Sunday, November 29, 2009

Sharia Law around the world

Compiled from various sources:

From the Council on Foreign Relations

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
(aka shariah, shari'a)

Lauren Vriens
March 23, 2009

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. "There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily," says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia's influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.
Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia
Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses--flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution--get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. "In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments," says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.
Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy.

August 13, 2005 AMERICAN THINKER
Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
By James Arlandson
Note: Because this article was published almost 5 years ago many of the following links to supplemental material no longer work.

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.

But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?

This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.

Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.

'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.

Here are the top ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.

Here is the article that supports this tenth point and that analyzes the confusing Quranic verses on drinking and gambling. It analyzes the hadith and later legal rulings.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says: 4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed. For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law (scroll down to 'Further discussion').

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fianc�e.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says: 5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.

Please go here for the supporting article that cites the hadith and later legal rulings.

Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban, which once ruled in Afghanistan.

A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here.

The Quran says: 5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

If the reader would like to see more hadith passages, modern defenses of this indefensible punishment (and a refutation of them), and the Biblical solution to theft, they should click on this long supporting article or this shorter one.

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

The Quran says: 5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

See this short article for details on another example of Muhammad's use of torture.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it, go to the back—up article.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .

'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

If the reader would like to see the confusion in the Quran on the matter of homosexuality, the severity in the hadith, and excessive rulings of classical fiqh, they should see the supporting article. This longer one has links to many discussions on Islamic punishments of homosexuals (scroll down to 'Supplemental material').

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.


In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says: 24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.

The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to this report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty—five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.


In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:

An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony. Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

Here is the back—up article that supports this fourth reason.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence (see 9, above), but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.

According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

For the supporting article that analyzes the Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics, click here.

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

This analysis tracks the application of apostasy laws around the world, citing many examples.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie (see the linked article in no. three, above), whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law.

Here are the articles that support reason no. two.

This is a short, but full article on apostasy, citing Quranic verses and hadith passages.

Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').

This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed.

And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . .

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars. They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture. (2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this. (3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low. (4) Old men and monks could be killed. (5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden. (6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children. This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim. (7) Civilian property may be confiscated. (8) Civilian homes may be destroyed. (9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed. (10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience. (11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax. The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

For an analysis of the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Crusades, click here.

For the supporting article of reason no. one, please go here. It also has a segment on the differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. Another article on that topic can be read here. There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic.

Therefore, Islam is violent—unjustly and aggressively.


The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do. After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology. So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?

In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.

Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

One of the most tragic and under—reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at

Supplemental material:

In private emails to me or on websites, Muslim apologists (defenders) claim that the Islamic way of dealing with vices is superior to the western way, even in Islam's punishments like flogging and stoning. It is true that the West is filled with decadence, but are Islamic countries pure and pristine through and through, as these Muslim apologists imply? To anyone whose mind has not been clouded by a lifetime of devotion to Islam, the answer to this rhetorical question is obvious. Alcohol and other intoxicants and gambling serve as test cases.

This article says that Bahrain, an island and independent sate that is connected to Saudi Arabia by a causeway, provides a 'breathing lung' for Saudis because this Islamic island allows the free flow of alcohol and a night life. The words 'breathing lung' in Bahrain mean that Saudi Arabia suffocates people. On the weekends an average of 40,000 cars line up to cross the bridge.

This article discusses the smuggling of alcohol in Saudi Arabia and says:

"Western analysts note that alcohol smuggling of the magnitude underway in Saudi Arabia —— perhaps tens of millions of dollars' worth of illegal merchandise annually —— would likely involve the complicity of Saudi customs agents and perhaps a higher—level patron."

This article reveals how Iranians get around the official ban on alcohol, like beer and vodka and other intoxicants, like opium. A black market has sprung up—just like the one in America during Prohibition.

This article says that even though the Taliban, the tyrants who formerly ruled Afghanistan, outlawed the growth of poppies, which are the source of opium, the leaders of the Taliban may have profited from the drug trade. The new and democratic government has a hard time keeping this drug under control.

This article says that authorities in Turkey threaten to imprison online gamblers, and this page links to a report (scroll to the second one) that discusses how Turkey must deal with the problem of monetary interest, alcohol, and gambling. It is revealing to see how Muslim religious leaders try to squirm out of Quranic laws against interest, in order to help Islamic financial institutions make money.

