1 © LAN All Rights Reserved 2018 ALL ISLAMIC LAW SCHOOLS THREATEN 1.6 BILLION ...

20 Pages·2017·0.8 MB·English

by  Neil Petrie

ALL ISLAMIC LAW SCHOOLS THREATEN 1.6 BILLION MUSLIMS WITH DEATH FOR LEAVING THE
RELIGION - THE “LEGALISE APOSTASY NOW” CAMPAIGN AIMS TO FREE THEM FROM THIS TERROR
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;…”
Article 18 - UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948
• All schools of Islamic law prescribe death for apostates, seen as the greatest crime in Islam
• Islamic Sharia law is held to be sacred and significant changes to it are impossible – there
are five main law schools that regulate the belief system of all Sunni and Shia believers
• Sharia has had no fundamental revisions since the 10th Century with the “closing of the
gates”, since then Islamic scholars have agreed that there can be no major “innovations”
• This “right to execute” apostates is clearly in direct contravention of human rights’
statutes and under international law a crime against humanity - Islam alone has such a law
• Threatening apostates with death ensures that the religion terrifies doubters, a form of
mental torture, into submission and maintains Islam’s numbers and growth – for ever
• In 8 Muslim states apostasy is a capital crime, and in 15 others a crime – only in Muslim
states is it an offence. Such laws do not have to be acted upon to be effective, their
existence alone is enough to terrify
• These chilling statutes present free peoples with a clear indication of what Sharia is, but
also an opportunity to highlight and eradicate the threat it represents
• Through a state-sponsored and relentless, focused and high profile diplomatic, legal and
media campaign there is the opportunity to either force Muslims to change the laws, or, if
they do not, to institute controls if freedom of conscience is to survive
• Muslims are moving in ever greater numbers into jurisdictions that protect religious
choice, so now is the time to demand that they accept freedom of conscience
• What is required is a strategy based on “A Vision So Noble” that support from the open-
minded is unquestionable and opposition unsupportable
• This paper provides the strategy for defending free people from Islamic supremacists
whilst emancipating those 1.6 billion Muslims from a death threat for a simple life choice
• The strategy, the Legalise Apostasy campaign, our Manhattan Project, has the potential to
eradicate Islamic terror and free over a billion believers who are trapped in the faith and
denied freedom of conscience – a globally significant loss of potential and stability
Islamic Law References Detailing the Death Penalty for Apostasy:
The Reliance of the Traveller – numerous, see page 15 below (Amana [American Muslim Association
of North America] Publications, Revised Edition 1994)
The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam by Yusuf al-Qaradawi - page 326 (Islamic Book Trust, Kuala
Lumpur)
Encyclopaedia of Islamic Law – A Compendium of the Major Law Schools adapted by Laleh Bakhtiar –
page 291 (ABC International Group)
Islamic Law in the Contemporary World by Sayed Hassan Amin – page 23 (Royston Limited, Glasgow
G12 9DH)
1
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
This paper offers a moral strategy behind which the free peoples of the West can come together to
defeat Islamic supremacism. This strategy primarily focuses on a diplomatic, legal and media
campaign that negates the long-term threat to non-believers from the supremacists, but will also
free Muslims from the death penalty prescribed by the Sunni and Shia Islamic law schools for those
seeking to leave Islam, to become apostates. The campaign is also designed to frustrate the
Islamists and their thought-police allies from using the standard gambits of labelling adversaries as
fascists, and working to criminalise them as racists.
Just as Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation inspired and re-invigorated a weary Union after 3 years
of bloody civil war, so the call to Legalise Apostasy Now can free over a billion Muslims from the
Sharia’s prescription for execution for apostasy. This campaign gives free people a campaign worthy
of unequivocal support and is modelled to some degree on those campaigns which succeeded in
largely ending the slave trade and most slavery, and that which shamed and brought down the South
African apartheid regime.
In this case, the call must come from an alliance pushing to Legalise Apostasy Now against the axis of
Islamic states with statutes that threaten apostates. Such an international coalition can be built by
like-minded national governments working with groups that have recognised the threat Islamic
forces represent. The campaign can only succeed by absolutely focusing on this single but vital
support of the supremacists’ agenda, and the campaign’s leaders and supporters must not be drawn
onto marginal and less readily-supported issues - or onto ground that is not in their favour or of their
choosing as this can only undermine the campaign’s effectiveness.
