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

A Message to All You MSM-Journalists:

The Norway Massacre and Europe’s War on Free Speech

by Soeren Kern
July 28, 2011

Media outlets in Europe and the United States are accusing Western critics of Islam and multiculturalism of complicity in the mass killing of more than 70 people in Norway. The attempt to exploit this crime for political gain is not just a case of malicious opportunism. It also represents the latest and most unsavoury salvo in the long-running war on free speech in Europe.

Anders Behring Breivik, a deranged Norwegian accused of bombing government buildings in Oslo and then killing scores of young people during a 90-minute shooting rampage on a nearby camping island called Utoya, published a 1,500-page manifesto in which he vents his anger at the direction in which mostly leftwing elites in Norway and elsewhere in Europe are leading his country and the continent as a whole.

As it turns out, parts of the manifesto include cut-and-pasted blog posts from European and American analysts and writers who for years have been educating the general public about the destructive effects of multiculturalism and runaway Muslim immigration. By dint of duplicitous logic, these analysts and writers are now the victims of a smear campaign: multiculturalists are accusing them of inciting Breivik to murder.

These same analysts have, of course, been a constant bane on an unaccountable European elite determined to foist its post-modern, post-nationalist and post-Christian multicultural agenda on a sceptical European citizenry.

Unwilling to countenance opposition, these self-appointed guardians of European political correctness have laboured to silence public discussion about issues such as the rise of Islam in Europe and/or the failure of millions of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society.

The primary weapon in this war on free speech has been lawfare: the malicious use of European courts to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Prosecutions of so-called anti-Islam hate speech are now commonplace in Europe. Some of the more well-known efforts to silence debate about Islam in Europe have involved high-profile individuals like Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician, and Brigitte Bardot, a French animal rights activist.

Other recent assaults on free speech in Europe include the show trials of: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, a housewife in Austria, Susanne Winter, a politician in Austria, Lars Hedegaard, a journalist in Denmark, Jesper Langballe, a politician in Denmark, Jussi Kristian Halla-aho, a politician in Finland, Michel Houellebecq, a novelist in France, Gregorius Nekschot, the pseudonym of a cartoonist in the Netherlands, and the late Oriana Fallaci, a journalist and author in Italy.

In other cases, physical violence has been the preferred method of silencing contrary views of Islam in Europe. In 2002, for example, Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated for his views on Muslim immigration, and in 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was stabbed to death for producing a movie that criticized Islam. In 2010, Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard narrowly escaped being assassinated by an axe-wielding Muslim extremist in Aarhus, Denmark’s second-largest city.

Many theories attempt to explain the rise of multiculturalism in Europe. Among these is the idea that European elites, determined to prevent a repeat of the carnage of the Second World War, embraced multiculturalism as a tool to try to dilute or even eliminate the national ethnic, religious and or/cultural identities that contributed to centuries of violence in Europe.

But in recent years, the secular purveyors of European multiculturalism have moved far beyond their initial objective of creating an American-style “melting pot.” European socialists now view multiculturalism as a means to eliminate the entire Judeo-Christian worldview. This is certainly the case in Spain, where socialists have joined arms with Islam in a “Red-Green Alliance” to confront a common enemy, Christianity, as represented, in this case, by the Roman Catholic Church.

To be sure, decades of multiculturalism and Muslim immigration have already transformed Europe in ways unimaginable only a few decades ago. In Britain, for example, Muslims currently are campaigning to turn twelve British cities — including what they call “Londonistan” — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence. More than 80 Sharia courts are already operating in the country. At the same time, Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys.

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighbourhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

In Germany, anti-Semitism (which is often disguised as anti-Zionism), has reached levels not seen since the Second World War. An April 2011 report, for example, found that 47.7% of Germans believe “Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians,” and nearly 50% of Germans believe “Jews try to take advantage of having been victims of the Nazi era.”

In Norway, large sections of Oslo are being turned into Muslim enclaves subject to Sharia law and to the dictates of local imams. The citizens of Oslo are also struggling to cope with an epidemic of rapes. According to recent statistics, 100% of aggravated sexual assaults which resulted in rapes over the past three years were carried out by Muslim immigrants. Norwegians are now trying to deal with the large-scale torching of automobiles, which, as in France, is being attributed to Muslim youth.

In a Wall Street Journal essay titled “Inside the Mind of the Oslo Murderer,” Bruce Bawer, an American analyst who lives in Oslo, writes: “Norway, like the rest of Europe, is in serious trouble. Millions of European Muslims live in rigidly patriarchal families in rapidly growing enclaves where women are second-class citizens, and where non-Muslims dare not venture. Surveys show that an unsettling percentage of Muslims in Europe reject Western values, despise the countries they live in, support the execution of homosexuals, and want to replace democracy with Sharia law. (According to a poll conducted by the Telegraph, 40% of British Muslims want Sharia implemented in predominantly Muslim parts of the United Kingdom.)”

