Euro Leaders Deny the Reality of Islam, Sharia Law

It’s no secret. Cities like London and Paris have become overrun by Islam. That wouldn’t be a problem in and of itself if reality weren’t what it is. In reality, virtually anybody with eyes, ears, and an internet connection knows that Islam happens to have a bit of an issue with extremism. And, Europe has a major issue with allowing former ISIS fighters right back into their borders without so much as a, ‘hey, maybe letting known terrorists live among us isn’t the best idea’.

The citizens of the especially ‘tolerant’ members of the European Union – Britain, France and Germany in particular – will state the facts about the Jihadists living next door, and the concern for the threat this provides not only to their present safety, but the future for their children. The leaders of these countries will not do the same. The UK is the proud homestead to 23,000 jihadists, and those are only the ones who’ve been accounted for. In the wake of the Bataclan massacre that resulted in 130 lives lost, French authorities revealed that they had a more manageable number of eager, radicalized Westerner hunters on their watch list. As opposed to the UK’s 23,000 jihadists, France only had to keep track of 15,000 ‘Islamic radicals’. And, don’t worry, only 2, 000 of them were children. France is the most fertile incubator for homegrown terrorists in all of Europe.

Before we explore the measures that European leaders have taken to misrepresent the unprecedented body count that the radical Islam brand of terrorism has accounted for, let’s consider the legal and societal beliefs of even ‘moderate’ Muslims. The nature of Islamic doctrine presents a startling contradiction with the professed beliefs of the American left. Segments of society who for years have labeled pro-life Christians as backwards religious zealots injecting their mythical spiritual beliefs into politics tend to be the very same people who ignorantly label Islam ‘the religion of peace’. Not only is it not a religion of peace, it’s a religion whose tenets inherently defy the separation of church and state.

‘According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God.’ (Pew)

Sharia, aka the all-encompassing, oppressive law that most Arabic countries have practiced since the religion’s inception, which are said to come from the teachings of Muhammad, a man Muslims consider a prophet who shared revelations imparted upon him directly from Allah.

‘Muhammad shared all of his revelations, and lured many followers who canned them onto available materials. After around twenty years from his first revelation until his death, Islam became the dominant force in the Arabian peninsula, and a serious challenge to the Byzantine and Sasanian empires. When Muhammad passed away, the revelations were brought together to be organized into what is called as Quran now. Also, the various accounts of his life ultimately formed the basis for Sunnah and it marks the beginning or the origin of Sharia law.’ (Arab Election Law)

According to Robert Spencer’s best-selling book The Truth About Muhammad, the religion’s past and present associations with deadly violence, female submission, and intolerance toward not only other religions but all non-Sharia societies are reflective of the ‘prophet’ himself. Many historians agree that Muhammad was far from the virgin, pure, beacon of peace that his Christian equivalent, Jesus, is said to be. These differences matter, because Muhammad and Jesus are the ones who their respective followers aim to model their own behavior after. In the case of devout, by-the-Quran Muslims, they even mold their medieval laws, punishments, and worldview around this guy:

‘of these facts there can be little doubt. According to hadith reported by Bukhari, the Prophet of Islam "married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [i.e., consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old." He was at this time in his early fifties.’ (Spencer, p. 170)

‘"If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know

that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated" (Qur'an 65:4, emphasis added). In this revelation, Allah envisions a scenario in which a pre-pubescent woman is not only married, but also divorced by her husband.’ (Spencer, p. 171)

It doesn’t take much research to connect the dots between the at best, maltreatment of women, and even worse sub-human status conferred upon females in the most adherent Muslim societies today. The prophet of Islam, the man who supposedly received revelations from the Muslim god Allah and whose mores served as the basis for the Quran, engaged in the very same behavior that most objective people see as fundamental flaw in a religion where ‘fundamentalist’ is too often only associated with suicide bombers and members of ISIS. A fundamentalist is ‘a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion’ according to Oxford Dictionary. While the violent sect of Muslims are extremists, it’s undeniable that most Muslims, especially in Muslim-majority nations, are, by definition, fundamentalists. Allah’s word, received through Muhammad, is the basis of sharia law that is practiced in most Muslim-majority countries.