The purpose of these links is not to condemn Islamic countries or to assert that the West is better than they are. Facts say that the West has many problems. Rather, the purpose is to demonstrate that Islamic countries have their share of problems as well. This means that Islamic countries are also decadent. This means that Islamic punishments do not work entirely (except by scare tactics), but they can drive the sin or crime underground.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Prosecuting American 'War Crimes'

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is considering having American soldiers tried for war crimes in the Hague

barenakedislam | November 28, 2009 at 2:27 AM | Categories: Military stories

The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and our Traitor-in-Chief is just fine with this?

Why wouldn't the Post-American President allow this? After all, he already plans to try the CIA members who interrogated jihadis at Gitmo, and Navy Seals who captured a top jihadist. Why should he have any problem with this?
"Prosecuting American 'War Crimes': The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan," by Daniel Schwammenthal in the Wall Street Journal

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction--at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute--the ICC's founding treaty--all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
"We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan," Mr. Ocampo told me. "There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government." Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, "there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture."

It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out.
Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that "we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned."
The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. READ MORE:  WALL STREET JOURNAL H/T Jihad Watch

Gee, I wonder why?


The Wall Street Journal

Prosecuting American 'War Crimes'

The International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

The Hague
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague.
The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction—at least with respect to Afghanistan.
Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute—the ICC's founding treaty—all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock.
Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding—a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm—is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval.

Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

Read the full story here:

Friday, November 27, 2009

9/11 plotters start on their road to freedom: 
November 27, 2009
The glorious fruit of giving the 9/11 plotters civilian trials is already beginning to appear. Watch for these guys to walk -- after wasting a few taxpayer millions, that is. "Mental State Cited in 9/11 Case," by Jess Bravin in the Wall Street Journal, November 27 (thanks to Elisa):
WASHINGTON -- When five defendants are brought before a New York federal judge to face charges for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the first question may be whether some of them are competent to stand trial at all. Military lawyers for Ramzi Binalshibh, an accused organizer of the 9/11 plot, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, the conspiracy's alleged paymaster, say their clients have mental disorders that make them unfit for trial, likely caused or exacerbated by years of harsh confinement in Central Intelligence Agency custody.
The issue already has arisen in military-commission proceedings at the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to an August ruling by a military judge, prosecutors have made an "apparent concession" that Mr. Binalshibh "suffers from a delusional disorder-persecutory type" disorder. Mr. Binalshibh has been prescribed "a variety of psychotropic medications used to treat schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder, including Haldol, Abilify, risperidone and Ativan," according to commission records.
In October 2008, a military medical board reported Mr. Binalshibh may suffer from "severe mental disease" that could "impair his ability to conduct or cooperate intelligently in his defense."...

What if School Children wanted to be Suicide Bombers


How many know about the depth of evil and the true nature of what the radical Islamic ideology is all about. Like most Americans, I've relied too heavily on the mainstream media for news and there has been a dismal lack of coverage on what Islam really represents. How many know that the radical Muslim terrorists our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan store the weapons and bombs in schools and hospitals and use these places as human shields. The clerics quote the Qur'an as a book of peace but they have no regard for the lives of children, women and all other religions. The following has been picked up from the most excellent web site:  Save Our Civilization.

What if School Children wanted to be Suicide Bombers

What if 80% of the elementary school children in America wanted to grow up to be suicide bombers?
This is the case among Palestinian school children.
What if Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham and T.D. Jakes and hundreds of other preachers regularly appeared on TV begging for volunteers to explode themselves and others for God’s sake?
Prominent clerics across the Middle East commonly do this.
What if the US government published books and pamphlets claiming that Canadians routinely kill white people to make pastries with human blood in them.
Across the Middle East, university professors, clerics, heads of state, and journalist believe and propagate the belief that Jews use human blood to make Passover matzos.
What if every child in America used text books  that taught that God hates Canadians, that Canadians were descended from apes and pigs, and that anyone who kills a Canadian will be rewarded in heaven.
Throughout the Middle East such state printed text books are in use. They are also being used in Britain and America in Islamic schools.
What if the US government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to send missionaries and build schools to help spread the word across the entire earth that Canadians are pigs and must be destroyed?
Most Islamic countries have branches of their governments which funnel millions of dollars in public funds for the propagation of radical Islam.
What if the US government denied that there was any such country as Canada.
Muslim leaders commonly deny the legitimate claim of Israel to exist. It is also common among the leaders and academics of Islam to deny that the holocaust ever took place.
What if the Bible was filled with verses commanding Christians to go out and kill every non-Christian they could find?
The Quran contains plenty of such verses and most scholars insist that these later, violent verses abrogate the earlier more tempered ones.

