Second; now that we have defined 'Schengen', why is it falling apart (end of 2023), and what will be the consequences for the EU (and therefore, Ireland)?

The most obvious dilemma facing Schengen is the wholesale & unprecedented influx of asylum seekers, economic migrants and malevolent actors, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine, the activities of the 'Wagner Group' and the fallout from the Israeli/Arab/Palestine conflict.

The rot probably began in ernest with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel in August 2015. Visiting a refugee camp at that time, Merkel said Germany could manage large numbers of people fleeing war and persecution: “wir schaffen das” (“we can manage this”). She repeated the phrase at the 2015 (German) Christian Democratic Union party conference. 

Soon after, she opened Germany’s borders to tens of thousands of Syrians and other refugees making their way through the Balkans. At a stroke, she had torn up the EU’s Dublin** Convention that requires asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first EU country of arrival. 

While Germany’s integration of refugees had been a success story, Merkel would be accused of encouraging hundreds of thousands to make the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean. “If we had not shown a friendly face, that’s not my country,” she said, justifying her decision later. Political allies say the chancellor was also worried about the influx of refugees destabilising the politically fragile countries in the western Balkans.

The EU is “still trying to accommodate” Merkel’s 'national' decisions on migration. Some EU officials blame Merkel’s government and the European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker for forcing through a plan to distribute migrants around the bloc via quotas, in a deeply divisive qualified-majority vote (QMV) in September 2015. 

Overruling central European leaders, the QMV inflamed tensions with countries that refused quotas and alienated those that reluctantly accepted. Insiders argue it was essential to keep the EU together.

**Dublin Convention; See - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-is-the-dublin-iii-regulation-will-it-be-affected-by-brexit/

To quantify the possible repercussions, we have to appreciate how this EU Qualified-Majority (QMV) works. The dry facts are as follows :

EU Qualified majority -

When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the proposal is adopted if a qualified majority is reached.

A qualified majority is reached if two conditions are simultaneously met:

a. 55% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means 15 out of 27

b. the proposal is supported by member states representing at least 65% of the total EU population

This procedure is also known as the 'double majority rule'.

55% of the EU member states / 65% of the EU population

Blocking minority -

The blocking minority must include at least four Council members.

When the blocking minority threshold of four Council members is not reached the qualified majority is deemed attained.

For example, when all but three member states vote in favour, the qualified majority is also deemed attained, even if the 24 member states voting in favour account for less than 65% of the total population. In other words, when there are less than four Council members voting against, the percentage of population which the member states voting in favour comprise is irrelevant for the definition of the qualified majority.

Reinforced qualified majority -

When the Council votes on a proposal not coming from the Commission or the high representative, the proposal is adopted if the so-called 'reinforced qualified majority' is reached.

To reach a reinforced qualified majority, two conditions must be simultaneously met:

*at least 72% of member states vote in favour - in practice this means at least 20 out of 27 member states 

*those supporting the proposal represent at least 65% of the EU population

Special cases -

When not all Council members participate in the vote, for example due to an opt-out in certain policy areas, the voting rules depend on the nature of the proposal.

When the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the high representative, a decision is adopted if 55% of the participating Council members, representing at least 65% of the population of the participating member states, vote in favour. In this case, a blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of member states representing more than 35% of the EU population, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority is deemed attained.

When the Council is not acting on a proposal by the Commission or the high representative, a decision is adopted if 72% of the participating Council members, representing at least 65% of the population of the participating member states, vote in favour.

Abstentions -

An abstention under qualified majority voting counts as a vote against. Abstention is not the same as not participating in the vote. Any member can abstain at any time.

The 'standard' voting method in the Council -

Qualified majority is the most widely used voting method in the Council. 

It is used when the Council takes decisions during the ordinary legislative procedure, also known as co-decision. 

About 80% of all EU legislation is adopted with this procedure.

                                                                    ~~~~~~~~~~

I.D. and other dissenting groups.

As a result of this internal dissention, the Schengen Agreement is now under severe pressure. As illustrated in the image (top of page), Schengen signatories (including Germany!) are now re-imposing border checks citing, inter alia, international terrorism, unsustainable migration, foreign espionage, organised crime and, most crucially, Militant Islamic infiltration.

