Here I document the repressive effect of Muslim immigration on Europe’s population, in the cases of Finland, Switzerland, Spain, Austria and Britain.

Muslim immigration creates police state in Finland

In Finland in August 2017, Abderrahman Bouanane, a 22 -year-old Moroccan who had been refused asylum, stabbed eight people while yelling “Allahu akbar”, killing two of them. One of his victims was a Muslim, Hassan Zubier, a British paramedic, who was stabbed four times while he was assisting a victim. It was the first terrorism incident in Finland since 1945. The attack prompted the Finnish Government, Members of Parliament and the President of Finland Sauli Niinistö to discuss fast-tracking the intelligence and surveillance bill in motion to prevent future attacks. The bill proposed to enhance national security against serious threats with both civilian and military intelligence; it included new surveillance powers such as network traffic surveillance and intelligence gathering abroad. Prime Minister Juha Sipilä commented on the need for intelligence gathering reform that “it should be obvious from a constitutional standpoint that the right to life is a more precious fundamental right than the right to privacy in light of the Turku event.”[1]

Muslim immigration creates police state in Switzerland 

In October of 2019, Amnesty International protested new proposed terrorism laws in Switzerland

Combating terrorism at the expense of human rights

Media release of October 30, 2019, London / Bern – Media contact

The draft legislation on preventing and combating terrorism presented by the Swiss Federal Council [i.e. the Swiss federal government] provides for massive interference with fundamental and human rights … The NGO Swiss Human Rights Platform, a coalition of more than 80 non-governmental organizations, including Amnesty Switzerland, opposes two bills …

POLICE LAW: SECURITY BASED ON SPECULATION

The new Federal Law on Police Measures to Combat Terrorism (PMT) is intended to give the police more powers against alleged terrorist threats outside of criminal procedural law, in other words through preventive measures. To impose restrictions on individuals, the authorities need only point to clues indicating possible terrorist activity in the future. The basis for police measures would ultimately be mere conjectures and speculation about people’s intentions and future actions.A wide range of preventive measures would be available to the police … starting with house arrest. … The age limits provided for in the bill are especially troubling. Preventive house arrest could be ordered for persons 15 years old and older, while orders forbidding contact with certain persons and forbidding entry in certain places could even be issued against children 12 years old and older. According to Valentina Stefanovic of humanrights.ch, this “contradicts Switzerland’s human rights obligations”.

CRIMINAL LAW: VAGUE DEFINITION WITH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES

Particularly problematic is the fact that the criminal code for the first time punishes participation in a “terrorist organization”, without listing the banned groups. … In practice the cantonal courts will have to decide at their own discretion whether an organization and its supporters are terrorist or not.[2]

About the same time Swiss police arrested several people for Islamic terrorism activities. Most of them are either immigrants from Muslim countries or their descendants. Macedonia has a large Muslim minority.”A vast police operation was conducted Tuesday on eleven individuals suspected of belonging to the jihadist movement … in the cantons of Zurich, Bern and Schaffhausen, eleven house searches were carried out simultaneously against eleven persons, including five adolescents.Eleven people are suspected of violation of the law banning Al-Qaeda and Islamic State groups … One of six adult defendants is a jihadist who returned from Syria. … the police investigation, which lasted one month, focused on Vedad [not his true name] … a 21-year-old Swiss man who went to Syria at the end of 2014 … with his sister Esra [not her true name], aged 15. [Vedad and Esra are both Turkish given names.]

Last Friday, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office announced that it had filed an indictment with the Federal Criminal Court against two individuals for alleged links to the Islamic State group in Syria. They are a Swiss and Italian double national … and a Swiss and Macedonian national. In May, the Federal Intelligence Service (SRC) identified 66 people who threaten the country’s security because of their terrorist activities or motives. The Intelligence Service also listed 92 jihadis who traveled from Switzerland to Syria. Of these, 31 persons are Swiss citizens, of which 18 are binationals.Last September, for the first time a dual national was stripped of his Swiss citizenship. He had been sentenced to several years’ imprisonment for propaganda and recruiting fighters for an Islamist terrorist organization. Last week, similar proceedings for the withdrawal of citizenship were started against a Swiss citizen who is also French and Tunisian.”[3]

Muslim immigration creates police state in Spain

There are more than enough grounds for refusing  to join the counter-jihadist pactThe Spanish government seeks to expand the pact, which was signed in 2015 by the Popular Party [conservative], the Socialist Party (PSOE) and Ciudadanos [“Citizens” – centrists], in order to  encompass the whole political spectrum, thus taking advantage of the Spanish people’s fear and condemnation of the terrorist attacks.On Monday all parliamentary parties – with the exception of Bildu [a Basque independence party closely associated with the defunct ETA terror group] – took part in meeting of the counter-jihadist pact. The agreement was reached in 2015 after the terrorist attacks in Paris, in expectation of new attacks by the Islamic State on European cities.

