Europe Is Growing Skeptical Of Dialogue With Muslims

Europe Is Growing Skeptical Of Dialogue With Muslims

October 6, 2006


After years of dithering over political correctness with Muslims and Islam, Europe is waking up to a different morning.

A three-week tour of Italy, France, and Britain last month was enough for me to conclude that Western Europeans have moved way beyond dialogue. Confrontation, indeed even provocation, is their preferred approach to the Muslims in their midst.

Long before Pope Benedict XVI’s scathing comments in mid-September on the fallacy of phony Muslim-Christian dialogue, signs of hardening European views toward current Islamic values were plentiful on the Continent.

It was telling, for example, to see how Europeans greeted the naïve commentary that surfaced in America’s National Intelligence Estimate, titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States.” The NIE told bemused Europeans, among other things, that “greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit.”

Situated closer than America to that rough neighborhood called the Middle East, Europeans reacted by noting that the chances for “greater pluralism” in any Muslim country are about as plausible as hell freezing over.

Should the region’s despotic regimes be toppled, a number of press outlets observed, their successors would be even nastier murderers. Possibilities include the saber-wielding soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood and its tributaries — Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Algerian Armed Islamic Group, among others — men who believe in carrying out ritual killings of their fellow Muslims even before the slaughter of infidels.

The common view in Europe is that pseudo-secularist tyrants in Muslim lands like Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia share the same aspirations to dominate, wage war, and rule as Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda.

A more relevant passage in the NIE reads: “Jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests. Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diaspora in Europe facilitate recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and 2005 London bombings.”

Indeed, what can one say about Britain’s Muslims, when 10% of those polled after the August airliner plot said they would be “willing” to wage suicide attacks against their fellow Britons, and another 70% refused to condemn that view?

Europeans now see a need not to massage the Muslim ethos but to remove it. One can talk forever of the necessity for Islam to reform itself, but that fails to resonate within Muslim societies, Europeans tell me.

My European tour made it eminently clear that Western Europeans — if not their more liberal, compromised ruling and business elites — believe that for Muslims living in the West, it’s either Western ways or the highway.

Harsh, maybe, but that is how it stands.

When the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died in September, newspapers across Europe celebrated her for her journalistic exploits with the likes of Ayatollah Khomeini and Henry Kissinger. But above all, they celebrated her for her fierce, uncompromising, “rejectionist” book about Islam in Europe, “The Rage and the Pride,” which called for nothing less than the expulsion of Muslims who insist on separate societies.

Shortly before and after the pope’s pointed remarks on Islam — in which he added to his earlier statements that Turkey’s 70 million Muslims have no place in “Christian Europe” — there were numerous other mini-explosions. They included Dutch revulsion over the ritual Muslim killing of the movie director Theo van Gogh; the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad; and, most recently, a September 19 article in Le Figaro by the French philosopher and schoolteacher Robert Redeker that made the case that Muslims are bent on muzzling Europe’s democratic values.

Europe is no longer dithering. Every other week, parliaments are restricting the freedom of expression of Muslim fundamentalists, preachers, and madrassas, and questioning every value that militant Islam has attempted to sneak into the Continent over the past 20 years.

The dialogue is over. The time for action is closing in.

Troubles at Islamic Schools in the West

U.S. Islamic Schools Teaching Homegrown Hate

From Jihad watch — Why we must monitor mosques

Why we must monitor mosques

In “Mosque Matters: Maybe we’d tackle the tough issues if we got that we’re at war,” Michael Ledeen at National Review argues for what I have been arguing for for years: that we must monitor American mosques.

Some day we will be forced to deal fully with the war we are in, and when that happens we’re going to discover a lot of very nasty problems about the future of America. One of them has to do with, of all things, the First Amendment. Consider this story from Wednesday’s London Times:

AN AMERICAN al-Qaeda operative who was a close associate of the leader of the July 7 bombers was recruited at a New York mosque that British militants helped to run.British radicals regularly travelled to the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, in Queens, to organise sending American volunteers to jihadi training camps in Pakistan.

Investigators reportedly found that Mohammad Sidique Khan had made calls to the mosque last year in the months before he led the terrorist attack on London that killed 52 innocent people….

Mohammad Junaid Babar, one recruit from the Masjid Fatima Islamic Centre, has told US intelligence officials that he met Khan in a jihadi training camp in Pakistan in July 2003. He claims that the pair became friends as they studied how to assemble explosive devices.

Babar, 31, a computer programmer, says that it was at the Masjid Fatima centre that he became a radical.

It’s interesting that British jihadis came to Queens to recruit Americans — and no doubt some of them, fully trained in slaughter, have returned to these shores — but the important thing is the mosque. Because there’s always a mosque, as my Italian friend Magdi Allam has been repeating for several years. Not all mosques are jihadi, but all jihadis come from a mosque.