Bawer describes Norway as a country that stands out for its refusal to confront any of the real dangers posed by Islamic radicalism. He also says the failure of mainstream political leaders to responsibly address the challenges posed by Muslim immigration has contributed to the emergence of extremists like Breivik. Pressure cookers without a safety valve eventually will explode.

Bawer writes: “In bombing those government buildings and hunting down those campers, Breivik was not taking out people randomly. He considered the Labour Party, Norway’s dominant party since World War II, responsible for policies that are leading to the Islamization of Europe — and thus guilty of treason. The Oslo bombing was intended to be an execution of the party’s current leaders. The massacre at the camp — where young would-be politicians gathered to hear speeches by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and former Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland — was meant to destroy its next generation of leaders.”

The question remains: in the aftermath of the attack, will the Norwegian left rethink its non-interventionist approach to Islam and Muslim immigration? In a number of other European countries, governments on the center-right have been doing an about-face on multiculturalism.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have all declared in recent months that multiculturalism has failed. In June, the Dutch government announced it would abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands. In Spain, the conservative Popular Party, which is widely expected to win the next general election, has promised to enact new measures that will require all immigrants to learn the Spanish language to obtain residency permits.

Some analysts say these measures are too little too late. But one thing seems clear: European multiculturalists are feeling some unfamiliar political heat. After decades of high-handed stifling of debate, the gradual unravelling of multiculturalism in Europe explains the obsessive zeal with which many are exploiting the Norwegian tragedy.

By falsely accusing conservatives of complicity in a crime in which they had no part, multiculturalists are seeking to delegitimize and silence criticism of their social re-engineering scheme. But they are unlikely to succeed as the consequences of their worldview are becoming clear for all to see.

Hudson NY

Pat Condell: Violence is not the answer

Bat Ye’or: On Geert Wilders’s Acquittal

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2239/on-geert-wilders-acquittal

On Geert Wilders’s Acquittal
by Bat Ye’or
July 5, 2011 at 5:00 am

The acquittal of Geert Wilders has deeper meanings for Europe’s future than
it appears at first glance. As Geert Wilders said: it is a victory for
truth. But what does truth mean in international policy? Do we not see that
in Eurabia the words ‘justice and peace’ are travesties for submission to
injustice and terrorism? Here one needs to know the extensive system of lies
spread at every political and cultural level in Eurabia, to understand the
Copernican revolution achieved by Geert Wilders. A victory performed by a
single unarmed man, constantly threatened by death and whose only defence
was his courageous and unbending commitment to say the truth. A truth buried
by the whole Eurabian transnational and international system created since
the 1970s.

Imposed on Europeans by controlling networks such a system emanates from the
European Commission whose masters are no other than the political leaders of
the European governments. The EU, a mastodon Kafkaesque structure, consuming
astronomical sums, often enables European leaders to implement an
authoritarian policy escaping people’s awareness. Rivalries for power,
ambitions, ideology, oppose Eurocrats to those they disdainfully call
“racist, populist, xenophobic” opponents to their globalist Islamophile
ideology. Yet there is more than usual policy into these clashes. There is
what Wilders calls: the truth, a human moral element.

To understand the tremendous revolution achieved by Geert Wilders, one has
to realise that the foundational stone of the Eurabian mind consist of two
principles stated in article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human
Rights in Islam:

a. Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such
manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a.

b. Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and
propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to
the norms of Islamic Shari’a.

Europe, while claiming to defend human rights has, in effect, adopted these
principles and obeys a fundamental law of dhimmitude: dhimmis are forbidden
on pain of death to propagate ideas considered hostile to Islam. Qadi ‘Iyad
(d. 1149), the famous Andalusian Imam, prolific author and scholar,
described explicitly blasphemy. It consists in cursing Muhammad, blaming him
or attributing imperfection to him, to his religion, whether in the form of
a curse, contempt or belittling him or maligning him. He stated that any Jew
or Christian who reviled the Prophet should be beheaded or burned, unless he
converts. Under the pressure of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
Eurabia has adopted these Islamic blasphemy rules.

The dhimmi attitude that has developed among European intellectuals,
politicians, and the clergy requires the Western public to conform to one of
the basic rules of dhimmitude: the express prohibition on Christians and
Jews to criticize Islamic history and doctrine. This means that shari’a law
has been imposed on Europeans by their own dhimmi leaders in their outreach
to Islam. No wonder that since the 1970s Eurocrats censor any criticism of
jihad and incriminate Israel’s right to exist as an aggression, triggering
wars and terrorism. The denial of the jihadist current trend by Europe, its
compliance to shari’a laws by prosecuting and punishing its own citizens for
criticizing them, constitute the basic issues of Wilders trial. By exposing
them, he has overturned EU’s policy.

In this tremendous fight for truth, Wilders is not alone. Many sacrificed
their position and reputation, many despaired such as the sociologist
Jacques Ellul (d. 1994) who saw the return of Nazism in a machinery
disguising its Fascist authoritarianism and antisemitism with the words
‘peace, justice, love, human rights’.

