The city of Córdoba was the setting for an unusual historical drama that unfolded between the years 850 and 859, when forty-eight Christians were decapitated for religious offenses against Islam. More striking than the number of executions were the peculiar circumstances surrounding them. For one thing, as the sources unambiguously demonstrate, the majority of the victims deliberately invoked capital punishment by publicly blaspheming Muhammad and disparaging Islam. Moreover, though some Cordoban Christians applauded the executed Christians as martyrs, others regarded them as self-immolators whose unwarranted outbursts served only to expose the community as a whole to the emirs suspicions.
The issues of what a national identity is, and what contents a specific national culture has, are of basic importance. They directly regard what Europeans want to preserve and must defend against attacks. In country after country conquered by islam, the original culture is systematically destroyed, and an arabization carried out. The domestic culture is seen more or less as worthless by the immigrants or converts and is replaced by an arab desert culture from the 7th century, alien to the country.
Discussions regarding who is a moderate Muslim (supposed then to more or less sympathize with our values) and who is a radical Muslim (enemy to our values) are often confused. The reason is probably that the participants use the term “moderate” without defining it properly. The term is often used to indicate conformity with Western political concepts and values. That is not very useful because most Muslims can then not be categorized as moderates but as radicals (even if they are nonviolent). The fact is that such nonviolent persons are willing to destroy important human rights in the name of islam but are not willing to fight for it militarily - just now. If we use Wafa Sultan's definition of a moderate Muslim (1), such a person:
...fully supports separation of state and religion, rejects implementation of Sharia law and believes that it has no binding with Western codes of human-rights. A moderate Muslim is one who respects and supports our western system of liberal democracy; including equal rights of all religions, races and gender.
Last and not least, moderate Muslims ought to be courageous and honest enough to condemn crimes done in the name of Islam and admit that these crimes are all committed with the implicit approval of traditional Islamic theology.
This definition leads to the inevitable conclusion that just a small part of the Muslims in Europe are moderates while the rest are radicals
We keep on fooling ourselves in the West that threats of stealth and civilizational jihad are exaggerated, but documented examples keep on cropping up to prove that mainstream, influential Islamic leaders are pushing for global sharia, like the prominent Sheikh Dr. Iqbal Al-Hadvi in Canada, who called for da’wah and a replacement of democracy with sharia law.
Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.
From the front page of "The New York Times" to You Tube, Dr Wafa Sultan has become a force radical Islam has to reckon with. For the first time, she tells her story and what she learned, first-hand, about radical Islam in "A God Who Hates", a passionate memoir by an outspoken Arabic woman that is also a cautionary tale for the West.
Nonie Darwish lived for thirty years in a majority Muslim nation. Everything about her life?family, sexuality, hygiene, business, banking, contracts, economics, politics, social issues, everything?was dictated by the Islamic law code known as Sharia.
But Sharia isn't staying in majority Muslim nations. Darwish now lives in the West and brings a warning; the goal of radical Islam is to bring Sharia law to your country. If that happens, the fabric of Western law and liberty will be ripped in two.
If Mr Shah's murderer had been a non-Muslim, there would be a concerted effort by the entirety of the media and political class to find out what inspirations and associations the murderer had. Specifically, they would want to know if there was anybody -- especially any figure of authority -- who had ever called for the murder of Muslim shopkeepers. Yet when a British Muslim kills another British Muslim for alleged "apostasy" and local religious authorities are found to have praised or mourned the killers of people accused of "apostasy," the same people cannot bother to stir themselves.
The Global Campaign to Stop Killing and Stoning Women (SKSW) and the International Solidarity Network, Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) urge all concerned to immediately contact the Iranian officials to express their concern over the planned stoning to death of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani. Under Iranian law, execution by stoning is prescribed for adultery. Stoning is one of the most brutal punishments; the Islamic Penal Code of Iran states that the stones used should “not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes” – clearly aiming to inflict a slow and painful death.Attached is a sample letter to the authorities.
Here is the fulcrum around which so much of the problem turns: the belief that Islamic law has every right to be put into practice in non-Muslim countries, and the insistence that a parallel, if unequal, legal system can function alongside civil and criminal law codes adhered to by a majority of a country's citizens.
The supremacist tenets of sharia law inform the creed apartheid, gender apartheid, Islamic Jew-hatred, codified bigotry, misogyny, free speech prohibitions and homophobia inherent in Islamic law. Sharia is scary because it is punitive, supremacist, racist and misogynist.
Campaign groups and human rights activists have signed an open letter to Theresa May warning that the Home Secretary's sharia review will "do nothing" to address sharia councils' discrimination against women. The Home Office review has been criticised for neglecting human rights and constituting a panel "more suited to a discussion in theology than one which serves the needs of victims whose human rights are violated."
An investigation shows that the concerns of campaigners such as myself were well-founded. The Home Office has established a panel which is fit for the purpose of a theological exercise rather than a human rights investigation. The appointment of a theologian to chair it and imams as advisors to the Review Panel, was a thoroughly bad sign as far as feminists were concerned. It is a basic tenet of human rights that procedures should ensure impartiality, and that those involved in an institution should not be investigating themselves – that is, assuming that the panel actually intends to conduct a thorough investigation.
Pakistan is the world’s fifth largest democracy. It is also deeply influenced by Islamic law (Sharia). Can these two traditions, Western Liberal democracy and Sharia, co-exist? If so, how? And if not, what are the consequences? Haroon Ullah, foreign policy professor at Georgetown University, has some fascinating and sobering answers. Saleem Taseer as an example.
“In a bizarre digression from their latest anti-Christian tirade, the Islamic State addressed the question of black slavery, claiming that if Muslims had been in charge of Western states, the slave trade would have continued.”
These links and any other content or links on this website are provided for information only. No warranty is provided regarding their accuracy, and no liability is accepted for reliance on them. Sharia Watch UK Ltd. is not responsible for the content of external sites. We do not necessarily endorse any or all of the views expressed on these external sites.