You are here



European Court of Human Rights Judgement Summary: "sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights". 

As a result of that judgement, the ECHR upheld the banning of a political party that wanted to introduce sharia law. That was the ECHR fulfilling its original function of preventing the spread of totalitarian ideologies in Europe.


Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that “sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

Source: “Annual Report 2003 of the European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe”

This article gives an excellent summary of the mindset behind Islamo-Fascism:

“The belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity or integrity. Manifestation of a religious belief, for instance, which involved subjecting others to torture or inhuman punishment would not qualify for protection.”

The problem begins with a clash of definitions. To a citizen of a secular Western state, "injustice" means a lack of representation. To a Muslim, "injustice" means a lack of Islamic jurisprudence. A Non-Muslim state is always unjust simply because it is not ruled by Islamic law.

The fundamental Muslim grievance is that they are not in power, not just in Israel where the world has accepted their demand to be in power as a wholly moral and legitimate demand, or throughout the Muslim world where Western governments have helped bring the Islamists to power with bombs and political pressure. The fundamental grievance is that they are not in power... everywhere.

If you believe that Islam is the fundamental law of mankind, that all mankind at one time were Muslims and that there is no true justice except through Islamic law-- then it follows naturally that Muslims have been cheated of their rightful power, that they are forced to live under "atheistic" regimes and that "justice" demands that the world "revert" to Islamic rule.

It's why the rhetoric of democracy falls notoriously flat when it comes to Islam. Muslims are not out for representation except as a preliminary stage to absolute power. They may route the guardianship of that absolute power power in various ways, through a dictator or some form of popular democracy, but these are only vehicles for the imposition of Islamic law.

The absolute power of Islamic law is justified by its origin in Allah and the unjust nature of non-Muslim law is equally proven by its lack of divine origin. If you take Islamic assumptions at face value, then this makes perfect sense. Therefore a devout Muslim cannot view a non-Muslim society as just. Equating an infidel code with Sharia is blasphemy. And so the logic of Islam dictates that Western Muslims must view themselves as oppressed.

The essence of Islam is summed up in this quote and two words "Halal"(permitted) and "Haram"(Forbidden):

ECHR:- "the way it [sharia] intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts" = the all pervasive state.

"Islam aims to achieve that which is in people’s interests and to protect them from that which is harmful to them [according to Islamic beliefs and values]."

See also this Wiki entry defining totalitarianism:

and this review of people's views on Islam:

There is a worldwide multi-million dollar industry in Halal certification: which is indicative of the controlling, totalitarian nature of Islam.

Also Sharia law as applied to non-Muslims is discriminatory in a way that has echoes of the Nuremberg Laws the Nazis enacted against the Jews:

Council of Europe: "non-Muslims do not have the same rights as Muslims in civil and criminal [Sharia] law"

This leads to the kind of mindset of one Muslim watching another Muslim for ideological purity which is very reminiscent of the Stasi, Nazism etc.

“It is almost always the immediate family that starts the persecution of freethinkers, of those who would ask questions or propose something new,” quoting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, from experience and reported to her readers in her book, Heretic. Part of Islamic development is being a policeman, a child reporting to a parent that a sibling is not being observant or asking stupid questions, like “Why must I do these things everyday, and 5 times a day?”  Parents too observe their offspring and may go so far as to commit acts of violence, honor killing, should a daughter look at a man, fall in love, or even look our a window when not supposed to do so.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to this as “a grassroots system of religious vigilantism.”  But it goes beyond religion, the focus becomes the observance of Islamic Law. One Muslim is there to watch another Muslim to insure they are being properly Muslim, knowing the one being watched is a watcher too.

Key Document Level:

Key Document Level: Key Document:-Level2

Key Document Level: Supporting evidence

Subscribe to Islamo-Fascism