Hi Guys,
From a German site – thanks to all who sent it in
===================== ==========
“STOP ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE
Demonstration outside the European Parliament
September 11th 2007
Europeans are saying
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
NO SHARIA HERE
So join the call
All European nations must be represented
Großdemonstration vor dem Europäischen Parlament in Brüssel gegen die Islamisierung Europas geplant
Am 11. September 2007 soll es die erste öffentliche Großdemonstration gegen die schleichende Islamisierung Europas vor dem Europäischen Parlament in Brüssel geben. Die Genehmigung für die Großdemonstration wird derzeit von verschiedenen europäischen Vereinen und Bürgerinitiativen beantragt. Die Veranstalter kommen aus allen europäischen Ländern. Wir von Pax Europa e.V./Akte Islam organisieren den deutschen Teil der Großdemonstration. Auch aus Großbritannien, Dänemark, Schweden, Norwegen, Frankreich, Belgien, den Niederlanden, Österreich, Italien, Spanien, Luxemburg, Portugal und Griechenland liegen schon Anfragen für Anmeldungen zur Großdemonstration vor. Wir werden alle Mitglieder von Pax Europa e.V. rechtzeitig über das weitere Vorgehen unterrichten. (Quelle: Eigenbericht Akte Islam 3. März 2007)
http://www.akte-islam.de/3.html
=======================
translation:
Big anti-islam demonstration in front of European Parliament in Brussels.
September 11th 2007 we will have the first public and large demonstration against the ever increasing islamisation of Europe in front of European Parliament in Brussels.
Permissions are currently being applied for. We – Pax Europe – will realise the German part. But also from other countries like Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden,
Norway, France, Belgium, Holland, Austria, Italy, Spain, Luxemburg, Portugal and Greece permissions are being asked. Members of Pax Europe will be informed on further developments.
_________________
Update:
“IF YOU LOVE FREEDOM
IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY
BE THERE!!”
*
The organisers of the demonstration are:
SIAD (Denmark) sioe@siad.dk phone: +45 96771784
No Sharia Here (England) sioe.nsh@btinternet.com
We have contact with Akte-islam in Germany who organizes the german participation: http://akte-islam.de/1.html
We seek people/organisation from all other european countries who will organize participation from their own country.
For questions or coordination inbetween the countries contact SIAD or No Sharia Here.
STOP ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE
ORIGINS
Stop Islamification Of Europe (SIOE) is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.
It originated with the joining of Stop Islamseringen Af Danmark (SIAD) a political party dedicated to stopping the Islamification in Denmark with a loose association of people in England whose rallying cry “No Sharia Here” who want to maintain English law and stop the creeping growth of sharia law in England.
SIOE is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded group
* Read more:
SIOE exists to legally combat the overt and covert expansion of Islam in Europe.
SIOE condemns racism as the lowest form of human stupidity, but considers Islamophobia to be the height of common sense.
SIOE states that Islam and democracy are incompatible due to teachings within the Koran itself and some of the hadiths which comprise sharia law.
SIOE sees that such incompatibility is self-evident when those tenuous democracies in countries where Islam is the dominant religion are scrutinized.
Such “democracies” have only existed in the post European colonial period, since the end of World War Two.
It has always been the case, but also increasingly so, that in Islamic countries, whether “democratic” or not, non-Muslims are at best treated as second class citizens, or at worst oppressed.
SIOE believes this to be due to the teachings of Islam, which encourages Muslims to feel superior to non-Muslims, and that Islam must prevail over any other religion and political system, by any means.
SIOE finds the concept of “moderate” Muslims difficult because of the Islamic practises of Taqiyya and Kitman which are designed to deceive and mislead non-Muslims in order to promote the ascendance of Islam over any other religion and political system.
Therefore, if a political party’s leaders and members may be accused of lying and their policies challenged, then so should a religion’s, especially Islam, which considers lying to be not only acceptable, but obligatory in the furtherance of its doctrine.
Furthermore, SIOE wants all religions to be treated in law the same way as political parties with no special legal protection. This should apply especially to Islam because it is a combined political, legal and judicial system administered and overseen by un-elected theologians, completely contrary to Western concepts of democracy.
This is why democracy is failing in Islamic countries and giving way to Islamic theocracy.
