While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within
by Bruce Bawer

Doubleday $23.95, 256 pages
The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent
by Walter Laqueur

Thomas Dunne £12.99, 256 pages
Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within
by Melanie Phillips

Gibson Square £8.99, 384 pages
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis
by Bat Ye'or
Farleigh Dickinson University Press £15.50, 384 pages

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was written in the 1890s, possibly by the Russian-French journalist Matthieu Golovinski, and spread by the Tsarist secret police. A forgery, it claimed to be the manual of a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.

Bat Ye'or, author of the little-read but influential book Eurabia, repeatedly mentions the Protocols. Well she might, because Eurabia has been described as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in reverse. Bat Ye'or is Hebrew for ''daughter of the Nile'', the pseudonym of a woman who fled Egypt as a Jew in 1957 and now lives in Switzerland. In Eurabia, she purports to reveal an Arab-European conspiracy to rule the world.

Though ludicrous, Eurabia became the spiritual mother of a genre. Ye'or's genius was to bridge two waves of anti-European books: those of 2002-03, which said Europe had gone anti-Semitic again, and those of 2006-07, which say Europe is being conquered by Muslims.

The four books here provide a fair summary of the ''Eurabia'' genre. False as they are, their existence reveals something about the geopolitical moment.

A fixed trope of ''Eurabia'' books is the writer behaving as though only he or she and a few other resistance heroes see Europe's impending doom. Bruce Bawer, a US journalist living in Oslo, credits his aunt for coming up with his title, While Europe Slept, but Melanie Phillips sees Britain as forever asleep too. ''Only if we take up this civilisational gauntlet that has been thus thrown down at us will we stop sleepwalking to defeat,'' she concludes her book. (Phillips writes for the Daily Mail, and reading Londonistan feels like being imprisoned with a never-ending Mail editorial.)

All these authors start with disclaimers that not all Muslims support terrorist jihad. This is then swiftly forgotten as the plans for jihad in Europe are outlined. Ye'or, for whom Muslims are always the same, describes jihad as a 1,400-year-old strategy. Like Bawer, she explains that ''they'' never got over losing Andalusia in 1492.

Mixed with the hysteria are kernels of truth. Phillips' Londonistan rightly recalls that in the 1990s the British authorities let many radical jihadists settle in London. Some later plotted terrorism against the UK. Phillips leaps from this to claiming that Britons cannot see the terrorist threat. However, this is rather negated by the fact that almost all her information about British terrorism comes from British newspapers....

art eckstein - 11/24/2007

I have presented evidence from the London Times of the great influence of radical Muslims among British Muslims. is it all British Muslims? NO--but that is in any case a typical red-herring from Omar. No one ever suggests it is all Muslims. Is it most British Muslims, then? Probably not. But it is clear from the London Times article that a significant number of British Muslims are adherents of the primitive fanatical barbarians quoted in the Times article.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/24/2007

"I always said certain Muslims, not all Muslims"; that might be true enough however your over all drive was to imply that MOSLEMS....etc.

That "certain Moslems" or "certain Budhists" or "certain "XYZs " believe in something means nothing except that people of all kinds believe in all sorts of things...SO WHAT?

However your statements came in the context of a discussion about what MOSLEMS plan or intend or wish for Europe; the overall implication, insinuation, being that all MOSLEMS, or at least a majority of them, do believe in whatever you chose to choose and pick for them to believe in.
If it were only "certain" why bother mention it, and threaten me with more of the same, since certain "any bodies" believe in almost "anything" any where and every where!

That is more Eckstein's mental level and style not yours!
(I note you chose to ignore my question about whether by "ikwan" you meant the Moslem Brotherhood or was that another attempt at an implication that the nonsense you quoted came from that major Islamic organization??)!

art eckstein - 11/23/2007

Here are some more UNCOMFORTABLE FACTS for you, Omar: This is from the Times of London:

From The Times
September 7, 2007
Hardline takeover of British mosques

Andrew Norfolk
Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Riyadh ul Haq, who supports armed jihad and preaches contempt for Jews, Christians and Hindus, is in line to become the spiritual leader of the Deobandi sect in Britain. The ultra-conservative movement, which gave birth to the Taleban in Afghanistan, now runs more than 600 of Britain’s 1,350 mosques, according to a police report seen by The Times.

The Times investigation casts serious doubts on government statements that foreign preachers are to blame for spreading the creed of radical Islam in Britain’s mosques and its policy of enouraging the recruitment of more “home-grown” preachers.

Mr ul Haq, 36, was educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in Britain and is part of a new generation of British imams who share a similar radical agenda. He heaps scorn on any Muslims who say they are “proud to be British” and argues that friendship with a Jew or a Christian makes “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.

Background
Speech: Infinite Justice
Riyadh ul Haq sermon on 'Jewish Fundamentalism' in full
Speech: The Globalised Suffering of the Muslims
Speech: On Our Responsibilities as Muslims
Speech: Imitating the Disbelievers
Related Links
Homegrown cleric who loathes the British
Movement fostered by fear of ‘imperial’ rule
Riyadh ul Haq sermon on 'Jewish Fundamentalism' in full
Seventeen of Britain’s 26 Islamic seminaries are run by Deobandis and they produce 80 per cent of home-trained Muslim clerics. Many had their studies funded by local education authority grants. The sect, which has significant representation on the Muslim Council of Britain, is at its strongest in the towns and cities of the Midlands and northern England.

Figures supplied to The Times by the Lancashire Council of Mosques reveal that 59 of the 75 mosques in five towns – Blackburn, Bolton, Preston, Oldham and Burnley – are Deobandi-run.

It is not suggested that all British Muslims who worship at Deobandi mosques subscribe to the isolationist message preached by Mr ul Haq, and he himself suggests Muslims should only “shed blood” overseas.

But while some Deobandi preachers have a more cohesive approach to interfaith relations, Islamic theologians say that such bridge-building efforts do not represent mainstream Deobandi thinking in Britain.

The Times has gained access to numerous talks and sermons delivered in recent years by Mr ul Haq and other graduates of Britain’s most influential Deobandi seminary near Bury, Greater Manchester.

Intended for a Muslim-only audience, they reveal a deep-rooted hatred of Western society, admiration for the Taleban and a passionate zeal for martyrdom “in the way of Allah”.

The seminary outlaws art, television, music and chess, demands “entire concealment” for women and views football as “a cancer that has infected our youth”.

Mahmood Chandia, a Bury graduate who is now a university lecturer, claims in one sermon that music is a way in which Jews spread “the Satanic web” to corrupt young Muslims.

