MPACUK opposes the racist political ideology of Zionism and aims to counter the influence of the Zionist lobby. Openly available evidence demonstrates a Zionist agenda to dominate the Middle East and push a ‘clash of civilisations’ between Islam and ‘The West’. We therefore believe that anti-Zionism is a strategic priority to counter the greatest and most urgent threat facing the Ummah [the Muslim Diaspora].”

Its website also says Muslims in Britain should be pro-actively engaged in mainstream media and politics as the most effective way to “reviving the fard (obligation) of Jihad.”

Muslim lobby groups have also pressed the British government to enact the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which creates a new crime: intentionally stirring up religious hatred against people on religious grounds. Predictably, the new law has established new limits on free speech in a country where the politically correct elite routinely seek to silence public discussion about the escalating problem of Muslim immigration.

The growing power of Europe’s Muslim lobby was most recently demonstrated by the European Union’s decision in mid-December to quietly abandon a new measure that would have required halal (religiously approved for Muslims) meat products to carry a label to help non-Muslim consumers identify their origins. With the exponential growth of Europe’s Muslim population, thousands of tons of religiously slaughtered halal meat is now entering the general food chain, where it is being unwittingly consumed by the non-Muslim population.

By bowing to Muslim pressure groups — such as the World Halal Forum Europe and the Halal Monitoring Committee — and dropping the halal labelling requirement, the EU is effectively establishing Sharia law as normative for Europe’s meat industry. The halal controversy, in which Muslim lobby groups are seeking to impose the requirements of Islam, not just on their own people, but also on the rest of society, illustrates how the rise of Islam is influencing the daily lives of hundreds of millions of non-Muslim Europeans.

In France, which has the second-largest Muslim population on the continent after Germany, several Muslim lobby groups are vying to represent the country’s estimated 4.1 million Muslims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) serves as the official interlocutor with the French state in the regulation of Muslim religious activities, and as such it is the de facto representative of all French Muslims before the national government. The other main Muslim lobby groups are the Rally for French Muslims (RMF),backed by Morocco, and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF), close to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In Germany, home to Europe’s largest Muslim population in absolute terms, the powerful Turkish-Islamic Union for Religious Affairs (DITIB), itself a branch of the Turkish government’s religious affairs authority, has succeeded in persuading the city of Cologne to approve the construction of a new mega mosque. The futuristic mosque will hold up to 4,000 worshippers, and will have a large dome and two 55-meter (180 feet) minarets, each as tall as 18-story office towers. The 4,500-square-meter (48,000-square-foot) mosque, which has a price tag of €20 million ($26 million), is being financed by donations from more than 800 Muslim groups inside and outside Germany. Critics of the project say the mosque is a deliberate effort to spoil Cologne’s skyline by taking attention away from the city’s Gothic cathedral, a globally famous Christian landmark.

In recent months, Muslim lobby groups have also persuaded the German government to adapt Germany’s secular education system so that it caters to Islamic preferences. The German Education Ministry has, for example, agreed to fund Islamic studies at several state universities to train Muslim prayer leaders and religion teachers. Germany’s Education Minister, Annette Schavan, says: “We want as many imams as possible to be educated in Germany. Imams are bridge builders between their congregations and the communities in which their mosques stand.” She states further that Germany would need 2,000 imams and teachers if all 16 states offered Islam courses.

Elsewhere in Germany, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Muslim lobby groups are working with the Culture Ministry to design Islam-friendly classes for public schools. The new guidelines recommend cancelling all school trips during the month of Ramadan; taking into account the sensitivities of Muslims when planning internships and school events; and assigning less schoolwork during Ramadan because fasting could lead to loss of performance and concentration among Muslim students.

In the German state of Lower Saxony, the German Muslim Central Council is urging the Education Ministry to include Islam in its schools’ core curriculum as part of a politically correct initiative to counter growing anti-Islam sentiments in the country. In Berlin, the Ministry for Education, Science and Research recently published a guide called “Islam and School,” which gives teachers practical advice on how to avoid offending Muslim students.

In Scandinavia, the Muslim Council of Sweden, an umbrella organization of Islamic groups in the country, is pressuring the Swedish government to implement special legislation for Muslims in Sweden. The demands include: the right to specific Islamic holidays; special public financing for the building of mosques; a demand that all divorces between Muslim couples be approved by an Imam; and that Imams should be allowed to teach Islam in public schools.