SIOE considers that those Western politicians, journalists, academics and social groups, who support Islam, are deliberately misleading Europeans as to the nature of Islam. This is particularly evident in the non-reporting of Islamist atrocities around the world, but also in the re-writing of history to portray Islam in a favourable light as a non-aggressive religion.
SIOE reflects the attitude of most people in Europe that Islam is being favoured above indigenous European cultures and that Muslims are being selectively protected by politicians and lawyers at the expense of non-Muslims who often find themselves unprotected.
SIOE challenges the funding by Saudi Arabia for the building of mosques and other Islamic institutions in Europe and elsewhere around the world, when that country outlaws religions other than Islam, politics other than Islam and legislature other than Islam. Such asymmetric funding must be stopped.
No more mosques until we see churches in Mecca.
*
REASONS
TO MAINTAIN OUR HARDFOUGHT DEMOCRACY
“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!” is the rallying cry of all liberty-loving Europeans who are tired of seeing their values and ways of life eroded.
Arguably, more than any other continent, Europe has suffered most to achieve its present happy condition of liberal democracy.
Centuries of international conflicts and civil wars, most notably of course the two world wars of the 20th century, were endured by the ordinary folk of Europe.
However, conflict, strife and warfare are not the preserve of Europe. The USA suffered its own civil war; China and Russia are still staggering out of the rubble of revolution down the rocky road to democracy.
Out of the centuries of Europe’s internal strife blossomed the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which in turn bore the fruits of democracy.
Freethinking men and women fashioned this fragile, imperfect political system, with its many nuances, which nevertheless survives and grows because of its intrinsic fairness and popularity.
Democracy in turn released those lucky people enjoying its benefits, to form the most medically, scientifically and artistically productive part of the world we call “The West”.
Many of the West’s achievements have come in the period since the Second World War, and its people determinedly defended their hard earned principles of democracy and freedom against the totalitarian doctrine of Communism.
In winning both World War Two and the Cold War, the West defeated two of its greatest enemies, one the European cancer of Nazism, the second the contagion of Communism.
Unfortunately, the existence of both has led to the adoption in modern political parlance of the fatuous terms “left” and “right.”
Even more unfortunately, in Europe at least, “left” has misleadingly come to mean “good” and “right” to mean “bad”.
The table of political oppression is a round one, at which the power-ravenous “right” and “left” sit shoulder-to-shoulder, gnawing the bones of freedom’s cadaver.
Rational people know these truths.
Totalitarianism is the antithesis of liberty.
Theocracy is the antipathy of democracy.
OUR OWN POLITICIANS, POLICE AND JUDGES ARE THE DANGER
So why have rational people allowed irrationality to rule?
It is because the main danger to liberal democracy is its inherent liberalism, which opens itself to being hijacked by self-styled liberals.
A Nazi will punch you for the good of the state. A Communist will kick you for the good of the state. A liberal will do both while shaking your hand and telling you it’s for your own good.
Rational people recognise that the only liberality self-styled “liberals” indulge in, is liberally banning everything they disagree with.
Lamentably, top of the banning agenda is free speech.
Understandably, because of the events of World War Two and also our colonial past, Europeans have become wary of persecuting minority groups.
This has led to Europeans encouraging people from around the world to settle in Europe and to share the benefits of Western ideals.
However, this laudable intention has been usurped, not only by some of the groups of people coming to Europe, but worse still by self-loathing, guilt-laden politicians not only of the “liberal” persuasion, but also capitalist free-marketeers.
Such people have inculcated themselves into positions of power.
Together, they undermine our ways of life, stifle dissent from their diktats and spread feelings of political remoteness and hopelessness among the majority of European people.
This is exactly the kind of totalitarianism we fought against in World War Two and the Cold War.
SO WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
So what is different about the present battle (some describe it as a war)?
This time around the struggle is against a theocratic totalitarianism called Islam.
The very fact that it is a theocracy, in other words a religion, protects Islam from being challenged.
Political constitutions (written or otherwise) across the West enshrine the principle of freedom to religious practise.
Therefore, religions may not be attacked in the same way as political parties.
In the West, politicians and their parties come under continuous verbal and written onslaughts in the media regarding their policies, performance and personnel.
Religious practise, however, is protected.