We have already seen this phenomenon in France, after the Paris attacks: the notion of ​​a “national unity front” against an external enemy is a means of curtailing democratic freedoms, fostering a larger role for the  police in society  and legitimizing large-scale  surveillance of sectors of the population considered “suspect” while legislative changes are undertaken to enable  new methods of monitoring and repression.

In the case of Spain this is not a conjecture about the future, but instead a history  of what the counter-jihadist pact has already accomplished, since  it included such measures  in 2015.

That’s why there are more than enough grounds not to join it.

In 2015, amendments were made to the penal code that triggered a wave of arrests  and the harassment  firstly of the Arab and Muslim populations, and secondly of the population at large.Creating the criminal offense of “radicalization via the Internet” justifies  police monitoring of “suspect” social networks. As journalist David Bollero denounced on Publico.es, the pact penalizes “use of communication networks and information technologies” for the purpose of “terrorist recruitment and training, including passive training.” This new offense suggests the possibility of punishing anyone  who surfs social networks deemed “dangerous”.[4]

Muslim immigration creates police state in Austria 

On ZiB 2 [an Austrian TV program https://tv.orf.at/zib2] Armin Wolf asked the new foreign minister Karin Kneissl, “Does Islam belong in Austria?”And she gave a good answer: “Muslims belong in Austria.”

Ever since a president of Germany who later resigned (for other reasons) became famous by saying that Islam belonged in Germany, a struggle has raged over this issue. [German President Christian Wulff so stated on 3 October  2010, the 20th anniversary of German reunification.]

Rightists vehemently deny the statement, and even moderates find it difficult to view Islam as a traditional, constituent element of Central Europe, so to speak.

But perhaps we should view the issue in terms of cultural history: spiritual and religious currents like Christianity and Judaism, as well as  the Enlightenment, have undoubtedly shaped cultural life in centuries in Central Europe, but Islam has not.

Austria has become what it is without any contribution from Islam.In this sense, Islam does not belong in Austria, not in the long run and probably never. … There will be more Muslims, but Islam as such will not exert any effect on society. 
Reply by Erika Rothen, 11 January 2018

In my opinion, Islam has already exerted effects on Austrian society: as a result of various activities conducted in Islam’s name, our society has become considerably less liberal and more authoritarian. Swiftly growing mistrust of refugees is due precisely to the socio-political impact of Islamic immigration. And restrictive legislation (surveillance, ban on covering one’s face, counter-terrorism measures and so forth) is caused by the effect of Islam on Europe. Of course Islam has exerted tremendous effects. And its effects have been extremely pernicious and reactionary![5]

Muslim immigration creates police state in Britain

Muslims hemmed in by security agencies

#Harassment #Entrapment #Islamophobia #MI5 #SweepingPowers #PublicServices #ChillingEffects: rising #PoliceState #CAGE!

The recent announcement that MI5 will be sharing even more information with local authorities and public sector services about potential “extremist threats” is a startling move that must be opposed since it amounts to a fear-based effort to create a more closed society and entrench control over dissent.It is also yet another manifestation, of Islamophobe Douglas Murray’s call in 2006 at the right-wing Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference on Europe and Islam, to make “conditions for Muslims harder across the board”. This “full spectrum”, “multi-agency” approach, according to Mi5 director Andrew Parker and Met Police Commissioner Cressida Dick, “means sharing intelligence with a wider range of partner bodies than before, such as health and social services” in an approach that “has parallels with how the authorities manage the risk posed by sexual or violent offenders”. The result will be a closed, mistrustful society, where ideas that even hint at dissent or challenging authority are criminalised, and individual prejudice against certain communities is more easily leveraged and justified.It will also further erode Britain’s tradition of due process and the rule of law, since this approach seeks to circumvent any legal redress available to targeted individuals, families and organisations.

Blacklisting in the dark

The European Union passed the General Data Protection Regulation in 2016, to protect individual privacy for individuals within the EU and the European Economic Area. This includes addressing the manner in which personal data is stored, used and shared.The government routinely rejects FOI’s into data collection, retention and other related issues based on national security grounds. Consequently it is impossible to ascertain the basis of the data collection, how it is used and the extent to which such blacklisting is used by the State. This move by Mi5 means that data sharing within Prevent and counter-terrorism (for example why a public meeting or speaker has been banned, or how the Home Office uses data gathered by the Henry Jackson Society to blacklist “extremists”), will effectively be put in the dark.

Extension of PREVENT and the pre-crime space

By bringing in public sector services as “partner” agencies, in the same way as is done for tackling sex offences, the security services are placing suspicion at the same the level as criminal convictions. The pre-crime space is an area where criminalisation occurs when no crime has taken place. It fosters an environment where prejudice and suspicion operate to label an individual as “vulnerable” and requiring state intervention. These concerns have been expressed forcefully in connection with the toxic PREVENT strategy.

