Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[inked]

Which is exactly the case in the EU with the big states trying to out-muscle the small states (see the EU thread today) for their benefit.

But the distinction based on national identity is rife within all nations, so I do not think the problems lie in that direction. It is the internal treatment of nationals differentiated on the sole basis of religion, and in this thread, Islamic treatment within Europe, Islamic treatment of the European tradition, islamic influence on these traditions (positive or negative or neutral), and the influence of these European traditions on Islam within and without the borders of the individual and corporate EU that is being discussed. In particular, the treatment of Turkey and other Islamic states in regard to their establishment of 2nd class citizenship status on non-Islamics (Christian, Bahai, Jewish, etc.) at the moment.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because Europe is a very culturally diverse place, and including Islam will hopefully help people's attitudes towards other cultural inclusions. Plus, Islam is cool. And, there are already European Muslims, so when Turkey joins are more of part of the Europe "team", then maybe people won't feel in such a minority.

There are probably many other good reasons that I don't notice, only because I am neither Muslim nor European.

Right on! Vive la difference.

I had a very lovely meal at a Tukish restaurant just last night. Mezes followed by Turkish coffee and baklava. Num.

Originally Posted by inked

I trust these will be sufficient in number and breadth.

Thanks! I'll take a look when I get time.

EDIT: I've had time! Very interesting. I particularly liked the first one about interfaith dialogue; I think I pretty much agree re: Islam and individualism, (though I am totally unqualified to comment!): Islam is a religion which doesn't have the same concept of individual freedom that Protestantism does.

That site seems quite variable in its quality: Nigeria is a very complex situation (though dire, and made worse by religious intolerance and misogyny perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists) and not really generalisable; and the use of the pejorative:

the secretary-general of something called the Muslim Council of Britain

to describe the major NGO representing moderate Muslims in the UK somewhat gives the game away.

The last article was interesting, particuarly the long bit about different EU countries and their native Muslim population. Will think about that. However, the only real information about Turkey is that its (small) minority Christian population have the same rights under the Constitution, and that someone's opinion is that they're treated as second-class citizens. That may well be true, but I can't tell from this.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To hear that pastor share intelligently and with compassion his vision for helping the orphans ... would have warmed your heart, I think.

Just hearing about it did!

[inked]

TG,

Of course the quality varies as the articles ranged from newspaper reports to professional evaluations in major publications. It is hardly the fault of the site, anymore than newbies on Entmoot with mere movie involvement are the fault of the more *er* mature readers of decades.

In regard to Turkey, it was the mention of the constitution versus reality in the several levels of evaluations that was consistent. The imposition of sharia necessarily involved the second class status of non-Islamics in Turkey, Nigeria, and other Arab countries as well. That was the point, the consistency of the ethic in actual practice.

I seem to recall that point being made somewhat an issue in regard to the US, slavery, minority rights, etc., and not so long ago. Just wondering if the standard is to be the same and enforced on classic Enlightenment European grounds (in the free country sense, not the socialist)? Or, if it ought to be?

The situation in Nigeria is a profound revelation of the intent of Islam, I think. Here is a country pretty evenly divided between religiious views on Islamic versus Christian terms and remaining animists and other modes. Yet the imposition of sharia and the clear Islamic intent to make Nigeria Islamic in actual practice is well demonstrated.

So, there are clear historical and current actualities about Islam that enter the fray - practical, not constitutional issues, I think.

[The Gaffer]

I must have missed something: where did it say that Turkey had adopted sharia law?

I think the key thing is that you have to be careful about generalising: how can there be an "intent of Islam"?. Nigeria has been in a state of civil war or military government ever since independence and you can't divorce what's happening in religious terms from the political backdrop.

Having said that, sharia law sucks. I totally agree with you on that, and that it should be "outed" and exposed for what it does.

Not sure what you mean about European Enlightenment.

[inked]

TG,

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that Turkey had been under sharia and had moved away from it while retaining the second class status of non-Islamic citizens. This move away from the union of Islam and state-sanctions against all other expressions of religion is cited by the "fundamentalists" as the reason for the non-dominance of the Arab states among others.

I think the consistency of the behavior in all Islamic dominated countries belies the "intent of Islam" in regard to control of the citizens of a state that makes Islam its state religion.

If the consistency of behavior is not an indicator of the nature of the religion's intent, what would be?