The percentage of Muslims who openly favor Sharia law varies by country, but larger regions expose a telling trend. South Asian and Middle Eastern nations, the regions which tend to be most associated with traditional Islamic beliefs, overwhelmingly favor Sharia law.

And, as immigrants from these countries move into Western, traditionally Christian or secular nations, in most cities large segments of Islamic immigrants are permitted to maintain their Sharia law. To each their own, right? No, not when it comes to laws, which by definition must be universally followed according to a sovereign nations edicts.

But, that’s not really how the majority of devout Muslims, particularly those migrating into Western countries in droves, see it. Not only are they largely unwilling to assimilate and adhere to Western laws, they want their own law, Sharia, imposed upon their Western neighbors. ‘Live and let live’ was apparently an aphorism which Muhammad was not fond of.

‘He received a revelation from Allah that commanded Muslims to fight against Jews and Christians until they accepted Islamic hegemony, symbolized by payment of a poll tax {jizya),

and submitted to discriminatory regulations that would ensure that they would be constantly reminded of their subordinate position (Qur'an 9:29).’ (Spencer, p. 153)

Imagine if, in America, the ‘revelations’ of any of the many Christian religious prophets were the de facto law of the land. Even the most fervent pro-lifers would not go for such an antiquated means of establishing law and order, and their model prophet was literally the best human being of all time. Even true believers in faiths with far fewer violent extremists, more civil holy books, and modern views on equality and corporal punishment wouldn’t take their respective Bible so literally as to make it the law of the land.

But for the citizens of increasing numbers of Sharia-controlled countries, they don’t have to waste time considering hypotheticals about a heavy-handed theocracy. It’s an immutable, indisputable, and often barbaric reality. Jihadists are frightening enough, but it is the laws of Sharia that pose the greatest threat to the West and thus, the world.

In several countries where Sharia is law, you’ll find some beliefs that pro-immigration zealots would find distasteful, if only they cared to do a modicum of research.

'Among those who want sharia to be the law of the land, in 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis at least half say they support penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers.’ (Pew)

You better hope little Timmy doesn’t get caught pocketing a Snickers bar at the corner store. Don’t even think about messing around on your husband. A swig of Jack? Harboring Christian leanings? Should the majority of South Asian, Pakistani, and Afghan Muslims implement their preferred form of Sharia, that would mean potentially putting your life on the line. You see, these majority Muslim populations overwhelmingly support these hudud punishments, which seem reasonable enough.

They are ‘a class of punishments prescribed by the Quran and the sunna for crimes considered to be against God. Although interpretations by Islamic jurists vary, such crimes commonly include theft, adultery, making unproven accusations of adultery, consuming intoxicants, armed robbery and apostasy.’ (Pew)

As stated, these hudud punishments could range anywhere from severed limbs, public executions, and death by stoning, to name a few of the methods. Muhammad makes Machiavelli look benevolent. At least his ‘eye for an eye’ method of justice was proportional. An affair for a life? That’s not proportional. A stolen candy bar for a severed hand? Hardly seems fair. And it’s certainly doesn’t jive with Western forms of justice.

The examples of what Sharia looks like under the guise of Western law show that many leaders in the West have cow-towed to the inherent oppression of Islam. Instead of insisting on the rule of national laws and the inherent value of Western culture and civility, some nations have begun to allow for two laws – national and Sharia – an inherently unfair, dangerous way to dole out justice. This is the first step toward not two systems of law, but one: sharia.

Because when it comes to the true tenets of devout Islam, there is no middle ground. Multiculturalism, and especially the existence of other religions, is unacceptable to a striking number of supposedly moderate Muslims. Assimilation is embraced by Muslims, as long as it is nonbelievers who are doing the assimilating. Their prophet Muhammad, after all, was a prolific, cruel conqueror, so why shouldn’t a faith that follows his revelations and teachings literally act in the same way?

