Italy asks Muslim groups to join 'values charter'

"The veil has never been humiliating to women," said UCOII president Mohamed Nour Dachan"

then why doesn't he wear one?

:))

Good luck with that.

Buona fortuna con quello.

Islam will sing any provisional song necessary to lull the sucker infidels into a state of continuing passivity.

Mohammad's treacherous Treaty of Hudaibiyah needs to be as well-understood in the West as any other historical folly (like the Munich Pact) in order to be fought with open eyes.

If their playbook for war against the infidels ("The Recitation" / al-Qur'an) is not openly analyzed and challenged by the media and politicians and cultural figures and legal scholars and religious leaders, then everything else is merely whistling past the graveyard.

Their own.

And Civilization's.

"the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

Is this supposed to be a serious statement? I can't stop laughing at this.

"the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

Islam has been a uniting force in Europe... it united people during Charles Martel's time, during Jan Sobeskis time, during El Cid's time, during Ferdinand and Isabella's time, during Vlad the Impaler's time and during the times of several Popes and Richard the Lionheart among many others.

Islam has positively united people in old Europe - bringing together disparate fiefdoms under noble and common purposes.

"...the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

I just choked on my coffee.

he felt the charter should mention "the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

And what was that? The use of tiles in southern Europe?

It would be nice if they also included a statement on freedom of conscience; freedom to change one's religion without penalty.

The "positive role if Islam in... Europe" comes down to reminding Europeans that they are corrupt, damned, servile infidel dogs.

That's a glowing "postive" from Islam's point of view.

Everyone here is being too Euro-centric.

That'll end pretty soon.

Especially with Italians like this at the helm.

Ship of Fools, illustrated by Heironymous Bosch.

The new EU flag.

Orianna Fallaci and Magdi Allam, and a handful of others, have helped to bring this about. So has the ghost of Indro Montanelli, who died in 2001, before the attacks, but whose witness-to-history tutoring of Italians about their own past, both the past of Italian history (he wrote excellent studies intended for, and gratefully received by, a wide audience) and especially about the recent past, that is of the Ventennio (the twenty-years of Fascism, in peace and war) and the Cold War (a defender, in Italy, of America and American foreign policy whenever it made sense, as it did so often).

The desire by the Italians to allow into Italy to live those who share the most basic of its animating ideas, and to deny that great privilege (imagine being allowed to permanently inherit a share in most of the art, and much else, of the Western world) to those who do not share, who are hostile to, who are bent on changing and destroying, the legal and political institutions of Italy as of all non-Muslim societies and who, furthermore, not only do not appreciate, but are actively hostile to, the art of Italy and of those who produced or admire or study it, is perfectly justified.

And a model for the rest of the West.

he felt the charter should mention "the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

Mind you, he is serious about that. Positive as seen from the viewpoint of true muslims.

There is no dialogue with muslims.

I hope they included some clear indication that religions and religious figures face criticism and that the free expression of that was highly treasured and jealously guarded

Excerpt from Muslim veils 'should be allowed in court'

The wearing of the Muslim veil in court was backed by new official guidelines today.

Senior judges who examined whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear the full facial covering, known as the niqab, said it should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Muslim women should be permitted to wear the garment providing it did not interfere with the administration of justice, the Judicial Studies Board’s Equal Treatment Advisory Committee said.

The guidance follows a case at an immigration court in Stoke-on-Trent last November where the judge, George Glossop, ordered an adjournment because he was having difficulty hearing legal executive Shabnam Mughal.

The guidelines said: “Each situation should be considered individually in order to find the best solution in each case.”

Forcing a woman to choose between participating in a court case or removing the veil could have a “significant impact on that woman’s sense of dignity”, it added, and could serve to “exclude and marginalise” her.

Committee chairwoman Mrs Justice Cox said: “At the heart of our guidance is the principle that each situation should be considered individually in order to find the best solution in each case.

“We respect the right for Muslim women to choose to wear the niqab as part of their religious beliefs, although the interests of justice remain paramount.

“If a person’s face is almost fully covered, a judge may have to consider if any steps are required to ensure effective participation and a fair hearing - both for the woman wearing a niqab and for other parties in the proceedings.

“This is not an issue that lends itself to a prescriptive approach - we have drawn on a wealth of cases that demonstrate that, and we have drawn up guidance for different court personnel and parties.”