• With ever tightening restrictions on free speech in democracies across the West, our own
“mind-forged manacles”, nearly all opinion-formers and free-thinkers are hobbled in what
they can say about Islamic culture
• However, Islam itself has one flank permanently exposed to a critical blow, and it is a weak-
spot which their apologists cannot help them defend - it is their legal but internationally
indefensible requirement to kill fellow Muslims who become apostates
• Islam notoriously treats women as second-class citizens and has laws criminalising
homosexuality, but many cultures have questionable views on these issues
• However, other than under Islamic law, freedom of religion is a commonly held right in bona
fide democracies. Not only is it illegal under Islamic law, it is one of Islam’s most serious
“Hudud” offences – death is the fixed penalty
• All four Sunni law schools, as well as the primary Shia school demand killing of apostates
• Fortunately for the implementation and prospects for the success of this strategy, the
“offence” has been codified on the statute books of 23 Islamic nations, in 8 of which it is a
capital offence. These national laws are the concrete, identifiable targets of this campaign
• Barack Obama and others can “defend” Islam by criticising the past behaviour of Christians,
but they cannot point to any non-Muslim nation that still calls for death for changing ones’
faith
• By focusing attention on this single legal issue rather than on other controversial aspects of
the faith, the strategy provides a clear and widely supported right on which to concentrate
international efforts to eliminate the Islamist threat - forever
• Once there is a single fissure in Islam’s sacred laws, the gap will expose its entire panoply of
discriminatory statutes to “innovation”, leading to ruptures and collapse from within
2
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
This document details fundamental elements of the Islamic legal system, the Sharia, but more
importantly it identifies from that study the strategy that can successfully combat the global spread
of Islam’s corrosive relationship with other communities. The strategy focuses on its Achilles Heel,
the foundation of the ideological superstructure of the faith, and if adopted could be as important in
the eventual ending of this centuries-old threat to free-thinking as George Kennan’s Long Telegram
was in the containment and collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe.
THE FOCAL POINT
If a leading opponent tells you what their major weakness is and you do not exploit it, you would be
considered to be not only foolish, but could also be seen as being complicit in their progress. Well,
the former chief ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most important movement advancing
the cause of Islam and Sharia across the globe, and presenter of the popular Al-Jazeera programme
“Sharia and Life”, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, told us a few years ago what that fatal flaw is - that
Islam could not have survived if apostasy had been permitted to Muslims. This single revelation
identifies the importance of the target and also demonstrates how Islam is still shackled to outdated
mores. But, most importantly, for those with vision it reveals a monumental opportunity to force
Muslims to recognise why they are distrusted by many non-believers, and to make them accept
modernity by stripping Islam of its claimed right to kill its former adherents.
By the same token, if you have found a weapon that can eradicate the threat your opponent poses,
must you not pick it up and use it? If that weapon is a right for which your ancestors fought and
sacrificed their all, are you not duty bound to use it? That is the case here, with freedom to leave
your faith being a right all non-Muslims enjoy but which is illegal under Islamic legal codes. This is a
significant differentiator, an ideological rapier which can be driven home in defence of apostates and
our very way of life. If we do not, we may well end up like the Middle East where non-Muslims are
being gradually eradicated, or come to resemble the Indian sub-continent which suffered its bloody
partition so that Muslim supremacists could form their own Islamic state, Pakistan (Pashtu for Pure
Land).
The West has to decide on action, decisive action, if it is to survive as the Free World. The
demarcation needs to be clear and significant enough to draw support from across the spectrum -
and freedom to choose your belief meets those considerations. Let us now use the tried and tested
weapon we have available to us to defend our culture and emancipate all Muslims from the threat
of death for thinking for themselves.
LEADERSHIP
The modern world, with all its freedoms and rights has its genesis in Europe, specifically from a time
when the Church could no longer tie heretics to the stake and was forced to allow apostates to
follow their conscience, as they wished. This process began with Martin Luther’s desire to reform
the Church in Rome, in particular with his statement in front of the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire
and his assembled mass of princes and prelates that he could not withdraw his statement of beliefs,
ending with “Here I stand, I can do no other”. Thomas Carlyle, the famous Victorian essayist and
historian of a classic history of the French Revolution, captured the significance of this singular
confrontation as “the greatest moment in the modern history of man”.
