Europe's Cities Absorb Sharia Law
Europe's Cities Absorb Sharia Law
by Giulio Meotti, Gatestone Institute, August 2, 2017
If the West keeps betraying the democratic value of individual freedom, Islamic fundamentalists, like those who imposed burqas on Libyan women, will do the same to Western women. (Photo by Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images)
Within days after the Islamic State conquered the city of Sirte in Libya two years ago, enormous billboards appeared in the Islamist stronghold warning women they must wear baggy robes that cover their entire bodies, and no perfume. These "sharia stipulations for hijab" included wearing dense material and a robe that does not "resemble the attire of unbelievers".
Two years later, Europe's three most important cities -- London, Paris and Berlin -- are adopting the same sharia trend.
Paris has said au revoir to "sexist" ads on public billboards. The Paris city council announced its ban after the Socialist Mayor Anne Hidalgo said the move meant that Paris was "leading the way" in the fight against sexism. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also banned advertisements that promote "unrealistic expectations of women's body image and health". Now Berlin is planning to ban images in which women are portrayed as "beautiful but weak, hysterical, dumb, crazy, naive, or ruled by their emotions". Der Tagesspiegel's Harald Martenstein said the policy "could have been adopted from the Taliban manifesto".
The irony is that this wave of morality and "virtue" is coming from cities governed by uninhibited leftist politicians, who for years campaigned for sexual liberation.
There is a reason for this grotesque campaign banning these images. These cities host significant Muslim populations; and politicians -- the same who frantically are enacting mandatory multiculturalism -- want to please "Islam". It is now a "feminist" talking point to advocate sharia policy, as does Linda Sarsour. The result is that, today, few feminists dare to criticize Islam.
It is happening everywhere. Dutch municipalities are "advising" their employees to not wear mini-skirts. There are women-only hours at Swedish swimming pools. German schools are sending letters to parents asking children to avoid wearing "revealing clothes".
The first to suggest calling for a ban on posters or advertisements that "reduce women or men to sexual objects" was German Justice Minister Heiko Maas, a Social Democrat.
"To demand the veiling of women or taming of men," said Free Democratic Party leader Christian Lindner, "is something known among radical Islamic religious leaders, but not from the German minister of justice."
In 1969, Germany was overwhelmed by a debate on introducing into schools the "Sexualkundeatlas", an "atlas" of sexual science. Now the effort is to desexualize German society. The newspaper Die Welt commented:
"Thanks to Justice Minister Heiko Maas we finally know why on New Year's Eve, at Cologne Central Station, about a thousand women were victims of sexual violence: because of sexist advertising. Too many eroticized models, too much naked skin on our billboards, too many erotic mouths, too many miniskirts in fashion magazines, too many wiggling rear-ends and chubby breasts in television spots. It is another step in the direction of a 'submission'".
Instead of nipples and buttocks, Die Welt concludes, "should we urge the use of burqa or veil, as Mrs. Erdogan does?"
The same German élites who suggest banning "sexist" billboards censored the crude details of the mass sexual assaults in Cologne. Meanwhile, a liberal Berlin mosque, which banned burqas and opened its door to gays and to unveiled women, is now under police protection after threats from Muslim supremacists.
Europe's élites have adopted a double standard: they are proud to host an exhibit of a Christian crucifix submerged in urine, but quickly capitulate to Muslim demands to censor cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. The Italian authorities went to great efforts to spare Iran's President Hassan Rouhani a view of nudity on ancient sculptures in the Capitoline Museums of Rome.
The Western public appears fascinated by Islamic veils. Ismail Sacranie, a founder of Modestly Active, the manufacturer that designs burkinis, told the New York Times that 35% of their clients are non-Muslim. Aheda Zanetti, a Lebanese woman living in Australia who invented the burkini, claims that 40% of her sales are to non-Muslim women. The Western public, which has been romanticizing Islam, is apparently absorbing the pieties of Islamic law. The Spectator called it "a new puritanism" and "why some feminists make common cause with Islam".
