Norwegian foreign minister: Sharia courts are out of the question

"I believe desegregation is our society's biggest social challenge. We must have a common fundament [sic!]

lol, a common fundament. How can a word mean both "anus" and "an underlying theoretical basis or principle" at the same time? What a language we speak.

Anyway, back on topic, good for Norway. It looks like Europe is slowly but surely waking up to the grim realities of having Islam as part of their society. Being of Scandinavian origin, it upsets me to see the damage being caused by Islam in this area, in particular. I would like to imagine that Europe's Muslim problem doesn't apply to Scandinavia, but that thought simply isn't grounded in reality.

"I believe desegregation is our society's biggest social challenge. We must have a common fundament [sic!] and a set of values anchored in universal principles of law if we are to succeed" -- Norwegian foreign minister, in an interview with the daily Aftenposten

The Norwegian foreign minister does not (yet) understand that it is not merely a question of preventing an alternative legal system from gaining a foothold, a legal system that is all-encompassing and that flatly contradicts, in letter and spirit, not only the Norwegian but all the legal codes and institutions and practices of advanced Western societies. He should start by studying the texts of Islam, and understand what the Shari'a embodies. If he does, if he understands that Islam is a Total Belief-System, if he understands that it does not accord legitimacy to what are seen as "man-made laws" if those laws conflict with the Shari'a, if he further comes to understand that the Qur'an is considered the uncreated and immutable word of God, not to be changed, and subject to interpretation in the early days of Islam, and no longer to be subject to further interpretation (the Gates of Ijtihad slammed shut long ago), and with the interpretative principle of naskh or abrogation making the Qur'an even more harsh and dangerous to Infidels than one unaware of this principle of naskh might think -- if he does that, then he will come to realize that Norway itself is in play, and that a large-scale Muslim presence in that country, as elsewhere in Europe, threatens the safety, security, and existence of the West. But this he does not understand, and he is only, right now, as with those who ban the minarets or the burqa, nibbling at the edges of a colossal, and man-made, and entirely avoidable problem that should never have been allowed to occur, through the negligence and ignorance of political and media elites to which, one assumes, this foreign minister may himself belong and, unlike Geert Wilders or others more far-seeing analytical, and courageous, still cannot bring himself to see.

And there is at least one other revealing quotation from this minister -- revealing, and infuriating. It is this:

"We must take the concerns of immigrants and ancestral Norwegians seriously, for example when an 80-year-old ethnic Norwegian woman fears the neighbourhood is changing, or the anxiety a 30-year-old Somali single mother experienced during her encounters with things that are purely Norwegian."

He is putting on the same level the "concerns" of Norwegians themselves to preserve their own society, developed over a thousand years, and the "concerns" of those who have no connection, none, with the country of Norway or what it developed over time, and cannot, if they remain Muslims, and to the precise extent that they take Islam to heart, possibly support, defend, admire, participate wholeheartedly in, any aspect of Norwegian society or its polity. And for the foreign minister of Norway to think he has to put on the same plane of his concern the "concern" of that "80-year-old Norwegian grandmother" who "fears that the neighborhood is changing" (and her neighborhood is changing, and her country too, thanks to the criminal negligence of many who ruled, in Norway, or who presumed to inform, in Norway, over the last few decades) and the "concern" of a "30-year-old Somali single mother" who, along with her child or children (where's the damn father?) is now a huge expense to the generous Norwegian taxpayers who will be supporting her, and unless she becomes a Christian or, like her countryman Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an apostate -- and how many people are as advanced, and thoughtful as Hirsi Ali? -- she will never fit in, and should never have been admitted to Norway in the first place, where she and hundreds of thousands of other Muslims, in Norway as in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzgeralnd, Sweden, have caused and are causing and will cause, no matter what vain efforts are made within Europe -- mimicking the vain efforts of the Americans to re-fashion Muslim societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, at great and hopeless expense -- to integrate Muslims while carefully ignoring the real nature of what Islam inculcates, and remains forever present, sometimes open, sometimes disguised or hidden or partly suppressed in the minds of its adherents, but merely dormant and ready to become not merely a mild forme fruste of the disease, but to present in its full inflammatory form, with all that that -- for 80-year-old grandmothers and for all non-Muslim Norwegians --portends.

