The way is then to "ban Islam"

Submitted by Alain Jean-Mairet (Switzerland), Dec 27, 2006 at 01:07

because there is no proper "lawful Islamism" in the West of course -- Islamism is, de facto, outlaw if the rule of law, individual/human rights and our civil society -- the basis of Democracy -- are to be respected. The difficulty is to prove it, or to prove that the propagating of Islam itself fosters Islamism quite naturally. Or maybe just to spread that knowledge.

The proof has been partially brought already by the European Court of Human Right in 2001 and 2003. A few excerpts:

On 5 August 1997 Principal State Counsel filed his observations on the merits of the case with the Constitutional Court. He submitted that according to the Convention and the case-law of the Turkish courts on constitutional law issues nothing obliged States to tolerate the existence of political parties that sought the destruction of democracy and the rule of law.
[...]
The Constitutional Court observed that secularism was one of the indispensable conditions of democracy. In Turkey the principle of secularism was safeguarded by the Constitution, on account of the country�s historical experience and the specific features of Islam. The democratic regime was incompatible with the rules of sharia. The principle of secularism prevented the State from manifesting a preference for a particular religion or belief and constituted the foundation of freedom of conscience and equality between citizens before the law. Intervention by the State to preserve the secular nature of the political regime had to be considered necessary in a democratic society.
[...]
The Constitutional Court pointed out that such a system, whose origins lay in the history of Islam as a political regime, was inimical to the consciousness of allegiance to a nation having legislative and judicial unity. It would naturally impair judicial unity since each religious movement would set up its own courts and the ordinary courts would be obliged to apply the law according to the religion of those appearing before them, thus obliging the latter to reveal their beliefs. It would also undermine legislative unity, given that each religious movement would be empowered to decree what legal rules should be applicable to its members.
[...]
With regard to the second group of grounds for dissolution, the Constitutional Court found that Refah intended to introduce sharia (Islamic law) as the ordinary law and as the law applicable to the Muslim community. It held that sharia was the antithesis of democracy in that it was based on dogmatic values and was the opposite of the supremacy of reason and of the concepts of freedom, independence and the ideal of humanity developed in the light of science.
[...]
Like the Constitutional Court, the Court considers that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it. The Court notes that, when read together, the offending statements, which contain explicit references to the introduction of sharia, are difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of democracy, as conceived in the Convention taken as a whole. It is difficult to declare one's respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervenes in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.

This shows that the study of Islamic laws is key for proving that Islam itself promotes Islamism. Islamic laws are the best effort ever of interpretation of the Islamic message. They show many differences on small matters, but they are quite consensual on important, basic ones, like, say Jihad, Dhimma, Hududs, slavery.

Showing that is to prove that Islam promotes this kind of behavior (waging sacred war against non believers, segregating society on basis of religious beliefs, mutilate and execute people publicly, using slavery as an economic basis), on the one hand because the sacred texts themselves are thus shown to back all that, in the name of God, and on the other hand because, as those laws have been there for over 1000 years, almost unchallenged, they sure will be enforced as they are by any Islamic government. And it is a plain fact that Sharia law is becoming an important basis of legislation in a growing number of countries nowadays.

So, as is, Islam must be banned in the West. Because its laws are unlawful over here. It can be just temporary, or course. A moratorium. As long as Islam doesn't have elaborated and largely enforced acceptable laws.

In order to create acceptance for such a solution, we have to propagate this knowledge. For that, we first have to gather more proofs. We have to prove beyond the last shadow of a doubt that Islamic law, and thus Islam itself, is consensual on absolutely unacceptable points.

So let's ask the best authorities of Islam which are their best legal handbooks. Let's buy them, have their worst parts (Jihad, Dhimma, Hududs, Slavery) translated in the most used languages. Let's challenge jurists all over the world to define the best legal actions we could take to have the practicing of Islamic religion effectively banned on basis of those Islamic laws. Let's make it a Idea Contest with Prizes for the best ones. Let's publish the whole thing. In all, let's have Islam banned in the free world, as it is only quite natural.

www.precaution.ch

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".