As regards the Enlightenment ethic, if the respect for or at least tolerance of varieties of religious experience is to be maintained, does it not require that the same principles apply to all religions? In the case of the US, the constant observation that all the intents of the Constitution were not instantly applicable to all peoples has been made as a fault. Should Turkey be required to grant what its Constitution says before admission to the EU?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

In the case of the US, the constant observation that all the intents of the Constitution were not instantly applicable to all peoples has been made as a fault.

I just wanted to point out - that there might have been short comings in the beginning with not everyone being equal in our country - but at least we HAD and continue to HAVE a democratic and representive country - unlike the countries of Europe.

Sorry - just had to throw the stone - since so many are directed at the US all the time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Not sure what you mean about European Enlightenment.

That's because you're not enlightened ...

(joke!joke!)

[jerseydevil]

Al Qaeda's New Front

This was just on PBS and it goes into depth about Al Qaeda terrorist cells throughout Europe and increased radical islamists there. I don't have time to discuss it right now - but I thought some of you might be interested in seeing it. You can also watch the show online if you have highspeed connection.

+ Absence of a "Profile"

Whatever commonalities there might appear to be, Sageman says, there is no psychological common denominator among the terrorists he studied, aside from their link to the jihad. "There's really no profile, just similar trajectories to joining the jihad and that most of these men were upwardly and geographically mobile," he says. "Because they were the best and brightest, they were sent abroad to study. They came from moderately religious, caring, middle-class families. They're skilled in computer technology. They spoke three, four, five, six languages including three predominant Western languages: German, French and English."

But according to Sageman, despite their intellectual acuity, his subjects were ultimately ill-prepared for life in the West. He traced their transition to radicalism back to a universal human motivation -- loneliness. "When they became homesick, they did what anyone would and tried to congregate with people like themselves, whom they would find at mosques," he explains. "They drifted towards the mosque, not because they were religious, but because they were seeking friends."

These cliques often formed in the vicinity of mosques that had a militant script advocating violence to overthrow the corrupt regimes, thereby transforming these alienated young Muslims into terrorists.

"It's all really group dynamics," he told an audience last year. "You cannot understand the 9/11 type of terrorism from individual characteristics." Sageman points to the Madrid bombers, who blew themselves up when the police surrounded their apartment, as a perfect example: "Seven terrorists sharing an apartment and one saying, 'Tonight we're all going to go, guys.' You can't betray your friends, and so you go along. Individually, they probably would not have done it."

[inked]

AMERICAN THINKER - March 2, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/...and_brita.html

August 08, 2010
Sharia Law in Canada and Britain
By Eileen F. Toplansky

The spread of sharia law to the entire world is part of jihad. In Canada and Britain, jihad is advancing.

A June 2010 report entitled "Sharia Law in Britain: A Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights" begins with Secretary General of the Islamic Sharia Council Suhaib Hasan saying, "If Sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country [Great Britain] into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal." Furthermore, "once[,] just only once, if an adulterer is stoned[,] nobody is going to commit this crime at all," and finally, "[w]e want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

This perverse logic is illustrative of the brutality that is sharia law's penal code. The writers of the report have compiled evidence of "the discriminatory nature of these courts and make recommendations for curtailing sharia and religious tribunals on the basis that they work against and not for equality, and are incompatible with human rights." The authors explain that "whilst there is an obvious difference between stoning a woman to death and denying her the right to divorce and child custody, the fundamentals and misogyny behind sharia's civil and penal codes are the same -- it is just a matter of degree. It is deceptive, or at best a mistake, not to see the civil aspects of sharia law as part of and an extension of its penal code."

The first Sharia Council was begun in Birmingham, England in 1982. Muslim tribunal courts begun passing sharia judgments in August 2007 in Great Britain. In September 2008, Richard Edwards of the Telegraph reported that five sharia courts had been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford, and Manchester, and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The British government had "quietly sanctioned" the sharia courts and made their rulings "enforceable with the full power of the judicial system." Prior to this, "the [sharia] rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims." These cases dealt with sharia civil code, i.e., Muslim divorce and inheritance. In one inheritance case, the sons received twice as much as the daughters because men are favored over women in sharia law. Under British law, the daughters would have received equal amounts; in addition, in sharia law, "a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's." Furthermore, "a woman's marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband," and finally, "a Muslim woman is not permitted to marry a non-Muslim."