Can Wilders and his courageous supporters – each fighting in his own country
against their dhimmi leaders – succeed in bringing some morality into a
sordid policy of lies, corruption, hate and cowardice? Or could this success
for truth be just a moment of light and hope before being crushed? Will
Muslims themselves take this opportunity offered by the sacrifices of
Wilders and the young anti-racist militants for freedom of speech, to ponder
upon their own history of a long genocidal jihad over four continents with
its trail of enslavement and dispossession of people? We are waiting to hear
them acknowledging that jihadist ideology is criminal and that dhimmitude is
a dehumanising oppression.

Now, the world sees the fanatical and revolting persecution of Copts and
other Christians in Islamic countries, and the jihadist genocidal hatred
against Israel. And Now, Jews, Christians, Hindus and others victims of
Islamic wars, who suffered dispossession, apartheid, deportations,
humiliations, child abductions – crimes perpetrated altogether within the
context of dhimmitude – are hoping for a reconciliation that can only come
with Muslim acknowledgement of a criminal supremacist ideology and its
rejection.

Germany on the Brink

by Robert Spencer (more by this author)

In Stuttgart, Germany, last week, violent Leftist and Islamic supremacist demonstrators violently menaced anti-jihad activists – giving a sobering picture of where Germany, Europe, and the U.S. as well are headed if we don’t stand up and resolutely defend our freedom now.

 

Thursday afternoon I spoke in Stuttgart at the invitation of the human rights group Pax Europa. The event was well advertised, and so the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance mobilized and was out in full force.

 

About a thousand protesters from the frequently violent hard-Left Antifa group showed up, along with around 500 German riot police. “Antifa” stands for “Anti-fascism,” but if any fascism was on display, it was from the “anti-fascists,” who did their best to destroy the Pax Europa event. They were menacing people, starting fights, banging drums, blowing whistles, and chanting Leftist and Communist agitprop slogans. One young man from Antifa came up to me as I was standing right in front of a line of German police and said, “You’re lucky there are so many police here today.” He was not expressing solidarity.

 

Pax Europa had planned a full program featuring Middle Eastern Christian musicians, a Coptic Christian activist, and others, so as to highlight the hollowness of the Islamic supremacist narrative of Muslim victimhood and anti-jihadist racism. But the police ordered the Pax Europa organizers to drastically reduce the scope of their event. Everyone was restricted to ten minutes only. Several participants opted not to appear, in light of the manifest danger. Antifa people were attacking supporters of Pax Europa. I saw several individuals being chased by rabid Leftist gangs. At least one man went to the hospital.

 

The police used loudspeakers to call on Antifa twice to disperse, as Pax Europa had lawfully reserved the space for their event. The Antifa people responded only by moving forward, chanting slogans, banging their drums, and holding aloft the usual Leftist kitsch — Che Guevara, the hammer and sickle, the Palestinian flag, signs denouncing Islamophobia, etc. The police moved them back a bit but did not ask them again to disperse, and allowed the Pax Europa event to begin.

 

It was an incredible din. We had loudspeakers that appeared to be able to reach the considerable crowd behind the protesters, but the Antifa thugs did all they could to drown us out: the drums got louder, the vuvuzelas came out, they were blowing whistles, and of course they were screaming and yelling. They also started throwing things: bottles, ice eggs, excrement and more. One bottle narrowly missed the Coptic activist’s head and crashed onto the stage — other bottles crashed at our feet. Several speakers were hit with eggs. The manure they threw was all over the stage floor.

 

It was like looking into the pit of hell. Here were young people passionately committed to their cause and believing it to be that of justice and freedom, and they are eager and willing useful idiots for the most radically intolerant ideology on the planet. So when my turn came to speak, I addressed them, and told them just that. I told them they wouldn’t like what happened to them when their friends took power, but by then it would be too late for them.

 

The menace continued. Antifa burned the truck belonging to the company that set up the stage for Pax Europa’s Thursday rally. Friday night they found out the hotel that the courageous anti-jihad politician René Stadtkewitz was planning to stay in when he came to Stuttgart to announce the founding of the local branch of his new Freedom Party; they reportedly broke the hotel’s windows and painted threatening messages on its walls. Also yesterday, I spoke to a Pax Europa meeting at a location in Stuttgart; Antifa thugs found out the location after the meeting had ended, and stormed and surrounded the place. Thirty-six were arrested.

 

But it is not too late for Europe. I spoke at Stadtkewitz’s Freedom Party event on Sunday, and found a crowd made all the more resolute and determined by the violent intimidation to which they had been subjected. They realize that freedom hangs in the balance today in Germany, and in Europe and the U.S. as well, and they’re prepared to take a stand.

 

That was a great source of hope. Saturday morning I had the great honor of meeting with Susanne Zeller-Hirzel, one of the last surviving members of the White Rose, the nonviolent resistance movement that worked against Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany in 1942 and 1943. We discussed numerous parallels between the Nazi era in Germany and the advance of Islamic supremacism today — as we saw in Stuttgart Thursday, Nazis and Islamic supremacists are remarkably similar in their taste for using force to shut down opponents they can’t out-argue.