To paraphrase the American writer Daniel Greenfield, the irony of women celebrating their own suppression is both heartbreaking and stupefying.
Europe might soon have to apologize to the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker. She was criticized -- denounced -- for advising women to keep "at an arm's length" from strangers to avoid sexual harassment.
If the West keeps on betraying the democratic value of individual freedom on which Western civilization is based, Islamic fundamentalists, like those who imposed burqas on Libyan women, will start imposing them on Western women. They may even begin with those feminist élites who first created the sexual revolution to emancipate women in the 1960s, and who are now infatuated with an obscurantist garment that hides women in a portable prison.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.
The creeping caliphate, a step at a time, soon coming to a neighbourhood near you.
Sad but true. Our leaders need to resist such infringements of liberty.
So US girls can now wear tank tops to high school?
Or will they still be under Shariah Law?
HIjabs are becomng popular. Maybe ti'll just be a fad, like hula hoops.
Sure they are.
Ok, first of all, yahoo? Really? And even that article says that hijabs might become a fashion statement.
So, support for your statement is pretty much lacking.
The article goes on to mention turbans. Those have been in and out of fashion for centuries in Western cultures.
Now, do dress codes in US schools mean we're under Shariah Law, same as it is supposed to mean in Germany?
Here's a related article from Huffington Post:
Hijabs: The Fashion Statement We Should Be Paying Attention To
Sad, and sadly something that articles like this encourage, as they encourage paranoia in relation to Muslims.
Sadly, some people prefer to remain ignorant of the reality of Islam and its dangers to Western society.
I am not ignorant of the dangers of radical Islam. I disagree with Islam - I find it to be violent and misogynistic.
But that does not change the fact that these changes are not due to Shariah.
You are engaging in a false dichotomy. One can acknowledge the dangers of Shariah, without attributing every new law to Shariah.
Yes, Yahoo really. It is one of the most left wing news sources I've seen. Anyone who has taken the time to read their articles would agree.
I'm not talking about its political leanings. I'm talking about credibility. A fashion article from a gossipy "news" source isn't a source I would take seriously, even if I couldn't see with my own eyes that there hasn't been an increase in women wearing hijabs in general, and certainly not among non-Muslim women.
But on the other hand:
US Muslims warned not to wear hijab after Donald Trump’s shock election victory
Anti-Muslim rhetoric prompts fears of a new wave of Islamophobia across the US
ww.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-muslims-react-donald-trump-islam-islamophobia-a7408401.html
It could come about that Muslims may be the only ones NOT wearing a hijab.
Gee, I wonder who might be spreading anti-Muslim rhetoric?
Patriots?
Religious bigots don't get to be patriots.
But jihadists and their apologists can be?
Where did I say that?
Pot meet kettle.
So you can't quote me saying that.
The Independent is a British paper-- it is pretty liberal.
A hijab might be a useful fashion accessory for this atheist on my bad hair days.
Sharia law isn't coming to the US and it is prevented by the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Religious laws cannot be enforced by the government. Muslims are about 5% of the US and don't have the power to enforce anything. The fact that most American Muslims are moderates or liberals is lost on conservatives who shriek about sharia law. They came to the US to get away from the religious nuttery of the middle east. The dangerous religious nuts in the US are conservtiveCheitians and they are most definitely a threat to our freedoms.
The Gatestone Institute thinktank was started by the neo-conservative John Bolton who saw the US invasion of Iraq as a religious war. Bolton is a dangerous nut.
Do you consider, as another member of NT does, that everything published by Gatestone Isstitute is Right Wing garbage? What's your opinion of THIS article posted here on NT yesterday?
I've seen some burkinis that were kinda pretty.
Once I got sunburned, which no amount of reapplying 70 SPF sunscreen seems to prevent when I'm in the sun all day, they looked pretty practical, too.
Not to mention hiding the fact that I like cheese and carbs.
