Bill Muehlenberg

Creeping Sharia Again

The front page of today’s Australian has a very revealing – if not alarming – article. And the most revealing phrase came in its first sentence: “The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the government’s new multiculturalism policy, argues that Muslims should enjoy ‘legal pluralism’.”

Legal pluralism. Hey that sounds kinda neat. But wait a minute. What they are really calling for is a plurality of legal systems. Or in this case, at least two: Western (Australian) law, but also Islamic law, or sharia. They are saying that they should be governed with their own laws, and not Australian law. Sure, here they only speak of small beginnings, eg., family law, divorce law, and so on.

But rest assured that things will not stop there. Indeed, creeping sharia has been taking place in other Western nations, and what has come about as a result has not been very pretty. Indeed, some of these nations are now reversing their policies, and clawing back creeping sharia. England is a clear case in point.

No better summary and commentary on this can be found than in Patrick Sookhdeo’s excellent new booklet, Slippery Slope: The Islamisation of the UK. This brief (50-page) booklet examines how Islam has managed to fundamentally change the UK, with a slow but steady process of Islamification.

He examines the obvious examples of creeping sharia, such as halal foods and Islamic financing, but then moves on to cover other cases, such as education. Muslims have objected to the way the state school system is run, with the result that the state has caved in with one major capitulation after another.

Says Sookhdeo, “Numerous concessions have been made in response to Muslim demands. At state schools Islam is often given more prominence and respect than other faiths. Schools are encouraged to provide halal food for their Muslim pupils, as well as prayer facilities and Muslim religious instruction. They also allow Islamic dress and gender segregation in physical exercises. The character of the state education system is gradually changing to give privileged status to Muslim pupils and their religion.”

Students at one Catholic High School were forced by teachers to wear Islamic clothing as part of a school trip. Those who did not were punished for truancy. In British universities it has been found that the largest financial contributions from overseas come from Arabic and Islamic sources.

During the past decade around 30 Muslim graduates from British universities have been found guilty of Islamist terrorism. This includes the man behind the 2002 Bali bombing which killed over 200 people. Indeed, higher education in the UK has become a hotbed for Islamist radicalism.

Sookhdeo provides page after page of other examples of this. And he points out that all this has not happened by accident. Islamists have long recognised the means by which a society becomes Islamised. And they go back to the life and example of Muhammad to promote this. As the booklet reminds us, a three-stage process is underway in Western nations.

First is the weakness stage, in which Islam is proclaimed in an unbelieving, infidel society. Second is the migration stage, where Muslim numbers are built up, and Muslim strength is consolidated. Third is the jihad stage, where the existing safe haven is used as a launching point to further expand their grip on a nation.

The aim is to establish Islamist political domination, resulting in an ideal Islamic state. The Islamists believe that all lands belong to Allah anyway, and the promotion of sharia law is seen as a means to cleanse the pagan lands so that the ideal Islamic state can be realised.

Islamists have made quite clear their goals, and Sookhdeo cites a number of these. For example, Egyptian Muslim preacher ‘Amr Khalid said this back in 2008: “The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans do not – this means that within 20 years the Muslims will be the majority.”

And many non-Muslims agree. Middle East expert Bernard Lewis put it this way: “Current trends will have a Moslem majority by the end of the 21st century at the latest…. Europe will be part of the Arabic West.” The question does not seem to be if but when.

The Islamist agenda has been until recently aided and abetted by weak-willed and fuzzy thinking politicians and policy experts. Sookhdeo notes how the British policy of integration was altered in the 1960s. Instead of expecting the incoming minorities to fit in with and accept the majority culture, values and consensus, they were to be accepted as is, and were to be allowed to develop almost in parallel tracks.

“Acceptance can be compared to a stew-pot, in which various ingredients are mixed in a plentiful sauce that links them together, but where they retain some of their distinctive characteristics.” But this led to the tossed salad, in which pluralism began to replace integration.

And that in turn led to the fruit bowl, in which each group was encouraged to maintain its own identity. This concept of multiculturalism reigned supreme for over two decades, but the new conservative Government under David Cameron has now proclaimed multiculturalism to be a failure.

It has recognised that multiculturalism simply encouraged Muslims to see Islam as their main identity instead of their country. Says Sookhdeo, “They have a nominal allegiance to the British nation: their official nationality is British and they carry British passports. But they feel little or no responsibility towards the UK; their primary loyalty and duties are to their religion.”

Sookhdeo continues, “So the Islamic creed (the shahada) is the basis of their worldview; the Islamic law (the sharia) is the content of their lifestyle; and the Islamic ‘nation’ (the umma) is the object of their allegiance. In this way their religion has become an instrument of significant social change.”

This policy in fact encouraged segregation and made integration almost impossible. Deep divisions, and not unity, have been the result. And we are seeing all this now played out in Australia. Their call for “legal pluralism” should be sending alarm bells ringing all over the nation.

This is not a recipe for assimilation and unity. Quite the contrary, this is a call for a two-tiered legal system – to begin with – and the complete division of a nation. No nation can long exist with such separatist leanings and goals. Either guests who come here accept the values and customs of this land, or they should stay back where they came from.

All they are doing is leaving one sharia-led tyranny, and seeking to establish another one in a democratic nation. That amounts to destabilisation and eventually treason. Britain has rightly turned its back on the failed policy of multiculturalism, and Australia, if it is to survive, must do the same.

Otherwise we will not end up with genuine “legal pluralism” but with only one legal system: sharia law. And it will lead to a new segregation, with Westerners who do not embrace the totalist Islamist agenda being turned into second class citizens, or dhimmis.

We must choose in which direction this nation will proceed. And we must decide soon. Because freedom and political Islam cannot co-exist.

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.