Sharia in the Netherlands

“We now have two parallel legal systems.”

Our Flemish correspondent VH has translated a pair of articles from that show how far the implementation of sharia law has already proceeded in the Netherlands. He has added a footnote to the articles, which may be found at the bottom of this post.

The first article is from HP/De Tijd:

Sharia courts already exist in the Netherlands

By Wouter Sinke

Geert Wilders wants to ban sharia courts as soon as it appears that they operate in the Netherlands. In Parliament he is trying hard to avoid a repetition in the Netherlands of British circumstances. In the UK no fewer than 85 Islamic courts are operating.

“Pure Wilders-mania,” according to Prof. Dr. Fokko Oldenhuis. “Detesting age-old ecclesiastical dispute-settling is not consistent with the ancient tradition that we have in the Netherlands,” the professor of Religion and Law at Groningen University says. Solving disputes with sharia can even be positive, according to him.

Fortunately for Wilders’ peace of mind, according to Maurits Berger, professor of “Islam in the Western World” at the University of Leiden, there are no sharia courts operating in the Netherlands, as he affirms on the opinion page of the newspaper NRC Handelsblad. Seemingly it is not all that bad.

Or is it otherwise? Because polygamy and marriages with minors are daily occurrences.

This does happen in various mosques, as interpreter and writer Nahed Selim states in the same newspaper, NRC Handelsblad. In Rotterdam it is even a weekly event. Marriages with more than one bride [bigamy and polygamy] are neatly recorded with the registrar’s office of the city. Why is the government not in any way aware of this?

According to Nahed Selim, this is because the Central Bureau of Statistics views these registrations as administrative errors and leaves them out of its calculations. The same applies to marriages with underage brides: error. Even though this has certainly been registered sometimes, it does not “exist”.

Nahed Selim calls on politicians to close down mosques that are practicing sharia. According to him this can be done based on the verdict of the European Court in Strasbourg from 13-02-2003, that states that sharia jurisdiction is in conflict with the principles of democracy. [1]

The second article (referred to in the article above) is from NRC Handelsblad:
– – – – – – – –

Sharia in the Netherlands is already broadly implemented

By Nahed Selim

While professor Maurice Berger determines that there are no sharia courts at all in the Netherlands, I for my part determine that in the Netherlands sharia sentencing actually already does takes place.

Whether that sentencing happens in a room that carries the description “sharia court” or not makes little difference to me. The point is that the Islamic rules on marriage, divorce, child custody, parental custody, alimony and inheritance are applied according to sharia, while those rules are not consistent with Dutch law. The clearest example of this is polygamy. I have known for a long time that in some mosques marriages are closed and dissolved — including polygamous marriages.

On September 19, 2008 De Telegraaf reported (under the heading “polygamy is neatly registered”) that in Amsterdam 173 men are registered with two legitimate wives. Even two men with three wives. In other major cities the same thing occurs. Last year in this newspaper, Mr. T. Verhoeven, spokesman for the municipality of Rotterdam, also admitted it. According to him, polygamous marriages are registered almost every week in Rotterdam.

It is unfortunate that the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) removes that data later. They think these are administrative errors. That is why there is no official nationwide data on polygamy. (And here we only talk about the registered polygamy. The size of the unregistered polygamy is probably much higher.)

The same applies to marriages with underage girls [minors]. These are usually not registered, but sometimes they are, and yet these don’t exist, according to CBS.

In fact, we now have two parallel legal systems: for non-Muslims there are bans that do not apply to Muslims. This is typical of the Dutch attitude towards the Islamization of Dutch society. Things happen, but the government knows nothing and also doesn’t want to know it. They just throw the data away and then it is dissolved.

Even when statements by imams are made in the back rooms of mosques with the consent of the faithful, I think the Netherlands should not allow this to happen. That Catholics and Jews also practice religious rules, as Berger suggests, but that is their own business. According to their rules, most likely apostates and gays do not have to be beheaded, and disobedient women will not have to be beaten by their husbands.

