What Muslim’s think about Sharia law – Pew study

What Muslim’s think about Sharia law – Pew study

Sharia Law and Western Societies – The impact of mass Muslim migration

When it comes Sharia law and how mass Muslim migration will impact our lives as non-Muslims is something I consider a lot. On many occasions, I refer to the work by Douglas Murray (The Strange Death of Europe) because it is such an important work for modern Europe and the world and should be read by all who have an interest in our society and what we will be leaving our children.

Murray quotes Pew research on many occasions because it is such an important resource about how our world thinks and behaves.  One important piece of research is The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.  This research from Pew looks at how Muslims think about Sharia law and should inform us on how Sharia will impact our lives – the more Muslims we import as migrants the more influence Sharia will have on our daily lives and the lives of our children.

The report that Dr. Warner refers to is Muslim Beliefs and Practices: A Global Demographic Assessment and he summaries its findings (a condensed version of the report can be found here) in this video.

A question that is always on my mind is how this importation of migrants, on such a massive scale, is going to impact the lives of my children once demographics kicks in?  More and more pressure will come to bear to implement Sharia law in our countries.  What will life be like for my children in twenty years?  Having lived in a number of Muslim majority countries that practice Sharia I fear for the future of my children and Europeans, in general, should fear the loss of our way of life and the freedoms that we have.

 

 

 

 

Please Share on your Social Media

If you have found any of the articles or videos on this site useful or informative please share with your friends and family.

Proverbs 18:15 tells us: An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Understanding the world is something that we all long for is it not?  As children, one of our favourite words to our parents was WHY?  I am sure as parents we have been driven crazy at times with the incessant questions from our children.  Yet it is a vital part of growing as a person and understanding the world.

 

Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value. - Louis L’Amour
 

Knowledge enables us to understand the world, so share it with others!

Religion of Peace

Categories

Archives

Maajid Nawaz discusses the Hijab

Maajid Nawaz discusses the Hijab

Maajid Nawaz and the Hijab

In this video of Maajid Nawaz’s radio show, he has a very enlightening conversation with a Muslim woman on wear head coverings.  When discussing the motive of wearing head coverings he draws her out very skillfully.  She comes round to the real motive behind wearing head coverings when she says that it is not up to the woman (if she faithfully follows Allah) because Allah has said it and that is that.

This video is very enlightening when it comes to the reason for wearing head coverings by Muslim women.

CAIR’s Muslim on Muslim Oppression

CAIR’s Muslim on Muslim Oppression

By Shireen Qudosi

“Even when CAIR is not successful in silencing critical Muslim voices, there are thousands of other Muslims who step back deeper into silence, afraid of being publicly harassed by CAIR.”

 
Published with The Forward 

In our quest for tolerance, religious spaces often take the lead in showcasing voices of change. But sometimes, those who claim to work for tolerance are themselves agents of hatred. Synagogues should never be bullied into hosting organizations that promote divisiveness and demonization — especially groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which slurs reformist as “Uncle Toms” and seeks to impose its intolerant views on the American Muslim community. That intolerance often takes the form of harassing reformers who advocate for liberalism within Islam, while only recognizing as legitimate representations of Islam those Muslims who represent Islamic Orthodoxy. While I may not agree with CAIR most of the time, I recognize they have a right to exist and are at times of value to the Muslim community. However, the organization and its leaders do not extend the same right to exist, so to speak, to Muslims they disagree with.

On June 8th, CAIR-NY legal director Albert Fox Cahn had been scheduled to speak at an interfaith Iftar dinner held at Temple Emanu-El in New York; but his speech was canceled after objections to his ties with CAIR, as shared by Cahn in his op-ed in Forward. Hurt by his cancellation, Cahn wrote a piece decrying his exclusion as a victory for intolerance. Yet CAIR itself, an ostensible civil-rights organization, often foments intolerance with its behavior and rhetoric.

Within subcultures of both liberal and conservative Muslims, CAIR is often discreetly seen as both arsonist and firefighter. Cahn’s idealism is admirable, and there is value in CAIR’s activism when they are legitimately defending the civil rights of all Muslims and aren’t attacking their own. But Cahn’s naiveté in devoting his idealism to the cause of CAIR is saddening.

