Category Archives: Sneaking Sharia
Ontario and Quebec imams are preaching DEATH to those who leave islam
Please see CIJ News for more on this and similar instances.
How is forced child marriage not child sexual slavery?
More accurately general slavery with sexual access as a component of it.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Organizer of anti-Trump, women’s march supports SHARIA LAW
H/T M.
Today’s pop quiz:
In the image below, are you seeing
1, European children learning the upward dog Yoga position
2. Children of families that recently got a dog and are learning to play with them
3. Treatment for a rare form of balance disorder that requires the arse to be elevated over the head for several minutes at a time throughout the day.
4. Dutch children being brought to a mosque and taught how to pray like Muslims in a manner which would be defacto illegal if it was any other religion at all, including Christianity, the founding faith of that entire culture.
The photo dates from 30 October 2014. Show girls and boys of primary school Vinkenbuurt, native Dutch blond lying prostrate to pray to Allah in Ghulzar-e-Madina mosque in Zwolle, the capital of the province of Overijssel, in the east-central area of ‘Holland.
http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/scuola-olandese-sottomette-i-bimbi-ad-allah-1319638.html
Machteld Zee: “Islamization is Planned”
An original translation by Dr. VanHelsing
With a forward by Gates of Vienna
From this Dutch language website:
A young Dutch political scientist is causing consternation among the bien-pensants of the multicultural Left in the Netherlands with her analyses of Islamization. Her impeccable liberal background and credentials make it more difficult for the establishment to discredit her.
Dr. Van Helsing has translated an interview with this iconoclastic young woman. He includes this introductory note:
Machteld Zee Ph.D. is a Dutch scholar who investigated sharia courts in the UK for her Ph.D. thesis. This interview was published in the Algemeen Dagblad, a nationwide Dutch newspaper, on October 4, 2016.
The interview is relevant for several reasons:
- Very few non-Muslims ever have gained access to the world of sharia courts in the UK. She has.
- The University of Leiden is fairly highbrow in the Netherlands, because it is not only one of the oldest universities. but also because the heir to the Dutch throne traditionally studies at this university (for example, our former Queens Juliana and Beatrix did, just like our current head of state King Willem-Alexander). The reputation of this university gives authority to her voice.
- She has become a target of attacks by leftist apologists for radical Islam since she published her thesis. She could do with some positive publicity. Similarly, Islam-sceptics could benefit from her work.
The translated interview:
“Islamization is Planned”
Investigating Sharia
The Islamization of Europe follows a strategy, according to Machteld Zee in her book Holy Identities, which was published today. ‘Once you have knowledge of it, you understand what is going on.’
‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law that contradicts our secular laws.’
Investigating sharia courts
Machteld Zee (32), a Dutch political scientist from the University of Leiden, studied sharia courts in the UK and wrote her Ph.D. thesis on it in 2015.
She was one of the few outsiders who gained access to the sessions of these Islamic courts. 95% of the cases before these courts are divorce cases. Her investigations resulted in a pamphlet, Holy Identities.
‘If you compare the Netherlands in the 1980s with today,’ says the political scientist and law school graduate Machteld Zee, ‘you will see an increased influence of Islam everywhere. Saudi Arabia and other countries flooded the world with thousands of imams, Islamic text books, mosques and tons of money.’
Machteld Zee needed barely 150 pages to describe the background of Islamic fundamentalism, which is gaining ground in Western countries. Her book Holy Identities: On the Road to a Sharia State is an analysis of the problems of the multicultural society.
You say that conservative Muslims want to convince their fellow Muslims to embrace sharia, the religious law of Islam. These fundamentalists are being helped by ‘useful non-believers’, non-Islamic intellectuals, politicians and opinion leaders who don’t want to offend Muslims.
‘Yes, leading multiculturalists actually believe that Muslims should be shielded from criticism because it would inflict psychological damage on them. Although many Muslims consider this an idiotic point of view, others use it to call those who criticize Islam ‘Islamophobes’ and ‘racists’.
You described yourself as left-leaning liberal when you started your investigation on sharia courts in the UK. Now you warn against a lack of knowledge of and a lack of resistance against the advancing radical Islam.
‘I discovered a comprehensive system of law — far more systematic then I had expected — that contradicts our secular laws. Many Muslim women are locked into a religious marriage because their community thinks a divorce according secular law is insufficient. In these communities — Muslim communities — sharia law trumps secular law when it comes to marriage. Women have to ask a sharia judge or an imam to dissolve their marriage, for example when the husband physically abuses her. Even Dutch Muslim women travel to the UK to appear before sharia courts. It is a parallel society. I object to it because these practices go against women’s rights.’