Within the European Parliament new groups such as Identity And Democracy (ID) have sprung up. 

See: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/idgroup/pages/54/attachments/original/1673443377/NEW_ID_Statutes__EN_11.2022.pdf?1673443377

above European Parliament as of 1st February 2020

Identity And Democracy -

It has 59 MEPs from eight countries (Eurosceptic Conservatives above) and, in its 'Political Declaration' describes itself as follows:

The Members of the ID Group base their political project on the upholding of freedom, sovereignty, subsidiarity and the identity of the European peoples and nations. They acknowledge the Greek-Roman and Christian heritage as the pillars of European civilisation.

They advocate voluntary cooperation between sovereign European nations, and therefore reject any further evolution toward a European superstate. The Members of the ID Group acknowledge that the nation state is the highest possible level in which democracy can fully function. They oppose any new transfer of power from the nations to the EU.

Inspired by the idea of a Europe of cooperation, the new alliance and its Members are conscious of the need to deeply reform the existing EU in a way to strengthen the principles of subsidiarity and democracy, to introduce direct democracy, as well as to implement more transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.

The ID Group aims to safeguard the identity of the citizens and nations in Europe. The right to control, regulate and limit immigration is a fundamental principle shared by the Members of the Group. So is their willingness to fight for a safer Europe with well-protected external borders and a stronger cooperation to tackle terrorism and Islamisation. 

The Members unequivocally oppose the possible accession of Turkey.

The Members of the Group are strongly committed to the defence of the rule of law and individual freedom, with a particular emphasis on the protection of freedom of speech.

They reject any past or present affiliation, connection or sympathy to any authoritarian or totalitarian project. They are not interested to revive disputes related to the past, but are instead fully focussed on the present and the future of Europe...

As is quite clear from their Constitution, they prioritise the integrity of the Nation State and reject any further evolution toward a European superstate. They acknowledge the depth of heritage of Christian Europe, and welcome stronger cooperation to tackle terrorism and Islamisation. 

A impartial observer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_and_Democracy_Party) has described The Identity And Democracy Party as 'an alliance of nationalist, right-wing populist and eurosceptic European political parties founded in 2014'. 

The party has further been described as both right-wing and far-right. Its political group in the European Parliament was Europe of Nations and Freedom, which was succeeded in 2019 by Identity and Democracy.

                                                                    -------------

Militant Islam.

the Tawheed (left)

There was a time when we in Ireland (mostly Catholics/Christians) were members of a proselytising  religion. We (famously) sent ministers, priests, monks and nuns all over the world to bring the Word of God to the 'heathen' and the Unbeliever. In the 'Dark Ages', Ireland was a renowned centre of learning and piety.

This all got out of hand with The Inquisition, the iniquities of The Reformation and The Counter-Reformation, and finally the implosion of Catholic practice in the mid-twentieth century with the 'liberation' of Youth and the exposure of abuse within the Catholic and other churches.

Many brought up in the Catholic faith now prefer to describe themselves as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious' and no longer adhere to the strictures of 'Mother Church'. Organised Christian religion now forms a framework for living as opposed to an obligation.

Such is NOT the case with the Muslim.

In a nutshell, a Muslim will willingly sacrifice him/herself for Allah.  In the words of the Qur’an:  'Verily my worship, my sacrifice, and my life and death are wholly dedicated to Allah, Lord of the worlds'. (Al-An`am 6:162). 

Read More on islamonline :  https://islamonline.net/en/sacrifice-the-heart-of-islamic-faith/

There are six Muslim terms that all Westerners should be aware of, for these are the prime motivators of Muslims as surely as Faith, Hope and Charity were/are for Christians:

1. 'Hijrah', the deliberate conquest of non-Muslim countries, 

2.' Dar al-Harb' (the place of war) via immigration, making it eventually become part of the 

3. 'Dar al-Islam' (the place of Islam)

4. 'Dar al-'Ahd' is assigned for territories ruled by non-Muslims that have a treaty of non-aggression or peace with Muslims, effectively an intermediate status between the two major divisions.