From the bloody conflicts which followed and eventually wrung this right from the Clergy, winning
the freedom to protest, to believe, to state ones’ beliefs and to do so without fear of punishment, let
alone execution, came the plethora of economic, political and cultural advances that we benefit
from today. These freedoms largely developed from the growing demand for tolerance and led to
the Church’s loss of influence as the international overseer, relegated to its rightful place as a matter
for the conscience of the individual.
3
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
It is now time to force Islam to address its reliance on the all-encompassing codes of Sharia, in
particular Islam’s claimed lawful right to kill its apostates. It is time to attack this illegitimate claim
with all the international legal weapons at our disposal, and to do so with total, unflinching resolve
and absolute focus. On this path lies our aim: freedom for over 1.6 billion Muslims from the threat
of execution, and the rest of the world from bloody assaults, instability and the imposition by
powerful elites of a burdensome and intrusive security apparatus, utilising the threat to mask the
construction of their vision and to bypass the democratic will.
As the 1997 study on Freedom of Religion and Belief by Kevin Boyle and Susan Sheen, both of the
Human Rights Centre, University of Essex makes eminently clear, apostasy was then the “best known
and most discussed aspect of freedom of religion”, and still, 20 years later, no Islamic state will
formally accept in law the right to leave Islam. Yet this is the crux, the existential threat which up to
now has not been the focus of any single-issue campaign. Hence the strategic thrust of this one.
The lack of change in Islam reflects the reality of campaigning for change. Before Luther there was
the famous theologian and reformist, Erasmus. He attacked the Church’s practices, but in Latin, the
language of the elite. His critique was not followed by punishment but was also not effective.
Luther’s critique was open, often written in coarse, harsh but widely understood German, and he
was hounded as a heretic but his critique was monumentally effective and historically significant.
The same holds true today for the “academic” reformists following the path trodden by Erasmus; the
human rights lawyers, the international conferences and well-meaning missives leave Sharia
untouched. This campaign aims at something else entirely: to be effective. Hit the streets of the
free world and demand action from the elite. If they fail, then they have to be replaced and the
Sharia reformed and their adherents banned in the still free nations from advocating, in any form
whatsoever, the call to commit genocide on ex-Muslims around the world.
Familiarity with the laws set out on pages 16 to 20 below provides a solid basis on which to
understand Sharia’s sacred and central place in Islam. It also provides a platform to support the
contention that mounting a campaign to make Islamic lawyers and believers accept that apostasy is
not an offence, is, over the long-run, the best way to address the “generational” threat that Western
Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Presidents alike tell us that we face – yet in answer to which they
offer no concrete path to victory. This strategy lays out that path and makes clear why that claim
bears scrutiny.
Making it clear to Muslims that they have to change their laws on apostasy forces them to address a
number of extremely significant and irreconcilable issues:
• They have to change their understanding of their sacred texts – the word and will of their
God – as killing apostates is to them a religious duty and central to the religion and Sharia.
This single choice will be the hardest they are called upon to make and one which they will
do everything in their power to avoid. Accepting apostasy forces Islam to ease its steely grip
on its unwilling hostages, opening it up to competing faiths and communities. Islamic
scholars will understand that this breach ruptures forever the dam behind which innovation
has been retained, and opens the gates to having to accept the right to choose many other
rights they abhor.
o Questions to Muslim politicians of apostate-threatening states at the UN and other
fora might include:
▪ “Your country has a law calling for the killing of apostates, why is that?”
▪ “As such laws are a contravention of international laws, when will you
repeal the laws and allow freedom of religion for your citizens?”
4
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
▪ “As killing apostates is called for under all Sharia law codes, will you call for
changes to these laws?” and, if not, “Why not?”
▪ “Do you yourself support the death sentence for apostates?”
▪ If the reply is negative, then the follow-up might be - “As you do not support
killing apostates, will you be joining the Legalise Apostasy Now campaign in
the UN calling on Qatar/UAE etc to change their laws?”
o Non-Muslims in states in which Muslims are arriving in increasing numbers can
legitimately ask themselves:
▪ “Why should those states continuing to support execution for apostates do
so without becoming pariah nations and having sanctions taken against
them?”
▪ “Should migrants who follow a religion that maintains that they must kill
apostates be allowed to continue to settle in the West?”