As Europe’s Muslim population grows, Muslim lobby groups are also exerting significant influence on European policy in the Middle East, resulting in a notable hardening of official European attitudes toward Israel. Several European countries, for instance, eager to maintain good relations with local Muslim communities, are laying the political groundwork for the EU to recognize a Palestinian state, possibly as early as October 2011,even if negotiations for a permanent settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are not concluded — a total abrogation of the UN’s signed Oslo accords.

In December 2009, the EU adopted a resolution that for the first time explicitly calls for Jerusalem to become the future capital of a Palestinian state. The move not only reflects the EU’s efforts to prejudge the outcome of issues reserved for permanent status negotiations, but in December 2010, an influential group of former EU leaders and officials published a letter urging the EU to implement sanctions against Israel.

Europe has also been “ground zero” for a series of anti-Israel lawsuits which exploit the legal principle of universal jurisdiction in order to harass current and former Israeli political and military leaders, with the twin aims of tying Israel’s hands against Palestinian terror and delegitimizing the Jewish state. Such “lawfare” is often aided and abetted by Muslim lobby groups in Europe by means of financial and logistical support.

The steady demonization of Israel by European officialdom is also affecting the European street, where the line between valid criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism is becoming dangerously blurred. A survey conducted by the University of Bielefeld, for example, shows that more than 50% of Germans equate Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews, and that 68% of Germans say that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinian people. In terms of Europe as a whole, an official EU poll shows that the majority of Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

Another report commissioned by the EU’s Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now called the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights) found that Muslim immigrants are largely responsible for the sharp increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe.

Predictably, Muslim lobby groups pressured the EU into preventing that report from being released to the general public.

Das alte Europa wird zum Morgenland

Von Welt.de

Europa verändert sich – und nicht zum Guten. Historiker Walter Laqueur analysiert, wie real der Begriff “Eurabien” inzwischen geworden ist.

Foto: Getty Images/Getty Images Europe Eine Demonstration? In Istanbul? Weder noch. Schiitische Muslime feiern im Zentrum von London das Ashura-Fest

Das Wort „Eurabien“ ist in den vergangenen Jahren zu einem festen Bestandteil der politischen Diskussion geworden. Viele tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Experten haben viele Bücher und Artikel – pro und contra – über die Tatsache verfasst, dass Europa in wenigen Jahrzehnten ein Teil der arabischen und nordafrikanischen Welt sein wird.

Ein Teil der Autoren hält diese Entwicklung für unvermeidlich, ein anderer sieht in ihr eine groteske Verzerrung der Wirklichkeit. Manche betrachten sie sogar als eine Erfindung in Panik geratener Neo-Konservativer. Wer so argumentiert, vergisst freilich, dass die These von einem muslimischen Europa älter ist und nicht aus Amerika stammt, sondern aus der arabischen Welt selbst.

• 1 von 11
• zurück blättern
• weiter blättern

Berlin bis Konstanz

Foto: picture-alliance/ ZB/dpa-Zentralbild Die Wilmersdorfer Moschee ist die älteste Moschee Deutschlands und wurde zwischen 1924 und 1928 in Berlin erbaut. Sie hat zwei abgesetzte Minarette und eine 26 Meter hohe Kuppel von zehn Metern Durchmesser.

Foto: picture-alliance / dpa/dpa Ebenfalls in Berlin steht die Sehitlik-Moschee (Stadtteil Neukölln). Sie wurde 1983 errichtet und später erweitert. Ihren Namen übernahm die Moschee vom Türkischen Friedhof, der 1863 als Diplomatenfriedhof angelegt worden war.

Foto: dpa/DPA Die Merkez-Moschee in Duisburg wurde 2008 eingeweiht.

Foto: picture-alliance/ dpa/dpa Die Fatih Moschee in Essen erinnert an den Namen eines Istanbuler Stadtteils.

Foto: ddp/DDP In Köln Ehrenfeld soll eine Großmoschee entstehen. Um den Bau zu verhindern, gründete eine rechtspopulistische Bürgerbewegung die Initiative “Pro Köln”.

Foto: picture-alliance/chromorange Die Imam-Ali-Moschee wurde als viertälteste Moschee Deutschlands zwischen 1960 und 1965 in Hamburg erbaut.

Foto: picture-alliance/ dpa/dpa Zwei 26 Meter hohe Minarette prägen das Bild der Moschee im schleswig-holsteinischen Büdelsdorf bei Rendsburg.