5 & 6. 'Jihad',  where 'Shari’ah' is held to be the rule of the land.

1. Hijrah (emigration for the sake of Allah) means moving from the land of shirk to the land of Islam, as the Muslims moved from Mecca – before its people became Muslim – to Medina, because it had become the city of Islam after its people had pledged their allegiance (bay’ah) to the Prophet and asked him to make hijrah to them. 

So Hijrah means migrating to join other Muslims. Hijrah may also take the form of moving from one land of shirk to another land of shirk where evil is less prevalent and there is less danger to the Muslims, as when some of the Muslims migrated from Mecca, at the command of the Prophet, to Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

2. Dar al-Harb means 'house of war' and refers to the dominion of war around the world. Generally, it refers to any place that Islam cannot be practiced without persecution. It also refers to a country that is not under Islamic rule ( i.e. ruled by 'Infidels'), and is thus not amenable to the majority of its inhabitants practicing Islam. 

The rulers of adjoining non-Islamic lands are "called upon" to accept Islam.

3. Dar al-Islam means 'house of peace' and refers to the dominion of Islam, namely, any structure (be it a home, community, or state) that allows the free practice of Islam. It is most commonly used to delineate countries around the world that are under Islamic rule and thus fully permit the majority expression of Muslim faith.

The two terms exist as opposites, with the general perception within Islam (both historically and in many modern accounts) that each is always attempting to win back territory and influence from the other.

4. Dar al-'Ahd ("house of truce") or Dar al-Sulh ("house of conciliation/treaty") were terms used for territories that have a treaty of non-aggression or peace with Muslims. 

The notions of "houses" or "divisions" of the world in Islam such as dar al-Islam and dar al-harb do NOT appear in the Quran or the hadith. According to Abou El Fadl, the only dars the Qur'an speaks of are "the abode of the Hereafter and the abode of the earthly life, with the former described as clearly superior to the latter".

The concept of dar al-harb has been affected by historical changes such as the political fragmentation of the Muslim world, and has little significance today. The theoretical distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb is widely considered inapplicable, and many contemporary Islamic jurists regard the Western world as part of the former, since Muslims can freely practise and proselytise their faith in Western countries.

According to Majid Khadduri, the fundamental distinction between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb was introduced after the defeat of the Umayyad Caliphate at the Battle of Tours in 732 which prevented the expansion of Islam to the north, while at the same time the expansion of the caliphate to the east had been halted. 

Wahbah al-Zuhayli argues that the concept of dar al-harb is mostly historical: "The existence of Dār al-Islām and Dār al-Ḥarb in contemporary times is rare or extremely limited. This is because Islamic countries have joined the * United Nations * covenant that stipulates that the relationship between nations is peace and not war. Therefore non-Muslim countries are Dār al-‘Ahd ..."

According to Abu Hanifa there are three conditions that need to be fulfilled for a land to be classified as dar al-harb:

* Implementation of the laws of the non-Muslims openly and that no rule of Islam is implemented any longer

* Bordering another dar al-harb

* No Muslim remains as safe as he was before the non-Muslims took power.

The purpose behind differentiating between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb was to identify the land as either one of safety for the Muslims or of fear. So, if Muslims are generally safe in a land and not in fear, then it cannot be classified as dar al-harb.

Under the classical doctrine, it was the duty of Muslim rulers to bring dar al-harb under Islamic sovereignty. A state of war was presumed between dar al-harb and dar al-Islam, but this did not necessarily imply that hostilities must occur. It was up to the ruler to decide when, where and against whom wage war. 

So in practice there was often peace between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb; formal armistices could last up to 10 years, while informal peace could last much longer than 10 years.

Nevertheless, there are those who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Jihadi ideology. In the Jihadists’ mind, Dar al-Islam refers to a territory ruled by a Muslim ruler and the Shari’ah is held as the rule of the land. 

In contrast, a territory is considered as Dar al-Harb when it is ruled by non-Muslims or when the Shari’ah is not recognised as the rule of the land.