Because everything in sharia does discriminate against women: marrying a non-Muslim is not allowed by sharia, and divorce is not allowed, unless with the consent of the husband. For his part the man, whenever he wants, may disown the woman. Even a little text message that reads “I disown you” is sufficient (according to a sharia court in Malaysia). But if the man changes his mind within three months, he is allowed to take his ex-wife back. The parental power is always with the father, the mother may take care of the children, but he is in charge.

In Islamic countries there are thousands of divorce cases waiting for more than ten years on a decision of the sharia court. These are obviously divorce applications by women. The men in most Muslim countries do not even need the approval of the court.

For all these reasons I am against sharia law in the Netherlands. According to sharia, a woman is only worth half a man. She inherits half of what her brother gets. In a court, her testimony is worth half that of a man.

We should not have let it get this far in the Netherlands. Mosques that are practicing sharia law should be closed down. The Minister claims that there is no legal basis for that, but on the contrary, I think that there is: the ruling of the European Court in Strasbourg (13-02-2003). That ruling states that sharia law is contrary to the principles of democracy. The ruling arose from an appeal that the banned Turkish Refah Party filed against Turkey. [1]

I am of the firm opinion that the Netherlands, with this ruling in hand, can close down some mosques, when they actually practice sharia. The ruling by the European Court of Justice overrules that of the Dutch courts.

The permissiveness of politics towards fundamentalist Muslims must stop, even for the sake of moderate Muslims. The ghettos should not be institutionalized by permitting parallel law.

And even if half of the Muslims in the Netherlands are in favor of such law, there is still another half that are opposed to it. This half is the better ally, because they are not hostile towards the West and would like to live under the same laws as other citizens. Just read websites like “Muslims against sharia“, “Women against sharia“, “Women living under Muslim laws“, “No sharia“, “One law for all“ and realize that all over the world people are fighting to try get out from under the sharia yoke.

If you want to help Muslims, then help the right group, and not the fossilized fundamentalists who want the next generations to grow up under a ideology that is hostile to women.


[1] In 2003 and 2004, the European Court for Human Rights ruled that “sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, because the sharia rules on inheritance, women’s rights and religious freedom violate human rights as established in the European Convention on Human Rights”:

2003, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 25, § 123, ECHR 2003-II;

25. The Constitutional Court observed that secularism was one of the indispensable conditions of democracy. In Turkey the principle of secularism was safeguarded by the Constitution, on account of the country’s historical experience and the specific features of Islam. The rules of sharia were incompatible with the democratic regime.

123. The Court concurs in the Chamber’s view that sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy, as set forth in the Convention:

“72. Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers 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. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements [of the Refiyeh party and Islamists as Erdogan], which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole.

It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges 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 intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

… In the Court’s view, a political party whose actions seem to be aimed at introducing sharia in a State party to the Convention can hardly be regarded as an association complying with the democratic ideal that underlies the whole of the Convention.”

[Note: this case law contains interesting material about the true aim of Turkish politicians like the Prime Minister Erdogan]

2003 [final 14/06/2004], Case of Gündüz v. Turkey; ([FS], nos. 35071/97, § 51, ECHR 2003-XI;

2004 [final 10/11/2005], Case of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey; ([FS], nos. 4774/98, § 94, ECHR 2003-VI;

94. In the Government’s submission, the request for judicial recognition of the right to wear the Islamic headscarf in public institutions was tantamount to claiming a privilege for a religion that would entail in its wake a plurality of legal statuses, a situation that was regarded by the Court as being contrary to the Convention (Refah Partisi and Others, cited above § 119). In that connection, they stressed that the provisions of sharia concerning, among other matters, criminal law, torture as punishment for crime, and the status of women were wholly incompatible with the principle of secularism and the Convention.

28 thoughts on “Sharia in the Netherlands

  1. Is there any historical record of a cultural or society successfully surviving the temporary adoption of a parallel legal system without being taken over by that sub-system?

    Clearly, this does not include such examples as black markets, two tier legal structures meant for aristocracy and peasant (e.g., shari’a itself) or other tacit bimodal systems.

  2. Hopefully Mr Wilders will become PM soon and I surely hope he will close down all these sharia courts. The price tag for that will probably be whining and rioting mahoundians. Well, good for them, then they’ll have an excuse to ship them all back to their point of origin.