“Nearly every university in England has a department which is called the music department, and in others, where the Satanic influence is more, they call it the Royal College of Music,” he says.

Another former Bury student, Bradford-based Sheikh Ahmed Ali, hails the 9/11 attacks on America because they acted as a wake-up call to young Muslims. This, he says, taught them that they will “never be accepted” in Britain and has led them to “return to Islam: sisters are wearing hijab . . . the lion is waking up”.

Mr ul Haq, the most high-profile of the new generation of Deobandis, runs an Islamic academy in Leicester and is the former imam at the Birmingham Central Mosque. Revered by many young Muslims, he draws on his extensive knowledge of the Koran and the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed to justify his hostility to the kuffar, or non-Muslims.

One sermon warns believers to protect their faith by distancing themselves from the “evil influence” of their non-Muslim British neighbours.

“We are in a very dangerous position here. We live amongst the kuffar, we work with them, we associate with them, we mix with them and we begin to pick up their habits.”

In another talk, delivered a few weeks before 9/11, he praises Muslims who have gained martyrdom in battle and laments that today “no one dare utter the J word”. “The J word has become taboo . .. The J word is jihad in the way of Allah.”

The Times has made repeated attempts to get Mr ul Haq to comment on the content of his sermons. However, he declined to respond.

A commentator on religious radicalism in Pakistan, where Deobandis wield significant political influence, told The Times that “blind ignorance” on the part of the Government in Britain had allowed the Deobandis to become the dominant voice of Islam in Britain’s mosques.

Khaled Ahmed said: “The UK has been ruined by the puritanism of the Deobandis. You’ve allowed the takeover of the mosques. You can’t run multiculturalism like that, because that’s a way of destroying yourself. In Britain, the Deobandi message has become even more extreme than it is in Pakistan. It’s mind-boggling.”

In some mosques the sect has wrested control from followers of the more moderate majority, the Barelwi movement.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities said: “We have a detailed strategy to ensure imams properly represent and connect with mainstream moderate opinion and promote shared values like tolerance and respect for the rule of law. We have never said the challenge from extremism is simply restricted to those coming from overseas.”

art eckstein - 11/23/2007

As usual, Omar's response to information that makes him uncomfortable and that undermines his extreme political positions is to hysterically deny that the information IS REAL. He has done this time after time on HNN, and it only makes him look ridiculous.

He lives in a pre-empirical world.

N. Friedman - 11/23/2007

Arnold,

Your experience was different than that of my wife and her family. And, I know them well enough, at this point, to know what is real and what is hype. That is especially the case with my wife.

And, she reports terrible Antisemitism, having rocks thrown at her for being Jewish and being persecuted. So, her experience was different than yours. The same for her cousin, with whom I am very close.

N. Friedman - 11/23/2007

Omar,

I always said certain Muslims, not all Muslims. You chose not to read my words.

The document comes from the lawsuit against, if I recall correctly, a major Muslim charity group.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/23/2007

I don't think, Mr Friedman, anyone would go too far with the analysis
of the driving forces of the US foreign policies if they blame CIA all the time for all convolutions of those policies, as you apparently tend to do.
This is exactly what US governmental elite has done before and doing now to circumvent the responsibility for their screw-ups (crimes in the legal jargon of the "static" and "liberal" Europeans and others).
And CIA has to swallow a bullet, 'cause they are... governmental agency, kept on the money of the US government.
(But some of the CIA and other intelligence community officials ocassionally reveal that they have been given the White House what the latter is clearly wanted to get, plus distorted the meaning of the info they actually got.)
It is as if Congress, Senate, and US Presidents with all their experts and advisers are a bunch of dopes who uncritically take everything that CIA and other intelligence services say for a face value.

Now about anti-semitism in the former USSR. I currently live within a large community of former Soviet Jews most of whom emigrated to the USA from Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Samara, Kiev and other Soviet cities primarily at the beginning of 90s.
My entire family of about 10 adult people in number emigrated from the Soviet Union at about the same time (though I emigrated a couple of years before that). All those folks
have grown under Soviets, received school and (the great majority of them) higher education, and worked in the fields of chosen by them (not by the state) professions. And what were those professions? Well, the lowest position I know among them was a machinist of electro-locomotive.
The rest are doctors, engineers, scientists, directors or assistants of director of some industrial enterprise, university professors with PHDs in the respective fields, artists, writers, actors and lawyers.
When you talk to those folks (except
to some like myself) they will mostly tell you what they know you want to hear (remember: they are much smarter and more educated than the most of the folks in this country) about the evil communists and the troubles Jews used to have living in the USSR, but when they talk among themselves, knowing that another side of the conversation had the same life experiences as they did, the greatest harm one would hear from them the Soviets did to them is that either someone once was not accepted in one of the central Universities, allegedly (and perhaps truly) because of being of Jewish nationality, or that someone once was not given a higher position at working place than they deserved on the same reason or something of this kind - very rarely more that.
Even if ALL of the latter stories were true (and upon further questioning I would often find out that some of them were sufficiently exaggerated with the cause - antisemitism - merely postulated)
it hardly can be characterize as "flourishing" anti-semitism.
Moreover, though most of the Jews from Ukraine and Bellorusia did emigrate to Israel and the US, as early as in 1970's, these Jews living in Moscow or Leningrad, i.e in the central cities, did not emigrate until 90s, i.e. after the anti-communist "revolution". Asked why they tell because that time the rumors about upcoming Jewish pogroms started to circulate with alarming
frequency and intensity.
Note: not under the Soviet rule, but immediately after its breakup. Before, those central Jews had much more opportunities to leave the country than the Ukrainian Jews or Jews living in any other region of the Soviet Union, but they stayed.
No surprise there for me, 'cause from their own reminicences one (who knows Soviet realities well) gets clear impression that their standard of living there, on average, was much higher than the respective one of Russians: statistically they have better jobs, better apartments, better social positions than any other nationality (and there were about a hundred of others) that lived there.

