Whose Law?

Most readers are familiar with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, the Austrian anti-jihad activist who is facing a “hate speech” charge for one of her recent presentations on Islam.

The evening after her “Islamophobic” speech was publicized in the Austrian press — on November 26th, 2009 — Elisabeth gave the third in a series of lectures on Islam. Considering that her previous presentation was the one that brought down the “hate speech” charge on her head, Elisabeth’s lecture that night drew a lot of attention.

The video below shows the first part of her lecture about sharia law, which was the final seminar on the topic presented in Vienna. Listen to what she says and see if there’s anything that’s untrue, or inflammatory, or that passes the bounds of reasonable opinion. Like Geert Wilders, she is being targeted for speaking up about matters that the political elite prefer to keep under the rug.

During her presentation Elisabeth refers to the media gathered outside the venue who want her to make a statement:


Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitles.

The full transcript of this portion of Elisabeth’s lecture is below the jump.
- - - - - - - - -

I want to thank you and also thank you for your support

I will need any kind of support and can tell you that I will not give up

I will not back down because this is a matter of principle: the truth

Because if we can’t tell the truth any more we can close down everything. Science and schools.

This is what we are talking about. Not about me — Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff — it’s about our future

And it’s about our children. It’s not about me. It just hit me — it’s not the first time and it will not be the last time

I am attracting such things. But somebody has to do this. And it will be me who is doing this.

The irony of the story is, that today we will talk about freedom of opinion

This was not planned. I mean we always planned to talk about freedom of opinion

But we didn’t plan that the whole story gets such an explosiveness.

They would like to head me off and force me to make statements.

Statements which are then misinterpreted. And this is no freedom of opinion any more.

And as we said last time that there is no freedom of opinion any more — we have the best example for this now.

It’s nice that ESW thinks she has to save the world, but there are other people who are concerned

Never mind! It’s just not comfortable if you are a matter of public interest of NEWS

I just wanted to tell you that I don’t know how long I can keep up

I just ask for your understanding. If I keep up — okay, if not, please understand it.

Okay, today we will talk about how Islam is influencing our lives

Person in the audience asks for documents

Person in the audience asks if they will be informed about the developments in the case via the homepage of ESW

ESW answers: no, you will not read anything on my homepage

ESW: we did not make any decision yet

ESW: I will not make any statements in public and I ask you not to talk in public either

Person in the audience says something which is not understandable

A statement to the article in NEWS: 95% of the article are correct

Some things are wrong, respectively wrongly quoted and misinterpreted but 95% are correct.

Even though I wanted to counter, I could not, because it’s the truth what they wrote

And it will be the truth in front of the court

We will talk about the fact that Islam is a religion and a state

You know this already. But media don’t and they don’t want to know it. But we will know it.

No relevant statements

Before we start I want to mention one fundamental point: I am a critic of Islam

You know this. If you want to hear positive things about Islam, you are wrong here.

Then you have to go to the Islamic community, where you will hear the other side.

I never said — and I will never say — that the Muslims are evil.

I always said, that I feel for the Muslims. And you will agree with that.

I feel sorry for them, because they suffer from this slavery

There were never overall denunciations. We are talking about Islam!

Not about Muslims. I want to clarify this.

I call upon my right for freedom of opinion with this lecture.

This is my right. And I call upon it.

And I ask all of you for objective statements.

No polemics, no agitation. Just objective statements and questions.

There are always people who kick over the traces

But we don’t want to make the Islam-Lobby a case for attacking us.

The Islam-Lobby, these are the do-gooders. We are not their idiots.

Another point: It’s interesting that in our male-dominated justice it’s always the women who are accused

Accused because of agitation. We should think about this.

A patriarchy in justice

I am a mother and I am a feminist. And I will not let this happen.

That women are pilloried again. Think of Oriana Fallaci. Think of Susanne Winter.

Think of Brigitte Bardot who was convicted so often. I am just the next in line.

It’s always the women.

Why is it always women. Why is it women who go out and not men.

And as a feminist I feel attacked.

I fight for women and I fight for my daughter. For that she can grow up in freedom and dignity.

This is important for me. I don’t want my words to be perverted.

So if we have a discussion, then please in an objective way.

Thank you.

Applause

Any questions?

We will discuss this quietly. And we will have the breaks in here.

We will talk about Sharia today.

It’s Sharia, which is a problem for us. We will go in more detail.

There is Sharia in finance resp. monetary system.

We will talk about the organisation of Islamic states.

We will talk about the term “Islamophobia” and how they use it, to prohibit criticism on Islam.

We will talk about human rights in Islam. A point which affects me at the moment.

We will talk about women’s rights and — if we have time — about female circumcision.

We could miss this out and you read about it.

Honour killings, which of course have a relation to human and women rights in Islam.