Foto: picture-alliance / dpa/dpaweb/dpa Die markant weiße Moschee in Konstanz gehört der Türkisch-Islamischen Gemeinde, die als weltoffen und tolerant gilt.

Foto: picture-alliance/ dpa/dpaweb/dpa Die türkische Al-Aksa-Moschee in Gelsenkirchen.

Foto: picture-alliance/ dpa/dpa Die Moschee im oberbayerischen Penzberg gilt als modern.

Foto: picture-alliance/ dpa/dpa Die Nuur-Moschee in Frankfurt wurde 1959 gebaut.

// // // Einer der ersten Vertreter dieser Idee war Houari Boumedien. In einer Rede vor der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen prophezeite der algerische Staatspräsident 1976, Europa werde in Zukunft den Muslimen gehören. Libyens Präsident Muammar al-Ghadafi tat es ihm in den Folgejahren gleich. Und auch heute erfreut sich die Vision eines muslimischen Europas im arabischen Raum großer Beliebtheit.

Kürzlich schrieb der einflussreiche Journalist Aijaz Saka Syed in der saudischen Zeitschrift „Arab News“, er sei bei der Ankunft in Brüssel, der Hauptstadt des neuen Europas, angenehm überrascht gewesen, wie sehr die belgische Metropole heute den großen Städten der arabischen Welt ähnelt.

Dasselbe würde auch auf Berlin, Paris und London, Kopenhagen und Amsterdam zutreffen. Es sei daher sinnlos, wenn europäische Journalisten in Panik gerieten. Vielmehr sollten sie sich daran gewöhnen, mit der Masse der Muslime zurechtzukommen. Schließlich sei Europa doch auf eine Verjüngungskur durch begabte, junge Menschen angewiesen.

Geburtsrate der Muslime sinkt

Die Gegner der Eurabien-These werden das nicht gern lesen. Sie verweisen auf Argumente, die einer genaueren Betrachtung wert sind. So sei die Zahl der Muslime in Europa klein, ihre Geburtsrate sinke. Zwar stimme es, dass unter den Muslimen die Konservativen und Fundamentalisten an Einfluss gewonnen hätten, aber es sei unsinnig, diese als Terroristen abzustempeln.

Überhaupt habe der Bewusstseinswandel nichts mit religiös-nationalistischen Beweggründen zu tun, sondern läge an der sozialen Benachteiligung, unter der die Muslime in Europa zu leiden hätten. Einige Experten haben dieses Argument auf die einfache Formel gebracht: „It is Marx not Mohammed, stupid.“ Ob sie Recht haben?

Neue Unterschicht unter den Muslimen

Sicher spielt das Ausmaß der sozialen Probleme bei der Bildung politischer Ansichten eine Rolle, und sicher lässt sich auch die Gefahr nicht leugnen, dass sich unter den Muslimen eine neue Unterschicht bildet, die zu einer „classe dangereuse“ werden könnte. Doch warum es dazu kommt, darauf wissen weder Marx noch seine Jünger eine Antwort zu geben.

Werden einige Vertreter dieser neuen „class dangereuse“ militant, weil sie von den Einheimischen (wie muslimische Radikale behaupten) systematisch unterdrückt werden? Oder liegt es daran, dass ein hoher Anteil der Muslime über keinen Schulabschluss verfügt? Überhaupt: Warum gelingt Chinesen und Indern der soziale Aufstieg schneller als den muslimischen Einwanderern? Verfügen jene über andere, bedeutendere Talente als Türken und Araber?

Diese und andere Fragen werden von Europäern nicht gern gestellt und schon gar nicht beantwortet. Manche glauben sogar, dass die Integration der Muslime in Europa erfolgreich sei. So hat eine dänische Professorin an der amerikanischen Brandeis-Universität 300 muslimische Unternehmer, Ärzte, Rechtsanwälte und Universitätsprofessoren über ihre Leben in Europa befragt.

Der Schweizer Theologe Hans Küng:

“Die neuesten katastrophalen Entwicklungen für das Image meiner Heimat – etwa der Bankenskandal – kulminieren nun in dieser unbegreiflichen Annahme der Initiative, die nicht nur gegen die Religionsfreiheit verstößt, sondern auch gegen die in der Schweiz hoch angesehene Toleranz.”

Unionsfraktionschef Volker Kauder (CDU):
“Problematisch ist diese Entscheidung sicher, weil sie sich in grundsätzliche Dinge der Religionsausübung einmischt”.