 

It’s time for the White Rose to flower again in Germany. And as Islamic supremacism continues to advance in the U.S. also, we are not far behind.

Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), The Truth About Muhammad, Stealth Jihad and The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (all from Regnery-a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

Stuttgart-Augenzeuge: Kein Schutz durch Polizei

Ich habe große Sorge…

Das Neue Deutschland

“Der neue Faschismus wird nicht sagen: ‘Ich bin der Faschismus”
Er wird sagen: “Ich bin der Antifaschismus’”

Ignazio Silone. italienischer Sozialist, 1900-78

******************************************************************************************

Dankend von PI übernommen:

Uns erreichte ein bewegender Augenzeugenbericht von den skandalösen Geschehnissen bei der Auftaktveranstaltung zum “Großen islamkritischen Wochenende” am Himmelfahrtstag in Stuttgart. Besonders das fragwürdige Verhalten der Polizei (PI berichtete) wird in der Schilderung von Benjamin F. eindringlich beleuchtet.

Proteste von Anfang an. Offizieller Beginn 16 Uhr, Schlossplatz, Stuttgart

Nach ca. 20 Minuten fordert die Polizei die linken und muslimischen Randalierer 2-3 Mal auf, zu ihrem Mahnwachenplatz (Karlsplatz) zu gehen. Trotz mehrmaliger Drohung von Seiten der Polizei, die Randalierer in Beugehaft zu nehmen, passierte nichts. Die Polizeileitung argumentierte, wegen der Veranstaltung keine Massenschlägerei zu wollen. Nun, dann wird die Antifa in Zukunft jede ihr missliebige Veranstaltung boykottieren können. Zumal der Aufforderung der Polizei nach Verlassen des Platzes anscheinend nicht nachgekommen werden muss.

Die Veranstaltung soll laut Veranstalter erst abgesagt werden. Und nur eine 10-minütige Rede gehalten werden. Mehrere Teilnehmer sagten ihren Auftritt ab. Darunter auch eine Musikgruppe. Die Angst war durchaus nachvollziehbar.

Um 16.40 Uhr fangen dann die Redner unter massivem Störfeuer der Linken und der Muslime an. Es sprechen Nassim Ben Iman, Michael Mannheimer, ein Herr von Pax Europa und Robert Spencer.

Wir wollen vor die Bühne, um die Redner sehen zu können. Die Polizei verbietet uns auf Nachfrage, die Redner von vorne sehen zu dürfen. Wir müssen so von der hinteren, rechten Seite die Veranstaltung verfolgen (nächstes Foto). Das Bild oben (mit Michael Mannheimer u.a.) konnte ich nur deshalb machen, weil ich kurz vor die Polizeireihe trat.

Als wir massiv von jungen Muslimen beleidigt wurden, mussten nicht etwa die Provokateure das Feld räumen, sondern wir, nach Aufforderung durch die Polizei und ca. zehn Meter zurückweichen. Dies wiederholte sich dann sogar noch einmal. Was für ein fatales Signal für die Täter, aber auch für die Opfer.

Ein Mann haut mir an den Oberarm, ein Polizist steht daneben und behauptet wider besseren Wissens nichts gesehen zu haben. Ich bitte ihn, den Mann zur Mäßigung zu rufen, der Polizist daraufhin: „Sie liegen ja nicht auf dem Boden und schreien“, was ich denn wolle! Ich merkte an, ob man denn erst auf dem Boden liegen müsse, um einen Schläger in die Schranken weisen zu dürfen.

Während der Reden flogen Eier und rote Farbbeutel gegen mehrere Teilnehmer, welche ihr Ziel auch teilweise fanden. Auch spitze Stöcke, rote Fahnen, Flaschen, Glas, Dosen, Müll und ein Aschenbecher aus Stahl flogen in Richtung Bühne und darüber hinaus in die Redner und die Zuhörer. Ein Aschenbecher aus Stahl traf eine Teilnehmerin von hinten am Bein.

Ich zog mir meine Handschuhe an, um evtl. auf mich zufliegende Gegenstände schmerzfreier abwehren zu können. Daraufhin schrie hinter mir ein Mann: “Achtung, der will gleich zuschlagen, er zieht sich Handschuhe an.” Das schlimme daran, der Polizist vor mir griff dies auch als Bedrohung auf. Nachdem ein paar Geschosse auch neben ihm niedergingen, verstand er mein Handeln.

Die Veranstaltung wurde auch durch Trillerpfeifen, Megafone, Geschrei, Morddrohungen, beleidigende Gesten und Worte gestört. Eine Frau entblößte sich kurzzeitig und zeigte ihre blanke Brust. Der Hass in den Augen und das Geschrei war unvorstellbar groß.