You have analyzed the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a political and religious movement that aims for world domination, and is supported by lots of money from fundamentalist circles. The sharia courts are part of this project, you wrote.
‘That is why it is so important that we know what is going on. Authors that I studied for my investigation were generally benevolent towards sharia courts. It turned out, however, that none of them ever attended a session of such a court. They don’t know what is going on in these courts. Now they ask me to tell all about it. Women are advised by these courts to accept polygamy and to not file criminal complaints in case of domestic violence. Physically abusive fathers are given custody of their children. I have the impression that the tide of the public debate is turning now that these facts are becoming public. I hardly hear anyone pleading in favour of sharia courts anymore.’
In your book you call out the politically correct elites, who tries to cover up abuse within Islam and tries to downplay the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.
‘In the first place, I think I am reporting facts. Where I notice that influential Western intellectuals tend to discourage critics of Islam and help fundamentalists to isolate and ‘Islamize’ Muslim communities, that is a matter of fact. My book is a compact discourse that aims to bring its readers up to date on fundamentalist Islam.’
How do you see the future?
‘We will have to act more defensively and resist Islamization. We should not yield to demands that images of scantily dressed women in public have to be covered up, for example. Just say no. Citizens should not leave everything to the government. They can defend our beliefs and values themselves, too. Why does a college in The Hague decides to abandon the Christmas tree pre-emptively? Why is alcohol banned in places where Muslims show up? There is no need for that. We are doing it to ourselves.’
Do you fear criticism? Undoubtedly, you will be labeled as a right-winger.
‘I don’t experience that when I speak in public. Even a ‘leftist’ audience responds positively to my story. Right-wing? Come on, equal rights for women and resistance against representatives of a religion who make threats of violence — let’s call that common sense.’
Sharia now openly replacing equality as dominant legal principle
Monday morning side event at the OSCE in Warsaw. Criminalize Islamophobia, but don’t define it
We posted a video of Stephen Coughlin the other day here at Vlad, doing an intervention at the OSCE event in Warsaw last weekend, where he referred to another event which took place on Monday morning at a side event.
The clip of Maj. Coughlin at the OSCE putting on record the danger of the demand to criminalize “Islamophobia” without even defining it is here again for those that missed it:
And here as well:
Below, the event to which Maj. Coughlin was referring:
Policeman in France, beaten and prosecuted for speaking ill of Islamic State head, Baghdadi
France is pretty nearly full on sharia now.
‘Hannity’ Investigation: Do Muslims Believe Sharia Law Supersedes the U.S. Constitution?
The muslim spokesperson naturally spins the hell out of it. Muslims are obliged to overturn local law and implement the sharia. It is the central thesis of islam. By democracy, by warfare, by subversion, by deception and all of the above but it must be done.
Comparing approaches to the issue of Islamic attacks in our midst.
Two self declared Muslims, Tarek Fatah and Raheel Reza were both interviewed today by the Sun Chain about the attack in Montreal and the three girls who were caught in Turkey trying to join the Islamic State and had left Toronto to do so.
There is a critical difference in the approach between these two people.
On the attack in Montreal:
If there was any doubt about Couture-Rouleau’s motives, it ended when Quebec’s TVA Nouvelles reported Couture-Rouleau called a 911 dispatcher and explained he was “acting in the name of Allah.”
On the three girls from Toronto:
Twenty years ago, would the RCMP have released teenage IRA recruits back into the care of their parents?
We now have three teenage girls who apparently believe in the ISIS doctrine of armed jihad and who flew out of the country to join it, walking freely about our city, while the rest of us have no information as to who they are or what to look out for.
As someone who has received death threats from Islamists as late as two weeks ago, and who in 2011 received a threat from a teenage Somali girl when I was hospitalized, perhaps I am a bit paranoid.
Read the whole article for context. But Tarek has it right. The frame of reference is only Canadian and Canadian law. There is no attempt to discuss the motives or actions or justifications from any other point of view. Tarek’s reasoning in these, as in most things, mirrors my own.