Cahn writes that canceling his speech “empower[s] detractors who seek division and, yes, even hate.” Yet CAIR is a chief offender, engaging in Muslim-on-Muslim oppression through media campaigns and online harassment that demonizes Muslims who contradict them or attempt to engage in true dialogue. Islam is a rich and diverse religious tradition that has given rise to dozens of different sects and has embraced personalization, but CAIR and other Islamist groups deny that plurality and try to suppress all versions of Islam besides their own intolerant strain. In our generation, CAIR has contributed to dangerously politicizing Islam.

It appears that Cahn is dimly aware of CAIR’s faults and has managed to rationalize them away. He writes, “[Solidarity] requires us to welcome our neighbors as we find them, not to transform them into the partner we wish they were. True solidarity requires risks, finding agreement with even those we find disagreeable.”

While I agree with Cahn’s sentiment, solidarity and agreement requires conversation. Radically honest conversations are almost entirely absent when it comes to CAIR. Moreover, Muslims who who ask beautiful questions, such as those who produced a documentary on “honor” killings and female genital mutiliation, run the risk of being targeted by CAIR’s top executives. Rather than working to cultivate solidarity and finding agreement with those they feel are disagreeable, CAIR is vicious toward Muslims they disagree with. They don’t hide their behavior either, often tag-teaming as self-appointed heresy hunters against Muslims who want to have an open conversation on Islamic extremism. The Islamic faith has no organized leadership, and the caliphate of Islamic empires died long ago; today we have Muslim organizations with narrow focus that have gained the widest platform over the course of the last five decades, such as CAIR. These organizations have positioned them as representative of Muslims in America, all the while bullying and attempting to silencing Muslims who challenge an Islamic monolith that leans toward Islamic Orthodoxy. As co-reformer Asra Nomani explains, “Right now, the Council on American Islamic Relations represents the Muslim right. The represent the far right in our Muslim community. What we have happening is the Muslim right is aligning with the American left.”

Despite its imperialistic ambitions, CAIR does not (and should not) speak for the American Muslim community — and the “risks” that Cahn and others take actually make the problem worse. CAIR’s toxicity poisons the possibilities of more widespread dialogue between broader American society and the Muslim-American community. Treating CAIR as an authentic spokesman for American Muslims has the effect of squelching all the moderate Muslim voices who are striving for true, radically honest dialogue between communities.

Hints of this intolerance show through even within Cahn’s own words. He notes approvingly that “the rhetoric of resistance and unity have become more widespread.” Why “resistance”? Why seek a militarized vision of social relations, instead of a true coming together in dignity and mutual learning? People cannot be forced into sincere inclusion; that comes only through shared joyful life experience. But for CAIR, such true inclusion is the opposite of its goal. CAIR wants to exclude, and bully, and marginalize, frontline moderate leaders who are seeking to usher into the modern world a rich Islamic tradition of philosophy and scholarship. Even when CAIR is not successful in silencing critical Muslim voices, there are thousands of other Muslims who step back deeper into silence, afraid of being publicly harassed by CAIR.

Cahn closes by saying that “It is up to this generation to show that we can do better than those leaders of the past, to show that we have learned the lessons of history and the teachings of the Torah, to show that we are not doomed to wander the desert of intolerance.”

The Jewish faith is something I am becoming more intimate with through personal study. I don’t believe the Jewish tradition teaches its followers to submit in the face of oppression and call it “tolerance.” In fact, I have heard of a Jewish saying that “If you are kind to the cruel, you will end by being cruel to the kind.” And we see that playing out here. Champions of indiscriminate interfaith such as Cahn are actually harming moderate Muslim communities, by empowering CAIR’s bigotry and social oppression. I don’t believe that is Cahn’s intention, but that is the system he is defending.

I am sorry that Cahn, in seeking to do good, has found himself championing such a hateful organization. But he now has an opportunity to reexamine his work, and rededicate himself to true solidarity.

Less Islam, Less Terrorism?

Less Islam, Less Terrorism?

Why does eastern Europe have less Islamic terror attacks?

 

This is a very interesting question and one poised in my own mind a lot.  Why do Eastern European countries have less, significantly less, Islamic terrorist attacks?  Many would say that it is because they have significantly less Muslim’s living in their countries.  What the Poles have realised is that there is a correlation between the number of Muslims in a country and the number of terror attacks a country has to suffer.