Gegen Ende der Veranstaltung um 17.30 Uhr wollten wir den Ort verlassen. Die Extremisten wollten uns aber nicht gehen lassen und kesselten uns ein. Die Polizei wollte, dass wir gehen. Wir auch, was aber angesichts des Drohpotenzials eher unvernünftig erschien. Wir versuchten es dennoch, und wurden wenige Meter nach Verlassen des Kessels von Radikalen aufgehalten. Ein Mitglied der Aktionsgruppe für verfolgte Christen wurde von mindestens drei Frauen bespuckt, ein junger Mann stahl ihm seine Mütze. Zwei junge Männer forderten ihn wiederholt auf, sich mit ihm zu schlagen.

Ich fotografierte die Szene und wurde sofort lautstark angegangen. Ich flüchtete in Richtung des Polizeikessels. Die Meute hinter mir, erwartete ich, dass mich die Polizisten, welche die Szene genau beobachtet hatten, hinter sich lassen würden. Mein pro Israel-Pullover war auch zusätzlich Hinweis genug, zu welcher Seite ich gehörte. Stattdessen machte ich zunächst Bekanntschaft mit einem Schlagstock, den ein Polizist gezielt gegen meinen Bauch einsetze. Nachdem ich lautstark sagte, dass ich massiv bedrängt werde, ließen mich die Polizisten widerwillig durch.

Wieder im Kessel baten wir die Polizei, uns Schutz zu geben. Ein Einsatzleiter sagte, dass Personenschutz nur ganz wenige Leute bekommen würden. Wir sollten uns ein Taxi rufen.

Unsere Autos standen in der Nebenstraße und so wäre es im Bereich des Möglichen gewesen, uns zu begleiten. Auch hätte die Polizei ihre Drohung gegenüber den Gegen-Demonstranten wahr machen können und sie in Sicherungsverwahrung nehmen können. Die nötige Hundertschaft inklusive Reiterstaffel war anwesend.

Es wurde uns dann allen Ernstes vorgeschlagen, einzeln den Platz zu verlassen und dies, nachdem die Polizei vor wenigen Minuten sehen musste, was mit einem unserer Mitglieder und mir geschehen war. Schließlich wagten wir zwei einen erneuten „Ausbruchversuch“ und „entkamen“ in entgegengesetzter Richtung zu unserem Parkplatz. Ein Linker versuchte uns noch zu verfolgen, ließ dann aber von uns ab. Gegen 18.30 Uhr fanden sich alle vier Aktionsgruppenmitglieder wieder beim Parkhaus ein.

Muslims in London Welcome Obama

h/t TROP

Islamkritik in Österreich – Blubb, blubb, blubb,….

Danke an SOS Heimat

SOS Österreich legt sich selbst hohe Maßstäbe auf, versucht wissenschaftlich vorzugehen. Deshalb hat der Autor dieser Zeilen einen Artikel in „Die Presse“ in ein Plastiksackerl gelesen und sich unter der Badewanne angehört. (Dieses Experiment kann weltweit unter den gleichen Kriterien wiederholt werden)
Das Ergebnis:

Blubb! Blubb! Blubb!

Damit wäre der „Inhalt“ von Das weite Netzwerk der kritischen Islamexperten (Printausgabe vom 01.06.2011) auch schon wiedergegeben.
Michael Fleischhacker dürfte nicht informiert gewesen sein. Denn zu so einer schwachen, schlecht recherchierten Story hätte er niemals seinen Sanktus gegeben.

Das dürfte auch der Grund sein, warum die Online- Ausgabe aus Scham wieder aus dem Netz entfernt wurde. DiePresse

Doch es beweist sich immer wieder, wie gut SOS-ÖSTERREICH vernetzt ist, denn eine aufmerksame Leserin (eine unerschöpfliche Quelle an Informationen) hat den gut bezahlten Inhalt – der eher einem durchschnittlichen Hauptschulaufsatz gleicht – im Cache gefunden.
(Danke für die Mithilfe!)

In Österreich gibt es eine Reihe von Persönlichkeiten, die als Islamexperten in die Öffentlichkeit drängen und Kritik an der Islamischen Glaubensgemeinschaft üben. Eine Vorstellung der wichtigsten Vertreter.

Wien. Ende der 1990er-Jahre arbeitete Anas Schakfeh, langjähriger Präsident der Islamischen Funktion lehnte er einen Bewerber ab – er hatte den entsprechenden Sprach- und Schreibtest nicht bestanden. „Es war einfach die schwache Grammatik“, erinnert sich Schakfeh heute.

Wie man weiß, legen ORF und IGGiÖ sonst IMMER größten Wert auf beste Sprach- und Schreibkenntnisse ihrer Mitarbeiter und Günstlinge, siehe

Dem Bewerber von damals hat diese Ablehnung offenbar nicht geschadet. Amer Albayati wird heute in Medien als Experte für Islam, Terror und arabische Politik herumgereicht. Seine Qualifikation dafür? Ein nicht abgeschlossenes Studium der Theaterwissenschaft in der ehemaligen DDR.
Parallelen zur einer talentlosen arbeitslosen deutschen Schauspielerin (Sprecherin der IGGiÖ) sind zufällig. Dass Albayati aus der DDR kommt macht die Kritik für Rusen Aksak nur noch schlimmer. Hat die Stasi doch erwiesenermaßen die Lockerbie- Attentäter ausgebildet (Quelle: History Channel).Also soll Albayati bitte dieses Gedankengut auch in seinem Herzen tragen. Die SPÖ macht es ja auch!
Dennoch wird regelmäßig seine Expertise eingeholt, insbesondere von Medien, Blogs und Gruppierungen, die gemeinhin als islamkritisch gelten. Was ihn dort besonders attraktiv macht: seine offene Kritik an der IGGiÖ und deren (noch) amtierendem Präsidenten Anas Schakfeh.

