By Islamisation we refer to the growing influence of Islam upon the behaviour and conduct not only of Muslims but also of non-Muslims who are trying to adapt themselves to Islamic tenets. Since our Movement of Former Muslims concentrates on the situation as it is evolving in Belgium, we are confining our comments and reactions to what is reported in the Belgian national news.
Reporting about the islamisation of Belgium must in no way be interpreted as a rallying cry for hatred or discrimination towards Muslims. We urge all visitors to our site to act with kindness and respect in their dealings with Muslims. We ourselves have been Muslims in the past. By our actions, we wish merely to demonstrate that Islam entails a host of elements that may well raise conflicts between Muslims and the norms governing Belgian society. And the fact is that these conflicts are real and becoming manifest with ever-increasing frequency. However, this development ought not to blind us to the fact that the large majority of Muslims in Belgium are at a complete remove from the excesses referred to in this present document and are not at all receptive to, or accepting of, such excesses. But as happens so often, the tenor and tone of events are set by a small segment of Muslims that has become conspicuous by its problematic behaviour.
According to the Islamic Shari’ah, to engage in criticism of Islam is to deservedly expose oneself to the death penalty or other severe punishment. One of the verses on which this tenet rests is this passage in the Quran:
5.33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
The authoritative Quranic commentator Ibn Kathir interprets the expression “waging war against Allah and His Messengers” to mean, for instance: “to engage in opposition to” or “to rebut”, hence, “to criticize”. Since Etienne Vermeersch has the nerve to criticize Islam, he exposes himself to one of the punishments mentioned in the passage quoted above. The Muslims uttering these threats are “merely” intent upon defending Islam against attack.
In Maaseik, a man of Jordanian origin prevented treatment for his wife by a male anaesthetist even though it pertained to an emergency situation. Why this refusal? Islam prescribes strict segregation between men and women. Muhammed specifically named women as sources of fitna, i.e. sources of allurement and seduction for males. Women are thus the cause of immorality, and for that reason physical contact with men must be kept to an absolute minimum.
The anaesthetist was going to touch the woman; her husband wanted at all costs to save his wife from the charge of immorality, in keeping with his religious beliefs.
The Shari’ah prescribes that a woman be treated by a female Islamic physician if possible, or else by a non-Islamic female physician, or else by an Islamic male physician, or, finally, by a non-Islamic male physician. The question that presumably occupied the mind of this unbending (violent) male was whether the hospital had tried hard enough to locate a female anaesthetist.
Thanks to his strict and stubborn adherence to Islamic law with regard to the segregation of the sexes (and perhaps his ignorance of the finer points of it) this man simply lost his wits and resorted to violence. The sentence – for putting his wife’s life in danger, for threatening behaviour towards a physician in the course of the performance of his duties, and for disturbing the routine in a hospital – of 10 months conditional and a 1.100 Euro fine, is nothing short of ridiculous and hardly likely to act as a deterrent for future incidents of this sort. It is, however, in conformity with our unfathomable Belgian rationale.
The CGKR (the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism in Belgium) is a government agency that colludes in the Islamisation of Belgium by criminalising and prosecuting persons who are critical of Islam – even when that criticism is well deserved. To this end, the legislation that pertains to discrimination and incitement to hatred is being misused. Criticisms levelled against Islam as an ideology are automatically, and without valid reason, equated with hate-mongering against Muslim individuals.
An example of this can be found on the following link in which a chain-email describing stoning as barbaric is denounced as incitement to hatred of Muslims. The CGKR holds that stoning is not part of the Islamic Penal Code, though all schools of Islamic law tell us exactly the opposite. For example, the Shafi’i school propounds in its judicial code “Reliance of the Traveller” in § o12.2 the following concerning extra-marital relationships: “If the offender is somebody with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death.”