Der Vorsitzende der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, Erzbischof Robert Zollitsch:
“Gerade weil wir Christen die Einschränkungen der Religionsfreiheit in muslimisch geprägten Ländern ablehnen und verurteilen, setzen wir uns nicht nur für die Rechte der dortigen Christen ein, sondern auch für die Rechte der Muslime bei uns”.

Die Schweizer Justizministerin Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf:
“Das ist nicht eine Abstimmung gegen den Islam, sondern ein Referendum gegen fundamentalistische Ausprägungen.”

Bayerns Innenminister Joachim Herrmann (CSU):
“Stimmungen in der Bevölkerung sollten nicht negiert oder verdrängt werden. Es gibt ein “emotionales Unbehagen vieler Mitbürger”.

Der Europaabgeordnete der Lega Nord, Mario Borghezio:
„Über dem heute schon fast islamisierten Europa flattert jetzt die Fahne der mutigen Schweiz, die christlich bleiben will.” Die türkische Zeitung “Star”:
“Das Ergebnis der Abstimmung ist ein Sieg der Islamophobie.”

Bundestagsvizepräsidentin und Präses der Synode der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Grüne):
“Wir sind wahnsinnig stolz, gerade in der Adventszeit, auf unsere Kirchtürme. Und wir sagen, aber Minarette dürfen nicht gebaut werden. Ich glaube, hier wird auch Angst vor etwas geschürt, was mit dem Islam wirklich überhaupt nichts zu tun hat.”

Die rechtsextreme französische Partei Front National (FN):
“Auch die Franzosen müssen die Möglichkeit bekommen, in lokalen Abstimmungen ihre Meinung zu Moscheebauten zu äußern. Es ist skandalös, dass die Politik dem Willen des Volkes den Rücken kehrt.”

Der Interkulturelle Rat in Deutschland:
“Diese Herabwürdigung von Muslimen und die Bereitschaft zu ihrer Diskriminierung wird als anti-muslimischer Rassismus definiert.” Die türkische Zeitung “Taraf”:
“Die Schweizer haben Angst vor Minaretten.”

Der schwedische Außenminister Carl Bildt, dessen Land die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft innehat:
“Das ist ein Ausdruck von ziemlich vielen Vorurteilen und vielleicht sogar Angst.”

Die türkische Zeitung “Bugün”:
“Die Schweiz hat den Toleranz-Test nicht bestanden.”

// // Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass diese 300 Muslime sich mit ihrer neuen Heimat durchaus identifizieren. Doch die Mehrzahl der Muslime in Europa sind weder Ärzte und Rechtsanwälte, noch Unternehmer und Professoren. Zwar stimmt es, dass diese Wenigen die Probleme der Vielen oft schonungsloser aufdecken als alteingesessene Politiker – Achmed Abutaleb, der Bürgermeister von Rotterdam, etwa hat nicht gezögert, seinen arabischen Landsleuten zu erklären, dass sie ihre Koffer packen sollen, wenn es ihnen in den Niederlanden nicht gefällt –, aber die Frage bleibt dennoch offen, inwieweit diese neue Elite die tonangebende Schicht in ihren Gemeinden ist.

Zumal viele, die es geschafft und eine höhere Ausbildung genossen haben, oft auch wieder in ihre Heimatländer zurückgehen, weil die Bedingungen auf dem Arbeitsmarkt dort besser sind. Doch selbst wenn sie bleiben, ist es mehr als fraglich, ob die jungen Muslime auf diese Elite hören. Bisher jedenfalls haben sie es nicht getan.

Argumente gegen die Eurabien-These

Zurück zu den Argumenten derjenigen, welche nichts von der Eurabien-These halten. Es stimmt: Die Zahl der Muslime in Europa ist verhältnismäßig klein. Sie liegt bei fünf bis zehn Prozent. Doch die Geburtenrate der Muslime in Europa ist bedeutend höher als die der einheimischen Bevölkerung.

Da in keinem europäischen Land die Reproduktionsrate von 2,1 Prozent erreicht wird, wächst das Gewicht der Muslime schneller. Das bedeutet, dass sich der Anteil der Muslime in naher Zukunft verdoppeln oder verdreifachen wird. Mancherorts ist die muslimische Bevölkerung schon jetzt nahezu so zahlreich wie die angestammte. Man denke – um nur einige Beispiele zu nennen – an Duisburg oder Köln, an Brüssel, die nordfranzösische Stadt Roubaix oder den östlichen Teil der englischen Midlands, von Malmö ganz zu schweigen.