As you probably know, I was persecuted by Soviet authorities and even spend a lot of time in jail for the crime I did not commit, but not for being a Jew, but as a perceived dissident.
I have been called a "kike" numerous times in my life there, but by whom?
By hudlams, criminals, drunkards, etc. Never in my life any Soviet official would use any derogative term against me or any of my relatives or against my Jewish friends. I studied at the Kazahk State University in Almaty, for short perisods of time lived in
Novosibirsk, Moscow and Samara and never neither me my friends experienced "flourishing" anti-semitism.
My father was once attacked
by a group of three drunkard Russians in the street in early 1960s, apparently on the reason of his nationality. In the result he sustained head concussion. After militia compiled the report about the incident, they found and arrested
all three hooligans. Two of them later received jail terms and one probational sentence. All of them were obligated by the court to pay off my father's medical bills from their earned money.
And this is not just anectodal evidence, the crimes based on national hatred were severely prosecuted by the Soviet authorities.
Many of the Jews in the USSR used to work as law enforcement (Ministry of Internal affairs), in certain period of Siviet history comprising the greater percentage of high ranking KGB (then called NKVD) officers than any nationality, including Russians.
The predominance of Jews in some fields of human activity (such like natural sciences and arts) in the Soviet Union over different periods
of its existence was really remarkable (and, no doubts, envied by other Soviet nationalities).
Jews were the first, percentage-wise, among the recepients of highest State awards in the area of Math, Science, and technology.
Can all those facts decribed above look like "flourishing" antisemitism to anyone?

On the other side there were periods
in the Soviet history when the anti-semitism would become state-sponsored.
Like from 1948 to 1952 and from 1971 to 1978.
The first one was initiated by Stalin and some of his crimimal servants in the high echelons of state power.
However, the crimes committed under Stalin's regime against
some other nationalities (such like
Chechens or Krimean tatars) were of incomparably greater gravity.
This, of course does not excuse the anti-semitic excesses, but show to any unbiased researcher that their origins were not as much anti-semitic per se, but the actions against, perceived by the sick mind
of Stalin, traitors of communist ideas and collaborators of the American and other sorts of imperialism among the Soviet Jewish intelligentsia.
The second one was under Bresznev, as an attempt to stop brain and secrets drain related to Jewish immigration.

I could relay to you much on the topic of "Jews in The USSR", good and bad things, but I have to stop somewhere.
So, you, Mr, Friedman are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
At the least, being an impartial observer, you should admit that
the above topic is much more complex and controvercial, than the terms you try to describe it with.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/23/2007

I don't think, Mr Friedman, anyone would go too far with the analysis
of the driving forces of the US foreign policies if they blame CIA all the time for all convolutions of those policies, as you apparently tend to do.
This is exactly what US governmental elite has done before and doing now to circumvent the responsibility for their screw-ups (crimes in the legal jargon of the "static" and "liberal" Europeans and others).
And CIA has to swallow a bullet, 'cause they are... governmental agency, kept on the money of the US government.
(But some of the CIA and other intelligence community officials ocassionally reveal that they have been given the White House what the latter is clearly wanted to get, plus distorted the meaning of the info they actually got.)
It is as if Congress, Senate, and US Presidents with all their experts and advisers are a bunch of dopes who uncritically take everything that CIA and other intelligence services say for a face value.

Now about anti-semitism in the former USSR. I currently live within a large community of former Soviet Jews most of whom emigrated to the USA from Moscow, Leningrad, Tashkent, Samara, Kiev and other Soviet cities primarily at the beginning of 90s.
My entire family of about 10 adult people in number emigrated from the Soviet Union at about the same time (though I emigrated a couple of years before that). All those folks
have grown under Soviets, received school and (the great majority of them) higher education, and worked in the fields of chosen by them (not by the state) professions. And what were those professions? Well, the lowest position I know among them was a machinist of electro-locomotive.
The rest are doctors, engineers, scientists, directors or assistants of director of some industrial enterprise, university professors with PHDs in the respective fields, artists, writers, actors and lawyers.
When you talk to those folks (except
to some like myself) they will mostly tell you what they know you want to hear (remember: they are much smarter and more educated than the most of the folks in this country) about the evil communists and the troubles Jews used to have living in the USSR, but when they talk among themselves, knowing that another side of the conversation had the same life experiences as they did, the greatest harm one would hear from them the Soviets did to them is that either someone once was not accepted in one of the central Universities, allegedly (and perhaps truly) because of being of Jewish nationality, or that someone once was not given a higher position at working place than they deserved on the same reason or something of this kind - very rarely more that.
Even if ALL of the latter stories were true (and upon further questioning I would often find out that some of them were sufficiently exaggerated with the cause - antisemitism - merely postulated)
it hardly can be characterize as "flourishing" anti-semitism.
Moreover, though most of the Jews from Ukraine and Bellorusia did emigrate to Israel and the US, as early as in 1970's, these Jews living in Moscow or Leningrad, i.e in the central cities, did not emigrate until 90s, i.e. after the anti-communist "revolution". Asked why they tell because that time the rumors about upcoming Jewish pogroms started to circulate with alarming
frequency and intensity.
Note: not under the Soviet rule, but immediately after its breakup. Before, those central Jews had much more opportunities to leave the country than the Ukrainian Jews or Jews living in any other region of the Soviet Union, but they stayed.
No surprise there for me, 'cause from their own reminicences one (who knows Soviet realities well) gets clear impression that their standard of living there, on average, was much higher than the respective one of Russians: statistically they have better jobs, better apartments, better social positions than any other nationality (and there were about a hundred of others) that lived there.

As you probably know, I was persecuted by Soviet authorities and even spend a lot of time in jail for the crime I did not commit, but not for being a Jew, but as a perceived dissident.
I have been called a "kike" numerous times in my life there, but by whom?
By hudlams, criminals, drunkards, etc. Never in my life any Soviet official would use any derogative term against me or any of my relatives or against my Jewish friends. I studied at the Kazahk State University in Almaty, for short perisods of time lived in
Novosibirsk, Moscow and Samara and never neither me my friends experienced "flourishing" anti-semitism.
My father was once attacked
by a group of three drunkard Russians in the street in early 1960s, apparently on the reason of his nationality. In the result he sustained head concussion. After militia compiled the report about the incident, they found and arrested
all three hooligans. Two of them later received jail terms and one probational sentence. All of them were obligated by the court to pay off my father's medical bills from their earned money.
And this is not just anectodal evidence, the crimes based on national hatred were severely prosecuted by the Soviet authorities.
Many of the Jews in the USSR used to work as law enforcement (Ministry of Internal affairs), in certain period of Siviet history comprising the greater percentage of high ranking KGB (then called NKVD) officers than any nationality, including Russians.
The predominance of Jews in some fields of human activity (such like natural sciences and arts) in the Soviet Union over different periods
of its existence was really remarkable (and, no doubts, envied by other Soviet nationalities).
Jews were the first, percentage-wise, among the recepients of highest State awards in the area of Math, Science, and technology.
Can all those facts decribed above look like "flourishing" antisemitism to anyone?