Als Sprecher der Initiative Liberaler Muslime Österreich (Ilmö) versuchte er zuletzt sogar, die Anerkennung als eigene Glaubensgemeinschaft zu erkämpfen. Blasphemie!!! Und: Gemeinsam mit dem Wiener Akademikerbund präsentierte er ein sogenanntes „Wiener Integrationsmanifest“ – darin wurde unter anderem gefordert, dass Arbeitgeber Muslime diskriminieren dürfen sollen.
Das Manifest wird auf SOS Österreich zur Verfügung gestellt. Forderung: Integration, gutes Benehmen. Das ist purer Rassismus! Immerhin, am Ende distanzierte sich die Ilmö doch von dem Papier.

Kampf um „Halal“-Geschäft

Albayati ist nur einer von vielen sogenannten Islamexperten, die in die Medien drängen. Und die ihre Expertise nicht unbedingt aus einer fachlichen Qualifikation heraus begründen.
Wer ein Experte ist, bestimme ich
Zu dieser Gruppe gehört auch Günther Ahmed Rusznak, ein Konvertit aus dem oberösterreichischen Traun und – so wie Albayati – erklärter Gegner von IGGiÖ und Anas Schakfeh. Er führte mit seinem Verein Islamisches Informations- und Dokumentationszentrum Österreich (IIDZ) zahlreiche Prozesse gegen die IGGiÖ, wollte sie sogar unter Kuratel stellen lassen. Daneben ist er im Geschäft mit „Halal“-Zertifikaten aktiv. Der Handel mit islamisch korrekten Lebensmitteln gilt als Wachstumsmarkt. In Österreich war die IGGiÖ exklusiv für diese Zertifizierungen zuständig – ehe Rusznak ein eigenes Zertifikat entwickelte. Und damit ins internationale Halal-Geschäft einstieg.
Fakt ist: An Rusznak gibt es viel zu kritisieren. Doch von der IGGiÖ wird er bis auf das Blut bekämpft. Hat er doch deren Monopol (als ob es keine offenen und versteckten Subventionen von der SPÖ gäbe) im Geschäft gebrochen. Weiters deckt er – aus Eigennutz – „unkonventionelle“ Machenschaften in der ehemals arabischen Glaubensgemeinschaft auf. Ob Rusznak in einem anderen Land noch am Leben wäre?
Seinen Kampf gegen die IGGiÖ führte er weiter. Unter anderem auch, weil ihm die Muslime-Vertretung die Mitgliedschaft verweigerte. „Er schimpfte, prozessierte viele Male gegen die Glaubensgemeinschaft“, sagt Integrationsbeauftragter Omar al-Rawi, „und wollte zur gleichen Zeit eine formale Anerkennung als Muslim durch die Glaubensgemeinschaft haben.“
Reicht etwa nicht die Schahada, das islamische Glaubensbekenntnis um Muslim zu sein?

Als Islamexpertin bezeichnet sich auch Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. Sie erlebte als Kind die islamische Revolution im Iran mit, für sie ein „verstörendes Erlebnis“ Stimmt, diese Frau ist aber überempfindlich!.
Das ist auch der Grund, warum die Diplomatentochter, die selbst eine diplomatische Ausbildung genoss, laufend Vorträge über die Gefahren einer Islamisierung Europas hält. Unter anderem hielt sie auch „Islam“-Seminare für die Parteiakademie der FPÖ. Die brachten ihr im Februar 2011 eine erstinstanzliche Verurteilung wegen „Herabwürdigung religiöser Lehren“ ein – sie hatte den Propheten Mohammed der Pädophilie bezichtigt.
Wie wir mittlerweile wissen, stimmt dieser Ausdruck nicht ganz. Der „Prophet“ hat ja nicht nur ein Kind, sondern auch Frauen (erwiesen) vergewaltigt. Also träfe eher der Tatbestand der Verharmlosung zu!

Star in islamkritischen Foren
Insbesondere in Onlineforen polemischer Islamkritik wird sie als Star gefeiert – so wurden ihr Verfahren und das entsprechende Urteil lang und breit thematisiert und kommentiert.

Polemik: Polemisieren heißt, gegen eine (bestimmte andere) Ansicht zu argumentieren. Der Polemiker sucht nicht zwingend den Konsens, sondern versucht im rhetorischen Wettstreit seinen Argumenten zum Durchbruch zu verhelfen (Quelle: Wikipedia)

Sowas. Ich habe da von einem Buch gehört …
…allerdings wird da weniger auf Rhetorik als auf nackte Gewalt und deren Verherrlichung gesetzt.