  3. Certain things need to be clarified and the first two things are:

    1) Most actual Muslim countries do not use Sharia courts but secular systems with most having Sharia inspired courts. And,

    2) There is no singular Sharia Law. What a Moroccan Maliki-Sunni considers Sharia is different to those of Turks, Hannafis in South Asia, the Shi’ites all have different variations.

    Thus, what extremists such as Wahhabists (like Bin Laden) would claim something that would be at odds to the existing Sharia Court system in Saudi Arabia and it would be again different to say what the fundamentalists in the UK would consider Sharia, the Taliban with their mix of local tribal culture and what they “think” is Islam again is completely different again.

    Thus I find it even rediculous that there are communites trying to install Sharia courts in European countries when in fact those courts would not even be accepted let alone recognised in the Muslim World itself.

    Now having said all that…..

    Zenster’s comment “two tier legal structures meant for aristocracy and peasant (e.g., shari’a itself)” is technically not correct. Starting by the above fact that there is no easily single definition of Sharia Law.

    Robin Shadowes’s comments are both doomed to failure and shows a great lack of knowledge of both Dutch politics and second the reality of the bigot known as Wilders.

    Wilder’s has not the numbers and in fact in local electorates is losing. Someone who at his best made 17 per cent and on a single-issue bigot agenda will never be accepted by mainstream Nederalanders.

    There is in fact a greater chance that he will be banned from public office including parliament when he faces the two charges of inciting hate in court and is found guilty.

    (Solkhar is the pen-name of a retired western diplomat and a specialist on tracking of terrorism financing. He is a liberal Sunni Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and is now a permanent resident of the Moroccan city of Marrakech. He continues to provide advice and consulting services to governments in North Africa).

    Solkars’s World – Views from the Atlas

  4. Solkhar: Most actual Muslim countries do not use Sharia courts but secular systems with most having Sharia inspired courts.

    Be they shari’a courts or “shari’a inspired” courts, it matters not. Both of them are steered by that toilet-clogging mass of human rights abuse known as shari’a law.

    It makes little difference to what degree shari’a is followed. The vast majority of shari’a legal code is arbitrary, discriminatory, misogynistic and so easily abused as to be a tool for criminal elements to manipulate at will.

    Zenster’s comment “two tier legal structures meant for aristocracy and peasant (e.g., shari’a itself)” is technically not correct. Starting by the above fact that there is no easily single definition of Sharia Law.

    I find it difficult in the extreme to imagine that there is any well-accepted version of shari’a that does not prejudicially distinguish between Muslim and dhimmi. If this is the case, then shari’a is a de facto two tier legal system.

    Please elaborate upon this.

    … the bigot known as Wilders.

    Ah … the mask slips. Thank you for that revealing little aside. Since when do any Muslim majority countries encourage immigration by the kufar? Ergo, with such a lack of reciprocity in general, why should Western nations tolerate an influx of Muslims, most of whom refuse to assimilate?

    This is especially the case when a highly placed Muslim like Recep Erdoğan openly states―while speaking in Europe no less―that, “assimilation is a crime against humanity.“

    In case you hadn’t noticed, Islam is an ongoing crime against humanity.

    As a putative expert on Muslim affairs, I hereby challenge you to name one single redeeming feature of Islam.

    A single one will suffice. More would be jim dandy but I’ll settle for even just one.

  5. Ah … the mask slips.

    What mask? Solkhar describes himself as a former Western diplomat who has become a “liberal Sunni Muslim” and who now provides consultation to governments in North Africa.

    He doesn’t need a mask because there isn’t a taboo against overt pro-Islamicism. Notice how Solkhar basically takes the State Department approach: he is against “terrorism” but not Islamic supremacism.

  6. Sophisticated Warriors

    Well now, it appears that I was right about these people being able to operate Western technology and tactics. Sounds sophisticated to me.

    Yes, it could be true that no country applies shariah perfectly– because it requires a Caliphate.
    They don’t really have to lie to Westerners, just tell some of the truth and Westerners will fill in the blanks with what they want to believe.

    One other point, I think that Obama’s pow-wow with the Russians on a massive reduction in Nuclear weapons is NOT a positive step towards fulfilling your military response theory, but rather anouther obstacle.