‘Muslim immigrants are increasingly rejecting French values and identity and instead are immersing themselves in Islam, according to the report, which also warns that Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law in many parts of suburban Paris.’ (Gatestone Institute)

The French are appeasers, and the Muslim community is known for their strict adherence to their customs, which are de facto laws, the violation of which could mean death. All the way back in 2005, Newsweek reported on the emergence of no-go zones.

‘French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 "no-go zones" around the country--and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27. In France's "immigrant" neighborhoods, to borrow a phrase from the American military, "situation normal, all f---ed up."’

Mere days into 2015, the world came to realize just how “f---ed up” the culture clash between extreme Islam and Western society is. Two Muslim gunmen stormed the office of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, known for their mocking cartoons of all religions. Yet, it seems that only Islam contains a significant segment of extremists who justify the murder of 12 satirists by citing the lethal consequences of drawing their prophet in cartoon form. Nobody deserves to be murdered outside of any legal process. For a cartoon to be the motive for a mass homicide is mind-boggling. But to those who live in the Middle East, it’s nothing new. It’s normal. You blaspheme, there’s a good chance you’re going to die. Of all sources, the New York Times pointed out the lunacy of any ‘they were asking for it’ type of argument.

‘There are some who will say that Charlie Hebdo tempted the ire of Islamists one too many times, as if coldblooded murder is the price to pay for putting out a magazine. The massacre was motivated by hate. It is absurd to suggest that the way to avoid terrorist attacks is to let the terrorists dictate standards in a democracy.’ (NYT)

To this day, an internet researcher cannot help but notice the abundance of homicide victim-blaming with regard to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Because cartoons, and those who publish them, are the cause of the tragedy, not the extreme fringes of a religion built upon an extremely shaky sense of morality, a religion the world has come to associate most with terrorism and the mass murder of innocents.

'Charlie Hebdo: Muslim media anger at new cartoon' -BBC

'Charlie Hebdo: French weekly has history of enraging Muslims' - CBS News

'Controversial cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo' - FOX News

'France: Charlie Hebdo accused of "Islamophobia" - Pamela Geller

Only two days later, a kosher deli was the site of another massacre by extremist Muslims who, in a country with strict gun laws, apparently have little trouble getting ahold of automatic weapons. It seems as if the French and other European nations plagued by mass murder terror plots are as effective at vetting their immigrants as they are monitoring illegal weapons trafficking.

As Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu called for French Jews, no longer safe in their home country because of an increasingly imminent threat of attack by Islam’s most savage element, America’s sitting President’s mouthpiece called the attack ‘random’. Then White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest’s explanation is as hollow, slimy, and terrorist-sympathizing as such politically-driven statements get:

But Obama was not alone in putting his fingers in his ears and screaming ‘la, la, la la, la’ as the world shouted at its collective leaders: “It’s Islam, jackasses!” ‘Nope’, Obama said, it was totally random. That a deli certain to be occupied at least 90%, if not 100% by Jews, the Muslim extremist’s most coveted target, was a total coincidence.

Fortunately, America got sick of being fed preposterous lies by a President more intent on arming Iranians with nukes than defending our Israeli allies. Europe, with a few exceptions, has only slipped further into Islamic appeasement. Britain has now made the legally unprecedented decision to allow Muslims to practice aspects of Sharia, undermining the British code of law while making a special legal exception for only one group of British residents, Muslims.

'Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether,’ according to the Telegraph.  

Allowing the proliferation of a culture that rejects Western values such as equality and tolerance of other religions, not to mention the existing laws of the land, is idiotic, and likely catastrophic, as time will tell. But to grant a separate legal system that follows the tenets of Sharia Law? That’s cultural suicide. Mark Britain off the list of non-Sharia nations now. They’re done for. The direction Canada is headed under Islamo-phile and noted moron Justin Trudeau will require a Trump-like figure to reverse.

Britain is not alone among its Western European neighbors in digging its cultural grave by allowing tens of thousands of potential jihadists to roam freely among its citizenry. But beyond more overt, violent threats, it is the death of free speech and objective criticism of Islam that is perhaps the most powerful tool used by leaders seemingly willing their countries toward an Islamic future. Behind many of these politicized decisions which have essentially made criticizing Islam a hate crime is a group called The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to Human Events, the OIC is second only to the United Nations in terms of inter-governmental organization influence, and is ‘comprised of the kings and heads of state of all Islamic countries numbering its membership at 57 states by including the non-existent state of Palestine.’ Essentially, they represent mainstream Muslims, which makes the OIC’s actions all the more revealing about the religion as a whole.