Strengthening the arm of the state for civil sanctions

The sharing of information that has not been adequately challenged in court, and of which an individual may not even be aware, is not only a violation of the rule of law, but it also opens the door for personal and political vendettas, intimidation and discrimination to occur.Individuals in public services cannot be given even more authority to report those with whom they work, or individuals under their care. The result is a surveillance nation, and a huge fracture in trust between individuals in sectors where trust is paramount. Representatives from the security services have openly stated that the primary target of this is “Islamist extremism”, but the move will put more people into the “extremism” matrix, a catch-all term for all forms of dissent and non conforming attitidues and beliefs.However, the overarching stated aim of combating “Islamist extremism” – which is so subjectively and broadly interpreted by a society easily triggered by Islamophobic media and politicians – will further securitise Muslims and their families. In this way, it builds on a broad matrix of fear that gives public institutions a green light to accept Muslims as second class citizens, thereby exceptionalising them. This must be seen for what it is, and the violations it can lead toThis initiative must be challenged through legal avenues. It is about fortifying state control over ideas, behaviour and the way we engage with causes close to us, while boosting the profits of the counter-extremism and security/surveillance sector.

Problems associated with pre-crime, third party data snatching and sharing without real safeguards, the securitisation of entire families, and the increasing use of militarised, secret courts are all connected to this. Most importantly, further pressurising social workers and health care practitioners to become agents of the police, undermine an open and free society society. This is a move that is at odds with the values held dear by the general populace of Britain, and as Muslims we are at the forefront of it. This is why we must resist this encroachment into our lives and beliefs. (NOTE: CAGE represents cases of individuals based on the remit of our work. Supporting a case does not mean we agree with the views or actions of the individual. Content published on CAGE may not reflect the official position of our organisation.

“In all, only 37% of Britons feel the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits – lower than in any other big European country apart from Poland. By comparison, 50% of Italians believe the net impact of immigration is negative, as well as 49% of Swedes and 42% of French and 40% of Germans.”

Source: Britons most positive in Europe on benefits of immigration, by Jamie Grierson and Pamela Duncan, Thu 2 May 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/02/britons-more-sold-on-immigration-benefits-than-other-europeans

The Brookings Institution has published a very useful series of articles on how Muslims are viewed in different European countries. This is a review of the article about how Poles see Islam and Muslims.[1]

TITLE OF THE ARTICLE

1. The title of the article is “Imaginary Muslims: How the Polish right frames Islam”. This exudes gentle mockery of the Poles. “Imaginary Muslims” gives the impression that Poles who discuss Islam don’t know what they are talking about, simply because there are very few Muslims in Poland.”

The country’s unique paradox: while Muslims are a heated topic in Poland, their presence in the country is minimal.”

“All of these perceptions have developed in the context of a country that, itself, has very few Muslims. This is Poland’s paradox”

However nowadays it is very easy to find out what is going on in other countries, so the Muslims are not really imaginary at all, any more than the planet Venus is imaginary simply because we don’t see it all the time. Poles are well aware of what goes on in the rest of Europe and consider it important for their own fate.”

The question of Muslims in Poland is not just a “domestic” issue for Poles but takes on broader significance in light of EU membership and pressure from EU structures to accept a greater number of (Muslim) refugees”

“For our [right-wing] interviewees, Islam is perceived as a threat to Europe, even if it does not affect Poles directly.”

2. The title says “Polish right”, but according to the article, where Islam is concerned, the Polish right has completely mainstream opinions.

” The PiS government’s policy to refuse Muslim refugees corresponds with voter attitudes”

“Supporters of the political right believe that welcoming Muslims would harm Poland culturally. Interviewees often argued that significant cultural differences would make assimilation of Muslims in Catholic Poland difficult or even impossible. In this regard, right-wing opinion corresponds with that of the general Polish public”

3. Finally the verb “to frame” means a number of things, to wit:

2. To conceive or design: framed an alternate proposal.
3. To establish the context for and terminology regarding (a subject of discussion or debate), especially so as to exclude an unwanted point of view: The question was framed to draw only one answer.
4. a. To put into words; formulate: frame a reply.
b. To form (words) silently with the lips.
5. a. To make up evidence or contrive events so as to incriminate (a person) falsely.
b. To prearrange (a contest) so as to ensure a desired fraudulent outcome; fix: frame a prizefight.I wonder which one is meant.

But on reading the text of the article I found that it is simply about the views or opinions that Poles have of Islam, and there is no mention of any framing.

A Lipka Tatar mosque in Bohoniki, Poland

Consequently use of the verb “to frame” seems here to be a rhetorical device intended to present Poles’ opinions of Islam as something contrived, artificial and unrelated to reality. However that was not the impression I got when I read what those opinions were. On the contrary, I find those opinions on the whole fairly realistic, if not actually humdrum.

