From No Sharia: 

Preventing Islamization Europe Page 1

Preventing Islamization Europe Page 2

Preventing Islamization Europe Page 3

POLICY AREA 6: THE POLICY OF ASSIMILATION OR INTEGRATION

1.    BACKGROUND 

The integration or assimilation of Muslim immigrants is the most important political issue in Europe during the first part of the 21st century. It overshadows all other areas, including economic ones, because it concerns the survival of the Western way of life in Europe. The first part of PA 6 explains the background and main reasons for the chosen policy regarding assimilation. Islam as a value system and the concept of "multiculturalism" and its consequences are treated in this section. Persons interested only in the concrete policy proposal should proceed to Part 2. 

RELIGIONS AND IDEOLOGIES AS VALUE SYSTEMS  

All human beings have equal fundamental rights, but their ideologies, opinions, and values differ widely. Ideologies and religions are systems of values. They can be evaluated according to certain objective standards, and various ideologies or religions show very different values, according to these standards. 

The main basic documents of the various religions (the bible, Qur’an etc) play a fundamental role for their value systems. For example, new quantitative research (1) shows, that about 1/3 of the Qur’an deals with infidels who are treated in a distinctly hateful manner. If verses about infidels, which are connected in a passage that contain hatred toward disbelievers, are added, the proportion increases to over 40 %.  If other categories biased against infidels (e.g., Judgment Day) are added, the proportion increases towards one-half. If the abrogation rules regarding the Qur’an are considered, proportions may increase significantly higher.  It is not surprising then that if Islam is judged using various criteria based on important democratic values, one finds that it violates the accepted norms of humanity like the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations (UDHR) in depth.   In addition, of all the consequences of a culture and a religion, those regarding human rights are the most important. 

Islam is clearly inferior to other common value systems because of its refusal to recognize and follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This standpoint of Islam regarding human rights was treated in Policy Area 1(PA 1). Human rights in the Western meaning of the concept do not exist in Islam; human rights are only respected within Islam if they coincide with rules according to the shari'a. 

All historic experience shows that mixing state power and religion is destructive to human rights, freedom, and democracy.  Islam in its political consequences violates commonly accepted conclusions regarding how modern, civilized, and progressive societies shall function. Nor can shari’a rules be allowed to have any practical importance within Muslim immigrant societies, because a parallel society would appear. A parallel society would exist along with the normal one, but the Islamic society would apply only Islamic rules to the behavior of its inhabitants. Islamic rules mean to keep immigrants separate and unintegrated until the country can be taken over, and mullahs and Islamic politicians take political power. Then shari’a law will be implemented, and human rights in the Western sense will disappear. No country can be asked to allow and finance the destruction of its religious, cultural, and political institutions, policies, habits, and culture--but that is what political Islam in Europe demands from European peoples. 

Based on its stand regarding human rights, Islam is an inferior political and human value system and cannot be used as a guide regarding any political issues. This means that the Islam as a religion can never be allowed to spread its values outside the realm of religious worship by individuals. The values of political Islam cannot be allowed to play any role in European countries.

EFFECTS IN VARIOUS AREAS OF HUMAN LIFE

Shari'a deprives the female half of humanity important parts of their lives, thus a considerable part of their possibilities to be happy in life. According to our accumulated experience regarding human nature, gender apartheid rules, like those applied in countries where shari’a laws are widely used, are totally incompatible with the concept of human happiness. That is true for women and, at the same time, men are deprived of natural contact with women. Regarding a matter such as love, most marriages in some Middle East countries may be loveless because of this lack of contact. Another consequence involves arranged marriages--which are often just arranged rapes and usually marital hells on earth. Inequality and lack of appropriate contact between the sexes are important factors. Men are  – by the artificial separation from women generally and by their superior position in the homes –emotionally damaged by the rules of the religion, and never attain proper emotional development.

This is one reason why some men from the Middle East – when talking about women - seem so primitive and immature to Europeans. Adding to that are the following:

• Dysfunctional educational system;

• a religion demanding blind faith and no questioning of Islam;

• myriad religious rules regarding personal behavior which are without any rational foundation;

• political systems built on violence and primitive ideas;

• a culture abhorring foreign influences.

One finds Muslims to be psychologically very different from Europeans. Their views often seem ancient and deformed from ours. That is not surprising. For the first time since the religious wars between Europeans ended in the 17th century, real religious fanaticism has again raised its head in Europe, and we meet people with attitudes that have not existed here for some centuries. 