On the other side there were periods
in the Soviet history when the anti-semitism would become state-sponsored.
Like from 1948 to 1952 and from 1971 to 1978.
The first one was initiated by Stalin and some of his crimimal servants in the high echelons of state power.
However, the crimes committed under Stalin's regime against
some other nationalities (such like
Chechens or Krimean tatars) were of incomparably greater gravity.
This, of course does not excuse the anti-semitic excesses, but show to any unbiased researcher that their origins were not as much anti-semitic per se, but the actions against, perceived by the sick mind
of Stalin, traitors of communist ideas and collaborators of the American and other sorts of imperialism among the Soviet Jewish intelligentsia.
The second one was under Bresznev, as an attempt to stop brain and secrets drain related to Jewish immigration.

I could relay to you much on the topic of "Jews in The USSR", good and bad things, but I have to stop somewhere.
So, you, Mr, Friedman are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
At the least, being an impartial observer, you should admit that
the above topic is much more complex and controvercial, than the terms you try to describe it with.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/23/2007

Mr Friedman
This could be either some lunatic(s) in the ikwan( is that the Moslem Brotherhood? you did not clarify this point) or a made up document by any of the many anti Arab and anti Islam services.
Assuming the former.... so what? Lunatics are present in each and every camp!

How can that document be construed to mean that MOSLEMS are behind such folly?

Do you believe that any and every word written or uttered by a Moslem to represent and convey the opinion of Moslems.

Rediculous in the extreme and quite unbecoming from a lawyer of all trades.

However what is undoubted is that you and yours will do any thing and say anything to foster and nurture hatred of Arabs and Islam in the West.

That is your plan ... both the Arabs and the West will suffer from that; and why should you care since your only concern is Israel ...whatever your passport may be.

I say passport and not nationality because with you and yours they do NOT usually denote the same affiliation !
Go on publish ...we do not care what you say or do and we leave it to others to believe or disbelieve what they read.

N. Friedman - 11/23/2007

Omar,

Here is a start for you. Below is the key section, as translated in English portion of the document:

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

The document comes from a court case.

Here is a translation of the first portion of another document from a French original. I shall provide it in pieces unless I can find a complete version. The French document comes from The Project published in Sylvain Besson, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (Paris: Le Seuil, 2005), pp. 193-205. I have it from reliable sources that the original is authentic.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/23/2007

Mr Friedman
"groups related to the Brotherhood " could be anything ranging from actually related to groups made up by any of the adverse intelligence services (Mossad, CIA etc)....

If you, a lawyer as I gathered from previous posts, accept that as irrefutable proof ....then good for you!

Do NOT hestitate to publish anything you have ; its worth will depend on its content and HNN readers will decide that each for himself.

I notice though that you fail to comment on the substance of both of my earlier posts re
1-the theological command for the spread of Islam
2- the actual importance of al Qaeda

N. Friedman - 11/22/2007

Omar,

Documents found in groups related to the Brotherhood indicate that such groups aim to conquer the US. Must I post the documents so as to embarrass you?

I do not claim that such is the aim of all Muslims. I claim that it is the aim of the radical Islamists. I stand by that and am prepared to post documents supporting that claim.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/22/2007

Mr Friedman
I do NOT believe that al Qaeda is an important organization nor that it has any substantial real life political influence or future .
It is a fringe group that has( had?) an effective PR arm and its bark is far worse than its bite.
However it is to be noted that all anti Arab and anti Islam bodies have a vested interest in consciously over blowing it and exaggerating its power and reach.
I have lately been following closely the US military press releases about the fighting in Iraq.
According to these an average of 20-25 Al Qaeda fighters are being killed daily by US forces in Iraq.
Had this any grain of truth in it it would simply mean that al Qaeda has a standing army in the thousands to be able to sustain such serious daily losses and go on fighting!
Which is an absurdity by any standard in view of its life span , particularly in Iraq, and its organizational setup modulus.

For obvious US public related PR considerations it is in the interest of US occupation forces, and the Bush administration in particular, to designate all occupation resistance fighters in Iraq as al Qaeda. Thus not only negating the presence of other more major occupation resistance forces but also bolstering the big lie that was part of its rationale for the US aggression.
For internal reasons and considerations , on top of gaining favour with the US of President Bush, some "Islamic" regimes and their "leaders" , as for Musharraf of Pakistan , have a similar vested interest in falsely over blowing al Qaeda.

Shortly and with the passage of time it will be plain to all, as it is presently with studious observers, that al Qaeda, in its present form and mode of operation , is far from the omnipotent force, or the major force, depicted by the West in general and the USA of President Bush in particular.
You, for the very same reasons but with a distinct Zionist slant and purpose, do, propably consciously (?), partake in this phony aggrandizement of al Qaeda .

That, however, does NOT change the facts on the ground but will, possibly for some time to come, serve the short term interests of the al Qaeda power and reach magnification circles!
Which , ultimately,is another act of conscious disinformation whose primary victim is the American general public.

N. Friedman - 11/22/2007

Omar,

Read the article I cited to, which is by a pro-Palestinian Arab writers. They confirm what I said.

Facts are facts.

N. Friedman - 11/22/2007

Omar,

I invite you to read Raymond Ibrahim's book, The Al Qaeda Reader. It consists of translations from Arabic of recently discovered letters and articles by the leaders of that noxious group. It also, for comparison, includes materials written by that group for Western consumption.

Reading the materials written for consumption by Muslims shows clearly the aims of Al Qaeda. And, frankly, you are mistaken. There are clear aims of conquest.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/22/2007

Friedman, for the benefit of first timers, is "honestly" and "accurately" reiterating the the ceaseless cascade of anti Islam and anti Arab vituperation under the guise of warding off an imagined imminent Islamic "threat".
That "threat", simply, does NOT exist at all nor is there any possibility that it would ever exist except in some sick atrophied minds in the Arab/Moslem world, an always present ineffective minority.

However, on the other hand, it is patently obvious that there is a decided advantage and an intrinsic interest for the Zionist /Israel bloc that such a "threat " should be conceived by the WEST as a real, imminent hazard.
Nothing would serve the Zionist/Israeli cause and interests as much as that a state of permanent alienation and relentless, implacable enmity should exist perennially between the WEST, its major universal ally, and the Arab/Moslem worlds, its nemesis and implacable enemy.

The threat of an Islamist conquest to the West is another Zionist serving anti Arab and, ultimately, anti West BIG LIE ( the other being: a land with no people for the people with no land).

This mythical threat not only DOES NOT exist but can never exist for ,both, basic Islamic theological reasons and practical socio/economic/political reasons.