CLEAR DISTINCTION AMONG IMMIGRANTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

According to the article, a survey was conducted in February 2018 in which Poles were asked about various national, ethnic or religious groups. Czechs were the best liked group and Arabs the least liked.”According to Bart Bachman, Poles have consistently held some of the most pro-immigration views in Europe. This makes the opposition to specifically Muslim immigration all the more striking.””The question is whether Poles are against refugees qua refugees, or whether they particularly oppose refugees from the Middle East and Africa (who would be primarily Muslim).”When “asked about attitudes toward admitting refugees from Ukraine … the results were remarkably different. Over half (56 percent) of respondents agreed that Poland should accept refugees from Ukraine, with 35 percent opposed. … Polish public opinion on Ukrainian refugees has been stable since October 2015, further suggesting that the reluctance to accept refugees from the Middle East and Africa is related to their origin.”The views expressed by right-wing Poles in the article make perfectly clear that attitudes toward immigrants vary greatly depending on where the immigrants are from. For example natives of countries neighboring Poland, like Czechs and Ukrainians are better liked than those from distant countries. However natives of neighboring countries that have oppressed Poland in the past like Russia and Germany are not terribly popular. Clear distinctions are likewise made among distant countries. Vietnamese are popular and Arabs are unpopular.

This fact shows that the conventional discussion of “immigrants” and “anti-immigration” glosses over enormous differences among different countries of origin, at least from the standpoint of immigrant acceptance in the host country, and most likely in other respects as well. The aversion toward historical foes is significant. Consequently it seems to me that the obsessive use of the term “immigrant” and “immigration” conceals far more than it reveals and should accordingly be discontinued forthwith and replaced by an array of terms clearly distinguishing among regions or cultures of origin. As a matter of fact the term “immigrant” has become a tool for hoodwinking public opinion on a matter of the greatest importance.

DEFINITION OF “RIGHT-WING”

Refreshingly, the authors provide a definition of right-wing in the Polish context. It is:”The characteristic features of the Polish right include: attachment to the idea of the Polish nation, Euroscepticism, the Christian tradition of Europe, maintaining good relations with the Catholic Church, and the promotion of conservative family values. … Moreover, the Polish right is against the admission of refugees from the Middle East and Africa”.

“Right-wing parties appeal to three major themes in Polish history. First is the threat of Europe’s Islamization harkening back to the Battle of Vienna in 1683, in which the Polish-Austrian army defeated the Turks. The myth of Poland as the bulwark of Christianity (antemurale Christianitas) was built around this victory.”

The second theme seems of purely historical interest.

The third theme is “The experience of resisting the territorial designs of neighbors from the East and the West shaped the Polish distrust of Russia and Germany as well as a certain hypersensitivity to Russian-German cooperation. This contributes to the Polish right’s fear of subordination to the European Union, in which Germany dominates.”

Anti-Islamization demonstration in Poland

POLISH NATIONALISM IS NOT RACIST

“The Vietnamese assimilate and do not tire us with their religion. [Also,] they are invisible, they do not interfere with our culture, how to dress, what to do.”

“neither PiS nor National Movement define a nation, at least explicitly, in ethnic terms. Being Polish is based on a cultural community. At the same time, belonging to the Polish nation is intertwined with Christianity, which, needless to say, creates a major obstacle for those of different religions, but particularly a religion that’s perceived as representing a different set of cultural claims, such as Islam. As Krzysztof Bosak, vice president of the [right-wing] Ruch Narodowy (RN) (National Movement), explains:

“If we talk about a man, regardless of his background, race or appearance, who grew up … in another culture, in my opinion he already has his own cultural identity, and it is not possible to transform it…National identity is acquired with upbringing and in the process of socialization…When certain patterns of behavior shape the personality, certain moral values and certain attitudes are acquired.”

To judge by this article, Polish right-wingers cannot be classified as racists in the normal sense of the term. However I suppose they might be found guilty of “cultural racism”. After reading about cultural racism, I concluded that, similarly to regular racism, for the charge of cultural racism to apply, hostility must be displayed toward substantially all outgroups. If aversion exists only to one small set of outgroups, and furthermore specific rational grounds are credibly invoked to justify such aversion, the charge of cultural racism must be rejected.

OPINIONS EXPRESSED REGARDING PROS-PECTIVE MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS

The opinions expressed regarding Muslims immigrants were the following, arranged by topic:

WILLINGNESS TO WORK

“Arab and African immigrants are also perceived as free riders living off government benefits without working. These immigrants are contrasted to economic migrants, especially the allegedly hard-working Ukrainians or Vietnamese: “I respect Ukrainians for coming here and working really hard with us.