Look at the 9/11 terrorists, look at the killer of Daniel Pearl, and you will find well-off, educated men who became radicalized in a mosque. And I’ll bet you a good-sized farm that if we ever get to the bottom of 9/11 we’ll discover that mosques were central in maintaining contact with and discipline over the terrorists.

So mosques can be very dangerous places when the local imam preaches jihadism, as is done in the thousands of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi mosques all over the world, including the United States. It is clearly a matter of some urgency to put an end to the sort of indoctrination and recruitment that took place at the Masjid Fatima Islamic Center in New York. But that is easier said than done, because the absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment protects the imams and the incendiary sermons preached at such mosques. Freedom of religion forbids the state from meddling in the religious activities of the mosques, and freedom of speech forbids the state from telling the imams “you can’t say that.”

Freedom House should get a medal for publishing what I believe to be the only serious analysis of the contents of the literature distributed by some of these frightening places, and Nina Shea, who has driven this research for years, should have one personally engraved. As a result of this excellent work, along with that done by, inter alia, Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Diana West, and Robert Spencer, we have a pretty complete picture of the dimensions of this threat. And as the London Times story illustrates quite convincingly, this is not just a theoretical matter. The evil words translate into evil action.

Take action to stop Saudi Hate Propaganda in America

Take action to stop Saudi Hate Propaganda in America

An important action initiative from the UAC’s

In accordance with its commitments as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was approved by the United States Senate in April 1992 and then signed and ratified by President George H. W. Bush on June 8, 1992, the United American Committee calls on the Government of the United States of America to enforce Article 20, Part II of the ICCPR, which declares:”Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”


1) The United American Committee calls on the United States Government to remove all Saudi Arabian publications from U.S. Islamic institutions that constitute a human rights violation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other human rights treaty to which the United States is a state party.

2) The United American Committee calls on the United States Government to ban the distribution and possession of any and all Saudi Arabian publications in the United States that constitute a human rights violation against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or any other human rights treaty to which the United States is a state party.

3) The United American Committee calls for the United States Government to ban the distribution and possession of official Saudi Arabian religious publications until the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia discontinues violating international human rights laws regarding freedom of religion and the incitement to religious violence, hostility and discrimination. In addition, this ban should include the requirement that all official Saudi religious authorities and institutions cease inciting Muslims to wage jihad (holy war) against American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

For those who have not read the Freedom House report “Saudi Publications of Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques”, this report details the contents of publications that were created by the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and propagated in U.S. Islamic institutions.These publications advocate violence and hostility against non-Muslims and “apostate” Muslims who do not adhere to the official Saudi state religion of Wahhabi Islam, and promote violence against homosexuals, discrimination against women and xenophobia of “infidel” societies such as the United States. The materials were obtained by Muslims and other experts from Islamic institutions across the entire United States, and were published primarily in Arabic.The advocacy of such violence, hostility and discrimination is expressly prohibited by international human rights law under Article 20 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the United States on June 8, 1992.


Sample letter to your congressman/senator regarding the UAC Action on Saudi Hate Propaganda


UK: violent Muslim/non-Muslim clashes

UK: violent Muslim/non-Muslim clashes

Or in the deceptive and misleading racial euphemisms employed by the British press, violent clashes between “whites” and “Asians.” But they don’t mean Norwegians are fighting Hindus from India. “Race clashes hit Windsor,” from the Evening Standard, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Extra police are being drafted into the Windsor area today after three nights of violent clashes between white and Asian youths.Gangs have fought battles in the streets using baseball bats and pitchforks. A Muslim-run dairy which wants to build a mosque was petrol bombed.

Dozens of officers have been deployed to stop and search youths and mounted police are being brought in.

The Queen usually spends weekends at Windsor Castle and no decision has yet been taken over whether she would change her plans. A senior source said: “We are aware of what is happening and all appropriate security measures are in place.”

Tensions have been growing between residents and the owners of the dairy, who have applied to convert an office building into a mosque for their workers.

Despite a lack of planning permission to use Technor House as a place of worship, workers and visitors have been praying there.

Violence flared for the first time on Monday outside the building in Vale Road in the Dedworth area of Windsor.

There was an altercation between a teenage boy and dairy staff during prayers. It escalated and the windows of several vehicles were smashed.

Amid claims that the boy, his mother and teenage sister were assaulted, up to 50 young people clashed on Tuesday night.

Windows of the makeshift mosque and dairy vehicles were smashed. Residents said gangs of Asian youths travelled from Slough to fight the white gang. One youth was reportedly arrested for carrying a 12-inch knife.

Dairy manager Sikander Khan, 50, said the 50 predominantly Asian workers at the dairy were now worried about their safety.