  7. @ Solkhar

    1) That is because many of those countries still benefit from Western law (based on Roman law and/or Common law) as introduced in the past (19th century). Apart from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Lybia, Sudan, to name a few, and parts of Nigeria and Indonesisa (Aceh, and don’t forget archipelago-wide attempts like the Porn Bill), etc., there at least is Islamic family law in most OIC member countries.

    To note here: Don’t forget that there are no less than thirteen member states of the OIC (out of 56, thus a quarter) that do not even have a Muslim majority. Gabon for instance has only 1% Muslims and Surinam even has a substantial Christian and Hindu majority. Six other OIC members count between 50% and 75% Muslims of which most are just over the 50% barrier. Only 66% of the OIC member countries (37) have some sort of a ruling Muslim majority.

    On the other hand, in countries like the Phillipines and Singapore to name a few, who certainly are not Muslim countries, there is a dual system. As is the case in Singapore, it is to keep the Muslims both happy and under cotrol. It has limits to its jurisdiction and is under strong supervision of the President, who is not ignorant and knows what they have to deal with. As you also will know, Islam starts with taking a finger and when successful, goes for the hand and the rest. Banning criticism on Islam accompanied with death theats is according to Shariah and one of those fingers, or maybe even the hand.

    2) Of course there is one Shariah. Shariah is tribal law based on the interpretations of the (inconsistent) Qur’an and Sunnah, and in some cases extended with the somewhat evolving part: fiqh. Interpretations might vary a little, as does the scope. But comparing Taliban Shariah to UK Shariah, is not about a different Shariah, but about more or less Shariah. If you desire, it may even address how to go to the toilet.

    Futhermore: Robin Shadowes’ remarks are not at all “doomed to fail” [see European case law], and certainly do not show “lack of knowledge”. The remark “single-issue bigot agenda” sounds more like that to me to be honest.

  8. VH: If you desire, it may even address how to go to the toilet.

    Not just going to the toilet but right down to the permissible amount of fecal matter that may be left remaining beneath your fingernails after cleansing your posterior.

    Islam is truly some sick stuff.

  9. Speaking of fecal matter, what happened to our critic? I had hoped he was going to tell us all about the redeeming features of Islam.

    Talk about a deafening silence!

  10. For the responses to my posting…

    If you read my posting correctly, you will note that I do not support Sharia Law as a legal system for a number of simple reasons.

    1. There is no single codex, it is based on the various interpetations of what is mostly Haddith and not Qure’an.
    2. Those countries that put full Sharia Law place clerics as judges and not professionals, clerics in all religions by nature are mostly ultra-conservatives and in the Muslim world, Fundamentalists.
    3. The Haddiths were created by “men”, perhaps with best intentions but still by “men”.

    Like another posters mentioned, Sharia Inspired secular courts are mostly created from western based systems. So was that to be a criticism? Most western secular courts copied their systems from one or the other until the as-best-as possible system is running and following European tribunal systems over the lesser US/Brit/Australian jury sytem. Again, Sharia in most of the Muslim Countries only “inspires” morality elements in secular legal systems.

    I think many of the posters here read to many of your own websites and the rantings of westerners with agendas or third-fourth-party errors. Sharia certainly does not put non-Muslims as second class citizens. It certainly distinguishes between who is and who is not a Muslim for the purpose of Zakat, responsibilities. Please do not discuss ancient history of what or how non-Muslims were treated in some forgotten land, the response about the inquisition, treatment of indiginious peoples up to and including the 1970s is easily thrown back – the selfishness of man, often in the name of God is simple history.

    Wilders is a bigot by definition. He wishes to exclude one type of people over another. He uses all the tools of propoganda and excuses to hide the fact to maximise his presence but he does. He says Qur’an and Islam is evil but Muslims are not – though all three are the same.

  11. Solkhar: He says Qur’an and Islam is evil but Muslims are not – though all three are the same. [emphasis added]

    What happens if the Qur’an is evil? By your own logic, that would make all Muslims evil.