Yes they can. Do you have a salient point, or are you going to continue supporting the creeping caliphate?
The point is that the article tries to tie German schools urging non-revealing clothing to Shariah Law.
US schools generally have dress codes, many of which forbid the wearing of tank tops (so, no, you're wrong; they can't).
Same policies - students are asked not to wear revealing clothes. But only in one country is this blamed on Shariah.
(so, no, you're wrong; they can't)
Yes, they can. Despite your rhetoric, there is no universal school dress code in the US.
But there are plenty of schools that don't allow tank tops, so they are not universally allowed to, either.
Are US schools with dress codes under Shariah Law, or is the author of this article trying to dishonestly attribute policies to Shariah?
The banning of ultrathin models certainly has nothing to do with Shariah, so I'm going to go with dishonestly blaming Shariah.
Nothing to be concerned about.
"Democracy go to Hell" "Freedom go to Hell" "Shariah will dominate the world"
...and coming soon to a neighbourhood near you....
Don't blame me. I didn't write any of those things.
Sigh.
I never said there was nothing to be concerned about.
I said the policies mentioned in the article are not based on Shariah. And they're not.
Are the protesters above forcing burkas over women's heads with the support of government? No? Then they're not enacting Shariah Law.
I am absolutely in agreement thatt banning ultrathin models is required because such ads lead to many problems for young girls, who might develop bullemia, lose self-esteem, and even become suicidal in trying to emulate. However, that has NOTHING to do with Islam, shariah or wearing a hijab. What does wearing tank tops have to do with banning mixed swimming, or women not being able to walk down a street in a mini-skirt?
The advice not to wear mini-skirts was by an employer to its employees. Many employers have dress codes, too, and they aren't based on Shariah, either, but on maintaining a professional atmosphere. Women-only swims might appeal to women of any or no religion.
BTW, the addition of women-only swim sessions isn't the same as banning mixed swimming. I'm fairly sure that's still allowed at other times, so it's not banned.
There is no creeping caliphate, despite what the conservative media has convinced you.
I would have said the same thing about Europe, back in the 20th century when I travelled there.
"Small steps, Sparks. Small steps." (the movie 'Contact')
And we should welcome refugees in the US for what reason again?
It seems insane right?
Perhaps because we are signatories to the UN Convention on Refugees.
And that was a mistake.
Unless you are 100% native American you can leave and go back to where your ancestors came from if you oppose the UN convention on refugees.
I oppose the UN as a whole. It's a farce, serves no purpose and is a waste.
Tracking.
I found this article by accident. I have to learn to navigate better!
Just started a new group to share information.
All kinds of links and explanations of Islamic terms. Newsvine is dead, but we can still all get smarter here too.
A secular view of the word Sharia, and its meaning as defined by the Libary of Congress.
It is happening everywhere. Dutch municipalities are "advising" their employees to not wear mini-skirts. There are women-only hours at Swedish swimming pools. German schools are sending letters to parents asking children to avoid wearing "revealing clothes".
If we "examine Islam" we find a likely explanation for the objectional behavior
Now the series of verses in question. Can they be read as a compulsion or suggestion to sexually assault women?
The tafsir of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi informs me that the verse refers to needed social reform, and how it was implemented by the prophet.
A brief summary of the events surrounding revelation can be found in the tafsir of Ibn Kathir verse 33:60.
In verse 9:125 the disease is defined as not having a belief in Allah.
In reality .. war had come with Mohammad. But the truth is Ghibah or "backstabbing" in Islamic theocratic discourse.
"(It is when you mention something about your brother that he dislikes. ) It was asked, " But what if what I say about my brother is true'' He said,
«إِنْ كَانَ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ فَقَدِ اغْتَبْتَهُ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ مَا تَقُولُ فَقَدْ بَهَتَّه»
( If it is true, then you have committed backbiting (Ghibah) about him, and if it is not true, then you have slandered him.) This was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who said, "Hasan Sahih".
