What this site is, what it is not, and — stated plainly rather than disclaimed away — where its anonymity does not meet what some European laws require.
This page is published in English. The English text is the authoritative version.
This is deliberate, and it is the single most important fact about the site's legal position. A publication that hosts nothing for anyone else is not an intermediary. A publication with no accounts, no forms and no correspondence holds no personal data about its readers. A publication with no channel offers no service and undertakes nothing to anyone. The one measurement this site does run — an aggregate, cookieless count of page views and countries — is described in full in the privacy notice.
What replaces a contact channel is verification you can perform yourself: every claim in this archive carries a primary document, linked, with the location of the passage and the date it was checked. You are not asked to trust the publisher and you do not need to reach the publisher. Open the document. The standard the archive holds itself to is set out at accuracy and corrections.
Because there is no channel: no address, mailbox, form or account associated with this domain is monitored. Nothing sent to any such address is received or read. This is stated so that silence is never mistaken for a decision.
St.Michel — an independent European documentation archive on organised political Islam, published at stmichel.org.
The archive carries no advertising and no sponsorship. It sells nothing, solicits no donations, takes no payment of any kind and has no revenue. It is not funded by, and does not act on behalf of, any government, political party, movement, campaign or commercial interest.
Declared here because Austrian media law requires periodic media to publish their basic editorial direction (§ 25 Mediengesetz), and because a reader is entitled to be told:
This project is published anonymously. That is a deliberate safety decision, taken because of the subject matter and the documented threat environment around people who work on it. It is not a device to escape accountability, and this notice does not pretend the decision is free of legal consequence. Three European jurisdictions require publisher identification in terms this notice does not fully meet. Each is set out below, with the construction relied on and the exposure that remains.
The identification duties of online publishers now sit in article 1-1 of the LCEN (loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004, restructured by loi n° 2024-449 du 21 mai 2024 — the SREN law — in force 23 May 2024; the old article 6 III numbering is superseded). Article 1-1, I requires professional publishers to publish their name, address, telephone number and the name of the directeur de la publication. Article 1-1, II provides that persons publishing an online public communication service on a non-professional basis may preserve their anonymity towards the public, provided they keep available the name and address of their hosting provider and have communicated their own identifying details to that provider. The hosting provider holds those details under professional secrecy (article 226-13 of the Code pénal) and may disclose them only on the requisition of a judicial authority.
This archive is published non-professionally within the meaning of that provision — no advertising, no sponsorship, no donations, no sales, no revenue — and therefore relies on article 1-1, II. The hosting provider's details are published below.
§ 5 DDG (Digitale-Dienste-Gesetz, in force 14 May 2024, replacing § 5 TMG) applies to digital services offered "geschäftsmäßig, in der Regel gegen Entgelt" — commercially, normally for remuneration. This archive is offered neither commercially nor for remuneration, so the better view is that § 5 DDG does not bite. That reading is a judgement, not a certainty.
§ 18(1) MStV (Medienstaatsvertrag, in force 7 November 2020) is wider and is not avoided. It requires providers of telemedia that do not serve exclusively personal or family purposes to keep name and address permanently and readily available. § 18(2) MStV requires, in addition, that offerings with journalistic-editorial content name a responsible person (Verantwortlicher) resident in Germany. This notice names neither. Non-compliance is an administrative offence (Ordnungswidrigkeit) which the competent Landesmedienanstalt may pursue, normally beginning with an order to remedy.
§ 5 ECG (E-Commerce-Gesetz) tracks the commercial scope of the EU e-commerce rules and, like § 5 DDG, is aimed at services normally provided for remuneration. § 25 Mediengesetz is the harder one: it obliges the media owner of a periodic medium — websites included — to disclose name or business name, business purpose, seat or residence, and the medium's basic editorial direction. The reduced disclosure of § 25(5) applies only to sites whose content does not go beyond self-presentation and is not capable of influencing the formation of public opinion. This archive plainly exceeds that threshold. The editorial direction is published above; the identity of the media owner is not.
The United Kingdom imposes no general obligation on a non-commercial publisher to identify itself online. Spain (Ley 34/2002, LSSI-CE, art. 10) and Italy (d.lgs. 70/2003, art. 7) impose identification duties framed around economic activity, in the same shape as the EU e-commerce baseline; this archive relies on its non-commercial character there too.
1. Under German § 18 MStV and Austrian § 25 MedienG, this notice is non-compliant. That is a known, accepted gap, not an oversight. No disclaimer on this page cures it.
2. The French position depends on the archive being classed as non-professional. It falls away automatically the day the site takes advertising, sponsorship, donations or any payment.
3. Article 93-2 of loi n° 82-652 du 29 juillet 1982 requires every online public communication service to have a directeur de la publication, and article 93-3 makes that person first in the chain of criminal liability for press offences. Article 1-1, II excuses publishing the name. It does not excuse the underlying requirement.
4. Anonymity is not immunity. A hosting provider can be compelled by a judicial authority to disclose the identifying data it holds. Identity is withheld from the public, not from a court.
5. Publishing in French, Spanish and Italian is evidence that the archive addresses those publics, and strengthens the case that their national rules apply to it. That cost was accepted knowingly.
What would remove the exposure: naming a natural person as Verantwortlicher / directeur de la publication, or interposing a legal entity established in an EU member state and publishing its name, seat and register number. Both work. Both end the anonymity that is the reason this project can be done at all. No drafting removes this tension — only a decision does.