▪ “Why should the West take in Muslim refugees with these beliefs when the
states that have laws calling for the killing of apostates take hardly any
Muslim or non-Muslim refugees?”
• Having to make this choice will drive Muslims into opposing corners (especially in the West
where they will be under most pressure), strengthening the hand of reformers and causing
them to confront each other by separating the apostate-killing Muslims from the New
Muslims. This choice is as significant and as important as that made in the 19th Century
when slavery was outlawed and eventually largely eradicated, though it still hangs on mainly
in Islamic states - not surprisingly, see laws below
• Addressing this issue and bringing it into the public square will also make it clear to the man
in the street of the often concealed but deeply held beliefs of Islamic scholars and many
Muslims, allowing free people to properly assess their Muslim neighbours’ convictions. It
will also allow the democratic states to identify those people who truly threaten them, and
to deal with those individuals as criminals. After all, is it not a crime to advocate the killing
of fellow citizens for beliefs for which all Western nations allow a choice, free from coercion
and threats?
• Over time, a law change by any of the 8 apostate-threatening states will be a seismic event
in Islam and will lead to a growing stream of converts to other faiths, with some no doubt
choosing to hold to none at all. Over time this will reduce and then nullify its threat to other
cultures. For centuries Christian missionaries in Muslim communities failed to convert any
significant numbers of the faithful because of its terminal threat to apostates: without it, this
previously inaccessible swamp can be drained. Obviously, this is no easy task, but the
alternatives do not offer the same chance of eventually eradicating the threat altogether
UNDERSTANDING STRATEGY
To really appreciate the contention that Muslims can be liberated in this fashion and that the West
can be freed from the threat from migrants who support the subjugation of infidels to their
supremacist faith, a brief explanation of strategy with some illustrations is of use. The fundamental
requirements of a strategy are:
o AIM - A clear and defined aim which forms the focus of national or allied policy. This
ensures direction for campaign plans and tactical efforts, as well as helping prioritise the
allocation of resources
5
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
o The American strategist, the former fighter pilot, John Boyd, who guided Dick
Cheney on the strategy to be adopted in the 1991 Gulf War, had categorical advice
on winning ideological conflicts. He advocated offering “a vision so noble” that it
makes opposition to it difficult to justify and energises and inspires its supporters
o In this case, the aim is to win the confrontation with Islam and its mainly leftist-
enablers in the West, to eradicate the violent attacks carried out by Islamic
supremacists, and to end with a better peace for all. This can be achieved by
adopting an ideological campaign that forces the progressive gatekeepers of
“acceptable discourse” on the left to acknowledge the Sharia’s totalitarian nature,
and at the same time present simple ideas to the man on the Western street:
▪ “Why is a Muslim not free to choose their belief as we are?”
▪ “Why are they to be killed by fellow Muslims for making the “wrong”
choice?”
▪ “Do we want them here if that is what their law says? Even if it is applied
fitfully, one day it might not be, as their numbers grow might they try to
make it a reality in our nations - as it is in those countries which have such
laws today?”
o Strategic level diplomatic, legal and media campaigns should be aimed at influencing
groups at the UN, the EU and international justice system levels; operational level
campaigns should be aimed at national governments and major influencers such as
Google, Facebook and other global “players”; at the tactical level, Legalise Apostasy
Now groups can be set up and supported to carry out Allow Apostasy Now banner-
waving and t-shirt logoed marches in cities, outside Embassies of apostasy-
threatening nations, near mosques, at major events and party conventions etc. All
these actions are aimed at applying pressure, but also make it difficult for
supporters of Islam to pin those attacking such laws with an anti-Muslim tag without
drawing attention to the source of the apostasy laws themselves
o ALLIES - Alliances are crucial to expand the forces and resources available and which can
then be allocated to undertake the campaigns and operations required to achieve the
strategic aim. The Allies defeated the Axis forces, NATO wore down the Warsaw Pact – no
individual nation can take on the Islamic states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
(OIC) in the UN on its own.