The real story about The Crusades


Ah yes, The Crusades…so this is all our fault anyway, right?
Muslims love talking about the Crusades… and Christians love apologizing for them. To hear both parties tell the story, one would believe that Muslims were just peacefully minding their own business in lands that were legitimately Muslim, when Christian armies decided to wage holy war and “kill millions.”
Every part of this myth is a lie.  By the rules that Muslims claim for themselves, the Crusades were perfectly justified, and the excesses (though beneath Christian standards) pale in comparison with the historical treatment of conquered populations at the hands of Muslims.

Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death.  As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted well over two centuries and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death.  In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In theory, the Crusades were provoked by the harassment of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, in which many were kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam or even killed.  (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).

The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian.  They never attacked Saudi Arabia or sacked Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople.

The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries.  The Muslim occupation is in its 1,372nd year.
The period of Crusader “aggression” compresses to about 20 years of actual military campaign, much of which was spent on organization and travel.  (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250).  By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.

Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings.  This is why they are an anomaly, the punctuation of fourteen centuries of relentless Jihad that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.

The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred.  This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.

What is called ’sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as the will of Allah.

This article is from the heroic and disturbing blog: The Religion of Peace (we fondly endorse…)

Mr. Burke offers the following questions:
1. Where are the churches mentioned in the book of Revelations? What happened to those Christian communities? What could have possibly obliterated them?

2. The Middle East was the incubator of Christianity giving us the Apostles Creed and most of the church fathers whose writings helped define Christian orthodoxy. How did those lands and regions become almost wholly Muslim? What happened to all the Christians; all the churches and institutions?

British citizens alarmed over spread of Muslim mosques.


Regarding previous posts on the world-wide spread of Islam (see: Will America soon become a nation ruled by Islam? and in particular, the articles previously reported from the UK Daily Mail, the following public announcement has appeared in British newspapers. At last someone is seeing the light. The invasion is being financed by the Saudi Arabian government who has paid for 80% of the mosques in the United States. Meanwhile the FBI has revealed that 10% of these mosques are preaching radical Islamic propaganda.

December 13: Stop the Islamisation of Europe UK Event

Harrow stop mosque building demo 13th December
The Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, publicly read an Islamic poem including the lines: "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and Muslims our soldiers…"

(metaphorical reference to no more mosques).
Square in front of Harrow Civic Centre, Station Road/Milton Road junction.
Date: 13th December 2009
Time: 14.00 – 16.00 (2pm – 4pm)

1. Approved anti-sharia and anti-Islamisation chants, banners and placards will be permitted.
Official chants:-
No sharia here text2

2. English, Welsh, Scottish, N. Irish, national flags, national flags of other countries, certain other national flags will be permitted and encouraged.
Some flags already known to be represented are:-
Let us know which flag you’ll be flying!

3. Certain other flags representing communities struggling against Islamic colonization such as Papua New Guinea and Biafra will be permitted.
4. Certain civil rights flags, banners and placards will be encouraged provided they are displayed within the no-sharia context of the demonstration.
Speakers using hand held megaphones will address the gathering. Names of speakers will be provided to the police prior to the demonstration. Speeches must be approved by the organisers.

Speakers to explain Muslim persecution in Islamic countries.
Copts in Egypt
Hindus in Bangladesh
Hindus in Malayasia
Christians in Indonesia
Christians in Pakistan
Papuans in Indonesia
Jews everywhere


