Is Sha'ria Law Being Put in Place in Europe? What Lessons Can America Learn?
Let's dispense with the small talk and cut to the chase: Muslims are accustomed to being in charge, and, at this rate, in charge they are going to be in most places in Europe. All European countries have a growing Muslim population, and all, to one degree or another, are having problems integrating Muslims into the rest of society. In no country has integration successfully been achieved through cooperative negotiations. Secular Turkey and Iraq had the hand of strong men that guided and maintained the cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslim, but, as we have unfortunately witnessed, once the strong man is gone, so is the cooperation. European countries are going through spasms, fits social apoplexy, and outbreaks of rage on all sides of this issue.
An example of this discomfort is found in country of Denmark. Like the rest of Europe, Denmark's indigenous population is having problems with Muslim refugees that have come to stay, bringing with them parts of their religion and culture that should have been left behind in the Middle East or other parts of the Muslim World. The problem is that by leaving behind some of this religious and cultural baggage that is incompatible with Western culture that is based on the Christian tradition, Muslim immigrants would cease to be Muslim.
Unequivocally incompatible Muslim laws and customs create an impossible wide chasm between rigidly traditional Muslim values and the more flexible, progressive values of the West that are constantly changing and adapting to fit contemporary social conditions. Muslim laws and customs were formed more than one thousand years ago during the lifetime of Muhammad, the founder of Islam and the few hundred years immediately following his death during which a set of immutable laws were created and redacted which Muslims have carried as the basis of their cultural baggage wherever they set down their feet on this earth. The code of never-changing laws based on precepts and practices of the Middle Ages is called Sha'ria, a set of laws that traps men and women roles and relationships that the West left behind many centuries ago.
Muslim immigrants, now an upcoming force on the European stage are demanding their rights under the advertised "toleration and multiculturalism" for which Western Europe has so prided itself. Throughout time, the number one demand of Muslims anywhere in the world has always been the implementation of Sha'ria law, and today's Muslims are no exception. They want Sha'ria to be included in the law codes of each of Europe's many countries with the eventual hope of making Sha'ria the law of the land after they successfully gain predominance over indigenous Europeans through agitation and demographics. Islamic republics would replace today's national governments with the eventual creation of a worldwide Islamic empire that would be based on Sha'ria law.
The European parliamentary system is the perfect vehicle for this purpose. Instead of the winner take all system of the United States, coalition governments must be formed that give many groups a place and a say in the process of governance, a type of "rule by committee." This is both the strength and the weakness of coalitions.
There is no sense of authority in Europe. The church has fallen by the wayside as millions have given up not only practice but also belief. National governments are ruled mostly by parliamentary systems that debate endlessly in order to come to agreements that please all but really benefit the few. The end result is called Social Democracy, a form of consensus politics. Europe is attempting to build a unity government that would unite all European states under one government centered in The Hague. The E.U. would, of course, be a parliamentary form of government. But is committee rule ever really successful? One only has to look at the outcome of certain committee decisions to know that the results are often unsatisfactory and non-beneficial.
Certainly everyone should be able to have a voice, to be able to offer an opinion, but are all opinions and voices worthy of creating policy, of drafting legislation for the good of the whole body of the electorate? Some voices must be disregarded or their opinions taken with "a grain of salt" as the legislation that they would create would be a tyranny on the majority, and, in the case of Muslim Sha’ria law, the minority that has created Sha'ria law would be the only beneficiary, for Sha'ria law was created by Arabic men and only for the benefit of Arabic men, regardless of the protestations of Muslim men and women to the contrary.
Sha'ria sets strict standards of family law, individual behavior, the economy, behavior of the ruler toward the ruled, the laws of warfare, and, in fact, even human action or thought that could ever occur. The standards are backed up by severe, draconian penalties, penalties that have been seen in today's newscasts and about which much has been written: floggings, amputations, executions, beheadings, laws put in place before the possibility of the construction of prisons which also exist in Muslim countries. Ironically, although crime is lower in the Muslim countries, crime has not been completely eliminated in spite of these draconian measures.