Thirty or more translation of verse 33:59 can be found here.
"a ayyuha alnnabiyyu qul li-azwajika wabanatika wanisa-i almu/mineena yudneena AAalayhinna min jalabeebihinna thalika adna an yuAArafna fala yu/thayna wakana Allahu ghafooran raheeman"
The seventeenth word "annoyed" of the linked verse is yu/thayna or (Spelling) yu'dhayna
Welcome to the Quranic Arabic Corpus , an annotated linguistic resource which shows the Arabic grammar, syntax and morphology for each word in the Holy Quran. Click on an Arabic word below to see details of the word's grammar, or to suggest a correction
The literal translation of the word is harmed , but other words are used as well in various translations. I have linked some below.
The "they" that the verse references, are believing women or Muslims.
"They should be known and not harmed"....... by outward signs or displays of piety.
Submissive women (Muslims are those who submit) are not to be assaulted, molested or harmed if self-identification is confirmed by Islamically approved garb or outward signs of piety.
Suggesting that woman who have not submitted or are improperly submitted are fair game? While not as clear as I would prefer to make this point, it surely could be read in that way. It would take no great leap of linguistic gymnastics to read it that way.
Servants and whores would have had no expectation of personal security in seventh century Arabia at that time.
kpr37 with a pagan's perspective.
Dr. Peter Hammond's book: "Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat" documents the way Muslims slowly develop a presence in various countries and as their population numbers build, become more aggressive and assertive about exercising Sharia law.
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system of governing according to very narrow precepts.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.
Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.' Open, free, democratic societies are particularly vulnerable. “When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components creep in as well,” he notes.
When the Muslim population remains under 2% in a country, they will be seen primarily as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to other citizens.
As the Muslim population reaches 2% to 5%, they begin to recruit from ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, within mosques, prisons and street gangs.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food and increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature such food on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
Soon they begin to apply pressure to allow Sharia law within their own communities. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their 'conditions'. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats.
The violence increases when the Muslim population reaches 20%. After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the destruction of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare and at that point, the battle has been lost.
Be wary, be on-guard, do not allow this pernicious cult destroy all that Western civilizations have built.
By definition, all religions are cults. Also, in the USA, Islam is recognized as a religion, the third largest religion as a matter of fact. Just because you don't WANT it to be a religion doesn't change anything.
The significance of data someone sees changes-- depending upon the way its presented. Christianity (counting all denominations and sects is obviously by far the largest in numbers-- I don't imagine anyone would dispute that). However, The way this is presented, it gives the impression that there are also a lot of Jews and Muslims. But is that actually an accurate portrayal?
Nope.
Why?'
Here are some hints:
Questions
1. What is the actual percentage of the population is Jewish?
2. What % of the population is Muslim?
I admit I don't know those percentages. So I googled it. It turns out that Jews comprise considerably less than 2 % of the U.S. population. Muslims make up less than 1%!!!
Primary definition. Does Christianity direct their devotion to a particular figure or object? Yes. It's a cult. Deal with it.
Why would I have to deal with it? It's not true and I'm not a Christian. Thanks for playing. How much is the toll?
So how many different gods do Christians worship? One. It's a cult.
Oh, good grief.
French advertisers (and now apparently London ones) are now mandated to use models who are a healthy weight to avoid promoting eating disorders. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it has nothing to do with Shariah. They can still wear as little in the way of clothing as they always have. It's a weight thing, not a religion thing.
German schools are sending letters to parents asking children to avoid wearing "revealing clothes".
I guess that means Shariah law is all over the US, too, since our schools also have dress codes.
Here's an even better example. In France, drivers must stop at a red light. They are only allowed to "go" when the light is green. Is that an example of Shariah? Of course not!
In addition there are laws prohibitng robbery, murder, rape, etc. None of these are due to Shariah.
So, because these rules are not due to Shariah, obviously, there is no Shariah in France!