Excerpt from Face veils in court

Al-Dasooqi said: " When testimony is given concerning a woman who wears niqaab (face-veil), she has to remove her niqaab. This applies in the case of marriage and other matters, such as selling, giving gifts, debts, power of attorney, and so on. This is the opinion favoured by our shaykh." (Haashiyat al-Dasooqi 'ala'l-Sharh al-Kabeer, 4/194).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.
Shaykh al-Dardeer said: "It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like." (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li'l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)

Ibn Qudaamah said: "The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: 'He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.'" (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer 'ala Matan al-Muqni', 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people's rights.

The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-'Alaa'iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma'a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

"...the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

Croissants?

Has no caught on that the more Muslims you have the more problems you have or do people think it's being unrelated. It's the fault of those who don't tolerate the cross the message of tolerance that and freedom of speech that has come back at them by letting the dove out of the cage and letting the serpent sneak in.

The metaphor is this: Muslims are now the Jews of 2000 years ago, the sensitive religious sect and zealous blasphemy claims; the Europeans have gone back to being the Romans the law makers who just give into pressure; the Christians are the ones persecuted like Christ and told to shut up and go away don't wear a cross, as Christ many will walk this journey as foretold of the consequences and its burdens.

This is what happens when 3 or now shall we say 50? Different sects all with there own agendas try and change everything or maintain but are torn between. This has lead to wars and more separatist ways and there is no Good in saying multi-culturist works when the people you let in won't abide by rules that has taken Western civilisation out of the dark ages only for them to adopt values that not even tribal primitives would have lived in.

To be honest the Roman rule is better than Sharia law they let Jews be Jews and could not find Jesus a punishment by law by what he was saying about God and like the Muslims of today the Jews forced it on the Roman rule in court our opened rules of the West. Have things changed? Or have things gone full circle again. Well when the time comes Christians will be led like Christ on the chopping board and once one half of mankind against his elect the new genocides begin to end all wars.

Islam's role in Europe has been one of a colonial power.

Islam was ejected from Europe through a series of wars of national liberation, starting with the liberation of Spain completed in 1492, followed many years later by the revolutions in Greece and the Balkan states in the nineteenth century.

Europe has always been threatened by Islamic colonization and would do well to remember that fact. So let the West be tolerant and let the West be fair to all who live there. But let the West retain and insist upon its own values and mores. And may the West never, ever let its guard down and forget the nature of the Islamic ideology, demonstrated over and over throughout history.

"The veil has never been humiliating to women," said UCOII president Mohamed Nour Dachan, adding that he felt the charter should mention "the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

The second statement, as FreeSpeech above pointed out, is something they seriously believe. In other words, the capture of Constantinople, the conquest of Spain and the destruction of the Byzantine empire and conquest of the Balkans are all positive contributions of Islam to the history of Europe. One wonders whether the enslavement of European children from the Children's crusade by the Muslims could be thrown in the above as well? The committee above should also throw in the battle of Poitiers, Lepanto, the seige of Vienna and the independence wars of the Greeks, Bulgars and Serbs into this mix as well.

All in all, a good first step by Italy, and one worth emulating elsewhere in Europe.

"Islam's role in Europe has been one of a colonial power.

Islam was ejected from Europe through a series of wars of national liberation, starting with the liberation of Spain completed in 1492, followed many years later by the revolutions in Greece and the Balkan states in the nineteenth century."
-- from a posting above

Exactly.

But the new colonists are in disguise, and as long as they keep that disguise on they will still be permitted not only to remain in the lands they are busy colonizing, and the locals whose every assitance they are busily exploiting, recognition of this new form of colonisation will not be recognized.

And it is helped, no doubt, by the the filters in the mental lenses of many Infidels, that block out so much that is disturbing about Islam, or prettify, by their misleading addition of color or of the wrong colors, so much else about Islam.

Throw out those filters. Smash them.

That is what such straightforward description of the problem, as the poster provides above if repeated and repeated -- repetition est mater studiorum, but not only of studies -- until it is on everyone's lips (even the lips of those who attempt to refute it -- once the enemy is forced to use your language, your definitions, you have already won a great victory) -- provides.

Excellent.

This charter will be readily accepted by Italian Muslims, because Muslims believe in Western values, as everyone knows. But wait... if they already believe in them, what prompted the creation of this charter?