    The Danes always say, “Go to the horse’s head, not its tail.” So, lets look at the Qur’an:

    Not all men are equal under Islam. Slaves and the handicapped are not equal to healthy free men, for example (16:75-76).

    That looks like hate speech against the diabled and advocacy of slavery.

    Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).

    That sounds like a call to perpetual religious war and instructions to set up a two tier society.

    Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56).

    Another major dose of religious intolerance which is clearly being carried on to this very day.

    O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (4:144).

    A clear call to discriminate against non-Muslims.

    O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. (5:51).

    Even more specifically, this passage discriminates against Jews and Christians, the supposed “people of the book”.

    For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies (4:101)

    This easily could be construed as a simple declaration of war upon all non-Muslims. In fact, I’m rather confident that many Muslims continue to take it that way.

    Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know (8:60)

    A clear call to terrorism.

    And unto Allah falleth prostrate whosoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly (13:15).

    Who said, “There is no compulsion in Islam”? The foregoing passage cites being forced to bow ot Islam, even “unwillingly”. Something I would never do or do unto others.

    Well, well. From all the horse puckey above, I can only think we somehow arrived at the horse’s tail.

    So, according to Solkhar‘s own definition that “all three [Qur’an, Islam and Muslims] are the same”, then Islam and Muslims are full of hatred just as the Qur’an obviously is.

    Plus, our learned critic has yet to NAME EVEN ONE SINGLE REDEEMING FEATURE OF ISLAM.

    Does anyone want to bet a thin dime that Solkhar continues to ignore this sincere and very elementary challenge?

  12. Zenster, the old trick of twisting around words does not stick. The point I will argue is that the Qur’an is not evil and that by the same definition (of quoting historical events out of context) would make the Bible and Torah just as evil. If you wish to go down that line, then all three are or all three are not.

    Your quotes are almost entirely those samples of events, comments and reactions to those times. There are also ideals and comments of the afterlife, which again the Bible and the Torah are full of, fire & brimstones and references to Judgement Day when “all will be made aparent”.

    As for redeeming features of Islam – I can immediately think of family values, civic responsibility, charity, respect for the elderly, personal challenges and development and there are much, much more but will not spend the time here.

    Of course do not confuse these aspects in the Qur’an with the words and deeds of men, be they murderous militants or extremist fundamentalists who do not represent most of us Muslims, even though they wish it or would force it.

  13. Solkhar: Zenster, the old trick of twisting around words does not stick. The point I will argue is that the Qur’an is not evil and that by the same definition (of quoting historical events out of context) would make the Bible and Torah just as evil. If you wish to go down that line, then all three are or all three are not.

    Then why is it that only followers of the Qur’an are flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers? Why is is that only young followers of the Qur’an are strapping on dynamite vests to detonante them amidst pizza parlors and discos, even as their parents celebrate such bloodshed? Why is is that follower’s of the Qur’an are blowing passenger jet airliners out of the sky? Why is it that the vast majority of ALL terrorism in today’s world is committed by followers of the Qur’an and NOT the Bible or Torah?

    If you wish to play the game of cultural relativism, then you must explain the yawning gulf that separates the behavior of those who follow the Qur’an from those who follow the Bible and Torah.

  14. Zenester,

    suicide bombers are actually a Tamil separatist invention in Sri Lanka and southern India. Crashing planes deliberatly into targets as a weapon was done by the Japanese military in the later part of WWII in the 1940s.

    Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boar War in the first decade of the 1900s.

    There is no doubt and I do not deny that it is militant fundamentalists abusing the name of Islam that is the great threat at the moment.

    But what I am saying is that playing the blame game on the entire religion or one group, apart from being blatant bigotry and incorrect only makes the matter worse by diluting an effort on identifying and dealing with the real threat and alienating the entire community and thus making the matter worse.

  15. Solkhar: suicide bombers are actually a Tamil separatist invention in Sri Lanka and southern India.

    That in no way changes the fact that a vast majority of bomb vest attacks in all recorded history have been carried out by Muslims.

    Crashing planes deliberatly into targets as a weapon was done by the Japanese military in the later part of WWII in the 1940s.

    Your answer is pure misdirection.