Die ehemalige Botschaftsmitarbeiterin, die in mehreren arabischen Ländern tätig war, hat auch eine eigene Internetpräsenz namens „Mission Europa. Netzwerk Karl Martell“. Darauf ist sie bestrebt, eine paneuropäische Antwort auf die „Gefahr durch den Islam“ zu finden.
Seit Neuestem scheint sie auch ihre Fühler in die westliche Hemisphäre auszustrecken. In aktuellen E-Mails finden sich Verweise auf „ACT! For America“ – eine Organisation, die von einer libanesischen Christin namens Brigitte Gabriel gegründet wurde. Auch sie wurde in jungen Jahren (durch den Libanesischen Bürgerkrieg) traumatisiert und ist heute ein Aktivposten der evangelikalen Rechten in den USA.
Immer diese aufmüpfigen Weiber.
Es hat schon seinen Grund, warum der Islam Gewalt gegen Frauen wünscht erlaubt. Von evangelikal kann bei ACT! For America keine Rede sein. Die Organisation steht jeder Konfession offen.
Der Versuch, seine Gegner zu Fundamentalisten zu stempeln, ist so alt wie erfolglos. Siehe FPÖ. Siehe Wiener Akademikerbund. Christian Zeitz wurde als christlicher Fundamentalist abgestempelt.

Sabaditsch-Wolff ist aber auch außerhalb des Internets gut vernetzt. Unter anderem sitzt sie im Präsidium des Wiener Akademikerbundes.

DiePresse ist ein Medium, das auch der islamkritischen Stimme zuhört. Was sich also die Redakteure bei diesem schwachen Bericht gedacht haben, steht im Halbmond in den Sternen.

Über den Autor Rusen Timur Aksak gibt es außer ein paar ähnlich schwachen Artikel wenig zu sagen.
Am ehesten spricht ein kommentarloser Vergleich für sich:

        

.
Anmerkung:
Der Autor dieses Presse-Artikels, Rusen Timur Aksak, dürfte sich für seine Recherchen hauptsächlich auf unseren Blog informiert haben – natürlich benutzte er hierbei nur sein linkes Auge!
Ein typischer Daumen-Unten-Drücker auf SOS!!!

Robert Spencer Confronts the Warriors of Darkness in Stuttart

Video courtesy of Europenews and KitmanTV

Update:

Report by Robert Spencer, Jihadwatch.org

Thursday afternoon I spoke in Stuttgart, Germany at the invitation of the human rights group Pax Europa. The event was well advertised, and so the thuggish Leftist/Islamic supremacist alliance mobilized and was out in full force.

About 1000 Antifa protesters showed up, banging drums, holding signs with the usual accusations of racism and “Islamophobia,” blowing whistles, and menacing people who came out for the Pax Europa event. There were also about 500 German police on hand in riot gear. The Pax Europa organizers told me, “This is all for you” — because they had publicized that I would be there. One young man came up to me as I was standing right in front of a line of German police and said, “You’re lucky there are so many police here today.”

Pax Europa had planned a full program featuring Middle Eastern Christian musicians, a Coptic Christian activist, and others, so as to highlight the hollowness of the Islamic supremacist narrative of Muslim victimhood and anti-jihadist racism. But the police ordered the Pax Europa organizers to drastically reduce the scope of their event. Everyone was restricted to ten minutes only. Several participants opted not to appear, in light of the manifest danger. Antifa people were attacking supporters of Pax Europa. I saw several individuals being chased by rabid Leftist gangs. At least one man went to the hospital.

The police used loudspeakers to call on Antifa twice to disperse, as Pax Europa had lawfully reserved the space for their event. The Antifa people responded only by moving forward, chanting slogans, banging their drums, and holding aloft the usual Leftist kitsch — Che Guevara, the hammer and sickle, the Palestinian flag, signs denouncing Islamophobia, etc. The police moved them back a bit but did not ask them again to disperse, and allowed the Pax Europa event to begin.

It was an incredible din. We had loudspeakers that appeared to be able to reach the considerable crowd behind the protesters, but the Antifa thugs did all they could to drown us out: the drums got louder, the vuvuzelas came out, they were blowing whistles, and of course they were screaming and yelling.

They started throwing things: bottles, eggs, excrement and more. One bottle narrowly missed the Coptic activist’s head and crashed onto the stage — other bottles crashed at our feet. Several speakers were hit with eggs. The manure they threw was all over the stage floor.

I stood right in front (they missed me; I dodged a few projectiles) and watched them as they screamed and gestured and threw things — it was like looking into the pit of hell. Here were young people passionately committed to their cause and believing it to be that of justice and freedom, and they are eager and willing useful idiots for the most radically intolerant ideology on the planet. So when my turn came to speak, I addressed them, and told them just that. I told them they wouldn’t like what happened to them when their friends took power, but by then it would be too late.