Family law was set in place during a time when the strong man was the law of the land and the law on the household. The strong man's word dominated the world and the home and laws were created to enforce this worldview in both the East and the West. The father or pater familias, in some societies was held responsible for the behavior of his household and thus was granted extraordinary power over them, even the power of life and death. Time has eroded both this responsibility and power for most of the world, but there a vestige remains in Sha'ria. The husband and father has, among other male prerogatives, great responsibility and great power over his family, especially over his wife and daughters, and, as in days of old, he sees them as his property and their behavior reflects on his honor. A worldview such as this is difficult, if not impossible to dislodge, or move forward, and is in direct opposition to the laws and mores of the West. The many faces of Islam are all the same, reflecting always Sha'ria, simply Sha'ria, only the authority of Sha'ria, the measure of all things being the law of Allah.
Europe's parliamentary system is rapidly being co-opted by Muslim voices that are demanding the inclusion and implementation of Sha'ria law that, Muslims that see the West as filled with a corrupt population that must be chastened and purged as they have done so many times in others parts of the world. History has given us many lessons of chastening and purge, from India to Indonesia, from North Africa to the Balkans, and even Medieval Spain, Southern France, and Austria where the stamp and influence of Islam can be found in custom, architecture, food, and language, as well as in historical legend.
A for instance is of modern-day Muslim incursion into European society is the death of Theo Van Gogh who violated the Sha'ria law against blasphemy by exposing the conditions under which Muslim women are living, even in Europe. The penalty for blasphemy is death and many non-Christians, also known as Infidels, and Muslim apostates, those that have left Islam, are marked for death as, in Islam, critical analysis that holds Islam up to ill repute, whether true or not, is blasphemy. Obviously, under Sha'ria, free speech would be cast out with the freedoms of choice and action.
Apostasy is frowned upon. Apostates that change from one Christian sect to another are technically apostates under Islam. The only religion change that is permitted is the "reversion to Islam." Muslims consider that Islam is the correct "original" religion of mankind, and all the others were created in error. Thus, coming to Islam is only a return to the "pure and correct state" in which mankind was in the Garden of Eden.
Other religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism are considered to be paganism, and their adherents are marked for death. Most Christians would be astounded to learn that Christians are also considered to be pagans because they "worship more than one God." Muslims considered "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" to be three different gods. The reversion to Islam would eliminate this "error."
Sha'ria is an economic system that holds "capitalism as its enemy." Muslim banks can't charge interest that is "haram," the opposite of "halal." Haram means not permitted and are applied to all facets of life. Muslims spend every waking minute considering whether or not a given action or thought is haram or halal. Muslims claim that Islam gives greater economic justice to the poor and disadvantaged, not only because they can't charge interest, but because of charity which is constant requirement of all Muslims, explaining the existence of so many Muslim charities that we hear about on the daily news.
The Muslim economic system, though, doesn't demand that extremely wealthy Muslims invest in industry and employment opportunities for the disadvantaged, nor does this system require that monies be spent on education opportunities that teach skills that could be used for employment opportunities. The act of charity is in the giving, not in the use of the money. The giver has discharged his obligation to Allah once the money leaves his hands.
Is that just? A good question, for the subject of justice is often on the lips of Muslims that tell us that Allah seeks justice in this world and the next. Justice, rather than love, is the touchstone of Muslim existence. Muslims accuse the West of the "crime of injustice." The standard, though, is Muslim, rather than Western. Justice must be considered within the parameters set up under Sha'ria law and Sha'ria is implemented and exists within a theocratic system of governance run by only Muslim leaders that are, by nature and practice, religious.
Islam then becomes that state religion under which all must exist. The laws of Islam, Sha'ria, are applied to all regardless of their state, religious or ethnic background. Sha'ria supersedes all state laws, constitutions, compacts, or any form of man's law, and would sweep away those tolerant and multicultural traditions that both Europe and America have developed in the past few centuries. Non-Muslims, Infidels would suffer a fate that only those that survived under Communism, a religion of the state, could remember.