CULTURAL CONFLICT

Regarding the “level of agreement between Islam and Western culture … 34 percent of those surveyed predicted that serious conflict was inevitable—an increase of 15 percentage points between 2006 and 2015. … an image of Muslims as intolerant, unwilling to assimilate, and supporting violence.”

INTEGRATION ISSUES

“Allowing even a small number of Muslim immigrants to settle in Poland is perceived as a risk due to cultural differences””Islam is understood not as a religion per se but as a political ideology that defines the lifestyle and views of believers. In particular, fear is stoked by the concept of jihad. … There will be internal jihad. They do not integrate, they commit rape. They are culturally hermetic. Their religion gives a strong motivation for cultural non-integration.”

HIGH BIRTH RATE

“high Muslim growth rates elsewhere give some Poles the feeling of being subject to Muslim domination … their high fertility rate … “Imagine someone coming there, a Muslim, with three wives, with children, and then what?”

VIOLENCE

“the question of violence: ‘Christian culture has developed to such a level that one does not kill others and wars do not happen.’”

TERRORISM

“As many of the interviewees see it, an increase in the Muslim population in Poland could bring a threat of terrorism, which is at present negligible.”

DISCUSSION

Some of these fears may be exaggerated, but others seem fairly realistic when judged by statistics from European countries with Muslim populations. Many difficulties can be prevented by proper planning beforehand and by devoting considerable resources to immigrant integration. But this is unlikely to occur, since in the budgeting process the institutions in charge of integrating immigrants do not possesses the power needed to extort sufficient resources.

I may discuss these issues in a subsequent note.

In June 2019, The Nation published an article called “The European Left’s Dangerous Anti-Immigrant Turn”.[1] Intrigued, I started reading it, expecting accounts of jackbooted leftists marching down the Champs Elysées, but found out it was about the Danish Social Democrats, who had just emerged victorious from general elections and named one of their own prime minister.”In something of a paradox, the center left returned to the scene only by lurching to the right. The Social Democrats, faced with waning support in the past two decades, have parroted the Danish People’s Party on immigration, backing hard-line policies they characterize as necessary to save the country’s prized welfare state.”So, saving the welfare state is a right-wing position! Who knew! And I had just got through reading Daniel Pipes, the noted Islamophobe, who writes”Granted, some European parties actually have a fascistic quality, in particular Golden Dawn in Greece and Jobbik in Hungary. But the others being maligned are in fact populist and insurgent, often with leftist economic programs, especially concerning the welfare state.”[2]Back to Pisser’s article in The Nation:”Natasha Al-Hariri, a lawyer and minority-rights advocate, agreed. “It’s disturbing to see Frederiksen in the prime-minister spot,” she said. “She’ll adopt whatever position gets the most votes, even if that means aligning with the far right. When is enough nough?””She’ll adopt whatever position gets the most votes.” Hmmm, isn’t that the definition of democracy? If minority-rights advocate Al-Hariri objects to what the majority decides, then she has failed to persuade voters, in other words she has failed to advocate properly for her minority.To Pisser’s dismay, the Danish Social Democrats support”policies aimed at improving integration and reducing crime in [neighborhoods where] more than half of their residents are of “non-Western” background … [that] included measures ethnic minorities consider discriminatory: One law … requires “ghetto children” from age 1 to 6 … to attend mandatory courses in Danish values and traditions, as well as language courses. Families that refuse to comply risk being stripped of government benefits.”Perhaps lessons in Danish values would come in useful for people who intend to spend the rest of their respective lives in Denmark, especially considering the current situation:Naser Khader, chairman of Ny Alliance, is personally acquainted with the problem of children in kindergartens who curse Danes, Jews and Americans. The consequence is that children grow up with hate messages. Who knows if they’ll keep them as grownups, he asks. The children are not the only ones who are affected negatively by Arab TV. “Many families watch only Arab and religious channels. That means that many are mentally in the Middle East, even if they live in Denmark,” says Naser Khader. Fatih El-Abed agrees. “Many get a distorted image of reality. It’s caused to great degree because they never see Danish TV or read Danish newspapers, but just get their information and news from Arab channels. They therefore see Denmark as the enemy, even if they live here,” he says.[3]Nonetheless Danish progs are aghast:” … some Danes [are] disillusioned with what they see as the party’s betrayal of its progressive ideals. ‘There’s no question: They saw that, without anti-Islam as a central part of their platform, they have no chance of success’ … One Social Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the party’s slide had cemented Islamophobia into the center of Danish politics, but that Denmark wasn’t alone in this. ‘When it comes to our debate on immigration, the far right has won,’ she told me. ‘The left has lost. The center has lost. This is true all over Europe.’” [4]Perhaps those disillusioned progs haven’t read the word of Allah proclaimed through a website of the Qatari Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs:It is obligatory to disregard and disavow the disbelievers and not be loyal to them[5]
Fatwa number: 176819
Publication Date: Monday, 11 Jumada I 1433 AH – 2 April 2012 AD…Praise be to Allah, and may blessings and peace be upon Allah’s Prophet and his family and companions.Be aware – O questioner – that hatred for the People of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] and other infidels is not merely for the sake of desire but rather for Allah’s sake … there is no end to this enmity and hatred except for their people to enter into faith in Allah alone …Everyone seems to believe that supporting immigration is a progressive position. I already wrote an entire powst on this issue.[6]  I propose an amendment to that general belief. It goes like this:1. Supporting immigration of progressives is a progressive position.
2. Supporting immigration of centrists is a centrist position.
3. Supporting immigration of reactionaries is a reactionary position.
4. Supporting immigration of fussbudgets is a fussbudget position.
5. Supporting immigration of crackpots is a crackpot position.And so forth.According to this new formulation, immigration of orthodox Muslims is by definition a reactionary position that should be abhorrent to all progressives.