A “beautification” campaign has been going on in the West regarding Islam during the last decades.  Extensive lies have been promulgated regarding its real character and effects about Islam to disguise its real nature. For example, apologists describe Islam’s treatment of women as “progressive” and “in the interest of women,” like the treatment of Christians and Jews in Muslim societies (dhimmitude). The meaning and significance of real, traditional Islam and concepts and practices, like jihad, are concealed and denied. Historic facts are distorted. For example, apologists uphold that Islam once contributed greatly to global scientific progress. The facts show that the scientific progress in conquered countries during the first centuries of Islam’s existence happened despite Islam, not because of it. Many of their famous thinkers were critical of Islam and resisted various parts of its doctrine, which caused  them to be murdered. The traditions in the countries before they were conquered were essential to any progress that happened after the Islamic occupation. After real Islamic doctrine began dominating the societies and then their scientific life, little progress was made. During the last 500 -  1000 years, Islamic countries have been scientific deserts. 

Considering education, social and economic development, art, etc., Islamic influence has been a chronic disaster. Research reports from organizations within the United Nations show that Arab countries today are among the least developed in the world. Only some countries with oil – discovered by Western entrepreneurs and extracted by Western technology and financed by Western capital – are somewhat better off economically. 

Once cultural stultification becomes neutralized by freeing up societies, freedom becomes the most important force regarding economic development. That is why loosening the iron grip of adestructive ideology loosened up in Japan and China (militaristic nationalism based on Shintoism in Japan; Maoism/Marxism in China) produced considerable economic progress.  Destructive ideologies like fascism, Nazism, and other forms of socialism have been imported to the Middle East to form the bases for political programs. Exactly like in Europe, such ideologies have hurt the countries in many ways including economic ones. However, Islam’s paralyzing iron grip on the cultures of Middle East countries is the most important reason for their lack of economic and political development. 

From an empirical point of view, Islam is destructive for economic development. It also means that more of the same medicine – application of  more radical Islam – will cause still more damage to economic development in the region. If the ideology of political Islam entrenches in Europe, the same stagnation and backwardness will occur there. In my theory about the Islamization of Europe, I  concluded that victory for political Islam in certain or many European countries leads to severe declines of the Gross National Product of those countries. 

The Muslims who “beautify” different aspects of their religion have their work cut out for them. Islam is objectively harmful to many of its followers who do not know anything else and are prevented – in Europe by the emerging parallel societies -  from knowing more. From the perspective of democracy, humanism, and human rights, it is especially important in Europe to free shackled Muslim minds and protect the human rights of the followers of Islam by active and proactive measures. Allowing any interpretation of a religion to be anything more than private practices in the Western sense must not be allowed. Some aspects of religious Islam can be tolerated, but not those of political Islam. 

Because so many Muslims look at themselves as belonging to a separate collective, European countries probably also have to look at Muslims the same way. Fairness must be insisted from Muslim countries, to ensure that Europeans and minorities enjoy exactly the same freedoms in their countries that European countries offer Muslims.

WHICH  RELIGION AND CULTURE?

A relevant question here is. aren’t there important differences between variants of the Islamic religion and between national cultures? Of course, there are numerous local variations regarding the religion, and particularly  cultures. Muslims in different countries interpret the Qur’an somewhat differently. Perhaps they were politically weak in some countries, thus could not fight and dominate the country, which possibly led to their joining the host culture.

However, evidence shows no important theological differences between radical Islamists and so-called  “peaceful” or “moderate” Muslims. Jihadists are just more faithful and more serious with regard to realizing Islam. One religious obligation, which every Muslim must observe, is to realize and institute the laws of Islam, if he is in such political position that he has the power to do so.  Some believers think that it is mandatory to work hard to realize such a situation. Moderates think that if Muslims are not in power, there is no special religious duty to work directly to reach it (unless jihad has been declared). Many or most moderates may want Muslims to reach that kind of power so they can implement the shari'a. 

Traditional Islam is the leading doctrine in the Muslim world. Local and more moderate interpretations are now retreating in many countries because communication and interaction are easy in the modern world; real, traditional Islam can recover the initiative again from local and earlier isolated variants of Islam.  Traditional faith can better control doctrine in various countries now. Because all four schools of Sunni Islam agree on so many matters, that control becomes very difficult to resist intellectually, if one is a Muslim. 