The members of the Party apparatus were first class citizens, receiving all the perks and benefits, reserving wealth and status for themselves, their offspring and protégés. As long as they toed and maintained the party line and were non-threatening to the handful in power, they remained in their privileged status. Dissidents were sent to Siberia or to their death. Islam, a belief system that recognizes a supreme being they call Allah, operates under the same system. Dissidents are sent into social exile, jail, or to their deaths.
Presently Muslims in several European countries are making demands. European life for the indigenous has changed for most. For example, Britons have lost their freedom of speech as criticism of Islam is now viewed and punished under the hate-speech law. Germany and France and struggling with hijab, the wearing of head coverings by Muslim women, supposedly for religious purposes. Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland have reported problems various problems. In Sweden, the city of Malmo has been taken over by Muslims. There are no-go zones in many European cities where indigenous police, bus or taxi service is unable to operate. Literally every European country is experiencing a "Muslim problem, " and the Netherlands is beginning reaction in a violent way against the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
In Demark, parliamentary rule by committee is negotiating with Muslim members that want Sha'ria as state law.
On Monday, Social Democratic immigration spokeswoman Anne-Marie Meldgaard issued an ultimatum to Muslim party members, demanding that they condemn sharia in order to remain in the party.
Party leader Mogens Lykketoft has so far declined comment on the ultimatum, and Meldgaard has since modified her original remarks.
"Of course it's OK to fast. As long as an individual is not acting in violation of the constitution, Danish jurisprudence, principles of equality or democracy, we can accept it. But I still maintain that people have no business with us if they place Islamic law above our democratic system, or support execution by stoning," said Meldgaard.
Indigenous Danes feel threatened by Sha'ria that would, of course, put their way of life at risk. They want Muslims to give up those threatening portions, but Muslims aren't willing to do so.
Social Democratic party member Hamid El Mousti, a Moroccan by birth, currently sits on Copenhagen’s City Council. El Mousti claims it is impossible for Muslims to disavow sharia in its entirety.
"Sharia is a part of our identity - part of being Muslim. It's unreasonable to ask us to swear off our religion - but demanding that we accept the values of Denmark is fine," said El Mousti, emphasising that he in no way condones the stoning of adulterous women or amputation of hands to punish thieves.
This is an example of how difficult life is when Westerners and Muslims try to live together and to form a body of law. What usually happens is that Muslims "ghettoize," or isolate themselves so that they are not "polluted" by the rest of society, and then, through demographics or violence, they begin to take over as is happening now in Europe. Muslims now confident to be able make demands on the general population that benefit only them and that would put the indigenous population at a different status. Some Danes recognize this, recognizing that Sha'ria is a "packaged deal."
Centre Democrat Ben Haddou is also a member of Copenhagen's City Council, and seconds El Mousti's views.
"It's impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them," said Haddou, adding:
"For me, it's not a question of either/or. I can easily support sharia, but distance myself from those aspects that don't fit into the year 2004. Compare it to the constitution. Some parts are outmoded, and you might well imagine that some changes are long overdue," said Haddou.
Parliament of the Danes has had to be suspended "after voting against a Radical Liberal-sponsored resolution condemning sharia law." Clearly, as in other parts of Europe, governance is at crisis point.
Can a house divided against itself survive? History says it cannot. Can Muslims and Infidels draw up a just system of governance that benefits all and does not set one group over another? History and human nature say that it cannot be done. For this reason Muslims have stuck to their guns throughout history, knowing that to concede anything would lead them to lose their Muslim identity. However, non-Muslims will also lose the social character that has taken centuries to create that gives them certain freedoms and liberties that Muslims would take away if Muslims are successful and Islam becomes the state religion, economic power, system of family and criminal law, and the touchstone for personal thought and behavior.
Muslims are accustomed to being in charge. To gain precedence, Muslims look for a culture's strengths and weaknesses, playing them off against each other. The parliamentary system and the demise of traditional institutions such as the church are the European's Achilles heel.