And it may be already, for Europe. But I was glad to be there yesterday, and to stand against what was so obviously a force for oppression, hatred, and evil.

Hier die deutsche Übersetzung (danke an Denker, PI)

Konfrontation in Deutschland

Am Donnerstag Nachmittag habe ich auf Einladung der Menschenrechtsorganisation Pax Europa in Stuttgart, Deutschland gesprochen. Die Veranstaltung war gut beworben, wodurch die aggressive Links/Islamische Rassistenallianz mobil gemacht hat und in voller Stärke ausgerückt ist.

Ungefähr 1000 Antifa-Demonstranten sind aufgetaucht, haben getrommelt, Schilder mit den üblichen Rassismus- und Islamophobieanschuldigungen vorgezeigt, Trillerpfeifen geblasen und Menschen bedroht, die zur Veranstaltung von Pax Europa gekommen waren. Es waren auch ca. 500 deutsche Polizeibeamte in Panzeranzügen vor Ort in Bereitschaft. Die Veranstalter von Pax Europa haben mir gesagt „Dies alles ist nur für Sie“ – weil sie bekannt gemacht haben, dass ich anwesend sein werde. Als ich gerade vor einer deutschen Polizeikette stand, kam ein junger Mann zu mir hoch und sagte, „Sie haben Glück, dass heute so viel Polizei hier ist.“

Pax Europa hat ein volles Programm geplant: mit christlichen Musikern aus dem Nahen Osten, einen koptisch-christlichen Aktivisten und vielen anderen, um damit die leeren Worthülsen der islamischen Rassisten hervorzuheben, die von moslemischer Opferrolle und Anit-Jihad-Rassismus schwafeln. Aber die Polizei hatte die Pax-Europa-Veranstalter angewwiesen, den Umfang ihrer Veranstaltung drastisch zusammenstreichen. Jedem wurden nur 10 Minuten zugestanden. Mehrere Teilnehmer haben angesichts deroffenkundigen Bedrohungen entschieden, nicht teilzunehmen. Antifa-Mitglieder haben Helfer von Pax Europa angegriffen. Ich habe mehrere Personen gesehen, die von Links-Trupps gejagt wurden. Mindestens eine Person musste ins Krankenhaus.

Die Polizei verwendete Lautsprecher, um die Antifa zweimal aufzufordern, ihre Versammlung aufzulösen, da Pax Europa diesen Platz rechtmäßig für ihre Veranstaltung reserviert hatte. Die Antwort der Antifa-Menge war lediglich ein Vorwärtsmarschieren, Parolen skandieren, Trommeln und das Emporheben von Nullachtfünfzehn-Links-Kitsch: Che Guevara, Hammer und Sicher, Palästinenserfahnen, Schilder die Islamophobie brandmarken, usw. Die Polizei hatte sie zwar ein wenig zurückgedrängt, aber sie nicht mehr ersucht, ihre Versammlung aufzulösen, und hatte dann für den Beginn der Pax-Europa-Veranstaltung ihr OK gegeben.

Es war ein unbeschreiblicher Lärm. Wir hatten Lautsprecher, die normalerweise in der Lage waren, die beachtliche Menge hinter den Demonstranten zu erreichen, aber die Antifa-Schläger unternahmen alles Mögliche, um uns zu übertönen: die Trommeln wurden lauter, die Vuvuzelas wurden hervorgeholt und Trillerpfeifen geblasen und selbstverständlich haben sie geschrieen und gebrüllt.

Jetzt haben sie begonnen, mit Gegenständen zu werfen: Flaschen, Eier Exkremente und vieles mehr. Eine Flasche hat nur knapp den Kopf des koptischen Aktivisten verfehlt und ist auf der Bühne zerschellt – andere Flaschen zerschellten vor unseren Füßen. Mehrere Sprecher wurden von Eiern getroffen. Der Stallmist, den sie geworfen hatten, lag über den ganzen Bühnenboden verteilt.

Ich stand ganz vorne (sie haben mit verfehlt; ich bin einigen Geschossen ausgewichen) und beobachtete sie, wie sie geschrieen, gestikuliert und Gegenstände geworfen haben – es war wie der Blick in den Abgrund der Hölle. Hier waren junge Leute, die heißblütig ihrem Ideal verpflichtet sind und glauben, es wäre das Ideal von Gerechtigkeit und Freiheit, und zugleich sind sie eifrige und willige nützliche Idioten für die radikalste und intoleranteste Ideologie auf der Welt. Als nun ich für meine Rede an der Reihe war, habe ich mich an sie gewandt und ihnen genau das gesagt. Ich habe ihnen gesagt, dass sie all das nicht mögen werden, was passieren wird, wenn ihre Freunde die Macht übernommen haben, aber dann ist es bereits zu spät.

Und es könnte bereits jetzt zu spät für Europa sein. Aber ich war froh, dass ich gestern dabei war, und mich dem entgegengestellt habe, was so offensichtlich die Macht der Unterdrückung, des Hasses und des Bösen ist.