It has been said that the only reason people are troubled by Islam is because it has been "hijacked" by terrorists. Even if terrorists really interpret the Qur’an in extreme ways, this is no reason at all to conclude that Islam has been "hijacked."  What is true is that many - from the beginning normal, peaceful and sound - persons are hijacked by Islam and transformed into fanatics and enemies of democracy, freedom, and human rights. Some of these persons become terrorists. That transformation depends not on the discovery of other tenets of Islam, but on psychological or socio-psychological reasons and the individual circumstances of the person in question. 

Because of the misery of their current lives, death and paradise could seem preferable. A Muslim feels a greater fear of hell than others; or for young sex-starved men, libertine sex in paradise may seem more important than anything else. Or the person takes the teaching that this life is of very small importance more seriously than others and tries to reach the next faster – and dying in jihad is the sure free ticket to paradise. Or he is a strict, serious and logical person and makes reasonable conclusions because of the Qur’an, AHadith and Sunnah.  

In many cases, a moderate Muslim evidently has the same goals as the terrorists but refuses to fight for them with a weapon in his hand and sacrifice himself in battle (until jihad has been legally proclaimed). However, that is no reason to make a sharp differentiation between a moderate and an extreme Muslim religion. The final goals may be very similar, or even the same. It is also always necessary to observe the possibility of taqiyya when listening to a so-called moderate. Extremists find advantages in being labeled as moderates. 

Without a reformed doctrine distinctly and unequivocally securing all human rights and eliminating the unacceptable parts of the Qur’an, opinions of moderates are not especially useful. Opinions can be abandoned and crumble fast if they come under serious pressure from hardliners. No policies in Western countries can be based on a belief in the moderation of Muslims without the existence of clearly reformed Islamic doctrine.  The survival of a nation: its human rights, political system, culture, and future cannot rest on such a weak hope.

"MULTICULTURALISM"

According to the common interpretation, "multiculturalism" in practice means that all cultures and religions are equal. For the reasons given above, that assertion is very wrong. People are equal as human beings but the opinions, culture and values of people have not the same worth. Opinions and culture can generally be valued according to various criteria. Different cultures – being value systems - are therefore not equal. From a political and humanistic point–of-view, some of these systems are - just owing to their positions concerning human rights - worthless in a Western democracy as value systems guiding the society regarding political issues. Regarding the effect of religions in other areas, research should – as said above - be used to show the influence and worth of them concerning educational policy and practice, common culture, crime, social development, income equality, science, economic growth, etc. It is "multiculturalism" in the meaning that the values of Islam and Western society are equal which is treated below.  

Europe is in the process of integration, with many countries melding together to become a unity (the European Union).  This process offers many challenges. Because the value systems in many European countries are now not very different from each other, this integration process may be successful.

It is another matter when the values of ideological systems oppose each other. Islam doesn’t accept that an individual leaves the religion or thinks independently about its various religious theses and publicly rejects certain ones. The basic rules of a democracy regarding a citizen’s right to form an independent opinion about the religion and being free to act on that basis, are not accepted. To apply rules and laws of X-country regarding Islam as if it fundamentally – and not only during a period of weakness - tolerates dissent and other religions, is wrong. Islam does not accept a situation where it exists as a minority culture. It will always try to change that situation and become the majority culture. When it reaches that goal, shari’a will be implemented.  Islam is not just another value system; it is a value system totally opposing European ones. Islam is therefore a special case and must be treated in special ways. 

Another tenet of "multiculturalism" is that if different cultures live together with openness and tolerance, the level of mutual understanding and acceptance will increase until all peacefully accept each others´ ideas, and values (which in the beginning seemed so foreign). However, that is another false idea of "multiculturalism" regarding Islam. One reason is that it demands a tolerance and reciprocity that Islam doesn’t allow. Islam does not make compromises regarding its doctrine. When it is strong, it imposes its values by force. When it is weak, it applies taqiyya, concealing its intentions and misleading in all possible ways. Regarding the value of increasing familiarity and knowledge, it works exactly oppositely: the more Europeans get to know Islam and shari’a, the more they oppose it. They can perhaps respect the purely religious part of Islam, but, because the political part is so dominant, they evidently dislike most of the messages they hear. In general, the greater the Europeans' knowledge about Islam, the greater their resistance to it.  