Attributing policies that have nothing to do with Shariah law to Shariah law is dishonest. There was no attempt to attribute traffic laws to Shariah. There was a dishonest attempt to attribute other laws to Shariah. Some of us are able to see the difference.
And frankly, the proposed banning of "sexist" ads being attributed to Shariah law is just silly, considering that most people acknowledge that Shariah is biased against women.
Attempting to attribute to Shariah policies like school dress codes that exist in other countries not under Shariah is religious bigotry.
Exactly!
I believe I may have misunderstood your first response. I thought you were disagreeing with me. Sorry for that.
And yes, this article is full of paranoia based on religious bigotry.
I know, right?
Next I'll be saying that it's hardly surprising that progressive secular European nations where women tend to enjoy a high degree of equality with men might consider restricting sexist ads, and that that is probably unrelated to Islam, too.
The nerve of me.
Restricting speech helps no one.
I never said I agree with it.
I said it's not due to Shariah.
Good point. My apologies.
Some European women. In fact, most European women.
But not all:
“W e oppose any religious body – whether presided over by men or women – that seeks to rule over us.” So say more than 300 mostly Muslim women, but also others from different faiths who have been abused in their personal lives.
These women are voicing their alarm, through a powerful statement published by Open Democracy, about the growing power of religious bodies such as sharia councils, and demand that their voices also be heard in the current debate.
From their own lived experiences, they warn against any attempt to normalise profoundly regressive religious codes of conduct as the basis of social interaction with, and policy development aimed at, minority women.
They do so against the backdrop of Louise Casey’s report that warns of minority women who are trapped in abuse and isolation, and two ongoing inquiries into sharia councils: one initiated by the government and the other by the home affairs select committee.
( The NT discussion about how Sharia Courts in the U.K. are greatly harming women is Here: Sharia Courts Have No Place In UK Family Law. Listen To Women Who Know )
The UK is making a mistake in allowing Shariah courts.
But Sadiq Kahn's ban on skinny models isn't Shariah. They'll still be half-nekkid. Non-Muslim Brits aren't living under Shariah, as the article under discussion attempts to suggest.
Europe's Cities Absorb Sharia Law
IMO that headline is a bit misleading-- it implies that Shariah law governs European cities.
As far as I know, it is not in effect in miost of Europe.
And even in the U&,K. it is definitely not the doeminent form of law at present-- the adaption of Shariah there is proceeding very, very slowly:
Muslim imams in the UK now outnumber UK's Christian pastors, and converting empty church buildings into mosques has become a cottage industry.
In 2008, UK's government formally recognized the first Sharia Law court, and the Archbishop of Canterbury - the head of Church of England - conceded that adopting elements of the Sharia law into UK's court system was "unavoidable."
Since then, over 100 Sharia law courts have been established across the UK. Although they technically lie within the UK's Tribunal Court system, these Sharia courts have been issuing rulings that contradict Britain's common law.
So to state that Europe (or even, for that matter, the U.K.) is ruled ebtirely by Shariah law is simple false!
After looking into the ACTUAL facts behind the advertising 'bans' I find the seeded article to be extremely misleading.
In Paris, London both Mayors give cogent and relevant reasons for the 'bans'. In fact the 'ban' was a campaign promise that the London Mayor made while running for office.
The information in the article about Germany is equally misleading since it was a PROPOSAL from 2016. The fact that Berlin DID pass a municipal law should be the first clue that Germany doesn't already have such a ban.
Oh and Der Welt's statement about Mrs. Erdogan, the first lady of Turkey, was an outright lie. All you have to do is google Mrs. Erdogan to see for yourself that there isn't even one picture of her in a veil or a burka.
Considering all of the misleading information and the inclusion of that lie in the article causes me to believe that the author is an Islamaphobe.
Considering all of the misleading information and the inclusion of that lie in the article causes me to believe that the author is an Islamaphobe.
Indeed - you are correct.