"...or the anxiety a 30-year-old Somali single mother experienced during her encounters with things that are purely Norwegian."

Wow - that's gotta be tough. Everyone knows those "purely Norwegian" things are enormously stress-producing. Such as hearing Edvard Grieg's "Morning Mood," or going to see an Ibsen play. Oh that poor "anxious single Somali woman" who has somehow been fortunate enough to land in civilization out of the barbarism of Somalia.

Norway doesn't owe anything to Somalis' or Muslims! Why the hell are you wrecking your country?

I"m not sharing my fundament with anyone!

I"m not sharing my fundament with anyone!

It's funny, all of the left-wing establishment (and many on the right) in the West are ALWAYS operating on the fundamental assumption that most immigrants from other cultures, when given a democratic free choice, will prefer Western values over their own traditional culture when the two conflict. Nobody can even dare to imagine that this might not be true, and nobody has any plans whatsoever on how they might deal with this possibility on a large scale.

For many in the West, the idea that intelligent, educated, materially satisfied non-Westerners might honestly prefer their own (often non-liberal) non-Western values over liberal Western ones is an idea that goes wayyyy outside the bubble of their worldview, and as such can't even be entertained.

Well, here are some purely Norwegian things that might cause a little apprehension..

http://www.miljostatus.no/PageFiles/617/ulv480x250.jpg

And then there are these fellows.

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/countries/norway-photos/#svalbard_5995_600x450.jpg

Of course, the creatures to which I drew attention above are found in other places, but they belong in Norway just as much as in, say, Canada or Russia.

And the Mohammedans ought to stop and reflect upon the fact that the modern Norwegians are descended from people who managed to survive in a periodically-freezing landscape full of wolves and bears; and that quite a few Norwegians still go hunting.

Here's another example of Norway dealing with Islam...
A few years ago I was in Oslo when the Immam's constant nagging finally got the government to agree to allowing an amplified call to prayer from the minaret on Fridays, providing they kept it below a specified sound level.

The first Friday, they followed the rules and kept it soft. Once emboldened, they crept up the volume every subsequent Friday, thinking they were entitled and the Norwegians would do nothing.

How wrong! The Norwegian Health and Safety guys were out with a decibal-reader monitoring the rising sound-levels. After 3 weeks of infractions (hey Dhimmi's we'll play the tape as loud as we feel like!)not only did they force the Muslims to turn down the sound, they made them turn it OFF, PERMANENTLY.

They determined they couldn't be trusted with any promises. A few months later, Norway was one of the first countries on this planet to officially BAN forced marriages.

Any family caught sending a daughter off to Pakistan or an Arabic country for an "arranged" (ie forced) marriage was prosecuted then invited to leave Norway permanently. "Invited" is a kind word for get the *#X% out, and your gift of Norwegian citizenship is no longer valid!

Apparently there's still a bit of clout in Thor's hammer...

That 30-y-o "Somali single mother" is more likely the 30-y-o Somali mother of 6, the third wife of a Somali deadbeat who, along with her and his other wives and many children, is sponging off the generous Norwegian welfare system.

Norwegian foreign minister: Sharia courts are out of the question

Further Moslem immigration should also be "out of the question".

It would be useful to compare and contrast the situation of religious Jews in secular societies with that of the Muslims. At first sight it would appear to be the same. An ancient, unique society, with its own set of laws, establishes itself in an alien culture. Biblical Judaism, taken only from the original texts without the rabbinic commentary, is not far off from Islam; a strict society, enforcing compliance. Here the similarity ends.

Jews come to the West as refugees, and consider ourselves in "exile" from our homeland, to which we will be restored in Messianic Times. The Talmudic dictum for how we consider the laws of our new homes is "Dinah Malchutah Dinah," "The laws of the kingdom are the laws." Local law trumps Jewish law. If the two become totally incompatible, the Jew must find a new home.

Muslims come as the advance guard of an invasion force. It would be totally against the spirit and the letter of Jewish law for Jews to take over a country outside Israel, and it has never even been tried, although we have often been accused of it due to our success. For Muslims, such a scenario is the FULFILLMENT of their law. It is the difference between a "promised land," and a "promised planet."