The American system offers them other challenges. The winner-take-all political system won't permit a consensus style take over. Instead, Americans must be conditioned to accept a new paradigm of thought: Islamic institutions are superior to American because America is evil; because the American government is fascist; because the Christian church is demonic and supporters of the fascist government in Washington and that Christians are stupid to believe and to support their fascist dictator, George Bush.
In order to achieve this shift in thinking, Muslims have approached and tempted cash-starved universities with cash grants. The grants would create new university chairs or replenish university coffers. In return, Muslims would staff certain departments and have the right of policing what is said about Islam and done on campus in light of the politics of the Middle East. Education is the key to America as parliament is the key to Europe.
Education of the youngest members of society is now possible, as teachers have been conditioned in the new paradigm shift. Teachers are provided with altered texts and teaching materials that emphasize the positive aspects of Islam and ignore the dark side. Children play games and role-play being Muslims in social studies classes. Certainly they are doing this not in the spirit of multiculturalism as is contended, for no other role-play is given such weight. Certainly there are neither Christian nor Jewish role-plays, nor Hindu, nor Buddhist, nor ethnic groups. No, if not for take over, for what other reason could there be for the necessity of a role-play at being a Muslim?
Muslim activists are advised as to how to approach schools to make Muslim presentations palatable to school boards, administrators, teachers and staff, and to students' parents. They are taught how to deal with balking schools and districts. Use gentle persuasion and, in the sense of fair play, apply the principle of multiculturalism. If all else fails, resort to stronger measures: CAIR, a group that claims to protect Muslim civil rights; cry racism or discrimination, although neither the terms Islam nor Muslims can be characterized as races, and as Christians, Jews, and all other religious groups are denied the right to do religious presentations, discrimination is also not a valid charge.
Cry hate. You won't let us present because you hate us and your "No" is really hate-speech. We can see through this tactic, but together with claims of racism, discrimination, and now hate-speech, school systems, reluctant to be controversial or have appearance of impropriety have given in as have textbook companies that now allow Muslims on the review committees to make sure that Islam is shown in the most positive of lights.
The media is another educational tool. Control of spin about Islam and the creation of unfavorable spin about America have planted some unsettling ideas in minds of many Americans. Controlling the minds of the masses has been a tool for the ages. However, it is unusual that a society uses that tool against itself as is the case of the American media that in constant disagreement that tears down American institutions, a detriment to any society and a lethal tool during a time of war--cultural and national suicide. Speaking against America has become a national pastime.
Of course Muslims don't work alone on this project. Much of the world uses media for the same purpose--anti-Americanism. Outside the U.S. there are forces and factions that would benefit if the United States were to decline, including some European states are now going through problems with an ascendant Islam. Thus, Islam would benefit in the long run in Europe at the expense of America.
Educating the lawmakers in the halls of power to accept Islam as a religion of peace has even entered the White House where the President regularly makes pronouncements about the "War on Terror," hopes that "Moderate Muslims will take power," and that "Democracy can take hold in the Middle East." All of these are fables that have been fed to a naive government that believes that Muslims can and will change Islam and that in doing so will be able to moderate their behavior and their societies so that we can all get along. The Washington establishment understands neither the lessons of history nor how to analyze properly the world's current events. Instead they listen to the whispered advice of Muslim apologists or analysts that have a pet point of view.
They haven't heard or have refused to acknowledge the number one lesson: Muslims are accustomed to being in power and will use any means possible to achieve that status. In the course of time, if force becomes necessary, they will use it. However, education is a much more useful tool to achieve dominance over a society that prides itself as being a melting pot.
In this case a more useful analogy would be to characterize the America as a layered salad. The layers can be mixed without any one ingredient losing its character or flavor. However, there is spoiler to this analogy. With the application of the salad dressing, a tiny ingredient in comparison with the bulk of the rest of the ingredients, the flavor of all layers and ingredients are obscured and some ingredients degrade or wilt. Muslims have no intention of being just another layer in the salad. They intend to be the salad dressing.