Published because French law requires it of a non-professional publisher relying on article 1-1, II LCEN, and because a reader is entitled to know where the files are:
Vercel Inc., 440 N Barranca Avenue #4133, Covina, CA 91723, United States.
Vercel is the hosting provider only. It has no editorial role: it does not commission, review, select or approve anything published here, and it is not responsible for the content of this archive. It is an intermediary service in its own right and carries its own obligations, including under the Digital Services Act.
Conclusion: this site is not an intermediary service, and the DSA's obligations on intermediaries do not apply to it.
Article 3(g) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 defines an intermediary service as a "mere conduit" service, a "caching" service, or a "hosting" service, the last meaning "the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service at the request of that recipient". This site transmits nothing on behalf of third parties, caches nothing for onward transmission, and — because it accepts no submissions, comments, uploads or correspondence — stores nothing at anyone's request. It publishes only content its own editors wrote or selected. It is a content provider. The obligations that follow from intermediary status, including notice and action under Article 16, statements of reasons under Article 17 and transparency reporting under Article 15, are addressed to intermediaries and do not attach here.
The corollary is stated rather than avoided: the liability exemptions in Articles 4 to 6 DSA are available to intermediaries and are not available to a publisher of its own content. This archive is answerable for its own text. That is the correct allocation, and it is why the sourcing rule is absolute.
If user-generated content were ever added, the site would become a hosting service that day. There are no plans to add it, and the no-submissions position above is the structural guarantee of that.
This archive names organisations and quotes official documents. It does not build cases against private individuals. Where an individual is named, it is because a qualifying primary source names them in a public or official capacity — the authors of a government review, the signatory of a report, the head of a state agency — and only for facts that source states.
Organisations are described under six standing rules:
These rules are the method, and they also track what the law asks of a publisher: truth and accurate reporting of what a document says (Defamation Act 2013 s.2 for England and Wales; exceptio veritatis under article 35 of the French loi du 29 juillet 1881), honest opinion on disclosed facts (s.3), publication on a matter of public interest (s.4), and the French bonne foi test — legitimate aim, absence of personal animosity, prudence in expression, seriousness of the inquiry. In England and Wales a body trading for profit must in addition show serious financial loss (s.1(2)), and an unincorporated association generally has no standing to sue at all. In Germany the relevant provisions are §§ 186 and 187 StGB and § 824 BGB, weighed against Article 5 of the Basic Law.
Stated honestly: a disclaimer does not defeat a defamation claim, and nothing on this page purports to. What answers such a claim is the sourcing rule and the record of how it is applied — not an exclusion clause.
This archive also expressly rejects the demographic-replacement thesis and publishes the measured figures that refute it, as set out at /methodology.
This is the position the project holds on the merits. It is also the line European law draws: criticism of a doctrine, a movement or an institution is lawful; attacking people because they belong to a religion is not. The relevant provisions include article 24 and article 32(2) of the French loi du 29 juillet 1881 (provocation to discrimination or hatred; defamation of a group by reason of origin or religion), § 130 StGB in Germany (Volksverhetzung), § 283 StGB in Austria (Verhetzung), and at EU level Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008. Freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR protects information and ideas that offend, shock or disturb; Article 17 withholds that protection from expression aimed at destroying the rights of others. This archive intends to stay on the correct side of that line in every sentence, and treats a passage that drifts across it as an error to be corrected rather than a position to be defended.
The header images on this site are AI-generated illustrations. They are disclosed as such in their alt text and in a credit line on each page. They are not photographs of real events, real places or real people, they document nothing, and they carry no evidentiary weight whatever. Nothing in this archive's evidentiary record is an image: the record is text, quoted and linked.
The emblem and favicon are the project's own marks. No emblem, insignia, flag or propaganda imagery of any documented organisation is reproduced anywhere on this site. Where the movements' own material is used, it is quoted as dated text, critically and in context — the condition on which European legal systems permit it, and which the German provisions on reporting, scholarship and education (§ 86(4) and § 86a(3) StGB) recognise expressly.
This site aims at WCAG 2.2 level AA. In practice it is plain semantic HTML with no framework, no modal, no autoplay, no carousel and no advertising; the main text of every page is present in the document itself and is readable without JavaScript, at any zoom level, in a screen reader, or with a custom stylesheet.
Known limitations, stated rather than hidden: the language switcher requires JavaScript; the source register and the country view are rendered by JavaScript from /data/sources.json, which is a plain file you can read directly if scripting is unavailable to you; and the colour contrast of the dark palette has not yet been formally audited against 2.2 AA.
No statutory accessibility obligation applies to this site as far as this notice can determine: Directive (EU) 2016/2102 binds public sector bodies, and the European Accessibility Act (Directive (EU) 2019/882, applicable from 28 June 2025) covers specified products and services such as e-commerce, with microenterprises providing services exempt under Article 4(5). The standard above is adopted voluntarily. Consistent with the no-channel position, there is no accessibility feedback mechanism.
The full position — no warranty, the limits of liability, and what those limits do and do not achieve — is set out in the terms of use, and applies to this page as it does to every other page of this site.
Privacy notice · Terms of use · Accuracy and corrections · Methodology
Version 2.0 — published and last reviewed 14 August 2026. Laws are cited with the version in force on that date; if you are reading this long afterwards, check the current text of the provision before relying on it.