Then we have Raheel Reza on wearing the veil during citizenship oath:
Her reasoning seems to be about what Islam and koran allows or demands. I find this to be extremely problematic. It doesn’t matter if her interpretation agrees with Canadian values or laws. It only matters what Canadian values or laws are. What if the Koran did demand that women wear the veil whenever they are in infidel lands? Would she be backing that view then? We must never consider what foreign value sets demand when within Canada and I find it a kind of anesthesia when seemingly liberal muslims try and agree with us while sneaking in the idea that the koran or Islamic law should be viewed as an authority and something which should be considered.
Australian politician cares more about truth than career
H/T Don L
Sharia law in the UK
The BBC, moral relativism and dangerous, even treasonous deceptions.
Yesterday I posted a story as part of the links & News of the day, an item about universities in the UK and gender segregation at lectures.
I had another listen to it today and noticed what was said at just after the 50 second mark. (link should bring you right there.)
Did you hear that? The BBC reporter actually said:
“…the muslim right to segregate trumps women’s right to sit where they want”.
Get that?
The BBC reporter made the statement that there is such a thing as a ‘muslim right’, which of course there is not, and this fictitious right actually trumps the real right of women to choose where they want to sit.
For clarity’s sake there is no such thing as a collective right. If Jews for example want the right not to eat pork or work on Saturday, then they have the individual right to not order pork or cook it or eat it which may mean they have to change jobs etc. and they have the individual right not to work on Saturday, which again, may mean they may have to change jobs as some companies may be open Saturdays and it would be grossly unfair to non-Jewish employees to force them to work more saturdays to accommodate a Jew who chooses not to. However that Jewish person has the individual right to choose a job or career that doesn’t require working on the Jewish sabbath. He does not have the right to force others to not eat pork or work on Saturdays. These is because there is no collective ‘Jewish right’. Only how people make choices within the parameters of their own rights.
What this BBC reporter has said is tantamount to treason if such a thing was still a crime in the UK, as they are inventing laws which actually undermine the most fundamental in free societies. That of individual rights which cannot and must not be “trumped’ by imaginary collective rights to bully those who do not adhere to those religious principles.
Muslims have, and always have had in free societies, the right not to sit together. If some bearded clam and his burka clad slave want to attend a lecture together and sit apart they are already perfectly entitled to do so. But to force this on the rest of the population and claim it is a right? Well that would be like forcing non-Muslims to not have pork as a menu option in a publicly funded school because it offends muslims just to be near it. And that, we all know, could never happen. Right?
I wonder how Rosa Parks would do in today’s United Kingdom. I suspect I know.
Eeyore for Vlad Tepes
Once again, Western authorities use calamitous logic in adjudicating cases where islam is a factor.
The fairly well known case of an Australian convert to islam being tied up and whipped in his apartment by three other muslims for what some reports are saying was his use of alcohol and consequent violation of sharia law has now been judged and the men who attacked the victim rightfully sentenced to jail.
But the damage the judge did to the legal system by his legal reasoning was far worse than the benefits Australia derived from jailing these three devout and knowledgable muslims.
From the Australian:
Addressing Fayed directly, Mr Maloney told him “you have brought much shame upon the Islamic faith”.
“You have proved yourself unscrupulously cunning, deceptive and dishonest.
“You profess to be a religious man, however you resorted to violence upon Mr Martinez.”
Mr Maloney said the case was “never about the Islamic faith or Islamic law”.
Instead he said Fayed had whipped Mr Martinez in order to get him to pay his debts.
Fayed shook his head and muttered as Mr Maloney handed down his sentence.
Once again we see idiot authorities in the Western world presuming to adjudicate on the basis of what is and what is not islamic law. These men where indeed “religious men”And the fact that he is wrong about islam makes it worse not better. The attack was uterly consistent with islamic law and dogma. But that is not the issue. There is only one kind of law that should apply and it doesn’t matter, or at least should not matter whatsoever what system of belief the attacker used.
The idea of determining for another whether he was correct in his assessment of his own beliefs is preposterous from the starting gate. But much more importantly it both is, and must be, utterly irrelevant. All that does matter is Australian secular law. These men broke it in many ways and should face the requisite punishment. And frankly, as motive goes to implementation of a foreign penal code, the punishment should be far worse and not mitigated for ‘cultural reasons’ as they clearly were since most of the accused where spared jail.
The presumption that this judge knows islamic law and can feel confident in pronouncing on how the perps violated sharia ethics etc. is more an insult to us than it is one to muslims. As it means this judge is trying to pull the wool over the rest of our eyes in an ever increasing minuet of deception perpetrated by those elected and appointed to represent Western values, laws and priorities.
Eeyore for Vlad.