-Theologically
Moslems were theologically urged by the Prophet to help spread Islam "bil kalima al hassana.." (With the good word).
That , at times, it was done otherwise should be construed in the context of :
-the historical stage of competing empires ( the nascent Arab/Moslem, existing Persian and Byzantine etc)in which it was done
and
-the THEN prevailing mode, "norm", of interaction between competing nations , communities and "faiths"; to expand , materially and otherwise, through conquest and generally the use of military force.

(The way Christianity was brought to, for example, South America was, if any thing, much "bloodier" than any of the Islamic conquests but was, never the less in tune with the times ant its prevailing mode of interaction.)

However the fundamental theological advise/command for the spread, the propagation,( al dawa) of Islam( ...bil kalima al hassana) was NOT only advocated by the Prophet BUT was equally PRACTICED solely during his life time.

An often neglected bit of historical information of utmost importance is that the conquest of both Persian and Byzantine controlled territories, to spread Islam ,were PRECEDED by envoys sent to both requesting permission of both to PREACH Islam peacefully (... bil kalima al hassana)in their respective domains.
Both envoys were beheaded for their trouble and, consequently, military conquest followed in their footsteps.

The basic principle here, as advocated and PRACTICED by the Prophet himself, is that Moslems should be ALLOWED to preach Islam all over the world( that would be full Jihad) and for those willing to convert to be ALLOWED to convert openly and practice it unhampered.

Therefore since, in modern times, no restrictions are imposed practically all over the world, on the attempts to spread Islam "with the good word " any attempt to spread it OTHERWISE, than the "good word", will be theologically unsupportable and will go against Mohammedan practice.

Practically:
In the ever contracting world that we all share it is evident that the Arab/Moslem worlds have more than their "fair" share of problems re development in all its sociological/economic and political aspects.

It is also obvious that they are neither economically nor militarily in a state that would suggest any external adventures; nor do they entertain any ambitions than to protect themselves, and reassert their rights, from their present enemies.
The repulsion of their present existential enemies, Israel and US imperialism, is already taxing their means heavily .

Hence no sensible authority , Islamist or otherwise would ever embark , in the foreseeable future and beyond, on any military adventure that would not only cripple them for generations to come but is equally uncalled for and theologically reprehensible and wrong.

Neither Europe nor the West and the world in general has anything serious to worry about from Islam ; if anything their, the West's, concern should dwell on those who have an intrinsic interest in deluding them and imposing futile , needless and imagined enemies on them.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/22/2007

Mr Friedman
Not withstanding your tirade which boils down , at 95% of its content, to wishful thinking with an outstanding and variable 5%, the facts of the matter are:

-There is a growing conviction all over the world, and in W Europe in particular, that Israel, though heartily willing, is unfit and unable to play the role of policeman/imperialist accessory for which it was, among other reasons, implanted in Palestine

-that the old mode, and present mode of and with the USA, of a dominant party in an "alliance" that recognizes only its interests is an obsolete , fruitless and futureless mode of joint action.

-that the basic required conditions and elements of a mutually beneficial successful, strategic and long enduring economic then political alliance that would ultimately lead to a genuine partnership do amply exist between the Arabs and W Europe.

-that such a relationship can only be achieved through and be based on mutual respect of the identity and culture of both blocs.

(The patent failure of the Zionist-neocon/Israeli inspired and assisted US demarche in Iraq proved that beyond any doubt.)

The resultant being that Israel has come to have NO real role to play; neither as the middle man and policeman, as earlier conceived by the colonialist West,its original raison d'etre for Europe at the implantation stage , nor as the local viceroy/policeman and partner-accessory to any regional plundering undertaking as construed and planned for by Israel itself .

What all this add up to is the conclusion that there is no need, no room and no regional, paid, role for Israel to undertake that would warrant support of its continued existence as a regional super power .

Hence,to ward off this conclusion , the unending attempts by the Zionist movement at the demonization of the Arabs, the Moslems and Islam in general through the inane fictional threat of a Jihadist conquest and the no less inane myth of the reconquest of Al Andalus.

Peres is keenly aware of this crucial development; the diminishing need ,"demand" for an Israel in the region , at the present and future "cost" it is imposing on its friends and allies, and the potential and the inevitable consequences of a W European-Arab rapprochement; hence his deep concern.

Peres is NOT worried about an Arabized Islamized Europe , an absurd ahistorical development unsought by the Arabs and a theoretical and practical
impossibilty by any standard, but about the fate of Israel in decades to come!
(It would be ironical to a high degree, and historically only relevant and just , that the concept of a modern Israel in Palestine that was first conceived and developed in Europe would be equally FIRSTLY discarded and abandoned in Europe.)

N. Friedman - 11/22/2007

Arnold,

Read Bat Ye'or's book Eurabia. The movement of appeasing Arab demands about Israel is part and parcel of France's imperial interests going back to de Gaulle.

The imperialist revival idea for France reached its apex at the time of the Arab Oil Embargo which France used as an excuse to convince its neighbors, at a meeting in Brussels on, if I recall correctly, November 6, 1973 of EEC members, to follow the French idea for creating a joint society with Arabs which the French government thought France would somehow dominate both in Europe and in the Arab regions. It was a form of imperialism by a new means, namely, via the EEC (and later the EU). On this point, see this left wing, pro-Muslim analysis of the joint Arab European project entitled An Alternative Bridging Project - Re-Thinking the Mediterranean, by By Omar Barghouti and Adrian Grima, CounterPunch, September 9 / 11, 2005.

Since that time, such agenda became a European policy, which assumes that lucrative contracts and a secure oil supply would mean, for Europe, imperial dominance over the Arabs - by new means.

Such remains an important view in the EU today and it is also a view that strongly influences both right wing and left wing politics, both of which believing that appeasing Arab demands is good for Europe because such places Europe in a better position to control the Arab regions. The European left and right have different ultimate agendas but they do the same thing in practice when it comes to the Arab regions.

That delusion has yet to fade since Europeans fail to recognize that Arabs also, like all human beings, have political aims and also are capable of cunning politics. Europeans foolishly follow your view that if it is not said by the seemingly most powerful party, it is not that important. They failed to recognize that the Arabs are not powerless and, in fact, are rather more powerful due to their impact in the oil industry.

Lastly, the French left has not ruled France for a very long time. The right has ruled France.

N. Friedman - 11/22/2007

Arnold,

I agree that that the CIA likely hyped the threat of the USSR. I do not say that they were merely mistaken. My point was not about them. It was about basic analysis as made by ordinary educated people of different points of view.

Again: the view that the USSR had dangerous aims was likely true - as evidence coming from an examination of the USSR's archive records has shown. But, the capacity of the USSR was severely misjudged by Conservatives, who tended to believe the CIA too uncritically.