Opposition leaders in Britain voiced their deep concerns about a dual legal system. Nonetheless, Muslims had taken advantage of a British clause in the Arbitration Act of 1996. Thus, "under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case." Given the second-class status of women under sharia law and the intimidation of women therein, it becomes rather clear that theirs is often not a voluntary decision. Furthermore, "the proceedings are not recorded, nor are there any searchable legal judgments. Nor is there any real right to appeal." Sharia law is absolute.

The Muslim Tribunals cite the Jewish Beth Din courts, which have handled civil legal cases for over one hundred years. But as Melanie Phillips has explained, this is a total misrepresentation. The implication is that British Jews are not bound by the law of the land but instead get an exemption. This is false. Though Jewish religious courts (Beth Din) deal with such issues as dispute arbitration, family issues, marriage, and divorce, the Jewish courts "have never sought official recognition of their rulings, and these are not recognized under English law. ... Jewish religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status in English law. ... Jews have to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. ... But the crucial difference is that ... Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having the same legal authority as English law" (emphasis mine). While Jews have always acknowledged that as a minority, they live under the law of the land and do not seek to change, the Muslims have a very different outlook and intent. Therefore, sharia law's "imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain." Unlike aborigine, Catholic, or Jewish tribunals, Muslim tribunals seek "to impose their cultural values on Western society." For example, Jewish kosher laws are never imposed upon non-Jewish people; the same cannot be said concerning Islamic halal food. In one British nursing home, the non-Muslim residents were obligated to forgo bacon in their meals in deference to Islamic halal demands.

Thus, life in Nigeria has resulted in Christian provinces now forcibly being made to accept sharia law in place of the secular constitution. In 2003 in Aubervilliers, Fance, the city council was forced to close the municipal swimming pool so that Muslim women could swim in private. And in America and Great Britain, seeing-eye dogs raise the ire of Muslim taxicab drivers who consider dogs "impure."

Yet, by October 2008, secret talks were underway to bring Islamic sharia law courts to Scotland. Again, many raised concerns about the establishment of a "dual legal system."

A Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken stated that "in criminal matters Scottish courts must have total jurisdiction. ... We cannot have private arrangements when human rights are an issue." Nevertheless, by June 2009, "at least 85 Islamic sharia courts" were operating in Britain. This figure was "17 times higher than previously accepted." Academic and Islamic specialist Denis MacEoin stated that "among the [sharia] rulings, we find some that advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as applied by British courts."

In a Spring 2010 report entitled "An Unjust Doctrine of Civil Arbitration: Sharia Courts in Canada and England," author Arsani William scrutinizes the gender-biased discrimination of sharia. The report examines the former Canadian Attorney General Marion Boyd's examination about the use of Muslim sharia law in private arbitration. Interestingly, it was Canadian Muslim women who claimed that sharia law would treat women in the Islamic community in ways contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Boyd, however, concluded that sharia law would not be problematic when used in private arbitration.

Notwithstanding, author William argues that "sharia is a dangerous doctrine of civil arbitration," and he advocates for "its rejection from binding arbitration." And, in fact, attempts to set up sharia courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests. William notes that "verdicts of an entire community of Islamic Sheiks could neither be answerable nor accountable to anyone." He highlights Boyd's failure to address the danger of "Muslim women [being] forced to cave into social pressure and accept unfair decisions." Furthermore, since the Jewish community and the Catholic community did not want Muslims introducing sharia into Canada, they accepted the decision to ban all religious arbitration in Ontario, including their own respective tribunals. Robert Spencer mused that "it is ... unfortunate that other religious arbitration arrangements [had] to be sacrificed, which feeds the assumption that they are all morally equivalent. If Western authorities could dare to speak honestly about the distinctive characteristics of Islamic law, this would not be necessary."

With this Canadian backdrop, William, in the Stanford Journal of International Relations, amplifies that "sharia courts threaten the integrity of law in the British democracy, by promoting the unequal treatment of women in the British Islamic community." He writes that "In Islam, marriages are seen as contracts. The dissolution of these contracts will provide for settlements that undermine the status of women, as women are not granted equal compensation or child-custody claims." Unlike contractual Jewish law, "sharia recognizes men as superior to women in matters of civil arbitration. Men can divorce their wives suddenly. ... However, [Muslim] women must undergo multiple legal proceedings to be granted a religious divorce. ... In disputes over child custody, sharia recognizes the absoluteness of a father's ownership if the child is over seven years old." Furthermore, in several documented cases, English Muslim women who were victims of domestic abuse and being judged under sharia law were "told to halt police investigations and continue with marriage peacefully."

