Islamic-immigration confounds democracies' standards for human-rights and free-speech

Stoning is an Islamic-sanctioned punishment
for reporting being raped

Egyptian-Muslim raised, Dr. Tawfik Hamid asks posits in his "Newsmax" article: "Can you name a single, leading Islamic institution that stands unambiguously against traditional Shariah teachings of killing apostates and gays, beating women, stoning adulterers, raping female war prisoners, and forcibly converting non-Muslims?

If a group of Muslims claims that freedom of religion permits their killing of gays, their subjugation of women, and their persecution of non-believers — all as Shariah Law dictates — should we allow their behavior, under our Constitution's First Amendment, or should we set limitations for the concept of religious freedom, thereby preventing them from practicing such "religious" principles?"

Acid attacks are a growing example of Islamic-sanctioned
punishments to avenge a female 'dishonoring' the male
relatives in her family. Cases increase with Muslim
immigration to the West. (photo: BareNakedIslam)

Swiss-born educator, Mrs. Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, lived and worked in Kuwait and Libya. She raised issues about Islam and Sharia law in lectures back in the West. In an article, "Attempting to Appease Islamists by Enforcing Blasphemy Laws Will Only Make Europe More Dangerous" in The Federalist 10/30, Helen Raleigh wrote about the case that Austrian officials brought against her:

... the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction by an Austrian court for defaming Muhammad.

According to the court ruling, the woman in this case, Mrs. S., held several seminars, entitled “Basic Information on Islam” between 2008 to 2009. In these seminars, she made several statements regarding Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha (Islamic traditions hold that Aisha was six at the time of their marriage and nine at its consummation). An undercover journalist reported her comments to Austrian authorities.

Educator, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, defends against charges for "denigrating Islam" in an Austrian courtroom

 The Vienna Regional Criminal Court found her “guilty of publicly disparaging an object of veneration of a domestic church or religious society, namely Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, in a manner capable of arousing justified indignation.” Thus, she was convicted in 2011 of “disparaging religious doctrines pursuant to Article 188 of the Criminal Code concerning three statements.” She was ordered to “pay the costs of the proceedings and a day‑fine of 4 euros (EUR) for a period of 120 days (amounting to EUR 480 in total), which would result in sixty days’ imprisonment in the event of default.

Graeme Wood, a staff writer for The Atlantic wrote: If Europe believes enforcing blasphemy laws in order to suppress offensive speech is necessary for maintaining “religious peace,” it’s dead wrong. Blasphemy laws protect no one and certainly don’t maintain religious peace. They represent a disguised bigotry — the progressives in the EU don’t trust that Muslims are peace-loving and are capable of civil discourse without resorting to violence.”

Will de facto 'blasphemy laws' inhibit contesting Islamic imperialism's cultural hostilities in the West? Might they inhibit enforcing security precautions in public transportation and the workplace?


Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff interviewed at the American Freedom Alliance in Los Angeles this past spring.

Q: What happened to you along your journey?

A:  Well, it's a journey that took ten years that began in in late 2009 it's like I said it's taken me a decade of my life fighting for free speech in Europe. I was convicted of denigration of religious teachings of a legally recognized religion in Austria which is effectively a blasphemy law for for asking a rhetorical question in a seminar that I gave back in 2008 asking what do you call the behavior of Muhammad the Prophet of Islam marrying a six-year-old and consummating the marriage when she was nine? The name girl's name was Aisha. What do you call it if not pedophilia? So it was a rhetorical question.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff addressing A.F.A.
conference in Los Angeles, 2016

I was convicted of, like I said, denigration of religious teachings. I appealed and appealed and appealed all the way up to the Austrian Supreme Court. I lost all the way to the Supreme Court and after that I went to a supranational court called the European Court of Human Rights which is a sort of Supreme Court of Europe. And we lost again. I mean I lost again but when I lose everybody loses in Europe.

So now we have a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which in effect says that the Muslims right not to be offended is greater than my right to free speech.

Q:  But what was it that was that you said wasn't false?

A:  Well, it wasn't wasn't slander well according to Islamic law it was slander of course so it was - it's a strange situation because the Austrian legal system sort of became the arbiter for Islamic law it was a Sharia ruling in effect because you have you had the entire Islamic world rejoicing after the verdict was passed down so that's that's actually proof that it's it's Sharia law and that Sharia slander laws were upheld by the European Court and it, you know, the irony is you didn't even need any Muslim complaint about what I'd said back in 2008 and 9, but rather you had a secular government take over and do the job and they did it very well.

Q:  What does that signal to free people, free societies around the world?

A:  Do you remember what Mohammed Atta's said when he hijacked the plane that went into the World Trade Center? One of the planes he said "if you remain quiet everything will be okay?" That's exactly what it is my court case signals to non-Muslims. You need to remain quiet and not talk about
Islam in any slanderous way and then everything will be all right. So this is a terrible terrible sign and there are so many people already silenced because of that.

Q:  But you made a religious criticism what about criticisms of Islamism and and the actions that either Muslims or the politicians who facilitate Islamism in those kind of criticisms are those also now taboo?

A: Well, you know, I don't subscribe to the distinction between Islam and Islamism. I don't belong to this group that distinguishes it. Any criticism is taboo whether it's Islam or Islamism, you must not criticize the religion of Islam or anything associated with it. And that's the problem. If you can't you can't name the enemy and obviously the Red-Green Axis that we just heard about for most of the day,  the Red-Green axis between the Socialists and the- I would call it Muslims - I would say Quran-abiding Muslims - okay, that's a distinction I would make.

Q:  Who are trying to spread Islam as a political force?


A:  Well, I mean there's no difference in Islam between religion and politics. It's all the same. It's a distinction that we as non-Muslims make. But they have won. And that's that's a tragedy. They won that case. We lost we lost massively.  The first thing I said after I heard the verdict - I apologized to my daughter because I want her to grow up as a free person and she no longer is a free person. And the second thing, you know, I will no longer speak publicly in Europe - in all of Europe - in the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. So I am now moving, I'm shifting my focus to the United States -  to help Americans realize that your protection is the First Amendment. You need to protect your Constitution and your First Amendment.  It's the bullwark of free speech. We (Europeans) don't have anything like that. There's nothing like it in the entire planet.

(Source: The Federalist Papers )

Lawyer, Judith Bergman, wrote in "Denmark: How to Deal with Integration" in Gatestone Institute, August 20, 2019

The Integration Barometer -- which measures the degree of assimilation in the municipality among young people with a non-Western background -- showed that almost one third of 18-29 year-olds (31%) believe that "religious and cultural laws must be adhered to, even though they may be contrary to [Danish] law."  The issue, then, is whether these young people believe that Islamic sharia law should take precedence over Danish law.... In addition, the number of youths who view democracy in a positive light has fallen from 86% in 2016 to 79% in 2018.
. . .
Recently, the Imam Ali Mosque refused to distance itself from an Iranian imam, Mansour Leghaei, who for years was associated with it, and preached there, but in 2018, was prohibited entry into Denmark for two years: he had written on a Shia Muslim website that men beating their wives and children could be justified and that marital rape does not constitute rape.
. . .
The Imam Ali Mosque's refusal to distance itself from the problematic imam, exemplifies the difficulties with which Western societies are struggling: How does a society deal with religious institutions that profess values, which are the very opposite of the value system of the Western society in which they live? How does one deal with the influence that they wield on the people who follow their recommendations? And how, in turn, does one deal with this influence on the West?