I also agree with you that what Bush says and does is more important than what Canada says or does. But, I also think it fair to say that the Islamist movements is among the foulest movements to come along in a long time.

I disagree with you when you claim that it is dangerous if you are saying that such is because it is a religious movement. Of course, that the movement is a religious movement is certainly part of why it is dangerous. But, it is the specific doctrine of this particular religious movement that makes it particularly foul.

That movement is also dangerous because it has no regard for human life and because it is terribly violent in its inherent nature, in part due to the influence that Nazism had on Islamists during the Islamist movement's formative stage. This has been well documented (e.g. in Paul Berman's interesting but flawed book Terror and Liberalism). And, it is dangerous because it hopes effectively to enslave or kill all non-Muslims as well as Muslims who are insufficiently devout by the standard of Islamist lunatics.

Fortunately, capability is something different from desire. Otherwise, we would be in a lot more trouble than we are. That, however, cannot be said in Europe even if Walter Laqueur is only 1/4 correct. And, as you surely know, he is no hack. He is among the great historians of the age.

As for your comment about the USSR, I have my own expert: my wife, who is a refugee from Kiev. She says Preehviat.

She reports rocks being thrown at her head for being Jewish. Her cousin, who won the prize for being the top physics student in the Ukraine and who took the college entrance exam the hard way, achieving a perfect score (actually higher, given that taking the exam the hard way adds points), could not get admitted to any university in the Ukraine. Why? Because of the quota system that limited the number of Jews allowed to attend university.

I am, lastly, glad that you realize what the leftists in Iran who supported the Iranian Revolution overlooked, namely, that they were not only used by the Islamists but became its first victim.

Spokone noche.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/21/2007

I agree with you that France used to, and in a much smaller sense continue, behave as colonial power, wishing to dominate all non-white
folks (not just Arabs), as it did US and UK in the past and continue to do on a much larger scale and more explicitly today. The undeniable fact of history and present is that France used to be a typical imperialist state.
However, after Algerian war, thanks
to the more leftist tendencies in French foreign policies and especially after the end of the Cold War, France has taken much more civilized, much more compatible with
the real values of the Western civilization course in international affairs. The US and encouraged by the new unipolar world situation its loyal leutenant- UK, on the contrary,
decided to take full advantage of the abovementioned state of world affairs (while they can) to dominate
the world not only financially, as they already do, but politically as well, by eliminating any potential, not threat, but even potential challenge.
In the Middle East because of its long-term struggle and mutual animosity against Arabs (possessing the greatest prize of all - oil) Israel became their natural ally.

That fanatical Muslims are the enemies of any civilized person and society is no doubt (as any other religious fanatics), but the main tragedy they cause is to their own religion-based societies.
Currently, the threat they constitute to Western civilization, in particular, is although real, but minimal.
It is the fierce propaganda campaign from the right that tries to instill
fear into the hearts of Westerners to
eclipse exactly those real values of
European people and force them to be, at the least, indifferent (but better supportive) facing current and upcoming imperialist agressions in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Third World to accmplish the task Grandiose - World Domination.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/21/2007

Extremist religious/ideological fanatics of all colors and shapes (not just Islamists) are the scorch of humankind, period. No doubts about that.
Recall what I said in my previous comments: <Moreover, most of those people are themselves religious fanatics (not in the sense of sacrificing their lives for their faith) but, at the least, in their proclamations, whose
main guide in daily and professional life is (or should be) faith, not logic of facts.
No sensible man would or should take a bet on one religious nut against another.>
It seems to me that you do (not on every detail of their claims, but on their substance).
E.g., in your opinion it was just a sloppy miscalculation on their part to overestimate the military prowess
of the Soviet Union, while in reality, as it became apparent now from many declassified governmental records, it was a deliberate propaganda campaign that they were spreading DESPITE the information obtained by the intellegence services
and opinion of many military experts.
That campaign was played under the same exact scenario as they lied and continue to lie about Cuba's agressive plans against US and other Central American countries, about US agression in Indochina, about Iran being on the verge of communist takeover in 1953, Iraq's WMD and cooperation with Al-Qaeda, and currently, and again despite even IAEA numerous reports to the contrary about Iranian nuclear weapons program, about some Latin America countries cooperating with Iran, and consequently with Hezbolla
in terrorist activity, and in regard to many other international situations of great importance.
According to their ideological axioms, many of which you clearly, explicitly or implicitly, take as guide to the historic analysis of the international events and tendencies, the worst possible sin their side commits is a mistake, and even that - out of noble intentions. On the contrary, the opposite side does everything on purpose, and evil purpose at that.
There should be no leeway left for the other side's mistakes, no sirree,... because it is pure evil.

Another not less important angle is
that when leaders of such countries
as Iraq or Iran or Venezuala or even
Canada talk, it remains just talk on international arena: just a few care.
However, when the leaders of the single superpower in the world talks
everyone listens involuntarily, 'cause what "we" say
goes. That's exactly why I don't care much either what Musharaf or Mudgaheddin or some other Mu... say, no matter how bad it is, but I do when Bush speaks, 'cause tommorow his speaches are translated into actions: military attack or not less
murderous economic sanctions.

As far as the anti-semitism in Soviet
Union is concerned, it did exist there, especially in Ukraine, where most of the Jews used to live before
the WWII and during some other short historical periods, but one can hardly characterize it there as "allowed to flourish".
In that venue let me refer you to Wikipedia short article "History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union" that in my opinion, as the former USSR citizen, is the most balanced and true decription of all
I've ever met in this country (though I would still have made some
amendments to it.)

The last point you're taking to caution me about the severe consequences of the Islamists taking
all over the world for suich folks as I'm is absolutely right, though sounds a bit awkward as adressed to me, in view of my constanly emphasized rejection of religion and
unacceptance of totalitarian regimes.

I'm just saying: don't make a killer whale out of a rotten herring.

N. Friedman - 11/21/2007

Omar,

I have nothing against a rapprochement - were that possible. I do have something against the Arab effort to massacre Jews and destroy the tiny state of Israel.

I also have some respect for the political record. The French were not interested in a rapprochement. That is in your head.

The French wanted to dominate the Arabs - to recreate their empire, with France dreaming that it would lead the other European states -, as do the other states of the European Union.

Surely you do not think that they see anything for Europeans from the currently barbaric Arab regions other than oil and lucrative contracts. The issue that exists for Europeans today is the cost of those small benefits, which is playing out in violence within Europe's borders as Muslim bigots are attacking the tolerance that was achieved in Europe - attacking women, attacking homosexuals, etc., etc.