I just got through watching a video by Cas Mudde, the famous Dutch populistologist, called “How to deal with the far right”[1]. As always, Mudde exudes professional expertise through every pore. He was being interviewed by Henning Meyer, the editor of Social Europe[2], which is a Social Democratic website that I often read. It appears to be run by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), the research arm of the German Social Democratic party (SPD).  Cas Mudde started with a periodization of right-wing movements in Europe since the 2nd World War, and told us that we are now in the so-called fourth wave. The periods aren’t very interesting. Here they are, for the record:

Here is a summary of his words:In this 4^th wave, the far right has finally hit the big time, or as he puts it, has become  mainstream. The mainstreaming of the far right occurred thanks to the 3 major crises of the 21st century, namely 9-11 in 2001, the great recession in 2008-2009 and the refugee crisis in 2015-2016. 9-11 was the most important for the switch from the 3^rd wave to the 4^th waveCrises nos. 1 and 3 were socio-cultural and crisis no. 2 was economic.The economic crisis did not help the far right very much. By contrast it was crises nos. 1 and 3 that gave the far right a boost.Consequently the far right is principally motivated by socio-cultural issues.Until 9-11  there had been anti-Moroccan sentiment (he’s obviously talking about Holland, where the Dutch-Moroccan minority has been a major issue for many years) but after 9-11 it shifted from ethno-nationalist to ethno-religious, in other words to Islamophobia.  It made sense in terms of security policy, liberal democracy, gender rights and separation of church and state.Minute 17Then H Meyer talks about blaming a whole religious group, creating a conflict line.Cas Mudde: The immigration crisis was fundamental for the far right.Most far rightists are nativist, authoritarian and populist.The terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris in 2015 and 2016 reinforced far right memes, since the right has always connected crime to immigration.Economic anxiety plays a role, but only for some voters. Cultural backlash by contrast plays a role for practically ALL voters. Voters for radical right parties usually say their own economic situation is good, but the country’s economic situation is bad. The question is: Is that an economic assessment, or is it related to their nativism? If you’re a nativist and a lot of Muslims come in, you think that the country is not doing well in all aspects. This is a racialized view of the economy.This is where I started getting uptight. “If you’re a nativist and a lot of Muslims come in, you think that the country is not doing well, and this is a racialized view”.nativist =         favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrantsracialize =        a. To differentiate or categorize according to race.b. To impose a racial character or context on.2. To perceive or experience in racial terms:Nativist refers to the distinction between natives and immigrantsRacial refers to the distinction among racesMuslims cannot be neatly classified according to either distinction.Take Belgium for example. Some Muslims are a different race from most Belgians, other are the same race. Some Muslims are Belgians, others are not.It seems pretty obvious that Cas Mudde is doing his utmost to avoid designating hostility to Islam as what it really is – hostility to Islam.  Howzabout if you’re a nativist and a lot of Buddhists come in? Or if you’re a nativist and a lot of Latin American Catholics come in? What happens then?The Spanish far-right Vox party is nativist as all get-out, but it welcomes Latin Americans, even though many of them have suspiciously dusky skins and weird accents.By definition a nativist  is intolerant of whatever is foreign.Buddhism is just a foreign to Europeans as Islam is. As a matter of fact Islam is culturally far closer to Europe than Buddhism, and has far more historical and cultural links to Europe than Buddhism.However Europeans accept Buddhism far more readily than they do Islam. In figure 44 of the Swedish Diversity Barometer for 2018 Buddhism had the same score for “negative values” as Christianity (26%), whereas Islam’s negative values  score for that year was 95%. This is typical. I have seen several surveys for different countries and the results are the same.

And who perped the terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris in 2015 and 2016. Foreigners? No, actually, it was natives. Muslim natives.Cas Mudde admits that Islamophobia makes sense in terms of security policy, liberal democracy, gender rights and separation of church and state.Nonetheless if you oppose Islam you’re a nativist.