Russel Bywaters, an English lawyer known for his work in marital and inheritance settlements, points to the "horror at Malaysia's attempts to run the two systems -- a civil code/Sharia." The fact that sharia law conflicts with many of the precepts of the Human Rights Act of 1998 makes it incompatible with Canadian law, and it was these fears that "prompted its ousting from the Canadian system."

It behooves every American to seriously consider what is happening as sharia law advocates (e.g., Obama appointee Dalia Mogahed) continue to insinuate their beliefs into this country. As Maryam Namazie, spokesperson of the British One Law for All Campaign, has written, "The existence of a parallel legal system that is denying a large section of the British population their fundamental human rights is scandalous." Sharia law is antithetical to freedom and equality. Oklahoma is leading the way and has already established a firewall against sharia law. The evidence continues to mount that the Islamists will keep chipping away if we do not push back, and push back hard!

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

[GrayMouser]

Totally agree with this (with the minor quibble that, as has been pointed out before, Jewish divorce tribunals do in fact discriminate against women.)

The amount of pressure on women from within their community- particularly younger, less educated or immigrant women- to agree to accept arbitration means in many cases this can hardly be seen as voluntary.

As well, as with most religions, it is older conservative males who are the ones who set the standards imposed on women.

So by all means, keep organised religious pressure groups from imposing their standards concerning marriage and divorce out of the legal system.

As for taxi-drivers and others serving the public discriminating based on their personal religious standards, I'm sure you'll join me in applauding the Obama Administration for overturning Bush's attempt to massively broaden the right of medical personnel to refuse to provide services that they disagree with based on their religious beliefs.

In other words, a doctor, a pharmacist can't use the conscience laws to refuse to provide birth control to an unmarried woman, for example, or to provide care to a lesbian couple trying to have a baby.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133875...se?ft=1&f=1014

[brownjenkins]

Western society has a lot more entrenched christian-based discrimination to deal with before it has to even worry about the muslim kind. Seems to me that Inked is taking his usual tactic of building up a straw man to obscure the true evils.

[inked]

Ah, yes, BJ. But I thought perhaps you'd like to read about life in Pakistan and the entrenchment there - which is the avowed goal of Islamic faith per the Koran.

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/new...se-who-hate-us

Reality check.

[Insidious Rex]

Well then maybe Peter King should take his McCarthy tactics to Pakistan and stop harassing every muslim in america.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Ah, yes, BJ. But I thought perhaps you'd like to read about life in Pakistan and the entrenchment there - which is the avowed goal of Islamic faith per the Koran.

http://www.livingchurch.org/news/new...se-who-hate-us

Reality check.

No, i'll just skip the vitriol you seem to feed upon.

I've never been a good/evil type of guy, but if there's any true evil in the world I'd say it's those who choose to sow hatred simply for their own enjoyment. You seem to fall into that category just as well as the radicals you like to rail on about.

[inked]

Gee, the NYT is asking questions, too, BJ. Or at least discussing them rather than pretending they do not exist.

Item #1 Is Islam the Problem? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/op...stof.html?_r=1

Item #2 followup of Item #1 http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-islam-column/

Guess I'm either prescient or agnostic or ... (wait for it!) ... right.

[brownjenkins]

No, just sad.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Gee, the NYT is asking questions, too, BJ. Or at least discussing them rather than pretending they do not exist.

Item #1 Is Islam the Problem? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/op...stof.html?_r=1

Item #2 followup of Item #1 http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-islam-column/

Guess I'm either prescient or agnostic or ... (wait for it!) ... right.

Hmm, not sure I agree with the idea that Islamic areas didn't progress as fast because Islamic law was less misogynistic than European law.

[GrayMouser]

How about a thread on "Increased European Influence in Islamic Nations"?

Nothing says "influence" like a Mirage 2000

[Nerdanel]

increased influence of different cultures in new regions! oh noes!

gotta say, though, sometimes the west (and in this case, especially the u.s.) just seems to love to create future problems for itself. handing out weapons to loads of dictatorial regimes (saddam, the saudi's..), for instance. and now, apparently, the americans want to train saudi air fighter pilots in the u.s.. remember how people were so upset about that islamic center that was supposed to be built some blocks away from ground zero? then it's ok to blame a whole culture on the extremists in it. weren't most of the people involved in the attack on 9/11 saudis? oh well, whatever..

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...230188238.html