    Kamikazee pilots were military members in uniform, attacking military targets during wartime and the sole occupants of the aircraft that they piloted.

    It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to compare a single combat warrior with the Islamic cowards who directed plane loads of innocent civilian people into skyscrapers occupied by ordinary non-military workes trying to make an honest living.

    That is, unless you support the notion that those people on the planes and inside the buildings somehow bore responsibility for the woes of Islam. Are you saying the WTC (World Trade Center) was a legitimate military target? Is that your position? Because that is the only way your kamikazee analogy holds any water.

    Concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boar War in the first decade of the 1900s.

    Again, pure misdirection. No one is talking about concentration camps except yourself.

    There is no doubt and I do not deny that it is militant fundamentalists abusing the name of Islam that is the great threat at the moment.

    And what about the untold millions of Muslims who remain inert in the face of such atrocities being committed in the name of Islam? Why do they not riot in the streets of Islamic capitals against those who profane the name of Allah?

    Instead, they cheered and danced in the streets upon news of the 9-11 atrocity.

    Furthermore, the “militant fundamentalists” are not abusing the “name of Islam”. They are doing exactly what the qur’an tells them to do.

    Why is it that fundamentalist Christians or Jews so very infrequently follow the “fire & brimstones” passages of their respective doctrines while Muslims are, literally, doing it every day, often in great numbers?

    But what I am saying is that playing the blame game on the entire religion or one group, apart from being blatant bigotry and incorrect only makes the matter worse by diluting an effort on identifying and dealing with the real threat and alienating the entire community and thus making the matter worse.

    The only problem is that a huge number of Muslims are cheerfully paying their zakat without any qualms about the fact that it is so often used to finance jihad. In fact, the Qur’an explicitly demands that a portion of zakat be directed towards jihad.

    Yet, little to no objection is posed to this supposedly un-Islamic application of zakat by what can only be, again, the vast majority of Muslims.

    Why the thundering silence from so many Muslims in the face of Allah’s name being dragged through the mud?

    Why, instead, do so many Muslims regard Osama bin Laden as a hero for injuring America even as they claim that Jews or the American government orchestrated those attacks upon the WTC.

    Enough Muslims know damn well that Islamic terrorism is dragging all of them towards the precipice of nuclear war. Another atrocity of sufficient magnitude could inspire large scale retaliation against the MME (Muslim Middle East).

    Yet, how is it that so many Muslims sit quietly by as this threat to their very existence continues to grow with each passing attack and the rationale for strong retaliation is only magnified by the near-total lack of response or objection from the ummah?

  16. A Spanish journalist once said:

    After a certain point, silence is no longer just consent. To remain silent is to lie.

    Muslims have long ago passed the point of silence beibng consent. They have had almost eight long years to begin eliminating the jihadis from within their midst. They know who they are. Muslims continue to sit still as jihad is preached to them and refuse to act against these supposedly ‘bad actors’.

    Muslim silence is no longer just consent for what the jihadis are doing. Muslim silence is now a lie about what Islam really stands for and that Islam is in no way a “Religion of Peace”. This conspicuous silence has caused all sane people to reject any possibility of Islam having peaceful intentions and the ummah’s inaction, in combination with the jihadis’ actions are building an entirely different repution for the followers of Allah.

    From all indications, it one that they richly deserve.

  17. I still have to contest what you stipulate as redeeming features of Islam. My current schedule involves attending one of the largest conventions of high technology equipment manufacturers in the entire world and limits the time I can devote to this dispute.

  18. Baron Bodissey: Has anybody ever read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson?.

    Yes. While possessing a particularly high Geek Factor, Stephenson’s work is usually based in sufficient fact (e.g., “Cryptonomicon”), or solidly based speculative fiction that the end result can be a rollicking bit of reading.

    I can only assume that you are referring to the character, “Raven” who is just as ready to destroy the world that created him, much like Islam is prepared to suck dry the husk of Western civilization even though millions of Muslims will die of starvation and deprivation once the necessary high technology of advanced medicine and agribusiness are snuffed out.

  19. PS: Baron, if you enjoy Stephenson’s work, I urge you to peruse Peter Hamilton’s various trilogies. The man is a master of high technology and uses it as a mere platform for even more complex and well-fleshed out plots.