In den dortigen Kindergärten und Schulen beträgt die Zahl der muslimischen Kinder weit mehr als zehn Prozent. Dazu kommt, dass in den meisten europäischen Ländern mehr als zehn Prozent der Muslime Sozialleistungen erhalten. In Zeiten der Wirtschaftskrise und der knappen Kassen, in der die Notwendigkeit zu sparen, immer größer wird, liegt darin ein erheblicher Gefahrenherd, der nicht unterschätzt werden sollte.

Problem Integration

Doch das eigentliche Problem steckt nicht in der Zahl der Einwanderer, sondern in ihrer Integration. In Europa hat es seit eh und je Wanderungen gegeben, wenn auch selten in diesem Umfang. Um Wohlstand und den Sozialstaat zu erhalten, benötigt Europa Einwanderer, aber wo finden sich die begabten und arbeitswilligen jungen Menschen, von denen oben die Rede war?

Etwa die Hälfte der muslimischen Einwanderer in Europa hat erklärt, dass eine Integration in die jeweiligen europäischen Gesellschaften für sie nicht in Frage komme, da sie in krassem Widerspruch zu den Geboten ihrer Religion und Tradition stehe.

Die wirkliche Zahl dieser Integrationsverweigerer wird höher sein, denn unser Wissen über die Stimmung und Ansichten dieser Kreise beruhen auf Umfragen, die keineswegs verlässlich sind. In Großbritannien etwa heißt es, dass nur 13 Prozent der Muslime mit al-Qaida sympathisieren. Warum aber sollten die Befragten ihre tatsächlichen Ansichten Menschen gegenüber preisgeben, die nicht Muslime sind und womöglich sogar Verbindungen zur Polizei aufnehmen. Glaubt jemand unter diesen Umständen wirklich an die Aussagekraft solcher Umfragen?

“Der Weg in die Moschee ist weit”

Wie auch immer, einwenden lässt sich – und das zu Recht –, dass sich ein Ghetto in den modernen europäischen Gesellschaften auf die Dauer nicht halten lässt – ganz im Sinne eines Mullahs aus Berlin, der einmal sinngemäß sagte: „Wir verlieren einen Teil der Jugend. Der Weg in die Moschee ist weit, und der Verführungen gibt es viele.“ Doch dieser Prozess der Assimilation wird Jahrzehnte, vielleicht sogar ein oder zwei Generationen dauern.

Bleibt die Frage, was zu tun ist, um diesen Prozess der Assimilation zu beschleunigen. Die „positive Diskriminierung” (also die Bevorzugung derer, die sich benachteiligt fühlen) war in manchen Fällen durchaus erfolgreich, in anderen wiederum gar nicht.

Doch was man auch immer zu unternehmen gedenkt, am Anfang stehen schonungslose, ganz offene Fragen zum Stand der Integration und Assimilation, ohne auf politische Korrektheiten Rücksicht zu nehmen. Wird dies gelingen?

Wa darf man sagen? Was nicht?

Man darf skeptisch sein. Selbst in den Vereinigten Staaten hat es heftige Debatten über die Frage gegeben, was man über den Islamismus sagen darf und was nicht. Paul Berman hat mit seinem jüngsten Buch („The Flight of the Intellectuals“, New York 2010) aufgeregte Diskussionen ausgelöst, die in der Aussage gipfelten, es sei heute kaum mehr möglich, offen über die Gefahren zu diskutieren, die im Islamismus eben auch stecken.

Selbst die Washingtoner Regierung hat die Weisung ausgegeben, dass Wort „Terrorismus“ künftig nicht mehr zu gebrauchen und dafür „ein von Menschenhand verursachtes Unglück” zu setzen. Dass sich die Gemüter darüber erregten, ist seltsam.

Wenn eine Weltreligion mehr als eine Milliarde Anhänger hat, ist es nur natürlich, dass Regierungen (und nicht nur sie) des lieben Friedens willen alles tun, um keinen Anstoß zu erregen. So ist die Politik der Beschwichtigung konsequent. Die Frage ist dann nur – wie weit wird sie gehen ohne bittere politische Reaktionen hervorzurufen?

Der Autor Walter Laqueur ist Historiker, lebt in Washington und gilt als Vater der Terrorismusforschung.