There is a controversy among the Islamic view points regarding the application of the early territorial Islamic concepts to the modern world. While many Islamic scholars adhere to the view point that the early Islamic divisions are no longer relevant to the modern world, other argue that it could still be applied for some specific situations and territories and radical viewpoints do stick to the fundamental interpretation.

According to Muhammad Haniff Hassan, it can be argued that most of the secular Muslim countries today are not Dar al-Islam and most of the non-Muslim countries (which are not at war with the Muslim world) are not Dar al-Harb.

Such nuances weigh against the idea of Muslims at perpetual war with the non-Muslims in the modern world, with the contemporary international system has evolved so much from the period when the classical Muslim scholars wrote on the classification that new thinking and perspectives are required. 

Further, according to Hassan, in today’s context, any Muslim-ruled state, which is a member of the United Nations, is by default in a peace agreement with all other members of the UN by way of the UN Charter. When a Muslim state enters the agreement to be a member of the UN, it actually enters a 'contract'. 

Islam requires Muslims to fulfill all contracts that have been agreed upon, regardless of whether the contract was signed with Muslims or non-Muslims, as defined in The Quran, 5:1, 2:177.

5. Jihad:

'Jihad' is an Arabic word which literally means "striving" or "struggling", especially with a praiseworthy aim. According to Jihadist ideology, the use of Dar al-Harb as a terminology to describe non-Muslim land by classical Muslim scholars suggests that *all such lands should be considered at war until they come under the rule of Dar al-Islam.*

They do so following Mohammed’s example when he first appeared with his followers as refugees from Mecca at the city of Yathrib.  In a few short years he managed to expel, murder or enslave all the original inhabitants of the city, renaming it Medina.  Every Muslim who travels to the west knows this story.

The word jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an with and without military connotations, often in the idiomatic expression " striving in the path of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)", conveying a sense of self-exertion. An elaborate set of rules was developed pertaining to jihad, including prohibitions on harming those who are not engaged in combat.

In the modern era, the notion of jihad has lost its jurisprudential relevance and instead given rise to an ideological and political discourse. 

While modernist Islamic scholars have emphasized the defensive and non-military aspects of jihad, some Islamists have advanced aggressive interpretations that go beyond the classical theory.

Gallup analysis of a large survey reveals considerable nuance in the conceptions of jihad held by Muslims around the world. 

'Shari’ah' 

The word ‘sharia’ means ‘straight path’.

Sharia law is the law of Islam. It sets the code of law for Islamic living. Both Sunnis and Shi’ahs have similar interpretations of Sharia law.

Sharia law is based on both the Qur’an and the Sunnah and the example (sic!) of the Prophet Muhammad. These are its main sources. Sharia law governs a Muslim person’s whole life as it is based on revelation from God.

The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet gradually, over 23 years. The essence of its message is to establish the oneness of God and the spiritual and moral need of man for God. This need is fulfilled through worship and submission, and has ultimate consequences in the Hereafter.

Muslims generally are shocked by the general lack of respect and discipline in the Western world, especially if they are immigrants and not born here. They are particularly shocked by lack of discipline in schools and the difficulties faced by so many teachers in getting children to behave in class and actually learn.

They are shocked by the appalling rates of theft, drunkenness, drug addiction, sex outside marriage, abortions, rape of children and old ladies, homosexuality - especially when it is being put forward as quite normal and an acceptable alternative sexual lifestyle; homosexuals in positions of authority (from teachers to MPs).

They are also shocked by the general lack of respect for those in authority, and older people in general. In Muslim homes, children would probably be expected not to smoke in front of parents, not to sit down or start eating before them.

"Muslims want to do things according to what pleases their god. That's why we need Sharia Councils in the West, because the civil system (in the West) cannot deal with islamic matters." - 18 October 2023, Haitham al-Haddad, a Sheikh who is the chairman of a Sharia council, one of eighty in GB. He decides on marriages, divorces and inheritances. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXUYbXx3NQ&t=191s

Groups such as The Taliban have been known for their strict interpretation of Sharia, including punishments such as the stoning and public executions of convicted murderers, perverts and adulterers.

                                                                   -----------