o In this case, an alliance of states and groups concerned about Islamic supremacism –
Trump in the US; the Visegrad group in Eastern Europe; Israel - under existential
threat from Muslim states; political groups across Europe, the Freedom Party, the
Party for Freedom, the National Front, UKIP, AfD, Finns Party, Swedish Democrats;
Myanmar, Thailand and the Philippines with their Muslim insurgencies; Russia with
its Caucasian dissidents; the Chinese - with their problems in Uyghur; major
evangelical organisations etc. At the same time this forces the dark left into the
dilemma of either supporting the campaign for free choice, or continuing to support
Islam and its documented and clear belief that the threat to and killing of apostates
is allowed. They can be muzzled
o FIGHT TODAY’S BATTLE – NOT THOSE OF THE PAST - This battle is primarily ideological and
can only be won by addressing that fact.
o It is pointless fighting this cultural war on the terms set by the Left and whose tactics
have been adopted and utilised by their Muslim imitators. We must understand
6
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
that direct attacks on the religion can be batted away using the current norms set by
the cultural war victors, but the open statutes of the 8 Muslim states threatening to
kill their own ex-Muslims offer’s a target that cannot be defended by any party, even
of the left. And as the apostasy requirement is so central to Islam’s survival Muslims
must defend it and so declare their inability to integrate. From this conclusion flow
the legal structures to control Muslim immigration, to close offending Sharia
institutes, madrassas and mosques, and the development and application of
stringent residency, employment and related institutional protection measures
o SURPRISE – Surprise is best achieved through the use of an indirect approach to access an
opponent’s most vital organs. The aim is to throw the opposition off balance and give
confidence and momentum to our advance. Surprise will be gained in this case by attacking
their currently unchallenged statutory requirements to kill and terrorise their renegades.
The campaign should be launched without prior warning, preferably by revealing the drive
to Legalise Apostasy Now at a significant international event. The opposition will know that
their weak-point has been identified and will use all the weapons at their disposal to defend
the right, so the initial assault must be a surprise to throw them off balance and give the
campaign the greatest chance of success.
o To be successful now, those advocating freedom of conscience must adopt methods
that help them to avoid the totalitarian searchlights sweeping the horizons for
“unacceptable” ideas, and must cloak their weapons to delay recognition of the
assault for what it is until it is too late. Let us fight this war on our terms and use our
brains, not our technological brawn. They are already inside our defences and use
selected rights as weapons against us, hence the cultural confusion and loss of
freedoms we have already suffered. It is time to recognise what weapons we can
use very effectively and to then assault remorselessly at their weakest point until a
gap is punched between the groups arrayed against us – then we can pour through
the breach
o GO FORWARD - Conflicts are won by taking the initiative and utilising the offense – the
Legalise Apostasy Now campaign is a new idea, but it is aimed at the heart of Islam and its
sacred texts.
o They must defend their threat to kill apostates if they are to be true to their beliefs,
and this will emphasise the nature of their totalitarianism to the people of the West,
as well as to their naïve Western enablers and useful idiots: it will also be a shock to
some within the religion itself. Muhammad said that “war is deception”, so it is time
to reveal the true nature of their beliefs and to shine a light so clearly on their use of
state terror against their own former believers through national laws that even the
short-sighted can clearly see what they truly are. The Legalise Apostasy campaign is
aimed specifically at the lynch-pin of the religion, and makes clear to non-believers
the truly malevolent foundation on which the religion is built
o IDENTIFY THE DECISIVE POINT - When an opponent’s weak-point is identified, resources are
focused at that point, the Schwerpunkt, and all necessary forces are unleashed upon it,
including reserves, until victory is achieved.
o The legal requirement to kill apostates is the major prop supporting Islam. It
terrifies anyone considering leaving the religion and thus maintains numbers and
growth. It is a one-way ratchet such as no other belief system can rely upon to force
former believers to apparently maintain their faith - on pain of extinction. The
central focus of the allied attack at the international level must be on state laws
enforcing the Sharia’s call for death to apostates. However, the particular nations
7
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
and targets being singled out must be swapped around from time to time, with the
hammer swinging back and forth, one time swinging at one target, another at a
newly exposed opportunity - as events dictate. Allow Apostasy Now campaigners
can select from confronting states in the UN, to concentrating against groups such as
the legal scholars at Al-Azhar or Deoband in India. The strikes should be coordinated
to most effectively benefit from the attention directed at the targets, and the
growing embarrassment and frustration of the opposition. Reinforce success, not
failure
o INTELLIGENCE - Finally, the thread that can be drawn between the various principles
detailed above is the use of intelligence to most effectively identify targets and to
concentrate resources.
o The majority of non-Muslims are not aware that all of Islam’s legal codes call for the
killing of apostates, or that its legal scholars, theologians, politicians and
knowledgeable Muslims are aware of this requirement. This needs to change. This
knowledge needs to be common, not specialist, this knowledge needs to be actively
disseminated at the international, national, regional and local government levels.
