In a recent CNN documentary, Younnes (formerly known as Michael Delefortrie) declares he regrets returning from Syria to Belgium and proclaims his desire to live under the caliphate. “Is that a crime?” he asks.
The young man claims he wants to be a member of an ideal Muslim society and in his opinion ISIS is aiming to achieve just that. Is is a crime to wish to live under what it seems to be the worlds’ most perfect caliphate?
It is a crime under the Belgian law to support terrorist organizations.
The DAESH are not a caliphate and do not meet any of the classical criteria for it, so the question is a silly and an irrelevant one.
The DAESH are a terrorist organization, it is a crime to support them under the national law, and that is the end of the story.
As far as I know, it’s not a crime to want anything, in general.
But it’s often a crime to support the enemy. DAESH is at war with the West. So yes, in many western nations, it’s a crime to support it.
Probably not a crime just to “wish” to live there, but many expressions of that desire could drift into illegal territory.
Is merely traveling to set up residence in ISIS territory, but not explicitly pledging loyalty to, “aiding/supporting” ISIS?
Not a perfect analogy but…
I’m a Catholic. Is it “a crime” for me to wish everyone in the world would convert to Catholicism? Of course not.
Is it a crime for me to believe the world would be a better place if we all followed the Church’s teachings? Of course not.
Is it a crime for me to preach to people, to try to bring about the result I want? No.
But the second I attempt to use violence to impose my beliefs on the unwilling, Hell YES, that’s a crime.
I assume ALL devout Muslims wish the whole world was Muslim and that everyone followed Shariah law. No crime there. The second a Muslim threatens or hurts people who don’t want to live in that ideal Muslim world, yes, that’s a crime.
that is a question for the Belgian courts, but the convictions of those who have travelled to the Syrian war there is a point of departure that whatever the pretension, travel to the territory of the DAESH is a strong evidence of the intention to support the DAESH.
Since the DAESH regularly kill those incoming foreigners who do not swear allegience to them, the pretending that the travel to their territory is innocent is not very credible
Perhaps, however what a devout person understands to be the good shariah law is something very variable - although there is the pretension that there is only one form, it is not the reality. The good shariah law to a Sufi is not the same as for the Salafiste
This answer is not only not any end to any story, it just starts one in my mind.
I know what the Caliphate means to the radical Islamists. What does that term mean to all the others; the peaceful ones?
What does it mean to you?
I’m not convinced that’s true, absent a “True Scotsman” interpretation for “devout Muslims”. Quite a lot of believers of various faiths are perfectly happy for non-believers to exist, some because they’re nice, tolerant people who focus on the state of their own souls rather than others, and some because they’re self-righteous dicks who like feeling superior to all those heretics and infidels. And not all Muslims want to live under Shariah law.
That’s it right there. If you “live in Da-esh controlled territory”, you are going to be supporting them in some form or anther, whether it’s paying “taxes” or whatever.
It is a word. that means The Succession. That is what it means to me. I have not once thought about a Khalifa outside of when the Salafistes rant on about the subject. Nor do I ever recall any conversation in the family in my entire life outside of that context.
This does not matter anyway as the DAESH do not respond to the classical requirements of a Khalifa, their pretensions are even mocked by al Qaeda organization.
it is in any case a very silly and empty question as the DAESH are a terrorist organization, anyone outside of the takfiri circles sees this.
Certainly if you are chosing voluntarily to go there it must be counted as support, if you are a poor Syrian occupied by them it would be a different idea of course.
Thank you, Ramira … I appreciate and admire your posts here … it’s people like you who will solve these issues and finally bring peace to the world … the more I learn about Islamic doctrine the more I’m convinced we need Muslims … God smiles upon all who worship Him … keep on StraightDoping !!!
Well not necessarily. You might choose to go to ISIS-controlled territory voluntarily despite the fact that it is ISIS-controlled because, e.g. there are people there you love and want to be with.
Is everybody who chooses to go to the United States counted as supporting Donald Trump?
You are then a poor Syrian in the civil war although you could be a smuggler, but otherwise you are trying to get your relations out of the DAESH zone if it is possible.
Since the United states is not under a dictatorship of a terrorist organization there is zero comparability and it is a ridiculous comparison.
but instead of the silly tortured theoreticals so loved on this board, let us remember the question is about the travel of a belgian deliberately to the DAESH.
It is very evident not an innocent act and the OP question is ridiculous.
Innocent or not, the question is “is it criminal?” I’d say the jury is still out on whether simply travelling to live in ISIS controlled territory is a criminal act in and of itself.
What jury? There are multiple countries which do considered traveling to live in ISIS-controlled territory a criminal act, because they do consider it the voluntary joining of a terrorist organization; your personal jury may or may not agree but the courts of Belgium, Italy or Spain don’t particularly care. In fact, some countries consider even the preparation of such a trip as a criminal act (“joining a criminal organization, in degree of tentative” would be the literal translation for the Spanish label).
ETA in response to Telemark
The Belgian law says that it is criminal to provide support to a terrorist organization. There is no Belgian law about travel. The question of the terrorist is a fake question, it is a deliberate fakery.
Nava is correct that for several of the EU jurisdictions the condition itself of travel is a basis of conviction under the criminal law.
In any case the pretension that the desire to travel to live under the DAESH can be pretended to not be in support of terrorism if a transparent fakery. The DAESH is based on the explicit position of declaration of Takfir against others. To desire to live under that (after in particular having gone there) is the explicit adoption of the violent, murderous takfiri doctrinal position.
I have a hard time accepting the justice of the principle that you can be committing a crime just be living under a regime, even if it’s done by choice.