1. As with previous SIOE demonstrations, political parties are banned.
2. Any racist chanting, banners and placards will result in immediate ejection of the perpetrators from the demo as will Nazi salutes.
3. Totalitarian symbols such as Nazi swastikas, communist hammer and sickles, Islamic star and crescent, UNLESS CLEARLY CROSSED OUT OR DEFACED WITH A STOP SIGN.
Banners, placards and speeches will be shown to the police prior to the protest starting if requested.
Stephen Gash’s instructions:
The event will start at 14.00 in an area in the square opposite the mosque allotted to SIOE by the police. A muster point has been allotted and people should not gather there before 13.30, in other words people should start assembling the gathering between 13.30 and 14.00 . Details will be given later of where this will be.
People are requested not to bring banners attached to either metal or wood. Plastic plumbing-piping or plastic frames are acceptable, or just hand-held banners. It would be helpful if people could send us images of proposed banners for approval. This will save time on the day. In any case banners will be shown to the police before the demo starts, if requested.
This demo will be carried out in a respectful, dignified manner, but will be robust in its message.
Protestors are requested to bring cameras and camcorders and to make images available to SIOE afterwards for publication. Also, if participants could bring dictaphones to record press interviews so that we can compare what is actually said with what is broadcast, it would be helpful. These interviews will be published by SIOE.
When the event ends the protestors will leave together from the scene according to how the police wish it to happen.
This second demonstration was only made necessary because of Muslims and a small number of UAF intimidating and disrupting the first attempt on 11th September. We refuse to be cowed by threats and intimidation from fulfilling our democratic rights to free speech. Europe is not yet Muslim dominated so non-Muslims do not have to yield to Muslim demands, nor to the demands of a motley band of self-styled Antifascists who behave like Hitler’s Brownshirts.

1. There will be local Muslims who attend the mosque who will be close by the mosque. It is not anticipated that these will be large in number, but will in any case be under the control of the mosque leaders.
2. Muslims from outside the area have been asked to stay away by Harrow mosque leaders, so if any show up, it is anticipated they will be small in number.
Islam4UK is highly unlikely to appear, nor is Al-Muhajiroun, as they failed to demonstrate earlier in November and have ceased their disgusting protests against the troops at homecoming parades. Fortunately, they seem to have got the message that they have no support, but do have fierce opposition from the majority of the population.
British Muslims for Secular Democracy will be in opposition, but not in large numbers, as most Muslims indisputably do not believe in secular democracy. The fact that BMSD are counter-protesting is also another reason for Islam4UK not attending as the latter will more than likely be giving out a whining press release the day after the demonstration, as they did earlier in November when facing opposition.
SIOE suspects that BMSD and Islam4UK have a "good guy, bad guy" arrangement as, what SIOE calls, "Mecca Muslims" (BMSD) and "Medina Muslims" (Islam4UK). The Caliphate has more than one way to achieve domination.
3. A few misguided United Against Fascism (UAF) opposed SIOE on 11th September, but nearly all their banners were given to Muslims who came in from outside.
UAF have appeared in larger numbers against the English Defence League, probably only because it has "English" in its title, not because it is in any way fascist.
However, the UAF has certainly recognised that SIOE is in no way a fascist or nazi organisation and that SIOE also unswervingly opposes racism. Indeed UAF has seen that SIOE is the one organisation that speaks up for persecuted minorities in Islamic countries, such as the Copts in Egypt and Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia. So UAF would look sincerely stupid counter-protesting against SIOE which opposes anti-Semiticism and fascism more robustly than UAF. Indeed SIOE is not selective in the kind of anti-Semiticism it denounces. Unlike UAF, SIOE despises and opposes the flagrant anti-Semiticism exhibited by Muslims, not only in Muslim countries, but also in Europe, and indeed across the world. The kind of anti-Semiticism preached in every mosque in the world.
Yes UAF will look as stupid as the few ill-informed Antifa members who show up against SIOE in other European countries. Having seen that SIOE is the most anti-fascist organisation in Europe, the more serious and knowledgable anti-fascists no longer counter-protest SIOE. We have observed it is generally a few unruly, ignorant youths who arrive shouting their heads off.
Sarah Cox, Harrow’s UAF spokesperson, has said in the Harrow Times that she does not want to take on SIOE, so we anticipate she will be persuading her more boisterous and foolish companions to do the same. So, if UAF unwisely do appear, we are confident that they will heed Sarah’s demands for self-control and will therefore behave just as SIOE supporters do at all of their demonstrations, that is, peacefully.
So, SIOE considers that this will be an altogether different demonstration to that held on 11th September, now that our opponents have come to their senses and decided to behave in a civilised manner.
Therefore, we urge SIOE supporters to come to Harrow on 13th December and bring as many friends as possible for what will certainly be a peaceful, useful and successful demonstration. The plug has been pulled on Islamisation and sharia is pouring down the plughole where it belongs.
Stephen Gash

The following commentary is from Atlas Shrugs:

Atlas readers in the UK, take your flip videos, camcorders, photos -- send all.