I believe it was Adelard of Bath who said that the Arabs taught him to use reason rather than just blind faith and there is no need to deny that works in Arabic, whether translations of Greek authors, commentaries thereon or original contributions (al-khwarizmi, for example) had for a period of some two to three hundred years, but especially in the twelve century a tremendous impact on European thought and provided the foundation for standard text books, some of which continued to be used for hundreds of years after Europeans found they no longer needed recourse to Arabic works and went their own way. Nor is it really important whether these Arabic works were produced or translated by Arabs or Persians, Muslims, Christians or Jews. The point is this that Europeans were influenced by Arabic works pertaining to Greek philosophy, mathematics, medicine and astronomy, but precisely not by Islam. The intellectual response to Islam was Christian apologetics against Islam. While at various times and places (mainly Spain, but also partly from the Middle East) during those few centuries of our history there were things emanating from within the Islamic world which had a great impact and served as a stimulus - alongside a later stimulus on the fall of Byzantium and the heading west of many Byzantine scholars - on the subsequent intellectual development of Europe and the West. But Islam was not one of those things. The role of Islam per se was quite different.

"...he felt the charter should mention "the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

House slippers and mystery meat kebabs.

"the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

This is part of the propaganda campaign to allege that Islamic "culture" is superior to European culture. (It's the usual lies, whether about the so-called "tolerance" of others when Arabs controlled parts of Spain, or the claim that Arabs were responsible for the European Renaissance, etc., etc.) Lies repeated by the Islamic apologists and Christian dhimmis.

Bay Ye'or does an excellent job of documenting the transformation of Europe into Eurabia.

I'm seeing the same process under way in Canada. Massive numbers of immigrants; communities which are not integrating; mosques controlled by militant Imams; Muslim MPs (elected into Canada's parliament) who express Islamic supremacy; open expressions of Muslim antisemitism and hatred of Israel; a collaboration of so-called "academics" (these are not true academics but religiously motivated defenders of Islam) with "universities" in Egypt; establishment of chairs in Islamic "studies" (and the accompanying proclamations of "How proud Canadians should be that this is the first of its kind in North America!"); the media's 100 percent backing, approval, and encouragement of the Islamists who claim, of course, to speak for all Muslims in Canada; the creation of newspapers, media, etc. devoted solely to Muslim supremacy issues; the building of bigger and bigger mosques; etc. Thus, we see in Canada the politicians (they all rush to appeal to radical Muslims and have them become MPs); the academics (they are more than anxious to secure Muslims in every and all academic faculties); the churches (many of the Christian churches are becoming the promoters of Islamist "causes"); immigration policies (people on the Refugee Boards who determine who can or cannot enter Canada, increasingly favour Muslims, while refusing, say, Coptic Egyptians, etc.); attempts at having laws adopted (Sharia law); and, of course, never mind the "arts" (it's awash in anti-American, anti-western propaganda themes, from false victimization stories to endless accusations about white "racists", etc.); the on-going Da'wa found on Vision network, radio programs; and probably much, much more that I don't have time to list.

Today, an editorial was published in the National Post -- about how Multiculturalism is a failed policy and how it should "Rest in Peace" (be buried as a failed political experiment.) Unfortunately, that's about the most concerted or forceful statement in the press -- ie, "Multiculturalism, Rest in Peace" -- it's so tame as to be laughable. I really don't think there's sufficient will to resist or stop Canada's progress to becoming an Islamic state -- there's just mild mutterings. Meanwhile, the flood of immigrants continue, our media, schools, and parliaments are saturated with the Islamist propaganda agendas. We're not combating it -- this infiltration at every level, this colonization -- we're acquiescing. (hmmm...I remember when I first came to Canada, as an American, I'd frequently scoff at Canadians and call them "colonials"...all that bowing and scraping to the Brits...at one time, I thought, "o how wrong of me to have thought that!" now, I'm not so sure...so it's back to "dang Colonials!")

********

The charter enshrines "the right to religious freedom and equality between man and woman ... and wants to prevent women from experiencing humiliation and polygamy...

The seven-page document refers to European values and those of the Italian constitution, and condemns terrorism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia...

*********

By cleverly asking muslims to join in in this "values character", one must congratulate Italy's interior ministry for having the nous to realise that muslims are lacking in all of the above.

"the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

What would that be exactly?

Amazing how pretty much everyone catched the important sentence:

"the positive role of Islam in the history of Europe."

This news makes me
want to go out and have pasta
at the local Italian restaurant,
have a bottle of chianti,
and Amaretta on the rocks for dessert.

That sounds good to people like us who honor agreements.