Despite this, Christianity, Europe’s main religion, has constantly been ridiculed, criticised and condemned, more often than not with impunity.
This is because Christianity is an easy target, mainly due to the fact that calling for Christian heretics to be killed is deemed more than unacceptable by Christian clergy, and actually killing heretics contravenes laws drawn up by democratically elected legislators.
Certainly leaving Christianity, or any other religion besides Islam, does not merit any punishment, in this world at least.
As we all know, this is not the case with Islam’s sharia law, which stipulates a death sentence for apostates leaving Islam for any reason.
Until recently, religion has been put in its place in Western society. It has become a matter of one’s own personal belief and private conscience.
For generations, offending a religious person has not been regarded as being more than bad manners. One of the fundamental benefits in the West is the right to offend and be offended.
Religion has not been a threat to society and the clergy has not formulated legislation in the West, although it has been allowed to lobby the various elected governments.
All this is changing due to the imposition of Islam.
No other religion demands more from those who do not adhere to its doctrine.
This would not be a problem in the West, if our leaders actually stood up for Western values and insisted that Muslims live within our laws and accepted our cultures and social systems.
Instead, it is we who are told we must abandon our values, cultures and societies in order not to offend Muslims. It is Islam that is being rammed down our throats and the throats of our children.
It is not only in the West that Islam is causing misery and mayhem. All around the world Islam is battling the “infidels”.
In response all our politicians, journalists, social commentators and religious leaders do is avoid mentioning the murderous activities in places like Indonesia, Thailand and sub-Saharan Africa. However, if an Israeli soldiers so much as farts within earshot of a Palestinian mosque the whole world knows about it within minutes and politicians resoundingly condemn Israel.
Such sanctimonious, selective conscience is contemptible and Europeans are fed up with being oppressed for the sake of what most believe to be the most corrosive and intolerant political system ever devised.
Dear Sir,
The following issue can destroy ISLAM or ISRAEL; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.
READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE BIBLE AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS ON THE WAR AGAINST TERROR/ISLAM and the claim of Israel that god gave them the land. If the child is an infant than the Judeo-Christian version becomes null and void and we are wasting our time and resources i.e. we could save trillions of dollars and create a more peaceful world rather than fighting against Islam the religion of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all).
The COVENANT with Abraham and his DESCENDANTS is central to JUDAISM/CHRISTIANITY/ISLAM.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;
Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.
GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old – 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
GENESIS: 21:14 – 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.†And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.†Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
The age of Ishmael at this stage is crucial to the Abrahamic faiths. If he is 17 than the JUDEO/CHRISTIAN point of view about the Abrahamic covenant is correct. This has devastating theological consequences of unimaginable proportions.
This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces – unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
AS THE DESCRIPTION OF ISHMAEL IN GENESIS 21:14-21 IS THAT OF AN INFANT IT CAN BE ASSUMED SOMEONE HAS MOVED THIS PASSAGE FROM AN EARLIER PART OF SCRIPTURE!!! AND HAVE GOT THERE KNICKERS IN A TWIST.
For background info on the future religion of mankind see the following websites:
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=EvilGoblin George Galloway media appearances
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
(ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AND WAR CRIMES)
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm
(BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ ANTI-WAR
http://www.harunyahya.com/
(EVOLUTION DECEIPT)
http://www.barnabas.net/
http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm
http://www.islamicity.com/
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml
http://www.islamalways.com/
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 – 122
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: “O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!†(The son) said: “O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!â€
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him “O Abraham!
105. “Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!†– thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. “Peace and salutation to Abraham!â€
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac – a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
114. Again (of old) We bestowed Our favour on Moses and Aaron,
115. And We delivered them and their people from (their) Great Calamity;
116. And We helped them, so they overcame (their troubles);
117. And We gave them the Book which helps to make things clear;
118. And We guided them to the Straight Way.
119. And We left (this blessing) for them among generations (to come) in later times:
120. “Peace and salutation to Moses and Aaron!â€
121. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
122. For they were two of our believing Servants.
ISHMAEL IS THE FIRST BORN AND GOOD NEWS OF ISSAC DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL AFTER THE SACRIFICE?????
Therefore the claim that god gave the land to Israel is destroyed without the need of any WMD’s.