Religions and cultures other than Islam do not create fundamental problems in Europe, but "multiculturalism" is used primarily to promote Islam. Because the arguments for "multiculturalism" are so weak, "multiculturalism" in Europe is preached as though it is a religion, which doesn’t allow any rational discussions of its merits. Some adherents also use the concept as a convenient method to force otherwise non-acceptable ideas on the European societies. People who question "multiculturalism" are branded - like in the Middle Ages - as heretics: as fascists, Nazis, oppressors, colonialists, etc. However, bully methods used by the "Political Correctness Enforcers" in the press and political life cannot hide a basic fact of reality: different cultures are of different worth. 

"multiculturalism" hardens differences in society and deepens the alienation of members of minority groups having differing values. It helps different cultures resist the pressure to reform objectionable and harmful theories and rules. It divides societies into opposing groups and is therefore a threat to the survival of the European nations, as we know them. It prevents assimilation of immigrants into the society and simultaneously causes resentment in people who cannot live their values in the society. They are made to feel like victims even though the European majority of citizens are the real victims. The disadvantages of "multiculturalism," such as it is preached and exists, clearly outweigh any possible advantages. 

Among the basic reasons for the resentment of a European population Muslim immigrants is the feeling that Muslims have entered the country under false pretences. Many immigrants arrived without any intentions of integrating into the host society. Instead, they joined a parallel one and began living their lives at the expense of the European majority, while waiting for demographic change to give them political power in the country. Then they can force their values on the infidels. It is a kind of treachery that never existed earlier or on such a scale. To move to a society and then - when the number of people of the special faith has grown – start to complain that they are religiously offended by the basic habits and customs in that country, is wrong in principle. Before immigrating to X-country, they knew that X-country had a certain culture. Then to say that they are offended by the culture of the new host country is the same as saying that the “immigrant “ should not have immigrated there. 

The propensity to start trying to change the national culture in various – and basic – ways instead of integrating, shows the fundamental goal of the group and its leaders to take over the country and its culture as soon as they are strong enough. That is the philosophy of an invading force, not of normal immigrants. It is especially serious knowing that every national culture where Islam has become strong and later dominant, has been obliterated and replaced by an Islamic culture. 

"Multiculturalism" is now being used to build parallel Islamic societies in European countries. Mullahs and political leaders keep Islamic values intact in the minds of Muslims who plan to overthrow the indigenous society. Muslim leaders resist all efforts to integrate because they need as many bodies with fanatical faith as possible for the coming fight. Few Europeans have ever understood that their generosity would be used to take their country  away from them. Their mistake was seeing these immigrants as individuals "in need," instead of a collective, trying to dominate European peoples. Islam demands that immigrants from various Islamic countries herd into such a collective. Now Europeans increasingly resent political Islam, and that will have significant political consequences for Europe. 

"Multiculturalism" causes strife - slowly in the beginning but gradually faster with more and more strife. So – aided by "multiculturalism,"  radical Islam in combination with a burgeoning immigrant population from Islamic countries causes a slowly increasing level of conflicts and violence in the society, and, in the end, requires civil war. That development and its phases are described in my theory of the Islamization process in European countries.

Europeans will fight and not accept having their countries and cultures taken from them. If this development is not stopped by an integrated state policy for preventing Islamization, conflict and violence will increase in all European countries as immigrant populations swell. The process has already begun.  It has reached different phases in different countries. 

Religiously based attacks against the culture of X-country, its laws, policies, and customs, are all parts of an effort to weaken the culture in order to expand a parallel society where Muslims live according to the shari’a while their strength increases.  It is imperative to protect the traditional culture and habits of X-country that citizens enjoy. Special rules are required to protect the national culture. At the same time, it is necessary to impose a fast social assimilation process which fully prevents any type of parallel society.  Any immigrant, or descendent of immigrants, who does not accept the laws and policies of X-country regarding integration or assimilation can and shall apply for special financial help to leave the country. 

Every attempt to create a parallel society in order to subdue the European society for shari'a must be declared an extremely serious crime against the country.  Parallel society formation can be compared to treachery during war. Important building blocks for erecting a parallel society are religious hate crimes (RHC) and crimes against integration (CAI) (see below). They are used to segregate members of a certain faith from the rest of the society, erect barriers between populations, and promote enmity between groups in the country.