SIOE supports Israel’s right to defend itself against Islamist attempts to annihilate Jews

This is a serious appeal to Jews living in London or within travelling distance of London.

If you do not attend this demonstration then you are prepared to see Israel wiped off the map.

If you do not attend this demonstration then you are prepared to see Jews removed from the world.

Vile anti-Semitism is being preached in mosques across the world and almost certainly the one in your neighbourhood.

Are you going to honour those who have lost their lives for the Jewish people?

Are you going to demur to being called “apes and pigs” instead of the people you are?

Or are you going to dishonour those who made the ultimate sacrifice to provide the Jewish people with a HOMELAND and thereby dishonour yourselves?

Non-Jews are demonstrating on 13th December against the anti-Semitism being taught in mosques which goes unchallenged by politicians, the media and so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims.

Jews cannot, in all conscience, leave it to non-Jews to protest on the behalf of Jews who are once again the world’s whipping boy.

If Islam takes over Europe and the West where will Jews run to? Support your friends now!

Calling Jews, especially ex-IDF who are concerned about the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe particularly by Muslims and the flagrant anti-Israel bias in the Western media

Please come to the demonstration on 13th December in Harrow to protest against further mosque building until hatred is finally stopped being preached in existing mosques and to stop the Islamisation of Europe

BRING ONE THOUSAND ISRAELI FLAGS – There are 295,000 Jews in the UK so surely 1,000 can give 2 hours on a Sunday and bring a flag each!

Here are some reasons why Jews must come to this demonstration

Anti-Semitic attacks have increased alarmingly in Europe especially by the hands of Muslims and Robert Spencer, eloquently as always, explains why . Of course the media would have it that Israel and the bombing of Gaza are the reasons.

France has seen the most noticeable increase in anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims which has caused an exodus of Jews from France. Indeed it was suggested that emigration of Jews to Israel was the best answer to anti-Semitism in France.

Around 850,000 Jews have been ousted from Arab countries (no sanctions for genocide though) and reportedly one Jew is left in Afghanistan

So where are Jews to go?

Arguably, (some say undoubtedly) the media enflame the situation.

The anti-Israel bias is barely disguised. Recently Peter Oborne reported on Channel4’s ‘Dispatches’ about the strength of the Israeli lobby in the press and government in the UK suggesting that it was far too strong and the media were afraid.

The trouble with this programme is that it never even attempted to find a cause and effect. Rather like we are led to believe that everything was peaceful and calm before the first Crusade, we are led to believe that reports about Israel were always impartial and the Israeli lobby happened for no reason. Jews know that was far from the case.

The Palestine v Israel conflict has never been reported impartially. Indeed downright lies have been broadcast deliberately to put Israel in a bad light.

For example, the alleged shooting of the 12 year-old Mohammed Al-Dura whilst sheltering behind his father was exposed as fake in a French court.
This is just one video of several showing the untruth.

Similarly, videos of children being “rescued” from bombed buildings were reportedly faked. We know about doctored photos.

Often the internet is the only recourse to reverse the chicanery of the Taqiyya TV companies, but even there such sites as Honest Reporting are targetted by TV channels.

The largest United Nations voting bloc is comprised of the 57 Muslim countries which have tried to isolate Israel several times, most notably in the two Durban Conferences .

However, at least somebody speaks up for Israel in the United Nations, refreshingly.

Thanks to UN Watch

So please come to the Harrow demonstration to support those who support Jews, Israel and the truth.

Link to post with embedded videos here

Stephen Gash
Stop Islamisation Of Europe
SIOE England

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Will America soon become a nation ruled by Islam?

Do you want to live in a Muslim World?  A world where everyone is forced to become a Muslim or live as a slave. A world that would be intolerant of any other religion. A world ruled by the Islamic Sharia Law, the most barbaric, inhumane form of domination.  A startling video titled Demographic Problem – A Report on the World’s Changing Demographics has appeared on YouTube. You can view it below. It says in stark scientific logic that this is a real situation based upon the known fertility rates of different countries.

It begins by explaining a fact about reproduction by saying,  in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years a Required Fertility Rate of at least 2.11 Children Per Family must be maintained. Then goes on to explain that if the Fertility Rate of a culture or a nation is 1.9 Children Per Family it will never reverse the decline and if the Fertility Rate of a country drops to 1.3 it is impossible to reverse. Then brings to light the exploding fertility rate of the Muslim populations in every country in Europe, Canada and the United States.