HADITH
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 583:
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The first lady to use a girdle was the mother of Ishmael. She used a girdle so that she might hide her tracks from Sarah. Abraham brought her and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?†She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?†He said, “Yes.†She said, “Then He will not neglect us,†and returned while Abraham proceeded onwards, and on reaching the Thaniya where they could not see him, he faced the Ka’ba, and raising both hands, invoked Allah saying the following prayers:
‘O our Lord! I have made some of my offspring dwell in a valley without cultivation, by Your Sacred House (Kaba at Mecca) in order, O our Lord, that they may offer prayer perfectly. So fill some hearts among men with love towards them, and (O Allah) provide them with fruits, so that they may give thanks.’ (14.37) Ishmael’s mother went on suckling Ishmael and drinking from the water (she had).
When the water in the water-skin had all been used up, she became thirsty and her child also became thirsty. She started looking at him (i.e. Ishmael) tossing in agony; She left him, for she could not endure looking at him, and found that the mountain of Safa was the nearest mountain to her on that land. She stood on it and started looking at the valley keenly so that she might see somebody, but she could not see anybody. Then she descended from Safa and when she reached the valley, she tucked up her robe and ran in the valley like a person in distress and trouble, till she crossed the valley and reached the Marwa mountain where she stood and started looking, expecting to see somebody, but she could not see anybody. She repeated that (running between Safa and Marwa) seven times.â€
The Prophet said, “This is the source of the tradition of the walking of people between them (i.e. Safa and Marwa). When she reached the Marwa (for the last time) she heard a voice and she asked herself to be quiet and listened attentively. She heard the voice again and said, ‘O, (whoever you may be)! You have made me hear your voice; have you got something to help me?†And behold! She saw an angel at the place of Zam-zam, digging the earth with his heel (or his wing), till water flowed from that place. She started to make something like a basin around it, using her hand in this way, and started filling her water-skin with water with her hands, and the water was flowing out after she had scooped some of it.â€
The Prophet added, “May Allah bestow Mercy on Ishmael’s mother! Had she let the Zam-zam (flow without trying to control it) (or had she not scooped from that water) (to fill her water-skin), Zam-zam would have been a stream flowing on the surface of the earth.†The Prophet further added, “Then she drank (water) and suckled her child. The angel said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid of being neglected, for this is the House of Allah which will be built by this boy and his father, and Allah never neglects His people.’ The House (i.e. Kaba) at that time was on a high place resembling a hillock, and when torrents came, they flowed to its right and left. She lived in that way till some people from the tribe of Jurhum or a family from Jurhum passed by her and her child, as they (i.e. the Jurhum people) were coming through the way of Kada’. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that had the habit of flying around water and not leaving it. They said, ‘This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.’ They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of water, and returned to inform them of the water. So, they all came (towards the water).†The Prophet added, “Ishmael’s mother was sitting near the water. They asked her, ‘Do you allow us to stay with you?†She replied, ‘Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.’ They agreed to that.†The Prophet further said, “Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation as she used to love to enjoy the company of the people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. The child (i.e. Ishmael) grew up and learnt Arabic from them and (his virtues) caused them to love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty they made him marry a woman from amongst them.
“STOP ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE
Demonstration outside the European Parliament
September 11th 2007
Europeans are saying
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
NO SHARIA HERE
So join the call
All European nations must be represented
SO IF YOU LOVE FREEDOM
IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY
BE THERE!!â€
The organisers of the demonstration are:
SIAD (Denmark) sioe@siad.dk phone: +45 96771784
No Sharia Here (England) sioe.nsh@btinternet.com
We have contact with Akte-islam in Germany who organizes the german participation: http://akte-islam.de/1.html
We seek people/organisation from all other european countries who will organize participation from their own country.
For questions or coordination inbetween the countries contact SIAD or No Sharia Here.
STOP ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE
ORIGINS
Stop Islamification Of Europe (SIOE) is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.
It originated with the joining of Stop Islamseringen Af Danmark (SIAD) a political party dedicated to stopping the Islamification in Denmark with a loose association of people in England whose rallying cry “No Sharia Here†who want to maintain English law and stop the creeping growth of sharia law in England.
SIOE is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded groups.