2.     IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES AND GOALS TO BE REALIZED IN A EUROPEAN COUNTRY

GENERAL RULES 

It must be forbidden by law to use courts to uphold that one is being discriminated against (owing to one’s religion) by various important manifestations of the national culture of X-country.  These host country manifestations include old traditions, tales, customs connected with Christmas, Midsummer, breaking-up day, etc. or by the holidays in themselves. Old and common expressions of the national culture shall not be changed by laws  because of attitudes, rules, and habits of immigrant cultures. That the prevailing culture in X-country has its traditional holidays provides no rationale for immigrant cultures to demand that their holidays become officially acknowledged. Neither shall any governmental monies be expended in order to promote any religious manifestations for new faiths in X-country. European countries are secular, and public funds shall not pay for the practice of any religious activities. Old churches and similar objects are kept up for national cultural reasons, and not for religious ones. 

It must be forbidden to institute any principles and rules of shari’a law, or from any religious doctrine which  contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and/or the rights of a citizen or an individual defined in the Constitution of X-country, in any public institution or organization in X-country including all tax-financed ones. That includes day-care centers, schools, hospitals, sport arenas, transport facilities, courts, public administration, police and the military. All manifestations of gender apartheid, like demanding female doctors for female patients, different visiting times, and gender separation regarding public baths must not allowed and must be immediately terminated if found to exist anywhere already. 

Some of the proposals to accommodate Muslims may seem small, but they are only opening salvos in attempts to institute shari’a on a broad front. The small accommodations will be used to argue that, by analogy, other changes are justified and must be made. Every gain for shari’a rules becomes a rationale and inducement to press on for more implementation of shari’a in X-country. Many Muslims look at shari’a as an alternative to democracy: God, not people, shall decide. But in X-country, the people shall decide!  Based on objective law. 

Even shari’a rules that do not directly violate human rights must be looked upon at as a first step to increase acceptance of and to introduce shari’a rules, which do violate human rights. shari'a law is cruel and extremely intolerant. Tolerance towards intolerance is no virtue; it just shows a lack of ethics and/or cowardness. Non-tolerance towards intolerance is the ethical position. An all-encompassing non-tolerance of shari'a law must therefore be the basic principle in the attempt to uphold the values of a free society. X-country is fundamentally a secular society, and new rules can also for that reason not be accepted just on religious grounds. 

The language of X-country is its official language, and shall always, and in all geographic areas of X-country, be used in public and tax-financed institutions and organizations. The language in the schools shall always be the language of X-country except for foreign language lessons. Special permission can be given for schools using languages from EU countries. An unwillingness to learn the language of X-country is not acceptable for an immigrant. 

If the forces trying to create a religious parallel society are strong in X-country, the state must weaken them in all possible ways. The forces causing the parallel society to thrive and therefore strengthen the centrifugal forces in the society must systematically be eliminated one after the other. If the state finances special education in the languages of the home countries of groups that maintain a parallel society, that education must end until the threat has disappeared. Using a foreign language during public religious services in X-country was covered in PA 4. All immigration from countries with immigrants involved in building or maintaining a parallel society must also be terminated. Immigration from other countries with no such tendencies towards separatism can instead be increased (PA 8). 

A number of crimes are defined as “religious hate crimes” (RHCs)  in PA 4 and 11. Religious hate crimes in X-country may have consequences regarding integration, and thus violate the assimilation of members of any religion into the society. Other religious rules that are connected to some type of gender apartheid.  Violation of the equality between sexes (see PA 3) damages integration in the society. Examples include keeping girls from exercising their rights, unlike boys; influencing girls to wear the veil or hijabs; forcing girls into arranged marriages; preventing girls to marry non-Muslims; polygamy also.  Systematic attempts to prevent - for religious reasons -assimilation/integration of individuals into the society, are defined as “Crime(s) Against Integration (CAIs)”.  These are serious crimes and shall be given priority by local law enforcement authorities. 

A crime against integration may – besides a fine or prison term – lead to loss of custody of the person’s children, because of parental antisocial actions affecting their children, and may extend that influence into the next generation. Loss of custody or single custody from divorce proceedings, or during the marriage, depend on who is the guiltiest parent. All crimes against integration must be taken into consideration when giving residence permission in X-country, or decisions regarding citizenship. If a CAI is committed by a parent against his/her child, damages shall also be paid to the child by the parent. Encouraging, planning, and taking a more passive part in CAIs shall – like in cases of RHCs - be punishable by similar rules as those that apply to the main actor(s). Children have the same responsibility as do parents to report RHCs or CAIs in his/her home. Property involved in a CAI may be confiscated if any sentence involves a prison term. 