There are areas where the two systems collide, particularly marriage and divorce, and it would be useful for Europeans to study the ways America works to reconcile the two.

It is also interesting, from the point of view of a believing Jew, to see how the Ruropeans, who leveled all kinds of accusations against their Jews, eventually turning against them, and now face another immigrant group who actually DO what they accused the Jews of doing! Amost makes you think there is a HAND guiding this.

We must have a common fundament and a set of values anchored in universal principles of law if we are to succeed...

Practices not part of Norwegian culture shouldn't be able to obtain legitimacy from alternative court systems...

These locutions of "must" and "should" in this context are curious.

The laws of a polity are not about "must" and "should": those kinds of terms belong in the sphere of ethics, not laws. Laws, strictly speaking, pertain to a sphere based in ethics, but beyond ethics: Laws have moved beyond "you must do this because it's good" or "you shouldn't do this because it's bad", to the level of "if you do X society will punish you". The Ten Commandments are not an invitation to debate further: it signals the end of the discussion. Thou Shalt Not, period. The Decalogue brooks no further dialogue.

Now, Norwegian Foreign Minister Støre's locutions might make sense if he were speaking of the meaning of any given particular law, or any given particular moral principle whose translation into future law is being debated. But he's not. He's speaking of the laws themselves -- or more precisely, of the legal sphere itself. He is thus confusing categories. A polity's laws as a whole, considered as the systemic embodiment of the polity itself -- as distinguished from any particular law -- are not up for debate within that polity. The only form that "debate" can take in terms of the polity's laws as a whole, would be revolution or coup d'etat or the extraordinary measure of the emergency imposition of martial law.

It is on this level, then, that people -- including people who should know better (such as Foreign Ministers) -- glibly conceive of the fantasy of "Sharia courts" within a non-Islamic polity. This glib conceit is erroneous whether it is advocated, or whether it is rejected. Both the advocates and opponents are misapprehending the proper categorical issue: A "parallel court system" is, categorically speaking, impossible. It would be a polity within a polity -- a nation within a nation: a state within a state.

There is no such thing in modern Western political science, or perhaps in any, or most, political science of other civilizations, other eras, of a state within a state. There is, in fact, only one civilization (if one can loosely call it that) where such a concept of a state within a state is conceivable and was practiced: Islam. And the alien "state" or "nation" that was politico-legally accommodated within the formal polity was the body of people categorized as dhimmis. In the dhimmitude system, however (and not surprisingly), the extra-legal body-within-a-body did not derive its special laws from itself, but had its laws conferred upon it by the host polity. The underlying principle of separation-within-a-unity was established; however, it was not a politico-legal symbiosis of equals, or of co-dependents, or of two spheres neither of which impinges on the other: it was definitely a unilaterally dependent situation: the polity of dhimmis were parasitical upon the host polity -- but only at the formal indulgence of that host polity as expressed explicitly in the host polity's own laws.

The misapprehension of many Westerners with regard to the prospect of such "Sharia courts", thus, is no mere categorical slip due to illiteracy of legal philosophy and political science: it points to a deeper ignorance of the problem of Islam. These fantasy "Sharia courts" that naive Westerners imagine could be realized would not be spheres subservient legally to the Western host polity's laws: that would be the mirror-image of Islamic dhimmitude. To the degree that this fantasy's fundamentally incoherent and vague substance can be understood, it conceives of essentially two polities existing as one -- a "double state" so to speak, legally and politically equals, yet one: a zygote that, one supposes, is supposed to grow organically into a unified political entity (as the human zygote of ovum and sperm cell grows into a single person). This may work biologically, but when translated into politics -- particularly when one of the two polities enshrines laws that in numerous ways are outrageously antithetical to the laws of the host polity -- it will create not a new life, but a monster. Furthermore, not only are Islamic laws considered singly outrageously antithetical to the laws of any Western polity; the Islamic legal system itself is antithetical to the Western legal system, insofar as Islam rejects as a blasphemy and as a capital crime the Western idea that man creates laws, and mandates the eventual conquest and transformation of any politico-legal sphere that does not submit to Allah and to Muhammad. The "parasitic" system of this fantasy zygote, then, has an internal DNA, so to speak, that encodes the necessity for it to destroy its host and to then dominate -- at that point allowing its formerly dominant host the option of becoming a subservient parasite itself, under dhimmitude.