The complete link
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/stop-islamification-of-europe.html
Sheik you should change the title
“STOP ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE
Demonstration outside the European Parliament
September 11th 2007
Europeans are saying
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
NO SHARIA HERE
So join the call
All European nations must be represented
The organisers of the demonstration are:
SIAD (Denmark) sioe@siad.dk phone: +45 96771784
No Sharia Here (England) sioe.nsh@btinternet.com
We have contact with Akte-islam in Germany who organizes the german participation: http://akte-islam.de/1.html
We seek people/organisation from all other european countries who will organize participation from their own country.
For questions or coordination inbetween the countries contact SIAD or No Sharia Here.
Its all here
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/03/stop-islamification-of-europe.html
Interesting article from savitch:
Some things are stirring in Europe to the question: What to do with Islam?
The philosophical basis to countermand Islam is available. The arguments also exist and the rationale is solid. Islam, through the Quran and the Sunnah, is doctrinally aggressive, invasive, war-like, and especially imperialistic in a religious and a nationalist sense.
It is especially imperialistic because it opens the route for Islamic countries to interfere in the affairs of another country on behalf of a small or a minority Muslim population. (This parallels the promotion of the western agenda that lectures and sometimes imposes sanctions on other countries, especially non-democratic ones, if they do not uphold the liberal ideology (human rights being an example).
On the point of Islam, few nations will challenge Saudi Arabia to open its country to churches and Buddhist temples, but Turkey readily summons the Danish ambassador over a call to ban mosques from Denmark. Malaysia will give special dispensations to Muslims immigrants from Indonesia and Burma, but will do nothing to help Thai Buddhists fleeing Muslims killing the latter in southern Thailand. Islamic countries, when they violate national sovereignty, have borrowed well from the western liberalism: they say their religion transcends ethnicity and nations.
In spite of the march of Islam, the Quran and Sunnah are also highly vulnerable to criticism once they are tabled next to liberal ideology, both as a political and a value system. This vulnerability has now been exploited in Europe and best encapsulated in the page: Stop Islamification of Denmark (SIAD). It wants to take the same agenda to all of Christian or secular Europe.
Central to its raison d’etre is that nations once independent of Islam remained entitled to deal with the “religion†as it sees fit. That is, this is a national, sovereign issue. This approach has by far the most credible tools and has the clearest and most concrete answers to the question: What to do with Islam?
Answer No 1: The Legal Path
The principal idea is that Islam, whether practiced by moderates or otherwise, is fundamentally antithetical to existing civil and constitutional laws in Europe. If this were so, then the fundamentals of Islam – as spelled out in the Quran and Sunnah – are subject to judicial review. Judicial review (although a norm in America) is uncommon in Europe but it brings to the fore, indeed the possibility that Islam, in parts or in totality, is illegal, unlawful or both.
Example of judicial review: SIAD is challenging specific chapters and verses of the Quran and Sunnah that violates two existing constitutional provisions in Denmark.
This is a innovative approach in that it not only draws attention to the illegality found in Islam per se, the review pushes the envelope to take action thereafter. Stop Islamification of Denmark says that if Islam violates the Danish constitution, then it is incumbent on the state to ban all the mosques.
This, of course, has its problems, chief of which is the human rights provision that guarantees freedom of conscience, the backhanded way of saying freedom of religion or no-religion. Europe now realises, even if belatedly, that the human rights that they made as doctrinal dogma is now the same cause of its own afflictions from an invasive Islam.
Answer No. 2: The Political Path
Islam is, among other things, also politics. But the delusion of the west in believing that church and state are or can be separable is one reason for European ineptness in dealing with Islam. The answer then is to press for legislations that will change the status of religion, especially Islam, into a body-politic.
This is to say that Islam, in particular, must be made answerable to rules governing, say, the conduct of politics and especially to rules for the conduct of a society. It is akin to treating it like a chamber or civil society or especially as a political party. Once legislated, Islam will be taken for its word. Its “religious†text like that of the charter of a political society is subject to scrutiny and its members subject to restrictions, according to law. It is not enough that Islam, like other religions, has no special place outside of politics or the state, it must be legislated to ensure that the objective of separation is achieved.