If  any RHC (PA 4) or a crime according to PA 3 can be judged to be a CAI, the rules regarding custody, residence or citizenship, and confiscation of property apply also to these crimes.

TO MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN A PARALLEL SOCIETY

All efforts and attempts of any kind to build or strengthen separatism and a parallel society based on a religious doctrine that contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and/or the rights of a citizen or an individual defined in the constitution of X-country, are forbidden. 

Actions creating laws or rules intended only for members of the special faith, and which laws will exist parallel to other laws and rules of X-country, must be forbidden. A public proposal to create special shari’a courts in X-country is one example of such an effort. Such laws and regulations shall not be allowed. Attempts to force shari’a rules on the society’s institutions are made continuously by Muslim organizations and representatives. They concern food (halal food), fasting, prayer, dress (gender apartheid), beards, swimming (gender apartheid), gymnastics, and sports (gender apartheid), medical services (gender apartheid), in some countries even vaccinations etc. These are all CAIs based on religious doctrine as defined above, unless they concern only private worship. Personal worship shall not be allowed to interfere with any ordinary activities of public institutions. No special considerations regarding religion are allowed at all for children and youths under 18 years of age. No expenses shall be paid by public money in order to promote any religious manifestations of faiths in X-country. 

Other actions regard creating or strengthening  separatism and unofficial organizations, institutions, rules and policies (outside religious worship in a European sense) for members of a special faith, which are intended to substitute for public institutions, rules and policies of X-country. All such efforts and attempts intended to build a parallel society are CAIs. 

CHILDREN

It is an open question if religious kindergartens and schools of any certain faith and financed by the public can be allowed.  The rules formulated in Policy Areas 3, 4, 7 and 11 must be observed by any institution of this kind, and the educational goals must be those accepted in the public school authorities.  False and subjective presentations of any religion are not allowed in a religious school. Schools are important for promoting integration in the society, and if a religious school weakens that effort, it shall immediately lose its right to carry out any kind of educational activities. Religious schools shall only be certified for a period of three years. A new certification depends – besides on traditional criteria - on its attempts to, and success in, promoting the important values of a democratic society and integration of the schoolchildren into the society. 

However, religious schools in themselves are an objective obstacle for contacts with children of other faiths; thus they hinder integration.  If the drive to create a parallel society is strong in X-country, it is necessary to forbid the religious schools that are part of such a drive.  If schools of a certain faith can be judged objectively to strengthen the attempt to create a parallel society, such schools shall not be allowed. 

Attempts to force shari’a rules on schools are made continuously by Muslim organizations and parents (see "To maintain and strengthen a parallel society"). Special rules for schools – besides ones mentioned there - include contact sports; the clothing of boys and girls during activities like swimming; art classes; religious education; sex education; dancing etc. Attempts to change – for religious reasons – the standards of X-country regarding a child’s right to enjoy and take part in a school’s (1) activities, or (2) enjoy the supply of services in a school, are CAIs and are forbidden because they are attempts to build a parallel society and undermine the assimilation of the children into the society. 

Meeting other children, enjoying their company, and learning from them are important parts of growing up. Applying religious rules regarding gender apartheid and/or keeping Muslim children away from non-Muslim children to limit the possible influence of the latter ones, are CAIs. 

Various physical and leisure activities are a part of a child’s - or youth’s - process of growing up. Dystematic behavior by (a) parent(s) to forbid – for religious reasons - common entertainment, sports, physical activities like swimming, playing or listening to western music, dancing, enjoying arts of all kinds also constitute a CAI if it is caused by a religious doctrine which in any noticeable way contradicts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations and/or the rights of a citizen or an individual defined in the vonstitution of X-country. It is also true if the parent(s) allow(s) anybody else to influence the children in that way. Parents are not allowed to hinder medical treatments, which are beneficial to the children. Parents who have immigrated to an European country and belong to a religion with the characteristics stated above, cannot systematically prevent children to be like normal healthy children of X-country for no other reason than a religious doctrine.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN

To let young children memorize the Qur’an, year after year, and in a language they don’t understand, and let this be a main part of their education, constitutes an assault on the personality of a child. Just imagining the mental torture of many children and youths in the many madrassas of Pakistan is heartbreaking. Such educational crimes are not allowed in X-country but there are variations of it. Muslim religious training is basically indoctrination, where nothing of any rational approach and skeptical method used in the schools of X-country is applied, only blind faith. Just learning about the Islamic concept of hell, the descriptions of that hell, and the purposeful creating of fear by the teacher is an attack on the psychology of a child. The reasons for going to hell probably also seem totally unreasonable for normal intelligent children in X-country, Muslims or non-Muslims. That all non-Muslims (including Mother Theresa) regardless of the morality of their lives must be tortured and stay in hell forever, while a sinful Muslim for various reasons may go to heaven, is an unethical proposition and a shattering concept for a sensitive child. 