The firebomb attack took place on Wednesday night. Mr Khan said: “The youths threw a petrol bomb at us.

“The flames damaged the front of the building, but we were able to put it out with a fire extinguisher. Workers are fearful now because we are under attack.”

Nearby, one hooded youth claimed the problems had started after the previous owners, Express Dairies, left.

The 17-year-old said: “I’ve been here all my life and there were no problems with the old owners, they used to give us milk and stuff.

“We have had a couple of fights with this lot before, but now they’re taking it seriously. We want them out of Dedworth.”

Police stopped cars full of white youths and searched them as other officers photographed and videoed them. Several youths hurled racist abuse at the dairy from their cars as police looked on.

A woman living nearby, who did not want to be named, said the trouble started on Monday.

The following night numbers on both sides had swelled and there was largescale brawling.

“On Monday three young lads, about 15 or so, were in Shirley Avenue when the men came out of prayers and attacked them with pitchforks, baseball bats and iron bars,” she said. “Whether they were provoked or not I don’t know.

“I’m worried that if they allow the mosque things will get worse.”

Other residents said that late-night noise from the dairy was driving them out of their homes and they feared a mosque would make things worse.

North Korea ‘could test bomb this weekend

Show Them Who Is the Boss in France — links on this page work use them for more info

Show Them Who Is the Boss in France

Here are today’s headlines in Belgium’s (only) Sunday newspaper De Zondag. Page One: “No Sign of Revolt in Belgium Yet.” Page Five: “Violence Moves Towards Belgium.” It almost sounds like a weather forecast, anticipating the onslaught of a hurricane that is inevitably coming.

What is happening in France has been brewing in Old Europe for years. The BBC speaks of “youths” venting their “anger.” The BBC is wrong. It is not anger that is driving the insurgents to take it out on the secularised welfare states of Old Europe. It is hatred. Hatred caused not by injustice suffered, but stemming from a sense of superiority. The “youths” do not blame the French, they despise them.

Most observers in the mainstream media (MSM) provide an occidentocentric analysis of the facts. They depict the “youths” as outsiders who want to be brought into Western society and have the same rights as the natives of Old Europe. The MSM believe that the “youths” are being treated unjustly because they are not a functioning part of Western society. They claim that, in spite of positive discrimination, subsidies, public services, schools, and all the provisions that have been made for immigrants over the years, access has been denied them.

This is the marxist rhetoric of the West that has been predominant in the media and the chattering classes since the 1960s. But it does not fit the facts of the situation in Europe today. To understand what is going on one cannot look at today’s events from a Western perspective. One has to think like the “youths” in order to understand them. Not imagine oneself in their shoes, but imagine their minds in one’s own head. The important question is: how do these insurgents perceive their relationship with society in France?

Unlike their fathers, who came to France from Muslim countries, accepting that, whilst remaining Muslims themselves, they had come to live in a non-Muslim country, the rioters see France as their country. They were born here. This land is their land. And since they are Muslims, this land, or at least a part of it, is Muslim as well. The society they live in is a homogeneous Islamic one. For them that is society, there is no other. Consequently there is also no question of their “leaving” that society to become part of another society, the putative Western one. “Society” is the society they live in and from which they view and interpret what goes on around them. To understand their language we must understand how they see us, where we fit in in their society. Multiculturalism does not exist: it is always a matter of several cultures living side by side in defined territories, and the laws of one culture not applying in the territories of the others.

West Europeans cannot blame the Muslim “youths” for looking at the world the way they do. Europe willingly opened the door to the Muslims, not just by allowing large-scale immigration on an unprecedented level, but also by encouraging the newcomers to retain their culture. Several million Muslim immigrants allowed in at a speed and scale that was unique in history. As Bat Ye’or wrote, “even in the course of the European colonization, the emigration of Europeans to the colonies took place at an infinitely slower pace. The number of European colonists, including their descendants, even after a maximum of one or two centuries, was incomparably lower than that of present-day Muslim immigrants in each of the countries of Europe after only three decades.”

In the “Resolution of Strasbourg,” passed unanimously by the general assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation on June 7-8, 1975, more than 200 Members of Parliament from Western European countries, representing all shades of the political spectrum (except the far right), unanimously agreed to allow Arab immigrants to bring their culture and religion to Europe, to promote it and spread it. The parliamentarians stressed “the contribution that the European countries can still expect from Arab culture, notably in the area of human values” and asked the European governments “to accord the greatest priority to spreading Arab culture in Europe.” Today the forests of satellite dishes on the apartment blocks in the suburbs of Western European cities link the immigrants to the culture of their countries of origin, whose television programmes they watch day after day.