Example of political review: By marching to Brussels on Sep 11 2007, Stop Islamification of Europe (SIOE), an offshoot of Stop Islamification of Denmark (SIAD), is making a clear political statement, and this is contained in the following:
SIOE wants all religions to be treated in law the same way as political parties with no special legal protection. This should apply especially to Islam because it is a combined political, legal and judicial system administered and overseen by un-elected theologians, completely contrary to Western concepts of democracy.
Answer No 3: The Sovereign Path
Islam is insidious in violating the sovereignty of a nation not only because it puts the state secondary or subservient to a higher law, that is Islam, but it also opens the channel for “Islamic countries†to intervene on behalf of a local minority Muslim population. Building mosques, funded by Arabs, is a demonstrable example. Intervening on behalf of an armed Muslim group fighting its national government is another.
The demand for the return of sovereignty is not about giving the state even more powers than that it has in its possession. But it is to compliment the powers of the state on the ground, in the villages and homes, all of which are farthest from central control. This is where government powers are weakest in dealing with Islam. A second reason to grant additional powers to the grassroots rather than central authority in combating Islam is this: Politicians who seized the instruments of power but are sympathetic or fearful of Islam can easily redirect the purpose of the state to serve Islam or the minority, immigrant group.
At an international level there is one problem if individual European nations now demand to retake their sovereign independence. They must reciprocate on the same principle. If in Islamic countries they stone their Muslim women, then it is oblige to say nothing, do nothing: it is none of your business. They will have to keep their western liberal dogma to themselves.
Hence, sovereignty is embedded in the precept that an independent nation is entitled to deal with a foreign institution, such as Islam, as it sees fit. For this purpose, local jurisdictions, at village and county levels are most effective because Islam, before it wriggles its way to the centres of power, thrive in such places.
A third and serious problem to this approach is this: Local jurisdictions are fearful or indifferent to dealing with religion. This has arisen from decades of constant harangue that religious equality, as the flipside of political, social and economic, are desirable and possible.
This notion of leaving faith at the door of the church and temple is so blatantly irrational and unrealistic, few people challenges the assumption. It assumes that faith and the Self are separable, like material things. It assumes all faiths are about individual salvation, a route to heaven. It assumes all people have faiths and all faiths are the same in essence. Confucius was right, 2,000 years before these assumptions have now dawn on Europe: Respect the gods but keep your distance.
The consequence of the western fallacy has been that Islam has so far been treated, in power centres, with velvet gloves and so shielded from criticisms.
But once western countries treat Islam like it is any sphere of daily life, it then removes the centrality of religion’s hold on its peoples and the nation. It changes the paradigm because, after all, imams do not just preach God. They also speak of jihad, conversion, annihilation, women, infidels and apostates. This is stuff of politics. They affect the sanctity of existing and prevailing civilisation so that such a religion should therefore be placed under independent and national jurisdictions. The imams and their religion must be held accountable.
Example of sovereign power: There is yet to be any. Some countries have a ministry for regulating religion. Westerners won’t even touch it. Now, they better so that one of the first items in stopping Islamisation is the creation of a ministry/department of religion or of civil affairs or of local affairs. Islam is at the top of the department’s agenda and it is charged not with promotion thereof but with regulation. Muslims do not sit as director-general; such a person may offer advice. In all conflicting situations, Islam must yield not the local culture, as provided for in constitutional provisions. At local levels, the department must have the final say in any thing remotely connected to religion, Islam in particular.
Endnote:
The March on Brussels on Sep 11 is the beginning of a European demand at grassroots to retake national sovereignty. This may be a flash-in-the-pan, for one reason: the Europeans have yet to hone in on its reasons for doing so. Stopping Islamisation is not improbable except that the dilemma is not remove: How can Europe empty itself of Islam without violating its own value systems of equal and human rights? The obvious answer says that those rights were either a fallacy or they were deeply circumscribed to apply only to citizenship and/or to law. Even the latter is a problem
Restatement of its raison d’etre is necessary because Europe, by stopping Islamisation, is redefining terms originally set out 40 or 50 years ago on the rights of civil society and the charter for human rights. It is self-immolation to go about putting straightjackets on Islam and then say those activities are in observation of the rights, as they are presently defined. An international congress a few days before the march should rewrite the principles that western societies have so arrogantly lectured the world. This, not the march, will be the momentous event in western history.
In short, to answer the question about what to do with Islam, Europe must first answer the problem it created for itself and beyond: Are all humans equal?