“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists, we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”

Muammar al-Gaddafi

Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, believes Kadafi's statement could prove true, if there is a failure "to defend our own Christian culture."

"Five Minutes to 12"
"I believe it's five minutes to 12 in Europe," he said, warning of what he believes to be radical Islam's imminent threat to the continent. "There is an enormous 'Islamization' through mass immigration and through demography, and the so-called leaders we have . . . are looking in the other direction."

Meanwhile, a survey by the Pew Forum reported in 2007 that 26 percent of American Muslims under age 30 think suicide bomb attacks are justified.

While it may be five minutes to midnight in terms of the Islamization of Europe, "In the United States, it might be 10 minutes to 12, maybe a quarter to 12," Wilders said. "So please get the sense of urgency. Choose leaders who see this problem and want to fight it, because in five minutes, maybe in fifteen minutes, [America] will have lost everything it stands for."
In England there is an awakening of the ultimate fate of a Muslim majority population. Here is an article from the UK Daily Mail:
When we look starkly at the demographic statistics, the wimpishness of our Establishment in the face of the threat, the perversions perpetrated by political correctness and our own passivity, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that within a couple of generations, Islam will be in control in . And before anyone says that there would be nothing wrong if this happened, since the vast majority of Muslims are tolerant people who would not dream of interfering with our way of life, it's necessary to point out that in Muslim countries, it's usually the radicals and extremist mullahs - who regard tolerance as a vice - who make the running.
This occurs too in microcosm in Muslim ghettoes around Europe: we saw the frightening fundamentalist fringe of Islam marching, threatening and perpetrating violence over the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammed in Denmark while the majority of Muslims - who, yes, of course, are tolerant and decent - kept their mouths shut and stayed at home.
Yes, Islam may be a great religion. But in its fundamentalist version, some of its values are antipathetic to ours, and if they triumph in Europe, they will threaten our values such as freedom of thought and speech and the spirit of intellectual inquiry that made European civilization great and prosperous.
The danger of ending up like those poor, despotic and medieval Islamic states in which millions live miserably is a prospect that Christians, Hindus, moderate Muslims and non-believers should be uniting to prevent. But the truth is that we are doing little to stop it. Consider first at a few chilling statistics. Europeans are failing to reproduce. Just to keep the population steady, you need 2.1 live births per woman.
However, in 2005, the European average was 1.38. In it was 1.9, France 1.89, Germany 1.35 and Italy 1.23. Britain scored in the middle of this range with 1.6, but that was because - like France - we have a large Muslim population with a high birth rate. Indeed, Muslims are outbreeding non-Muslims throughout Europe.
"Just look at the development within Europe," said a triumphant Norwegian imam a few months ago, "where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."
The big question this poses is: why are we not reproducing? There are many reasons, but probably the most important are the decline of religion and the liberation of women.
In Ireland, when the Roman Catholic Church effectively ran society, sex was for procreation, contraceptives were banned, the normal size for a family was around five or six children, but 12 or 13 were not uncommon.
As the country embraced secularism in the 1980s, birth rates plummeted, exacerbated by the new-found confidence of women that made them choose careers rather than domesticity.
Whereas in the 1970s, I was regarded in both the UK and Ireland as odd for being married but voluntarily childless, these days, childlessness is a common choice.
It is a world where one child families abound and to have more than two children is to be regarded as eccentric and probably environmentally irresponsible.
Moreover, the erosion of family life and the long-hours culture place a very heavy burden on those prepared to rear the next generation.
Despite these social forces, even in the UK, devout Muslims and orthodox Jews obey instructions to have large families.
Confronted with this demographic-revolution and official statistics which showed there were too few young people to support an ageing population, European governments decided to embrace immigration as an inherent good without giving any thought to the consequences.
As a result, politicians and businessmen assured us that we had to have economic growth in order to prop up ever greater public spending and that it could be provided only by importing large numbers of workers from abroad.
But why wasn't there a national debate about whether it was wise to mortgage our cultural future for the sake of a mess of financial pottage?
Where were the politicians arguing against the doctrine of multiculturalism which holds that upholding majority values is somehow illegitimate?
Who among the liberal elite's commentariat were challenging the moral relativism that flew in the face of sense and sensibility by insisting that the culture of Shakespeare, the King James Bible, Keats's poetry, Turner's paintings and Elgar's music was no more important than - and probably morally inferior to - the cultures of other imported, minorities?