The Muhammedans, when pressed, sign anything and then go back to the mosque and preach 'kill unbelievers and Jooozzz'- like this guy here, he lies when he opens his mouth:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/04/24/catmeat-sheikh-sure-i-gave-money-to-hizballah/

I'm concerned by the irrationality that is increasing among the most zealous posters here. Anyone who follows the news even slightly should be aware that there is an international jihad to establish a global caliphate that will enforce shari'a universally, and if you don't convert to Islam, you can be a dhimmi or be killed. Nevertheless, some posters feel a sick need to vent on their natural allies. Witness jesusisthelamb's anti-Semitic words of hatred above, which would surely shame the great preacher of Nazareth, whose message of love is completely lost on jesusisthelamb:

The metaphor is this: Muslims are now the Jews of 2000 years ago, the sensitive religious sect and zealous blasphemy claims; the Europeans have gone back to being the Romans the law makers who just give into pressure; the Christians are the ones persecuted like Christ and told to shut up and go away don't wear a cross, as Christ many will walk this journey as foretold of the consequences and its burdens.

This is what happens when 3 or now shall we say 50? Different sects all with there own agendas try and change everything or maintain but are torn between. This has lead to wars and more separatist ways and there is no Good in saying multi-culturist works when the people you let in won't abide by rules that has taken Western civilisation out of the dark ages only for them to adopt values that not even tribal primitives would have lived in.

To be honest the Roman rule is better than Sharia law they let Jews be Jews and could not find Jesus a punishment by law by what he was saying about God and like the Muslims of today the Jews forced it on the Roman rule in court our opened rules of the West. Have things changed? Or have things gone full circle again. Well when the time comes Christians will be led like Christ on the chopping board and once one half of mankind against his elect the new genocides begin to end all wars.

"Muslims are now the Jews of 2000 years ago." If I had to give a grade to this drivel, it would be F-. Judaism, unlike Christianity or Islam, is not a universal religion. We do not aspire to convert the world, at any time in the past, now or in the future. The Jews of 2000 years ago did not try to conquer the world or make it submit. We thought it would be nice to be left alone and not forced to submit to the Roman Empire. Is there something objectionable about that?

"They let Jews be Jews." Liar! If you read what the Roman Empire did to some of the great Torah teachers of the early 2nd century, you might pray for a jihadist to come along and chop off your head.

"[They] could not find Jesus a punishment by law." Oh? But why were the Romans willing to crucify 200,000 other Jews besides Jesus? Maybe they weren't as sweet as you imagine.

The jihadists are coming to kill you or enslave you, and all you can think about is a 2000-year-old libel. Guess what? I've got some grudges about pogroms, massacres, the Holocaust, etc. "We can hang together, or we will surely hang separately."

Surak said -

"If I had to give a grade to this drivel, it would be F-."

Agreed. I find jesusisthelamb's run-on ravings difficult to read and at times, nonsensical. Lately I just skip over what he/she writes, I don't have time to try to decipher the meaning behind the stream of words.

Surak, thanks for bringing things back on topic and into perspective. After reading some of the comments such as the one that you dissected, I sometimes wonder about the true identity of some of the more "zealous" posters here, and whether they really support Mr. Spencer's work, or whether they are actually trolls trying to derail the threads and intentionally obfuscate the topic at hand, while at the same time make this site appear to others as nothing more than another playground for right wing reactionary xenophobes, when in fact the message disseminated here by Spencer, et al has universal appeal for all who oppose jihad supremacy and support equality and the dignity of mankind.

Hey, that's really funny, Abu Allah...

For all we know you too could be a troll to derail the thread. As far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion board -- you will read all sorts of opinions (some rational, some irrational, some hate-filled, etc.) I don't care. Those which are too offensive are usually deleted.

Back to the topic at hand. What I find problematic is the lame (?), weak (?) western response to the concerted efforts of the Islamists. A "Charter" for Muslim groups to sign? Yeah, that's gonna do something!

Or, (as per the newspaper article I referred to in my original post), one reads that a "33-year-old Muslim"..."has been named the Liberal party candidate in the federal riding of ..." and who "has published views on issues of the day" which include: "Israel's policy toward Palestinians is one of 'murdering children, raping women and torturing an entire populace'...India, Chak claimed, is a sham democracy in which people are 'pummel[ed] into stupor' by Brahmins; ... and a book review he published gives sympathetic treatment to the theory that the Islamist terror campaign against Algeria and France in the 1990s was part of a conspiracy engineered by Algiers and Paris." Once again, that is the chosen candidate for a Liberal Party riding. Note that the Liberal Party is NOT the most leftist party in Canada -- that goes to the nut-jobs at the NDP. The Liberals are considered "mainstream". So you want "irrationality??" Well, you don't have to go to a discussion board on the Internet about Islamism to find it -- just go to a local Liberal Party Candidates riding here in Canada. Yet the response to this by Canadians? Zero. And even the editorialist, his response? It's "Multiculturalism, R.I.P." Wow, now there's a powerful, heart-felt statement...that will sure get the Islamists cringing and riled up, eh?