Yes, the Israelis fear for what is happening to Europe. They fear for a place where tolerance is under assault. So do sane Muslims - e.g. Ms. Hirsi Ali. And, so do sane Europeans. And so do sane Americans. And so do sane Arabs.

The rise of dangerous, bigoted movements like Islamism is something to fear, just as the Nazi movement - which Islamism so closely parallels - was something that sane people feared and many others excused, appeased and inadvertently helped.

omar ibrahim baker - 11/21/2007

Both Bat Ye'or and Mr Friedman have good reason to worry : an eventual genuine Arab/Moslem -West European rapprochement!
If any thing they , both, miss and long for, bemoan and yearn for the old acrimonious relation of the colonizer and the colonized to have continued or, at least, its modern version the imperialist and the dominated; a la USA !
However Europe has realized that that would be an, ultimately, counter productive relationship that would ruin the prospect of a pan Mediterranean alliance between a developed W. Europe and a developing Arab nation and the wider Moslem World.

A President of France ,General De Gaulle, was the first European to realize it and to take the first concrete steps towards the new relationship by dis aligning France from the USA and opposing, then resisting and counter acting the unending blackmail , cum ambitions to be the accessory to the imperialist, of the French Jewish/Zionist lobby, the most powerful of all in Europe, and of Israel!
By any standard West Europe and its trans Mediterranean neigbours are natural allies for mutual progress and opposition to US domination in alliance with or through Israel.

That would not only deprive Israel from any valid raison d'etre, as far as Europe is concerned, but equally establish a mutually highly beneficial friendly and intensely cooperative Arab/Moslem -West European relationship.

The prospects are truly terrifying to the Zionist movement and to Israel.
At a recent symposium at Haifa Technion (?), Shimon Pres, the present "President" of Israel no less, deemed such a relationship as the gravest future threat to Israel.
Noting that Israel is loosing, slowly but steadily its raison d'etre for the West in general and W. Europe in particular,a reverse Protocol of the Elders of Zion, regardless of the genuinity of the original, had to be developed and nurtured .
A seminal anti Arab , anti Moslem and anti Islam scare leading to an unending enmity that would forestall any such relation became a strategic Zionist/Israeli need!

Hence the inane threat of a jihadist conquest of Europe and the equally inane myth of the reconquest of al Andalus.

N. Friedman - 11/20/2007

Arnold,

I remember when I was younger that the popular point of view was that the USSR was an ascendant power that would overcome the liberal democracies. I also recall that the CIA overplayed the military prowess of the USSR, a country that could not build toasters that worked consistently and could not make a decent life for the country's people and allowed antisemitism to flourish in order to deflect attention from the regime's failures.

So, I draw the lesson of that history that conservatives in the West better understood the ideological than the military threat posed by the USSR. By contrast, leftists tended to misunderstand both the military threat and ideological threat of the USSR while correctly estimating that the leaders of the USSR did not want to commit mass suicide by starting or provoking a war in which the USSR would, surely be destroyed.

I think that such is true today as well. Which is to say, I think that those who claim that the Islamists actually do hope to recreate Islamic imperialism and do seek to control Europe's destiny by agitation and terror tactics - tactics traditionally used in the Islamic regions over the course of history - are correct. That view tends to be held by conservatives although quite a number of liberals also agree.

I think conservatives and those liberals who agree with them that Islamism is a terribly dangerous movement that compares, so far as being dangerous, to fascism and nazism are correct. I disagree with anyone who says that such movement has the capacity at present to carry out its agenda although the mathematics clearly shows that Europe will become more and more Islamic in character which will be a disaster to anyone who believes in equality and freedom and social justice and women's rights, as I do.

And, it will be a big disaster for the people of your point of view, just as it was in Iran. Given some power in their hands, Islamists will arrest those who hold your point of view and like stone such people to death.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/20/2007

<Sometimes one is right and the others are wrong>.
It is just possible in principle, but in reality happens quite rarely, and then mostly in theoretical
constructions.
In sociology and politics this almost never happens.
Besides, what we are talking here is not a raving of one lonely lunatic/genius, but organized and deliberate campaign that caught a mainstream of today's Western "thought".
I've already emphasized its close similarity (in the hysteric tonality and purpose to scare the populus in order to line it up for future military adventures to protect Western civilization - from Muslims now) to the analogous campaign against alleged mortal threat of communist takeover of the West.
I'm not taking any ideological stand here (for or against).
But if you look at the profile of the great majority (but surely not all of them) of the folks who are among the first and most hysterical to prophesize the mortal threat of World Caliphate, Islamofascism, destruction of Western civilization, etc. you'll find the same ones(those who old enough) who once used to do exactly the same referencing either towards Soviets, or Chinese, or Cubans, or Africans, or Philipinnos, or Latinos, etc. Don't we know now that they all and always have been WRONG, and why they were doing that? Don't we have to draw some lessons from history, in general, and their stories in history, in particular?
Don't you think, that listening to their prophesies now we have to be, at the least, thrice as sceptical, since - I repeat - they have always been wrong in their global/main predictions before?
Those folks thrive on relativity of all theoretical models in sociology, on uncertainty and unpredictability
of development of human societies.
Moreover, most of those people are themselves religious fanatics (not in the sense of sacrificing their lives for their faith) but, at the least, in their proclamations, whose
main guide in daily and professional life is (or should be) faith, not logic of facts.
No sensible man would or should take a bet on one religious nut against another.

N. Friedman - 11/20/2007

Arnold,

My comment about the reviewer is that his points do not address what the books actually assert. Rather, he belittles the books by innuendo and distortion of what is actually stated in them.

In any event, the population decline in Europe issue is a real issue - whether one is a Marxist, a liberal, a fascist or of any other imaginable point of view. And, it is certainly true that, in the mix of things, Muslims will come to be a much larger percentage of the European population. That is clearly shown by the available data.

And, it is true that, just now, Muslims are not integrating but, instead, those among Muslims who argue for recasting their adopted society into a more traditional cast have the ear of average Muslims. If you do not believe me, check out the polling data. Such is clearly the case.

Mr. Laqueur, for what it is worth, does not think that European Muslims mostly seek to recreate the Caliphate. He thinks they are mostly alienated people in which there are a variety of trends being exploited by demagogic leaders, including even a substantial trend toward rejecting a traditionalism - often in the name of Islamic traditionalism. Which is to say, he sees a very complicated situation but he thinks the outcome is a very deeply divided society in decline.