Dyab Abou Jahjah, the young and charismatic Brussels-based leader of the Arab European League, rejects assimilation and demands segregated schools and self-governing, Arab-speaking ghettos. “We reject integration when it leads to assimilation,” Jahjah says: “I don’t believe in a host country. We are at home here and whatever we consider our culture to be also belongs to our chosen country. I’m in my country, not the country of the [Westerners].”

The Western authorities quietly accepted this when they abandoned the suburbs to the immigrants a decade ago. The attempt by the French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, a second-generation immigrant himself (though not from a Muslim country), to assert the authority of the French Republic over its lost territory has triggered the current civil warfare in France. For the “youths” this is a declaration of war. They are not in Sarkozy’s country but in their own country, where the West promised they could retain their own cultural values and spread them.

Those media that tell us that the rioting “youths” want to be a part of our society and feel left out of it, are misrepresenting the facts. As the insurgents see it, they are not a part of our society and they want us to keep out of theirs. The violence in France is in no way comparable with that of the blacks in the U.S. in the 1960s. The Paris correspondent of The New York Times who writes that this a “variant of the same problem” is either lying or does not know what he is talking about. The violence in France is of the type one finds when one group wants to assert its authority and drive the others out of its territory. American MSM who imply that there is a direct line from Rosa Parks, the black woman who refused to stand up for a white man on an American bus in 1955, to the rabble that are now throwing molotov cocktails into French buses containing passengers, are misrepresenting the facts. (The only comparison between America and France is that many of the bus drivers in the Parisian suburbs, like those in New Orleans, seem to be white women whose vulnerability attracts rioters and looters).

The French government is failing completely in the basic task of government: maintaining law and order so that each citizen can live and work in safety. What is more, the government has abdicated. The ministers are either pandering to the rioters (Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin – despite the first name, he is a man, though clearly without balls) or bluffing (Interior Minister Sarkozy) rather than using the instruments they have. Perhaps they have a good excuse. Maybe government is aware that in an outright urban war it would be outarmed and outnumbered. Perhaps the rumour that the French authorities cannot rely on the army because fifteen percent of the soldiers are Muslims is true. Perhaps the allegation of Maurice Dantec on Quebec television that large arsenals of sophisticated heavy weaponry are stacked away in the French suburbs is also true.

As a result, however, the insurgents are viewing the politicians and the pundits with contempt and amusement. If there is “anger” of a kind, it is no more than infuriation at the, from their point of view, arrogant presumption of the French politicians that Muslims would even consider adopting, let alone abiding by rules that the French have set. The Muslims resent the outsiders paternalizing them and interfering with their way of life in the suburbs of all Western Europe’s major cities. Their message is: get out of our way, get out of our territory, and: you act like you think you’re the boss but we’ll show you who really is.

It is imperative that Americans realise that Western Europe has ceased to be a continent of more or less likeminded cousins at the other side of the Atlantic. Immigrants in Europe cannot be compared with immigrants in the U.S. It is possible to share the same culture with someone from a different race, but not with someone from a fundamentally different religion. The demographic data clearly show who is likely to win the impending European civil war. As in the Netherlands, where more people are currently moving out of the country than into it, one can expect a French exodus in the near future. Those who will be leaving France are those who fear that their future is looking bleak, and they are not the Muslims in the suburbs.

Extremists planned mass Prague murders

Ford called self a lawyer but did not pass bar exam

Ford called self a lawyer but did not pass bar exam

By Michael Davis Staff Writer Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful Harold Ford Jr. referred to himself as a lawyer earlier this week, but the congressman has not passed the bar exam.

Michael Powell, senior adviser to the Ford campaign, said U.S. Rep. Ford took the Tennessee bar exam in February 1997 and failed. He said that was the only time Rep. Ford has taken the test.

Rep. Ford, of Memphis, got his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1996, according to his congressional Web site.

He said Tuesday during a meeting with Chattanooga Times Free Press editors and reporters that Republican opponent Bob Corker has said the next senator should be a businessman and not a lawyer.

“I told Senator (Lamar) Alexander, I said, ‘I won’t hold it against you if I’m elected, and there’s two lawyers in the delegation who try their hardest to work through the issues,” Rep. Ford said.

Corker campaign spokesman Todd Womack said, “If Congressman Ford will stretch the truth about his own resume, what else will he stretch the truth about?” Mr. Powell said it is his understanding that Rep. Ford was joking when he made reference to being a lawyer during Tuesday’s meeting.

“He has never held himself out as a lawyer,” Mr. Powell said.

He said President Bush has referred to Rep. Ford as a lawyer.

“I think it makes sense to send somebody up to Washington who’s not a lawyer,” President Bush said at a Nashville fundraiser in late August, according to a transcript. “Nothing wrong with lawyers, we got a lot of them up there.”

Mr. Powell said the GOP is finding “petty” things to talk about.

“We’re a month out from the election, and the Republicans and Mr. Corker still are not talking about the issues,” he said.