You are here

Counter Jihad

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

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

    This article is partly based on the  concerning the legal status of Islam in the UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    See also: 

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    Other examples of Islam’s inferior view of women can be cited. However, the above accounts are sufficient to conclude that under Sharia, “men are superior to women” (Q 2:228) and that “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they [men] spend their wealth to maintain them [women]” (Q 34:4). Sharia then enjoins upon its adherents a profoundly un-egalitarian ethic, whereby women are deemed inferior to men.

    People who are endeared to the egalitarian-Western principles, particularly those who are Europeans, must fight the proliferation of Sharia ideas in their homeland. But in order to fight a fascistic and misogynistic ideology like Islamism, it is necessary for adherents of egalitarian-Western principles to first understand the motivations of Islamists.

    And, make no mistake, the reasons that Islamists advance for just about everything they do, including their oppression of women, are based almost exclusively on their religious ideology. None of the sources cited above are exclusively political or social in nature—they are religious Islamic sources.

  • Summary: 

    Even outside of fear of drawing an Islamist attack, avoiding conflict with Muslim employees affects both the company’s ‘inclusive’ image, and its liability to lawsuits by activist groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  When special interest activist groups put pressure on businesses to give into their demands businesses often (depending on the issue/s) concede rather than face bad publicity. Businesses placating to Muslim demands is one of the objectives of the . Masquerading as a  organization for Muslims, CAIR, as mentioned in the , pressures businesses into accommodating the most trivial of Muslim practices advocated for in sharia law.

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    This is a conflict we must be honest about, first and foremost with ourselves.

    We should also speak honestly about our concerns with Muslims abroad.

    A return to fundamentalism in Islam is a permanent danger to the stability of their societies, but it represents a direct challenge to the survival of ours. We need to understand the challenge, and to defend philosophically as well as pragmatically the survival of our systems of constitutional liberty and human rights.

    These are laws we think are valid and just. We have to take their side honestly and not allow ourselves to be silenced, nor to give up our traditional liberties out of fear of giving offense.

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    Let’s say that you wanted to reach the people who carry out murder in the name of jihad, and persuade them not to kill anyone.  How would you do it?  There are four approaches that governments are trying today, and none of them work.

  • Summary: 

    In 2014, after President Obama and numerous others stated that ISIS was not Islamic, and indeed that it was anti-Islamic, al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning in the Arab world, refused to denounce ISIS members as non-Muslims. The contrast was stark: Western leaders and Muslim apologists residing in the West denounce ISIS members as non-Muslims while the main representative of Sunni Islam refuses to do so.

  • Summary: 

    The idea that the West is in a clash of civilizations with the Islamic world is one that has been propounded by well established scholars. Indeed, a scholar no less than Bernard Lewis, the widely regarded doyen of Islamic studies, is the progenitor of the idea that Western civilization is in a clash with Islamic civilization (he seems to have first used the phrase in an article published in 1990 by the Atlantic, entitled, “The Roots of Muslim Rage.”

    .....

    In what follows, I will argue that there is indeed a clash between Islamic and Western civilization, between plausibly Islamic principles (and not just ‘radical’ Islamic principles) and Western principles.[3]

  • Summary: 

    The article goes on to list six reasons why they hate the West and why they fight Westerners. They six reasons are as follows:

    1. “We hate you first and foremost, because you are disbelievers, you reject the oneness of Allah.”
    2. “We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted.”
    3. “In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.”
    4. “We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion.”
    5. “We hate you for your crimes against Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bombs, kill, and maim our people around the world.”
    6. Sixth “We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out.”

    What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you…

  • Summary: 

    No explicit basis exists for separating the secular from the religious in Islam. 

Subscribe to Counter Jihad