The hatred expressed in the Qur’an and the Ahadith against all people who are not Muslims may – if they are expressed to children – constitute a psychological abuse of them because it attacks people they meet in their everyday life, may feel affection for, hear about at school etc. One weakness is that Islam doesn’t have a general morality but only a situational one. The golden rule doesn’t apply. What is right and wrong just depends on who you are and who the others are (Muslim or non-Muslim; man or woman; free or slave). It means that Islam doesn’t have an ethics in the western sense. 

The teaching about jihad in religious education can easily be formulated in a way that violates the human rights expressed in UDHR. The rules given in PA 4 must be observed in all religious education. 

Learning contempt for the laws, customs, and non-Muslim citizens of X-country, as well as hearing that they themselves as Muslims are chosen and superior to such people, and will in the future dominate all others (similar in certain respects to a race ideology) induces deep uncertainty in many respects in the minds of children. 

Children learning that the law of cause and effect doesn’t really exist and also that everything on earth is predetermined; that life in this world is of minor importance compared with an alleged second world with many strange characteristics; devaluing human life here and directing the energy towards another world with no connection to reality; creating deep, deep fear of an alleged hell, the horrors of which are described graphically; promoting antisocial values meaning hostility and contempt for others i.e., non-Muslims and many other aspects can – if the psychological pressure is high enough - be said to constitute  psychological abuse of children.

If any religious training crosses the line that should not be crossed in a European society, it is a violation of the human rights of a child. Because it is done or permitted by the parents, it is difficult to counteract. However, in the same way that parents are not allowed to prevent medical treatment of children, parents are not allowed to deform young human minds cruelly. Psychological child abuse for religious reasons may demand new legal rules. At the same time the phenomenon is of importance for assimilation, because possible violations of the children connected with teachings opposing assimilation in favor of creating a parallel society. Such CAIs shall be punished by fines or prison terms.

WIVES AND WOMEN

Systematic behavior of a husband to force his wife to follow gender apartheid rules for religious reasons is a crime against integration (CAI) and punishable by fine or prison term. There are many variations of that behavior: an unwillingness to let the woman in the family learn the language of the new country or get an education; forbidding her to leave the home generally, or to work outside the home because of religious rules; or forbidding her to meet Muslim women without hijabs, or non-Muslim women or men; forcing her to dress according to Islamic code despite her unwillingness to do so; forbidding her to swim in public baths; not allowing her to use contraceptives despite her wishes; not to use male doctors etc. Other Islamic rules that belong the gender apartheid group, regard forcing the wife to have sex, beating her etc. Those are already treated in the criminal law of X-country. It is necessary now to extend the force of law to other types of behavior. 

Such behavior is a reason also for denying custody to the guiltiest parent in case of divorce or during marriage, and paying damages to the least guilty parent in case of divorce. Laws must provide for the woman or wife who asks for help from a court against such CAIs during the marriage, to punish the man to change his behavior by sentencing him to prison or paying a fine. 

Any systematic behavior of the type described above against any female relative, or female living in his home, and which a man has power over according to laws or customs from their home country, is a CAI and shall be punishable in the same way. 

PA 4 pointed out that in X-country a woman more than 18 years old has no legal guardian. Systematic attempts by parents, relatives or others to assume the role of legal guardian for a woman above that age and force her against her will to do things according to religious rules or customs in their home country, is also a CAI, punishable by a fine or a prison term. 

A RHC (PA 4) or a violation of the Equality between Sexes (PA 3) concerning wives and women may have consequences regarding integration and shall also be judged from that point of view regarding custody. 

(1)  http://Islam-watch.org/Archemedez/Sampling_Hatred_Verses_Koran.htm;  http://Islam-watch.org/Amber/Islam-Trial-Prosecution-Case.htm