Author(s):

ECHR Ruling: 

"sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights"

Source: 

Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights

Council of Europe

Proposed Dutch Bill on Islam

Author(s):

Summary: 

Greetings to all who shall see or hear these present! Be it known: Thus We consider that it is desirable to designate Islam for what it really is and to, therefore, establish a ban on certain Islamic manifestations in the public space. We, therefore, having heard the Advisory Division of the Council of State of the Kingdom, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree:

Section 1 Islam is not a religion or a philosophy of life but a violent, totalitarian ideology.

Section 2 1. The following Islamic manifestations are banned:

a. mosques

b. schools

c. the Koran

d. wearing a burka or a niqab

2. The term used under subsection l.a should also be taken to mean every space used as an Islamic house of worship or prayer room unless it takes place in a domestic setting.

3. All educational institutions referred to under subsection 1 .b that teach Islamic ideology are banned.

4. The printing, distributiori or sales of the Koran referred to in subsection 2.c is banned.

5. Wearing a burka or a niqab referred to in subsection 1.d .is banned unless it takes place in a domestic setting.

Summary: 
  • "Nigeria security has declared war against Christians in this country." — Pastor Kallamu Musa Ali Dikwa, executive director of Voice of Northern Christian Movement, Nigeria.

  • While uncritically taking in and conferring refugee status on countless Muslim migrants, European authorities continued singling out those most in need of sanctuary for deportation.

  • "Afghanistan is not a safe place for a Christian convert. The Court should ask Switzerland to stop turning a blind eye to the situation of religious minorities in Afghanistan... Sending a refugee back to a country where they face persecution because of their faith is incompatible with the Convention." — AFD International.

Country: 
United Kingdom (UK)
News Date: 
17/07/2018
Summary: 

The government received information detailing the extent of  activity in as far back as 2002 but failed to properly act on it, a review has found. The National Crime Agency’s ongoing investigation has revealed that more than 

Summary: 

The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

...

There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

Summary: 
  • Although the internet evidently did play a role in the radicalization process, the study showed that face-to-face encounters were more important, and that dawa, the proselytizing of Islam, played a central role in this process, as the men themselves became missionaries for Islam.

  • The third factor was the establishment of a "them and us" distinction between the radicalized men and the rest of the world, especially the belief that the West is an enemy of the Muslim world. The distinction also involved a rejection of democracy and a commitment to the establishment of a caliphate governed by sharia law, which the men want to bring about either through dawa(proselytizing) or violence (jihad).

  • "The Islamic State is a byproduct of Al Azhar's programs. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic? Al Azhar says there must be a caliphate and that it is an obligation for the Muslim world. Al Azhar teaches the law of apostasy and killing the apostate. Al Azhar is hostile towards religious minorities, and teaches things like not building churches, etc. Al Azhar upholds the institution of jizya [extracting tribute from non-Muslims]. Al Azhar teaches stoning people. So can Al Azhar denounce itself as un-Islamic?" — Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, scholar of Islamic law, graduate of Egypt's Al Azhar University, explaining why it refused to denounce ISIS as un-Islamic, 2015.

Summary: 

One of the most frequently quoted Quranic verses is chapter 9 verse 5. This verse is known as "The Verse of the Sword." Muslim terrorists cite it to justify their violent jihad. Correspondingly, critics of Islam claim that it commands Muslims to act with offensive aggression towards the non-Muslims of that period, and contributes to Islam’s final theological doctrine of aggression towards all non-Muslims of all times. Apologists for Islam claim that 9:5 is purely defensive. Which side is right?

As the Islamic source materials are examined it will become evident that verse 9:5 is part of the theology of jihad and is meant to be both offensive and defensive. It is directed against Pagans living both near to and far away from Muhammad.

Understanding 9:5 in context requires an examination of the passage in which it is found. This passage consists of 29 to 41 verses or so (depending on which scholar’s view you hold). Because of time and space constraints however, I will only review the first 8 or so verses. I believe that they set the passage’s tone and belay its directives.

Islam’s final theological position regarding the use of violence to further its domain does not rest upon one verse or passage. Rather the entire Quran, other Islamic source materials, and Muhammad’s actions and lifestyle (Sunnah) must be examined and evaluated. We’ll do that with a view toward Sura 9:5.

I have attempted to keep this article focused on 9:5 within the broad theology of jihad. 9:5 is a foundational stone in the building of jihad and general aspects of jihad must be discussed. There is also the related topic of abrogation, but that has been dealt with elsewhere1, 2, 3, 4.

Country: 
Congo (the Democratic Republic of the)
News Date: 
14/11/2019
Summary: 

“10 civilians killed in militia attack in eastern DRCongo: local official,” , November 6, 2019 (thanks to 

Country: 
European Union
News Date: 
14/11/2019
Summary: 

Sharia Watch: Anyone using the term 'Islamophobia' needs to be able to give clear, evidence based reasons why what the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on sharia is wrong!

  • The objective of using the word "Islamophobia" appears to have been to make Islam untouchable by placing any criticism of it as equivalent to racism or anti-Semitism.

Country: 
France
News Date: 
12/11/2019
Summary: 

That’s great, except in practice those who dare to criticize the religion, that is, to stand against jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women and others, are vilified and ostracized as “Islamophobes” and falsely accused of hatred of believers. There aren’t really any people who criticize Islam, even if they speak only about jihad violence, who are acceptable to contemporary Leftists and their establishment conservative lapdogs.

Also, many in this march denounced “racism.” Once again, Islam is not a race. This woolly thinking will be the death of us. Quite literally.

Pages

Subscribe to Front page feed