Sound racist?  Maybe just stating the obvious?  Douglas Murray raises this very question:

Of course, any connection between the mass influx of people into Europe and the terrorism and other societal problems to which the continent is waking up every day is still frowned upon.

Indeed, there is no faster way to be thrown out of what remains of polite society than suggesting that the immigration and the terrorism may be linked. Yet the link is obvious. For sure there are those who over-egg the point. The Stockholm attacker from April was a recent arrival in that country. As were the axe-wielding train ­attacker last northern summer in Wurzburg, Germany, and the suicide bomber in Ansbach, Germany, that same month.

But then the Paris attackers from November 2015 included people born and brought up in France and Belgium.

So while some of the terrorists may have just arrived, others were born in Europe.

This fact is not quite as soothing as the proponents of weak borders and mass immigration would like it to be. For if Europe is doing such a bad job of integrating people who are already here, then who but a madman would seek to propel immigration from Muslim countries to such a historic high? The question goes unanswered because in Europe’s immigration debate it is still very rarely asked.

Murray makes the point that if we wish less Islamic terrorism we should have less Islam.  Is this not the conclusion the Eastern Europeans have come to?

A memory of one of Ulster’s sacrifices

A memory of one of Ulster’s sacrifices

A visit to a care home for ex-service personnel in Belfast

After lunch today I visited a care home for ex-service personnel in Belfast called the Somme.  Established during the Great War (1914-1918) to treat the wounded coming back to Ulster from the war – still operating today to support service personnel and what the American’s call first responders (police, firemen etc).  My wife has worked there helping to manage the care home for a few years now and since this is the 2nd of July we visited as a family just to show some respect for those that have sacrificed so much for our country and the freedoms we enjoy today.

The Somme is a battle that occurred in July 1916 and led to the deaths of many thousands of young men from Ulster and Ireland as a whole.  My community (the Ulster Scots) remember this each year on the 1st of July (the first day of the battle that saw so many of our young men struck down).  Looking around the facility (which today is a modern thriving place of care for older people that have served their country, a place that still respects the sacrifices of our service personnel – both past and present – have made) reminded me of how grateful we should be for those that have bled and died to preserve the freedoms we have today.

Yet later in the day, I read with sadness the following article by Giulio Meotti: Is Guilt Killing the West from Within?It saddened me to read this article because it is so true in our society.

The Romans called it damnatio memoriae: the damnation of memory that resulted in destroying the portraits and even the names of the fallen emperors. The same process is now underway in the West about its colonial past. The cultural elite in the West now seem so haunted by feelings of imperialist guilt that they are no longer confident that our civilization is something to be proud of.

These words resonated with me because I see this so often in everyday life.  We are made to feel that if we feel any pride in our culture and heritage we are in some way bigoted racists that must be exposed as such and shamed into submission.  It reminded me of all the hype over the BRIXIT vote and how `leavers’ were portrayed as uneducated racists and bigots.  It always seemed to surprise people that I (an educated professional who has traveled the world) would be voting to leave the EU.  How could I?  How dare I?

What saddened me the most about the post BREXIT vote was the anger against older people that had `stolen’ the futures of the British youth.  I thought about this today as I remembered all these young men who had died because they believed in the British way of life and wanted to protect it.  Thousands dying within a few short days because they believed in this – millions over the years of the war.

It saddens and angers me that our cultural heritage, and all that this has brought to the world, is now being seen as something to be despised and a reason for shame.  That our salvation will come when multiculturalism has wiped the evil western system from our collective memories.

A sense of guilt now seems a kind of post-Christian substitute religion that seduces many Westerners. The French scholar Shmuel Trigano suggested that this ideology is turning the Westerners into “post-colonial subjects” who no longer believe in their own civilization, but instead what will destroy it: multiculturalism. In France, for example, a manifesto was launched for “a multicultural and post racial republic”. The result would be, in the words of the anthropologist Jean-Loup Amselle, a “war of identities” and a clash between communities.

Murray put it well in his book The Strange Death of Europe (which I believe everyone should read) when he argues that Europe is committing cultural suicide and that a headlong embracing of this Messianic theology of multiculturalism (as the savour of Western civilisation) will lead to our death as a people and all that we have to offer the world.