Anyway, the up-shot is not about "xenophobia." It's about re-asserting western values. Personally, I don't give a horses' a--- what ethnicity/ religion / etc., someone expresses or adheres to -- IF there is a simultaneous basic tolerance towards others and a basic acceptance of Canadian values (and that would include not only the equality before the law provisions, but also looking at evidence prior to laying ludicrous charges - many of these conspiracy claims made by the Islamists are nothing more than modern-day blood libels).

They will breed europeans into sharia using democracy to vote for thier stonage laws. Their birth rates vs europeans is like 8 to 1. Only a matter of time.

The peculiarity of Giuliano Amato, the Interior Minister whose handiwork this Charter is (he has been working at it ever since he took office) is that he has a habit of being the one intelligent man in a stupid group, the one respected man in a contemptible group, and even the one unstained man in a corrupt group. He became prominent in the time of Craxi, in the eighties, in Craxi's own Socialist Party, yet managed to completely escape the crassness and the corruption that doomed Craxi and brought about the collapse of the whole political system. The worst thing that even his political enemies could stick on him was the teasing epithet "Dr.Subtle", meaning that he was too clever by half. And so, having survived Craxi's disastrous veer from social democracy towards a highly corrupt form of Thatcherism, he has now reappeared in a prominent position in the equally disastrous Prodi government, one of only two people in the whole coalition, and indeed in Parliament, for whom I have any respect. (The other is Emma Bonino, Minister for Europe. And as I am a Catholic, they both count as political opponents for me. This gives you an idea of how poor in decent and capable people the whole of Italian politics is - left and right.)

The point is however that, just as Amato is the one respectable figure in a contemptible government, so his Charter is a wise measure in a disastrously unwise legislature. The previous immigration law has been scrapped in favour of one which allows in anyone who can find a "sponsor" in Italy - in a country where Albanian and Chinese mafias are finding plenty of common ground with the native article, I will let you guess just how easy it will be to get through this requirement. In effect, the new immigration law amounts to a "let them all in", in a country that already cannot sustain the presence of the current number of immigrants - just look at the spreading third-world favelas that are swiftly surrounding all Italian cities - and that desperately needs a reduction in entries for reasons of mere public order. What is more, legal residents without citizenship are going to be allowed to vote in local elections; while this may be defended as being the same law as other European countries apply, one could not think of a worse time to bring it in, especially since the power of local authorities in Italy is great and increasing - the country is slowly moving towards a fully federal state. If you want to see an entity with the powers of a German or American federal state controlled or blackmailed by Muslim block vote in an European country, this is just the right measure.

What lies at the back of this? The inadequacy of the present so-called government coalition. The Prodi government, made on a "coalition" of hard left, secular soft left with undying Communist nostalgia, and Catholic left with lingering suspicions of capitalism, is an unmitigated disaster and will lose the next elections with absolute certainty (indeed, its win at the last ones was dubious at best). The blocking minority of Catholics which has been fighting to prevent a Zapaterista drift has been notified that their role in the coalition is to shut up; which is politically moronic in a country like Italy, where Catholics are the majority. Prodi's own increasingly visible personal separation from the Church has not helped matters. At the next elections, only a few minority of passionate believers in the impossible reconciliation of the new left with Catholicism will vote for the left; the Catholic drift to Berlusconi will continue, granting that incompetent crook (I am no lover of either side) his third electoral victory, and proving once and for all that his coalition of post-Fascists, Catholics and the secular centre-right, plus the bizarre League, is a natural majority if not a natural governing force.

The reaction of the Left is one with which JW readers will be familiar: losing the majority in the nation at large, they are trying to create a new electorate from the immigrants. The typically Italian twist on it is that, as I pointed out, they begin with local government, working to establish the new minorities as decisive voting blocks in local elections. As local government is very powerful in Italy, this will allow the immigrant minorities to create party machines of their own, controlling the police and allowing further immigration and large-scale naturalization (grants of citizenship). Not all these immigrant groups are Muslim; the Chinese, for instance, represent a large and dangerous presence (they recently rioted in Milan against police controls, with the inevitable support of the local left). But certainly Muslims are going to be a major feature of the emerging coalition - not so much new left as newer-yet left.

Unfortunately for the Italians, Muslims are prohibited from any honest dealings or binding agreements with the "infidel" world in any world.

Also, Muslims are prohibited from changing anything taught in the Kuran nor are they permitted to let non-Muslims do this for them. So most likely Italy will be stuck with maraudung Islam on its turf for the foreseeable future.

Such a treaty would mean nothing to Islamia.

But, it was a nice try.