Governments, judiciaries and democratic organisations must be aware of the
pressures faced by all Muslims to remain in the religion or to face death, threats and
other sanctions – even in the West. The existence of this threat and the
corresponding growth in the West of the number of Muslim apostates hiding in our
communities needs to be made absolutely clear: the point driven home that this will
happen on an ever-increasing scale as the number of Muslims grows in cities across
the West. So long as this fact is ignored and covered up, the longer Muslims do not
have to address this legal stricture, the longer grow the odds of changing it
The Left’s reliance on revolutionary activities has given it very wide experience in fabricating new
strategic approaches to overtly and, especially, covertly attack, penetrate and suborn large and
established institutions so as to achieve their aim: power. After initial success in Russia, revolutions
across Europe failed and the Left addressed this by developing ever deeper and more secretive
methods of attack with which to undermine the foundations of democratic political systems. After
the collapse of the Soviet Union and their failure to gain a foothold in democracies (eg, 0.1% of the
national vote in the 1980s in the last UK election the Communist Party took part in), the hard-left, of
the party and groups such as The Weathermen, concentrated on gaining power by piling into the
higher education system and grooming the young. Saul Alinsky, the Chicago-based “progressive”
and agitator is one of the more well-known and still much-admired authorities in this area: Hilary
Clinton was a close friend and Barack Obama trained at one of his institutes. His notorious Rules for
Radicals includes the advice to isolate your target and to humiliate it so that it can be more
effectively destroyed; hence this strategy’s focus on embarrassing states that punish apostasy. Once
the target is decided upon and fixed in place, it can then be the point of focus and pummelled by
making impossible demands upon it, ie to change “sacred” laws. In our case, we must focus on
apostasy as it is a right recognised everywhere but in Islam, and we must humiliate the countries and
institutions that advocate and defend the right to kill those leaving Islam. And never let up.
ACTIONS
Bombing, Special Forces’ operations and clearly ineffective anti-radicalisation programs will not work
over the long-term as they leave the belief system intact. These measures are failing right now to
reduce the threat to the freedoms we enjoy and the opposition continually metastasizes and adopts
new forms and tactics. Talk of a Marshall-type plan to help Islamic states is also pointless – without
the fundamental change described here such an operation would be disastrous for us. What can
succeed are international campaigns at the UN and at other transnational organisations to confront
8
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
the 23 states that punish apostates, and so push for the creation of the permanent sacred law
changes needed to emancipate Muslims and de-fang Islam. The focus should initially be on the 8
jurisdictions in which it is a capital offence, and once these begin to buckle, include on the target list
the 15 other states that advocate less murderous punishments. Fortunately, this strategy requires
little in the way of financial resources or military hardware, it primarily relies on ideological
commitment and a tenacity to do what is right. This strategy to highlight the apostate-threatening
nations provides great bang-for-the-buck and it can be extremely effective over the long term – not
unlike the historic and highly successful anti-apartheid campaign.