Thirty years ago, in a book, The Tears of the White Man, the French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote that, “the remorseless and self-righteous critic who endlessly denounces the deceptions of parliamentary democracy is suddenly rapt with admiration before the atrocities committed in the name of the Koran, the Vedas, the Great Helmsman…” Since then, Western elites have excused many crimes committed in the name of political Islam, as if these were the consequences of our own colonial crimes.

Is this not what we see in our societies in the West?  Do our children not come home from our schools and universities feeling that our heritage should be something to be ashamed of and totally rejected?  Yet it is the West that has brought the freedoms that we enjoy to us.  Not communism, not socialism, not Islam but Western Civilisation founded on our Judeo-Christian roots.  Lessons that we need to make sure our children learn: `Least we forget’.

Religion of Peace

Categories

Archives

Raheel Raza on By the Numbers (Clarion Project)

Raheel Raza on By the Numbers (Clarion Project)

Feminism and Islam can they be compatible?

Feminism and Islam can they be compatible?

Islam and Feminism?

Asra Nomani discusses this in this video and it leads to questioning whether she is on the losing side, as the voices of Muslim reformers like her are not even taken seriously by the mainstream media never mind conservative Muslim leaders.  We should support Muslim reformers as much as we can but never leave it just to them as this would be disastrous for Western society.  They are an important tool in the fight against radical Islam, or as I argue conservative Islam, but only one tool.  This is a war for the soul of our societies and we need to work together in mutual support but ensuring we don’t sit back thinking others will win the fight for us.

Asra Nomani: Liberals have got to stop siding with far right Muslims

Asra Nomani: Liberals have got to stop siding with far right Muslims

Debate: Was Jesus a Prophet of Islam?

Debate: Was Jesus a Prophet of Islam?

Shabir Ally vs. David Wood

It always amazes me when I watch Muslim debaters and their quoting of the Bible (especially the New Testament) to bolster Islamic arguments.  After all, Islam teaches that the Scriptures (revelations) given to both Jewish and Christian prophets have been perverted over time and thus cannot be trusted.

Dr. Jamal Badawi lays out the Islamic position:

I’d like to raise another issue as well. When the Quran speaks of confirming any previous scriptures, it is conditional and indicates in no uncertain terms that the Quran and the Quran alone as the last well preserved revelation is the final judge and the criterion to sift through any previous scripture to discern what is the word of God and what is the word of humans; which parts remained intact and which parts might have gone through some changes throughout history. The term muhaymen, which appears in the Quran, in surah number 5 and verses 48 through 51, deals specifically with this issue of the Quran being muhaymen. This word, muhaymen in Arabic, as Mawlana Mawdudi explains in his Commentary on the Quran, means to uphold, to safe guard or preserve, to watch over and to stand witness. All of these definitions apply to the Quran in its relationship to previous scriptures. First of all, the Quran safeguards and preserves the teachings of previous prophets. It watches over the revelations that God sent before by explaining their true meanings to negate any confusion, misunderstanding or misinterpretation that has arisen throughout history. It stands witness because it bears witness, as Mawdudi says, to the word of God contained in those previous scriptures and helps sort it out from interpretations and commentaries that were later added to them.

It is very convenient that Allah told Muhammad that he should judge previous writings by the Quran (which of course was revealed to Muhammad alone).  It alone can tell us which part of the New Testament (for example) can be trusted and what cannot be trusted – if it agrees with the Quran it can be trusted!  This allows Muslim scholars like Shabir Ally to accept or reject the contents of the Christian Gospels – and to give an Islamic interpretation on any part of the Bible that Muslim scholars wish to give.  The question is how does Shabir Ally know for sure what part of the Bible can be trusted and which part cannot be trusted?

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Is Europe committing cultural suicide?

If you have not read Murry’s book you should buy it right away as it is one of the most significant works in recent years.  In this video, he goes through what is happening in Europe today and gives a very clear analysis (as usual) of the consequences of mass (uncontrolled) immigration of peoples that hold to cultural and ethical mores that are contrary to Western liberal democracies.  As Murray points out, do we think that people shed deep-rooted beliefs and values?

 

 

Religion of Peace

Categories

Archives

Pin It on Pinterest