The rules that govern stoning are not taken from the Qurqn but from the Hadith and indicate that the Prophet of Islam applied this punishment even to non-Muslims: for instance, the authoritative Hadith of Muslim 17.4191 and following. In addition to the above, the CGKR contends that only obscurantists tend to resort to this punishment, while, in reality, official courts in Islamic nations such as Northern-Nigeria and Iran are known to have recourse to stoning.
One may say then that the CGKR is badly informed – to say the least – and practises what it forbids others to do, namely inciting to hatred and discrimination, in this case against anybody who dares to voice justified criticism of Islam. And on top of this the Centre does so based on faulty information. This is in itself a violation of laws concerning the freedom of expression, thereby effectively introducing practices that conform to those of the Shari’ah as applied in Islamic nations. And, furthermore, the CGKR employs resources of law enforcement that could certainly be more profitably used to deal with more pressing matters.
In this sad incident, a Muslim father injured a phys-ed teacher because his daughter was required to wear shorts during gym classes. Here we have a father resorting to violence in an attempt to ensure that his daughter follows a certain practice in keeping with the Islamic tenets acceptable to him. This incident is an illustration of violence inspired by a religious motive. As the man himself saw it, he simply wanted to enforce respect for his religious beliefs.
Serge nearly bled to death after a vicious beating by Muslims in Brussels. Serge’s offence? Drinking a beer in the street during Ramadan. This was reported by ‘Het Nieuwsblad’ but ignored by other papers. It is an example of the growing self-confidence of a number of Muslim individuals who want to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims in Belgium. They constitute a small minority of individuals, but receive little or no opposition from the majority of moderate Muslims. On the contrary, according to the article, other Muslims in the vicinity joined in the beating.
This article illustrates the existence of networks of Muslim terrorists planning assaults in Belgium.
At the beginning of 2008, it was revealed that in Kessel-Lo immigrant women are given segregated courses in the Dutch-language. The Integration Department in Louvain is conducting a so-called “inclusive” policy that caters to the whims and wishes of Muslim males to have their wives follow segregated language courses, that is without other males present in the class. These demands are just another step towards the Islamisation of Belgium.
Why should this be so important? We offer an example. Fatima is a Moroccan woman married to a Belgian-Moroccan husband. She speaks only Berber. Belgium wants to integrate her into society and invites her to follow a course in the Dutch language. Via an interpreter she makes it known that her husband won’t allow her to follow courses with other males present in her class. The Integration Department deliberates on the matter and decides to form a class with only women. That is not a problem since there are plenty of students. Fatima is registered in a class with Maria, a new arrival from Bolivia who has claimed political asylum. Maria is 25 years old and unmarried. A Dutch-language course seems to her an excellent way to get to know other people, including males. Maybe her dreamboat can be found amongst the participants in the course. But, to her complete astonishment, she finds herself amongst women only and wonders if, perhaps, she wound up by mistake in Saudi-Arabia. Maria is one of the beneficiaries of Islamisation in Belgium.
This article illustrates the fact that pressure is exerted on muslim restaurant owners to stop serving alcoholic beverages. It is surely preferable to make less money, or to go bankrupt, than to jeopardize your chances of going to heaven! Those that stop serving alcohol do so – at least so they claim – out of pure “conviction”.
Muriel Degauque is the first Belgian disciple of the Jihad to sacrifice herself in the cause of Islam. She is likewise a motivation for our Movement of Belgian Former Muslims. We want to convince Muslims to abandon Islam to avoid the risk of winding up amongst Muslim extremists who are fanatical adherents of Islamic militancy and are bent on sowing death and destruction. We do not want any more mothers to lose their children as perpetrators or victims of violent acts in the name of Islam.
In 21st-century Belgium, Muslims see nothing strange in having representatives of their religion screened by state security. This is not the case with any other religion. It appears that in the case of Islam other criteria are at work. Does this mean that Islam is not a religion, but something else? Furthermore, nobody gives any thought to what happens to the rejected candidates. Are they only a threat to the Muslim Executive and not to the society at large?