Racism seems to be a placeholder term, something you say when you don’t want people to think you’re an Islamophobe. I saw an article by one Fraser Myers, although it appeared in a fairly right-wing magazine called “sp¡ked” that generally deplores the activities of the wokeing classes, called “The racism of Fortress Europe. The EU pays dictators to keep dark-skinned people out of Europe. So why do liberals love it?”https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/03/the-racism-of-fortress-europe/Right beneath the headline was a photo of how Fortress Europe keeps all those dark-skinned people out. Here it is: 

Just in case you become confused, the “dark-skinned people” — presumably Syrians — are on the right, and the “light-skinned people” — in this case Greek border police — are on the left. However the “dark-skinned people” have the same complexion as the “light-skinned people”.
Obviously the author is using “dark-skinned” as a synonym of “Mohammedan”, but it would be SO tasteless to use a term with religious connotations!  

Both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are terms that have different meanings for different people. Moreover the meaning a person attributes to them invariably depends on that person’s political viewpoint. In addition, both terms are emotionally highly charged and furthermore relate to current ethnic conflicts that are being waged worldwide.

This combination of circumstances means that whoever uses either the term anti-Semitism or the term Islamophobia is asking for trouble, and whoever uses BOTH of them is asking for a whole heap of trouble, especially if he or she makes a comparison between them.

Consequently Melanie Phillips was very foolish to even broach this discussion.

Defining political conflicts in ideological terms is a sure-fire recipe for generating far more heat than light. Both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are quintessentially ideological in nature.

Discussion of these matters should be conducted in terms of actual facts and events that can be measured and ascertained. Doing so leads to fruitful discussions instead of emotional outbursts. Both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, if not patently racist, can easily become racist.

Nonetheless it worthwhile to review what objective grounds exist that might in principle justify a general aversion to Jews on the one hand or to Mohammedans on the other. By analogy to resentment against individuals, resentment against a group of people can often be justified by reference to misdeeds that members of the group have committed. Naturally only actual misdeeds should count, not slanderous accusations. Moreover the acts of one’s ancestors are only chargeable to the extent that the descendant either selfishly enjoys the fruits of his forbears’ crimes or callously justifies them.

Reviewing the history of Jews and Mohammedans respectively, an enormous disparity is at once apparent between both groups, since Jews have seldom exercised power over non-Jews, whereas Muslims have very often commanded the fates of non-Muslims. Thus Jews have had few opportunities to do harm to others, quite unlike Muslims. More especially, Muslims have often held power over Jews, but Jews have seldom held power over Muslims.

As a matter of fact one of the principal traits of Islam as such is the fact that it owes its prominence to the role it has played as the dominant ideology of Islamic conquests, and Islamic conquests have been on the whole both vast in scope and extremely ruthless and bloodthirsty in nature. Nothing remotely similar can be attributed to any Jewish enterprise, with the sole exception of the establishment of the state of Israel and its subsequent preservation.

Nonetheless Israel’s sins and failings cannot be attributed to Jews as a whole, but instead only to those Jews and non-Jews who support Israel, especially those who refuse to brook any criticism of Israel’s misdeeds.

We must also bear in mind the well settled fact that the most prominent accusations against Jews as a group – although perhaps not all of them — are rooted in malicious libel. Most bias against Jews as a group can be traced back either the notorious forgery called the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or to the early history of Islam. Cursory examination of early Islamic history promptly reveals that the animus toward Jews displayed by Mohammed and evident in many Qur’anic passages is not rooted in any actual misdeeds that Jews may have committed in Arabia in the 7th century, but were instead the outcome of power struggles between Mohammed and Arabian Jews.

The birthplace of Islam was the city of Medina, where Mohammed arrived in the year 627 or so coming as a refugee from Mecca. Several Jewish tribes lived in Medina at the time. Mohammed began intriguing and soon entered into conflict with the Jewish tribes. He expelled two of them and slaughtered the third, the Banu Qurayza.

Qur’anic legend makes much of the supposed treachery perpetrated by the Banu Qurayza, who were allies of Mohammed. Such alleged treachery is brandished in order to justify their slaughter. However close inspection of those charges – which can be found on the wikiislam.net website – promptly reveals that the treason charge is merely a specious pretext.

Moreover, Mohammed’s biography clearly states that he only decided to attack the Banu Qurayza after prodding by a heavenly emissary, to wit the Archangel Gabriel, or Jibreel as he is called in Arabic.

“… According to what al-Zuhri told me, at the time of the noon prayers [the Archangel] Gabriel came to the apostle wearing an embroidered turban and riding on a mule with a saddle covered with a piece of brocade. He asked the apostle if he had abandoned fighting, and when he [the apostle] said that he had, he [the Archangel Gabriel] said that the angels had not yet laid aside their arms and that he had just come from pursuing the enemy. ‘God commands you, Muhammad, to go to the Banu Qurayza. I am about to go to them to shake their stronghold.'”[1]

This implies that Mohammed had no real motive to slaughter them, but was only following orders, like Adolf Eichmann.