Ms. Bat Ye'or, by contrast, views the matter in more traditional Islamic terms - since she is a scholar of Islamic history and, more particularly, regarding how Islamic society treated the millions of people they conquered in their imperialist wars.

If I understand her concern, she sees something eventually forming that, if not checked, will come to resemble, at least remotely, a society akin to the that of the Ottoman Empire, in which the Christian and Jewish population come out as long term losers.

I do not think either of them really qualify as reactionaries. Ms. Bat Ye'or, with whom I have had a fair amount of correspondence over the years, is often called a person of the far right. Such, however, is a serious mischaracterization of her views - which are probably closer to that of a traditional European of centrist leanings. One of her overriding concerns, as clearly expressed clearly in her book Eurabia, is to avoid a situation where the hard right is able to exploit current trends to the disadvantage of society. She sees that as a realistic future in Europe, with racist parties gaining ground among the "native" population and reactionary, Islamist politics continuing to gain ground with Muslims.

Now, I am well aware that your big issue is imperialism. My suggestion to you is that you more closely examine the views of the Islamist movement. It is not, as you seem to think, anti-imperialist. It is, rather, imperialistic in the extreme but with a different party doing the exploitation. So, whatever you think of the West, imagine a recast imperialist agenda dedicated to ridding society of atheists, Jews, Christians, homosexuals, drinking, equality for women, etc., etc.
It is not a pretty picture - at least if you are serious about being opposed to imperialism.

One last point, Arnold. A theory is either correct or not. Right wingers can be correct, just like Marxists can be correct and just like liberals can be correct. Sometimes one is right and the others are wrong.

As I see it, Europe's future will, as with anywhere else on Earth, depend on what occurs, not on whether the person examining the facts is a Marxist or not. So, we shall have to wait and see whether these writers have a good point or not.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/20/2007

No, Mr Friedman, you two have read the same books, but you're the one who ignores that all of them follow the same outcry of the contemporary Western right ideologues: the Muslims are coming and they want nothing less than World Caliphate.
This is akin to one other not so remote in time outcry: Russians are coming and they want nothing less than World Revolution, isn't it?
They have two real major characteristics: both are scary to the Western populus and both are false.
I don't say that the numerous Muslim populations in European countries are not creating certain socio-economic problems, but they far from apocalyptic, as many right ideologues
try to present them.
It is only in this context and, globally, in the context of imperialistic aspirations of those
neo-colonialists, the current wave of
similar publications can be thoroughly analysed, understood, and sorted.

N. Friedman - 11/20/2007

The snippet of this book review is not very revealing. A longer snippet - or, perhaps, the entire report - appears here.

I have read all of these books. From what I can discern of the book review, its author read different books than I read.

Bat Ye'or would have it that the European Union has created a governmental mechanism, backed by both business, governmental, religious and certain liberal interests, that includes an informal political agreement between Arab League states and the states of the European Union.

From the perspective of European countries, they were to receive preferential treatment with respect to contractual projects in Arab League countries, were not to have their oil supply cut off and terror from Palestinian groups against Israel would be kept out of Europe. From the Arab League point of view, Europe Union states were to adopt as closely as possible the Arab League public stand on the Arab Israeli conflict (most particularly relating to the legitimacy of the PLO and the Arab League interpretation of UN 242). In addition, European states were to take in large numbers of Muslim refugees who, in turn, were to be given preferential treatment while, at the same time, to remain attuned to their Muslim heritage. The ultimate aim of all of this, according to the documents Ms. Bat Ye'or cites, was ostensibly to create a joint civilizational project.

Such project was, in fact, originally spearheaded by France (initially under the auspices of the EEC) in order for France to find a mechanism to regain her lost political influence in the Arab regions. It became a project for the EEC - and later a EU project - during a meeting that occurred during the Arab oil embargo at the end of the Yom Kippur War. Ms. Bat Ye'or calls the project Eurabia, after the title of a journal set up in connection with this European Union project.

In her view, such agreement has been sufficiently implemented that it has now become effectively impossible for European states to address the issues related to their rebellious Muslim populations. She sees European populations appeasing both Arab states and the Muslim population in Europe. The end result is that Europe is in the process of losing its cultural and political independence.


Bruce Bawer's book is a bit of personal journalism. He is a homosexual who left the US south for what he expected would be more tolerant acceptance in Europe. What he found is that such tolerance is quickly fading, with European politicians, newspapers, political authorities, etc., etc., who are effectively denying reality. Such denial of reality exists to appease certain elements of the Muslim population in these countries.

Ms. Phillips' book is about the same process described by Mr. Bawer. Hers is an interesting book but, in my view, she is a bit too ambitious.

Walter Laqueur's book sees Europe in irreversible decline. The principal reason for the decline, on his telling, is the continent's declining birthrate. He notes that, looking out a few decades, the current generation will begin to die off, at which point the very low birthrate will result in a major population decline. This decline will not, he argues, be something that the European political system will be able to address without making major changes.

Such argument is akin to the argument in the US regarding Social Security. The difference in Europe is that the population will not, as is the case in the US, continue to grow. Rather, the population of the continent will decline to nearly one half of its current size (assuming, of course, that current estimates pan out). So, unlike in the US, the crisis in Europe is not about tinkering with the system. The issue is far graver, if his facts are correct.

At the same time, Mr. Laqueur notes with particular interest the comparatively high Muslim birthrate. He sees Muslims becoming a much larger percentage of the shrinking European population. He notes that, at least for now, such Muslim population is not integrating into society. He postulates that such process is likely to continue - probably because the Muslim population is sufficiently large that there is no reason to integrate -.

The end result, as he sees it, is a deeply divided continent of diminishing importance to the world stage of events. Unlike Ms. Phillips, he thinks that Europeans have no choice but to appease certain of the demands of the Muslim population. This because that population is so large, even now, that to demand their adopting all European ways has no reasonable hope of success. On the other hand, he does not see Europe coming under the influence of Muslims. He sees the end result as being deeply divided nations more and more unable and more and more even unwilling to try to cope with their problems.

It is worth noting that Mr. Laqueur is among the world's more famous historians and, on top of that, a specialist on European history. Whatever might be said about non-historians Phillips and Bawer or about historian of non-Muslims under Islamic rule, Bat Ye'or, cannot be said about Mr. Laqueur.

Whether he is correct or Ms. Bat Ye'or's theory (or any of the others) is correct or none of them is correct, these are not crazy books. They merely take a viewpoint that Europeans do not want to consider.

John Stahler - 11/17/2007

It would be interesting to see Kuper's review of Alms for Jihad - if he can find a copy to read.