At any rate, such a monster is an impossibility in the Western system, because of the nature of political science. There is no such thing as a "double nation" -- a polity that fuses two polities. Such a new entity would have to be created de novo, as the result of a revolution. It cannot simply materialize through the glibly illiterate imaginations of an ill-educated citizenry.

A Western polity can only politico-legally accommodate a "Sharia court" in imaginative fancy, extra-legally, through casually forgetting the nature of its own laws and legal system. As the old legal saw goes, "Ignorance of the law does not excuse" -- i.e., just because a person didn't know that what he did broke the law, that will not exempt him from punishment. On a grand scale, then, any Western polity that tries to proceed in realizing such a fantasy as a "Sharia court" may get only so far before those more literate tap them on the shoulder and say, "Um, excuse me, but we can't do that." As bad as PC MC is, I have faith that the West is sufficiently healthy to be able to realize, in time, that Islam cannot be accommodated in this way -- not merely that Islam "should not" be accommodated in this way, but simply and literally that it cannot, without breaking the mold of the nature of the Western polity (or, of course, the alternative: becoming conquered by Muslims and thus transformed into an Islamic polity).

The next step in literacy after that would be to realize that such a fantasy accommodation (or its practical alternative, Islamic conquest) is the only way Islam can exist as Islam within the West -- and that those Muslims who seem to be more or less integrating into our sociopolitical fabric are simply, in that respect, not following Islam -- either out of sheer ignorance of their own Islam, or out of sinister motives of infiltration in the hope that someday they will be strong enough to conquer.

For the last 60 years since the immigration of Muslims into the West has been unprecedentedly massive (and continues without abatement currently), the West has had the luxury of imagining that the two "civilizations" can co-exist in a variety of ways -- either that masses of Muslims can simply integrate into the West's politico-legal system, or that fantasy "Sharia courts" can be created -- because the issue has not been pressed in a sufficiently concrete way. We are only beginning to see signs here and there of the issue being pressed, but so far those who bury their heads in the sand are massively encouraged to continue doing so, and they have extra motivation because of their PC MC sentimentality about Muslims as ethnic peoples whose accommodation becomes de rigueur according to the unofficial laws of PC MC which carry a far worse penalty than mere monetary fines or jail time: the accusation (or even the mere perception) of "bigotry".

I would add to my last post:

Make no mistake, even a politician like Norwegian Foreign Minister Støre who rejects "Sharia courts" is in denial about the danger of Muslims, for he rejects "Sharia courts" precisely in the context of continuing to expect, and support, the integration of Muslims into Norwegian society.

Uniform Civil Code should be the standard for all citizens of a nation! It is nation, which should stand above everything else! And should anybody insist on his/her personal faith being upheld above even the nation, then he/she either deserves a psycho-treatment or should be thrown out of the nation. He/she must never be thrown into a jail, else, he/she would still be a liability to the nation till the time he/she survives on the concerned nation's land!

I am for upholding the Uniform Civil Code and the Nation's Constitution above all personal, religious, social issues! The only thing that can be above nation is "HUMANITY" and nothing else!

You all seem so happy with the news that somewhere, somehow, someone didn't cave to Oil Money Bribes - but they will cave, just like everybody else. Why get your hopes up - do you really think Norway is brave and willing to shrink their gut to show they have a pair? I don't think any of you really think that. How long till they cave? It is just a matter of time - unless people start getting really mad - hasn't started to happen yet anywhere - it is up to the rest of us to get ten times as mad as normal to make up for our sleepy Prozac Nations. Do you have enough youth and energy to do that? Ah, about youths, where the hell are they? Where did all the children go - Ah, long time passing - sure could use those 70 million they murdered by abortion right now couldn't we?

http://newstime.co.nz/norway-bans-sharia-courts.html
“Norway Bans Sharia Courts!”
By Christopher Logan