We will talk about western politics of respectfulness

How the west practices appeasement towards Islam

And how this is done

If we have time, we will talk about mosques

That mosques are not only a place of prayers but have many functions

Only at the end we will talk about prayers

We will talk about tabooization and how it is done

Some of these taboos we have seen already

Let’s see how far we come

Which consequences does Sharia have for Europe?

What happens if Sharia is implemented? In fact, it is implemented already.

This is a subtle implementation, but it’s creeping quickly

Subtle and quick — this seems to be an antagonism

The Sharia — the Islamic law — is responsible for serious violation of human rights

These violations of human rights in Islamic countries concern Muslims and Non-Muslims.

The discrimination and sexual degradation of women

A woman is only half the worth of a man. Her words, her evidence, her position in society.

Sharia means censorship and prohibition of criticism.

We have seen this already. What happened today is — Sharia.

They wanted to muzzle us

Compared to our standards, sharia means inhuman punitive measures

I talk about the so-called “hudd”-punishments. Cropping off hands, stoning.

All the cruelties, which — as they say — have nothing to do with Islam.

Refusal of individual rights of freedom

You know by now that one loses any right of freedom when one converts to Islam.

Dictating what to do and prohibition

Your might remember the book of Qaradawi

which was used in high schools in Islamic religious education

Where you are in detail told what you are allowed to do and what you must not do

You are patronized — in a way in which I don’t even patronize my child-daughter

And they are patronizing adults — concerning clothing and food

Remember: “May men pick brows? May men wear gold jewellery?”

All this is regularized in Sharia.

There is no Islam without Sharia.

You cannot separate one from the other

There is no separation!

An Islamic society with the sharia is an ideal.

This should be the target state in Islam, designed by Mohammed

Which means, Saudi-Arabia is the ideal society, the ideal Islamic society

Don’t forget — it’s a governmental construction

Remember the first page. Islam is a religion and a state.

As soon as we acknowledge Islam, we have a state within the state

The Islamic law is beyond any discussion

As according to the Islamic point of view, divine law stands above state law.

And because there is no discussion, we are facing all the problems

That’s it

There are very small ranges of interpretation

But you may remember the closure of the Ijtihad in the 11th century.

This terminated any possibility of interpretation

As long as this door is closed (gate of ijthihad)

There will be now change, no maceration, no advancement of Islam

Okay, no discussion and — of course — no denial.

An Islamic state cannot say: we leave sharia

Polygamy. It is allowed for men in sharia

You know that men can marry 4 women at the same time

The Koran says this is possible if all are treated in the same way

This is also pedals the man. It makes life difficult for men.

First of all polygamy stokes resentments among the women

Very often it causes jealousy, hate and disaffirmation between them

And it is also a stress-situation for the men, not only physically

It is an emotional stress. They have to consider, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

“do I really treat my wives in an equal way?”

Monogamy is only regulated by law in Turkey and Indonesia.

Whereas in Indonesia it is softened already because of sharia

Modest corporal punishment is allowed

And again it might be a problem for the man, that his religion

Allows him to beat his wife whom he loves — or not. This is emotional stress.

In sharia it’s not the courts which decide on compensation-money

The families have the right to claim it

Or they can claim the death of the delinquent or certain vendetta. There is no jurisdiction in this case

Burglary is punished with a “hudd”-punishment — amputation

Scholars say that this is a determent. But I doubt this.

Man in the audience: “What about the Sharia-courts in Great Britain?”

They deal with family, marriage and inheritance law

I have not heard about any other judgements. Not yet.

Here we have some examples how sharia is realized. We will not discuss this now.

I give you the points and you connect them

If you say, yes, this is sharia and it’s awkward, then it’s time to stand up and say: not with us!

If you say, no this is nonsense, it’s just far-fetched cases, then it’s also okay for me.

But these cases did really happen

Sharia constitutes the different clothing-directives

There is a head-scarf surah, although it’s controversial

They dispute, if this surah really has to be interpreted in this way

But as it is practised today, I assume that it is valid

There are more and more head-scarves, which means it is understood in this way

I look at the facts and do a reality-check. And they are becoming more and more.

What theologians say is in this case not relevant

Sharia contains different rights for men and women

Women are not treated equally by this religious law. This is a fact.

One can refer to their books, although they’d like to explain differently. It is a fact.

According to the Koran resp. Mohammed’s intention, women are subordinate in all domains

She doesn’t even have the right to her children

According to our law — yes. According to Koran respectively sharia — no.

And from which legal position will the judges act?

Above all, when we will have the first muslim public prosecutors and judges. Which law are they to execute?

Evidence of women, you know that, only counts half the evidence of men.

Women only have restrained right to give evidence.

Previous posts about the hate speech case against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff:

2009		Dec		5		Fighting a Hate Speech Charge in Austria
				11		Heckling the Counterjihad