We know the answer all too well. Cries of racism drowned out rational argument - not just here, but throughout old Europe. As one gloomster put it: "Political correctness, which is to thought what sentimentality is to compassion, means that the intelligentsia of the West has disarmed itself in advance of any possible struggle."
The result of all this, as recent events have made tragically clear, was that British culture was undermined and social cohesion severely damaged.
Separated from mainstream society by geographical and cultural apartheid, which has been fostered by multiculturalism, many immigrants were denied the chance to integrate.
And, instead of being told by the host community that if they didn't want to adhere to the values of a liberal, pluralistic democracy, they should return home, they were asked how they would like Britain to conform to their values.
The story was much the same throughout Europe.
The robust American political commentator, Mark Steyn, a disillusioned Anglophile, has already written us off.
The thesis of his blackly comic book, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, is that the US will survive because the religious Right are confident and reproduce, but that Europe is finished.
It's not just demographic decline, he says, it's also the unsustainability of the modern welfare state in which we depend so much on the State rather than on our own individual resources. We are also, he believes, suffering from 'civilisational exhaustion': cultural disintegration brought about by big government which has fatally destroyed our sense of self-reliance.
Meanwhile, we are importing large numbers of unemployed youths from abroad in order to maintain our standard of living, yet many of these newcomers have nothing but contempt for our way of life and some even wish to destroy it.
Steyn sees this as a civil war which Europe is too timid even to acknowledge, let alone win. He says: "Islam has youth and will, Europe has age and welfare."
It's hard not to agree with Mark Steyn, especially as every day seems to bring more evidence that as a society we are terminally mad.
For example, this week's fertiliser bomb trial had heard that the key plotters had been radicalised by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, whom the judge condemned as "a master of cowardice who lurked in the shadows".
This was the same firebrand who, as an asylum- seeker here, had pocketed £275,000 in welfare benefits.
Despite all this, I still believe there are grounds for hope - largely because Muslim hotheads have overplayed their hand by blowing people up, rioting in their neighbourhoods or broadcasting hate-filled speeches which alienate them from the host society. The sharp-suited, soft-spoken undercover agents of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned Egyptian group whose former members include Osama Bin Laden) understand that power is best secured by stealth - by infiltrating institutions and seducing the media.
Libya's Colonel Gaddafi once exemplified this policy. He said: "There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
But the violent extremists have provoked some signs of a backlash, not just among the indigenous populations of Europe but among those tolerant immigrants who value the countries that took them in.
The Swedes, of all people, whom liberals claimed had produced a perfect society, are trying to row back on the welfare state, to encourage the work ethic and are demanding that immigrants integrate.
Nyamko Sabuni, a female, Muslim, African immigrant who is now the country's integration and equality minister, insists that all immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job.
She is also intent on criminalising forced marriages, checking girls for evidence of female circumcision and banning the veil, as well as state funding for religious schools. Petitions from Muslim groups demanding she be sacked have so far been resisted. There are similar small glimmers of hope in other European countries: if Nicolas Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian immigrant, wins the French presidential election tomorrow, he will have a mandate to restore sanity to France.
In Britain, we have bishops such as Ugandan-born John Sentamu and Pakistan-born Michael Nazir-Ali who are vigorously arguing for indigenous British and Christian values.
Above all, it is time the blunt truth was told about the dangers posed by radical Islam. We wring our hands over Iraq and blame Bush and Blair, but Al Qaeda was engaged on its murderous mission and Omar Bakri was preaching violent jihad in Britain years ago, in the days of Clinton and Major.
Right across the world, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting people of all religions as well as non-believers, because they are trying to impose their will through violence.
But where is the resistance to this? In Britain, we have a consensus imposed by political correctness where such threats are not discussed. In other words, dissenting voices are censored.
The Tories are scared to talk about immigration. Worse still, they're shutting their eyes tight when it comes to confronting the Islamist threat within our midst and the need for Britain to face the threat to its cultural survival and deal with it resolutely. Yes, the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are tolerant and law-abiding but this is no time for timidity. The enemy may be a minority but he is within, armed and dangerous and we have to deal with him.