    Dymphna, has a detailed reading list of Hamilton’s works. Despite the tremendous length of the book and its companion volumes, I still recommend starting with, “The Reality Dysfunction”.

    The title alone should induce a few who read this to investigate.

  20. To use your phrase, Zenester, the height of intellectual dishonesty is to assume that the acts of a few represent the acts of all.

    You wish to imply that suicide attacks are the invention and the sole ownership of Muslims was inoorrect and it needed to be pointed out clearly.

    Of course these monsterous extremists, militant fiundamentalists are doing it all now, maximizing the most horrible and effective methods of terror.

    I am the first to agree with you that the Muslim moderates sit back and do almsot nothing to fight it, and for me it is a painful point and all the causes, reasons and excuses still do not justify the point that still nothing is really being done. No argument there.

    From my own background and work, I can tell you even more – the embarassment that fundamentalists in Europe do to the name and reputation of Muslims world-wide – they would never dare do, claim or demand what they do in an “actual” Muslim country – simply because they would be caught out with thier lies.

    So really, the question comes to mind – what is your point? If you think it is Islam that is at fault, you are completely wrong. If you blame extremists and fundamentalists using and abusing the name of Islam – then you would be correct.

    If you believe that there is some great religious conspiracy to change the world into some Islamic Caliphate, then the answer is that perhaps those fundamentalists have that pipe-dream and they may even try it by force – but they are a small albiet dangerous minority.

    Lastly, it is all well and good to be concerned, if not worred about the actions of these fundamentalists, the dangers they pose are more than real, they are a day-to-day reality for many millions of people. But attempting to assume, presume and fabricate on what actually is Islam, the ideals, aspirations, objectives, faith, and the habits of Muslims from a comfortable chair and desktop comes out as rather embarassing and silly to an actual Muslim who actually lives the life and lives there.

  21. Baron Bodissey: Has anybody ever read Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson?.

    Heh. My brothers have been pushing me this one. It’s in my stack of ‘Seriously interesting books’ – along with a few others, like Ludvig von Mises: Socialism.

    Everything is more interesting than everything else 🙂

  22. Solkhar, the whole issue of Islam and terrorism could be resolved in a simple and effective manner:

    Islamic scholars, muftis in particular, should issue fatwas decreeing that violence in the name of Islam is criminal and an insult to the Religion of Peace, and automatically leads to all terrorist being declared non-Muslims, apostates.

    This to be followed up on a regular basis as a reaction to each act of terrorism in the name of Islam.

    Since apostacy is a capital offense, that would lead to Muslims thinking twice (or more) before engaging in or supporting any terrorist act.

  23. Henrik, I could not agree with you more … theoretically. That should be the solution but it very unfortunately does not.

    The reality is that what a Mufti in say Cairo says compared to what one of the Guardians in Mecca says is way different and they are not affiliated other than being a Muslim. A senior cleric in Rawalpindi has not the fogiest of what is being discussed and what is life like anywhere else.

    It is a tragic situation and it should also not be fogotten that this is talking about clerical leaders – of the bulk moderate population. Fundamentalists in say Pakistan/Afghanistan, the Wahhabists in Saudi (and Al Qaeda’s Bin Laden is one) and all those others, do not recognize Muftis.

    If such a united condemnation is able to be created, it has to come from Mecca. I actually believe that it is coming, perhaps another decade with some horrors – but it can.

    Oh just to correct you one one point – appostacy is not a capital offence, it is not mentioned as such in the Qur’an – what haddiths say is an after-thought.

    Good point and an interesting discussion.

  24. I was just thinking about Solkhar’s insistence that the acts and views of some Muslims don’t necessarily reflect the beliefs of all Muslims.

    We all remember the doctors who carried out the terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport.

    I know of another doctor who one might think was perfectly “moderate” but in reality they have just been suspended for sending a racist email with pictures of murdered children in it; they have refused to visit patients if they have a dog in the house; and they told one of my colleagues that they thought suicide bombers were doing the greatest thing anyone could possibly do, and if their faith was strong enough they’d do the same.