‘On December 8, 2005, at a heads-of-state-level summit, the OIC ratified its “Ten-Year Programme of Action to Meet the Challenges Facing the Muslim Ummah in the 21st Century.”

‘The plan, among other things, seeks to define slander according to Islamic Sharia law—making Islamic “slander” a serious crime in every jurisdiction in the world, including the United States.’ (Human Events)

This Programme is fairly seen to be the first step in substituting Western law for Sharia law. True stories of how this ‘Programme’ has been implemented are haunting. It reeks of a deeper, more sinister agenda, though to what end Islamic-Western culture clashes and legal disparities may be used remains unclear. What is clear? The 1st Amendment is dead.

‘Emma West, famous for her anti-immigration rant on a London tube train, was imprisoned and separated from her young child for months whilst the social services and the courts decided whether it was in the child’s best interests to be reunited with his mother’.

'Paul Weston of ‘Liberty GB’ was arrested in 2014 for quoting the words of Winston Churchill’s views on Islam! That’s the Winston Churchill considered to be one of the best Prime Ministers ever by most of the British people.’ (Occidental Observer)

From the Netherlands, to London, to Paris, and throughout Western Europe, stories of ‘slander’ of Islam resulting in disproportionate criminal punishments abound. Europe has clearly caved to the tyranny of Islamic rule, a system of rule that does not want to be left alone, but to impose its practices upon all of society. These laws defy the freedoms of expression, free speech, equal representation under the law, and due process, even if a crime is only ‘perceived’. Further, when Sharia law considers adultery a crime, that should be a non-starter for citizenship of those who embrace such regressive ideas.

These greater cultural threats are more difficult for the average person to comprehend. Terror at the hand of both immigrated and homegrown Islamic radicals is something that is more universally feared and loathed, and therefore can be used more effectively to create movements against the mass migration of fundamentalist Islamists into the Western world. The EU knows this, so their Europol police force continues to push statistics that imply that terror is a decreasing problem, not a rising one. Consider this chart, which shows a decline in the number of terror attacks in the EU, according to the Commission's broad definition:

This would seem to show that terror, including Islamic terror, is on the decline. That is what this graph is intentionally trying to make you believe. But the EU’s broad definition of terror lumps in what we now identify as terror – mass killings by lunatics with no apparent political aim but an insatiable thirst for bloodshed – with attempted revolutions or independence movements where hostages were taken, but rarely killed. Often, property damage was done without the mass taking of lives that we see with the typical radical Islamist attack.

With that in mind, this is the chart you should really be considering, as it shows the number of deaths due to attacks defined as terroristic in nature:

From 2007 to 2014, the highest number of innocents killed in terror attacks were just below twenty, with all other years having less than 10. In 2015, that number spiked to 150, with 2016 showing only a 10 casualty drop off. Yet, Europol points to the first chart, the one which shows the frequency of terror attacks as decreasing, while rarely bringing to light the fact that despite fewer terror attacks, drastically more people have lost their lives, and will continue to.

It is the symptom of unfettered, near-borderless immigration policies that do not properly vet radicals or deport those who are near-certain to be radicalized and prone to acts of mass murder. The ties between these attacks and Islam, radical or otherwise, are undeniable. Many, if not most, of Islam’s tenets stand directly opposed to Western values. In the West, women can wear whatever clothing they want, can drive, have voting rights, and are allowed to receive inheritances. In Islam, with few exceptions, the opposite is true.

What the EU stands to gain by pretending that the mass migration of unvetted immigrants from nations known to have immense populations of jihadis is unclear. Some people have financial stakes in chaos, and some are idealistic to the point where they are willing to facilitate mass violence against their supposed people in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘compassion’. But, as much as terror is frightening, and is increasing in its death toll, it is the threat of Sharia law that could fundamentally change the Western world, an event that there would likely be no coming back from.

Related News