• At meetings in the UN, at the EU etc, calls can be made to boycott the 8 states (Afghanistan,
Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE, and Yemen) that have laws that
require the execution of apostates from Islam. Pressure points, for example:
o (UAE 1987 Penal Code, Articles 1 and 66) Dubai has the Expo in 2020, a major event
which makes this tourist-reliant Emirate, with one of the world’s largest airlines,
vulnerable to pressure mounted internationally and relentlessly
o (Qatar 2004 Penal Code, Article 1 of Law 11) Qatar is holding FIFA’s World Cup, a
globally significant event, in 2022, by which time real momentum could be built in
the Legalise Apostasy Now campaign, exposing the host and the corrupt and
vulnerable FIFA organisation to unremitting pressure, criticism and condemnation
o (In Saudi Arabia, apostasy laws are found contained within its wholesale adoption of
the Hanbali code of the Sharia – see extensive list below) Saudi Arabia is the
custodian of the two holy shrines, and as such is the state most committed to
defending Islam and its belief system – strengthened by its adherence to the rabid
Wahhabi branch of Sunni Islam. However, its dire financial prospects - caused by
the oil-price crash, the growth of alternative sources of energy and the cost of its
involvement in the Yemen war, undermine its ability to defend itself from a world
demanding a freedom that will question the basis of the state religion. Every Hajj
could be an open season for the campaigners to highlight the murderous nature of
the regime and its self-proclaimed entitlement to kill those renouncing Islam
o Free nations can look at options to bar the issue of visas for citizens from these
nations, along with other measures deemed appropriate, ratcheting up the strength
of the measures depending on the responses of the apostate-threatening states
o Governments, academic and other legal institutions can use international fora to
question the representatives of these nations, major Islamic organisations and legal
establishments, and openly discuss the issue and demonstrate the fundamental
nature of this belief through that process
o Sloganeering battles can be initiated, putting dithering authorities on the horns of a
dilemma – do we try to control or ban discussion because highlighting it upsets a
growing portion of the electorate, or do we support freedom? What are they to do
when banners and t-shirts are emblazoned front and back with captions such as:
▪ Free 1.6 Billion Muslims, Allow Apostasy Now
▪ Free To Choose - Your Religion, Your Choice
▪ Apostate - Free At Last, Free At Last!
▪ Emancipate the Apostate
▪ Dubai – Legalise Apostasy Now!
9
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018
▪ Qatar – Allow Apostasy By 2022!
▪ Apostasy or World Cup – Choose!
• As well as being contrary to the aspirations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is the
call to kill apostates not also a crime against humanity, a genocidal threat against that
group? The laws on genocide make even the threat of targeting, let alone killing, a group an
offence, so this clearly falls within that definition. The Legalise Apostasy Now campaign
could call on such institutions as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Yale law school etc., to take
this up as an issue – as they have done with regard to attacks on Myanmar’s Muslims
• These are all ideas which states committed to the Legalise Apostasy Now conflict-ending
campaign against the Islamic fundamentalists can utilise to attack the ideology and force
weak Western leaders into a corner – do you support apostates (actual or potential) or their
killers? Can they set up Apostasy Abuse Units, or create hate-crime laws to cover Sharia
courts advocating punishments for apostasy?
International campaigns to publicly call out the likes of Dubai, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are not going
to be easily mounted, but they will be effective. All these states are currently very vulnerable to
pressure, but they are not targeted as their investments and energy supplies have given them
influence with elites in the West. They have also been supported through the successful penetration
of administrations by the Muslim Brotherhood and their acolytes (Huma Abedin, Hilary Clinton’s
assistant, and the tens of millions of dollars the Clinton foundation receives from Saudi and Gulf
contributors are noteworthy in this regard).
Many Western elites have indeed proved to be weak in the face of the assault from Islam, and they
will not be treated kindly by history – but this is not important right now, only victory is. However,
the states that show their mettle and take a lead in this conflict can grow even more in stature and
influence by picking up the baton in the campaign and successfully taking on the threat to our
greatest value. And they can do this peacefully, in accord with European values whilst also
benefitting the major victims of Islam, the Muslim peoples’ themselves.
If nations in this “Apostates’ Alliance” offer protection to apostates by setting up protected zones for
fearful ex-Muslims in European countries (an Apostate State for peace, versus the Islamic State for
terror), they will be truly welcoming genuine refugees - but from the death threats of the apostate-
hating Islamic states and their supporters. They will be taking the moral high ground and leaving
Islam and its apologists bereft of cover and exposed both to contempt and to in-roads by
evangelicals of many stripes – as well as to a terminal loss of confidence and influence.
Further to this, national and local laws could be proposed and introduced to:
• Restrict visas, residency and citizenship of lawyers, religious leaders, teachers and believers
calling for the killing of apostates – which ALL schools of Islamic law undeniably support (a
Catch 22 that is difficult to avoid for true believers)
• US and UK Naturalisation Application forms (Form N-400, section 12 - and Form AN, section
3 respectively), and similar forms in other states can be tightened up to include specific
questions in this area. These can cover opposition to the right to freedom of conscience, in
particular support for the killing of apostates. There is no requirement to identify Islam
specifically. Questions might include:
o Have you trained as a lawyer or for a position of authority in a religion or religion-
related institute (at any level) that requires execution for those wishing to leave the
religion, to become apostates? Y / N
10
© LAN All Rights Reserved 2018