    This is a doctor mind you. If “professional” Muslims who are trained to think logically can behave in this manner, what are we supposed to think about the unwashed masses of Muslims living throughout the land – that is to say, our land? What are they really up to when our backs are turned? What do they really believe?

    If we accept, however reluctantly, that they’re just not going to let on, then we have to go to their core textbooks and see for ourselves.

    I’d wager that everyone on this site has done so. It’s really something when Solkhar sets himself up as an authority on all religions, not just his own. Who on earth does he think he’s talking to? A bunch of young kiddies who need to be guided by an educated adult?

    I showed that Solkhar had lied about his own religion in order to smear Geert Wilders – and that’s just me, an average kind of guy with an average level of education. Took me about five minutes to see that Solkhar’s assertions about the Koran were way off. The alternative to Solkhar deliberately lying of course, is that when it comes to the Koran, Solkhar really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Pick a horn, Solkhar.

    How, exactly, is anyone supposed to take Solkhar seriously after something like that?

    So there you have it: Solkhar’s trustworthiness is questionable, to say the least. And as another poster pointed out somewhere on the site, their views about Islam are based on their own research, and their own experience.

  25. Wow, Kenny/Nick really is either dedicated to me or I hit a nerve when I remarked about his being full of just words and something a bit more smelly. Volumes does not make a falsity anymore valid.

    Either way, copious amounts of ranting appears to have done nothing for substance improvement, so I guess it is not done to improve his educative skills.

    Curious also to think that he has proved anything, especially considering his unflagging support for Wilders. Rather like Bernie Quigley’s unflinching support for Sarah Palin – like a puppy dog or the like. The assumption that I lied about my faith to smear Wilders is another example I guess of how far he will go to play the word game that he loves so much. I have to ensure my texting goes through either a translation program from my usual French and spelling checker to ensure basic language (I read OK though) and yet he continues to screw-it-up while being so picky on grammer.

    Go ahead dedicated follower!

  26. You’re a funny guy Solkhar, you must know this. I don’t know if you intend to be, but sometimes you’re just a real hoot! I guess I hit a nerve of yours there, exposing your lies about your own religion, and showing how ridiculous your fantasy about being a source of knowledge to all men really is. What’s the matter, are you afraid to even try to deal with anything critical of your own beliefs? Is it simply intellectual cowardice on your part? Your continual ranting about word “twisting” is quite amusing, given your own endless blah blah blah about your English language skills. So the problem’s not with what you think, it’s with how you express the beliefs you hold? That’s a good one, man. You can’t deal with the issues, so portray yourself as a victim. Like no one here’s ever seen a Muslim play the victim card before.

    I explained to you once before that if you take the position that you are unable to understand English, then you are undermining your comments about what’s being said on blogs written entirely in English – blogs like The Lambeth Walk or The Frozen North.

    Hoisted by your own petard!

    You’re a funny guy, Solkhar. You really ought to try dealing with something substantial every now and again though. It’d do you good. Something like this:

    I showed that Solkhar had lied about his own religion in order to smear Geert Wilders – and that’s just me, an average kind of guy with an average level of education. Took me about five minutes to see that Solkhar’s assertions about the Koran were way off. The alternative to Solkhar deliberately lying of course, is that when it comes to the Koran, Solkhar really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Pick a horn.

  27. Oh and unlike you, Solkhar, I didn’t rely on an “assumption” to prove my conclusion. I provided an argument to support what I was saying. And as you noted, I used respected sources in order to put my little argument together, and showed clearly that your attempt to smear Geert Wilders was without scriptural foundation.

    Question begging’s your game, my boy.

    So keep up the “word-twisting” Solkhar; it’s quite funny to hear you girn about that when it’s you that’s doing it.

    Again: do you really see other people as children in need of a grownup to hold their hand? What arrogance!

    Don’t you realise that everyone here has quite a few miles on the clock, I certainly do, and we can all see exactly what you’re up to when you pull a stroke like that? It doesn’t do your cause any good, you know.

    It just lets everyone here see how a “moderate” Muslims behaves whenever he’s confronted with unpalatable facts. There’s some value to that, of course – to us – so as I’ve said to you already: keep it up, man.

Comments are closed.