Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It, Part 5
05 Feb, 2007
Part 1: A theory of the Islamization process in European countries [07 Jan, 2007]
Part 2: A Theory of Policies and Laws That Prevents Islamization of a Country - An Integrated Approach [09 Jan, 2007]
Part 3: Reformation of Islam and Various Law and Policy Issues [12 Jan, 2007]
Part 4: Policy Area 4: Religious Freedom And Its Limits
Part 5: Policy Area 5: Human Rights Issues [05 Feb, 2007]
Policy Area One: Human Rights A General View
There is a fundamental difference in value between (1) Muslims and non-Muslims, (2) men and women, and (3) free persons and slaves, according to the Quran, its accepted interpretations, and certain sharia laws. This is the basis for a multitude of discriminatory legal rules regarding these categories in Muslim countries. In European societies, there are no legal differences in the valuations of different categories of people.
That legal rules about slaves are not eliminated in the sharia system of laws is a sign of its stagnation and lack of humanism. It is probably also a sign of what to expect when a general jihad starts against secular European societies. Abolition of slavery was forced upon Muslim countries, and the institution of slavery may very well be revived by during and after a victorious jihad. This is especially troubling because free sex with female captives can be an important reason for sex-starved young to join jihad.
Islamic countries have generally adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (1990) even though they are members of the United Nations which in 1948 adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (UDHR; 1948). Saudi Arabia was in 1948 the only Islamic country which abstained from voting. No country then voted against the declaration.
The deepest flaw in the Cairo Declaration is that the many rights that are established in earlier paragraphs of the Declaration, are taken away by the last two articles (24-25). These read:
Article 24: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia."
Article 25; "The Islamic Sharia is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration".
The construction of the Cairo Declaration indicates that the authors were well aware of the lack of human rights in Islam and used this special legal construction in order to conceal that deficiency, preserve a decent façade, and keep the status quo in Islamic countries. It is a somewhat similar technique as in the Quran where the verses which are quoted by western citizens, or in the west, in order to show the tolerance, peacefulness and compassion of Islam, in reality are abrogated i e eliminated by verses received later by Muhammad. The basis used by politicians and others trying to present Islam as peaceful and tolerant religion thus may not exist. The earlier Meccan verses are – for obvious reasons - still kept in the Quran, and used whenever suitable by Islamists and their fellow travelers in the West.
The difference between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration is fundamental. Countries which have accepted the Cairo Declaration and apply a mix of their own civil laws and sharia laws may then violate human rights constantly. The words in the Quran are practically of smaller importance for the application of human rights than the accepted interpretations of that book, and the established sharia laws. There we find the detailed rules that an individual Muslim follows and which clerics preach about in the mosques. Because a freer and more rational interpretation of the Quran stopped in the 12th century, the ancient interpretations from the four schools of sunni Islam are of the highest importance from the viewpoint of modern human rights. The same is true for the corresponding rules of the shia school of thought.
Individuals immigrating from Muslim countries may then have basic values which differ fundamentally from those common in X-country. Immigration may bring people to X-country with basic values prevalent 100, 200 or 500 years ago. And some of these people belong to Islamic organizations in Europe having the goal to eventually force the citizens of X-country to adopt their values. Special rules to protect human rights are therefore necessary in Europe.
Human rights are of fundamental importance for all discussions about multiculturalism, integration and assimilation (see Policy Area 6). What seems to be forgotten in the debate of multiculturalism is that all people are of equal value, but not their opinions. The value of their opinions depends on a number of criteria. Different value systems are not of equal value.
There is no practical method (besides violence) devised in Islam regarding the transfer of power to groups in society with different opinions about policy. Democracy – a guarantee for and a consequence of human rights - has therefore been of little practical importance in Islamic countries. It seems doubtful that democracy can survive in the long run in a country with a strong Islamic movement. Islamists probably see democracy as a practical weapon to gain power in various countries, and regards democracy like a tram: When you have reached your destination (power), it is time to step off (terminate the democracy). There is nothing in the Quran, its interpretations or sharia that specially supports democracy. Many statements, however, contradict the modern concept of democracy.
Even the right to work, freedom of commerce, property rights etc are in practice often limited in Muslim countries owing to the corruption and political favouritism often found there. Freedom of culture and art does often not exist etc etc. Various human rights build on a respect for the individual, which doesn’t exist in Islam. It is a religion based on a collectivistic view of society reinforcing the fact that its specific values and rules often are opposite to those of a secular society with a respect for individual rights.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES AND GOALS THAT SHALL BE REALIZED IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY
(In Policy Area 11 (PA 11) of the integrated policy model is stated: “A crime against people because of their faith and/or caused by the religious rules and religious traditions of the perpetrators, is a religious hate crime……. Because of their special danger for the society, religious hate crimes shall be punished twice as hard as ordinary crimes of the same type. Religious hate crimes are given priority by federal and/or local prosecutors.)
A crime caused by the real or stated content of a religion, against any of the human rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations and/or the rights of an individual and/or a citizen defined in the Constitution of X-country, is a religious hate crime. There shall be a zero tolerance of such crimes in X-country. A religious hate crime against human rights shall be viewed as an especially serious offence.
No residents or citizens of X-country shall have less protection regarding human rights than others. One consequence of this principle is that the state must actively and proactively search for and protect those who are indoctrinated, weak or ignorant of their rights. The human rights of those categories of people threatened owing to the hostility against them and the low valuation of them by a religion, must be specially protected.
Passivity by anybody with a salary paid by any public administration in X-country, to react to or counteract a religious hate crime, or report such a crime, is a crime.
(A large number of proposed legal rules regarding various types of violations of human rights based on a religious doctrine can be found in e g PA 4).
(In PA 4 is stated: Political parties (or organizations with mainly political goals (this definition will be amended)) intended to influence the laws of the country, are not allowed to exist if they are based on a religious doctrine which in any noticeable way contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and/or the rights of an individual or a citizen defined in the Constitution of X-country.)
[In PA 10 is stated: A religious or a faith organization which allows activities in its programs or on its premises where any type of religious hate crime is committed, is co-responsible for that crime. The organization shall then pay a fine amounting to: 25 000 – 2,5 milj Euro. Religious schools belong to the category “Faith organizations”.]