After he had overcome his enemies within Medina, Mohammed began expanding his control to neighboring oases, one of which was the prosperous Jewish town of Khaybar. In 628 Mohammed and his warriors conquered Khaybar and enslaved those of its inhabitants whom they had not slaughtered.

I find it very telling that Mohammedan threats against Jews are invariably expressed by reference to Khaybar, namely in the slogan “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews!”[2]

Unlike the Banu Qurayza, the Jewish dwellers of Khaybar were never accused of treason. Moreover, the phrase “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews!” does not contain any kind of reproach. It is an implied threat of enslavement and extermination that does not even faintly suggest that Jews are to blame for anything, except perhaps for being weak. It has no moral content.

This lays bare the hypocritical nature of Muslim resentment against Jews. Mohammedan hatred toward Jews merely reflects an ancient tribal blood feud, a primitive vendetta. It completely lacks any moral justification. Persisting in this crude form of anti-Semitism is obvious proof that Islam is the most advanced stage of barbarism and is incompatible with modern civilization.

By contrast, there are many rational grounds for resentment against Mohammedans. Not only have Mohammedans often exercised control over others, but that control has frequently been exercised in a cruel and tyrannical manner, in keeping with the profoundly irrational and despotic nature of Islam.

Naturally I reject the idea that Muslims should be penalized for the misdeeds of their forefathers. Guilt is not a hereditary trait. But to the extent that Muslims continue to exult in their ancient conquests and persist in displaying the arrogant and self-congratulatory behavior of victorious warriors entitled to dictate their will to vanquished underlings, I think that resentment against whichever Muslims act in this fashion is fully warranted, in exactly the same way as resentment is warranted against Europeans and their ilk who persist in celebrating alleged “white” superiority and consider European civilization – or some subspecies thereof — irreproachable and flawless.  

So, returning to the issue unfortunately broached by Melanie Phillips, to wit anti-Semitism versus Islamophobia, I think there can be no reasonable doubt that resentment against Muslims is far easier to justify rationally than resentment against Jews. Therefore I side with Ms Phillips, and I think that anybody with an ounce of good sense must do the same.

However good sense is in short supply among conservative Muslims, a group largely characterized by slavish adherence to tradition and burdened with a moral code rooted in ancient tribal hatreds.

The German historian Volker Weiss states that the crucial difference between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is that anti-Semitism is the result of a fantasy, it is a projection in the Freudian sense,  whereas hostility toward Islam reflects a real conflict caused by the jihadi threat to Europe. Weiss also stresses that looming immigration from the Middle East and Africa generate in Europe on the one hand “panic” and on the other a feeling of solidarity.[3]

In 1967 Theodor Adorno claimed[4] that the German radical right-wing movement of that time, the National Democratic Party (NPD) was driven by “collective narcissistic resentment”. Volker Weiss[5] wrote an epilogue to Adorno’s tract when it was republished in 2019. Weiss notes that currently “The political front lines are not the same as then (i.e. 1967). The confrontation with global jihadism is a key factor that right-wing populism now deploys in its agitation, and, unlike anti-Semitism, it is not merely a projection of the rightists’ turbulent emotions. Political Islam is a really existing  political movement and it too must be considered  the product of a collective narcissistic resentment.”[6]

Overcoming anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Sweden

Far better than dwelling on ancient hatreds, both Muslims and Jews should follow the example of their comrades in Malmö, where rabbis and imams have joined in fostering tolerance and understanding between their respective flocks. A comparison between the merits of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism such as the one I have sketched out above, albeit necessary, inevitably encourages strife. By contrast an effort to overcome such ill-will can only be beneficial to all parties concerned, including those who are neither Muslims nor Jews.[7]

---

[1] Life of Mohammed by Ibn Ishaq, translated by Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1955, page 461
https://archive.org/details/TheLifeOfMohammedGuillaume 

[2] More on this topic can be found in my previous article “Religious violence and anti-Semitism” of 24 April 2018
http://islamophiliawatch.blogspot.com/2018/04/religious-violence-and-anti-semitism.html

[3] Interview with Volker Weiss “Tacheles: Volker Weiß über Akteure, Ideologie und Entwicklung der Neuen Rechten”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xtMdgVayOw, 7:50 Min.

[4] Adorno, Theodor W.: Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus [Aspects of the new radical right] , 4th ed., Berlin 2019, pp 74 et seq.

[5] Volker Weiss (born in 1972) is a German historian and writer. He researches the German far right in the present and past, as well as German history of the 19th and 20th centuries. He regularly reports on the German far right on the German left-wing website Jungle World. Weiss attributes to the far right the same contempt for women and so-called toxic masculinity that characterize jihadis. His nuanced critique of Thilo Sarrazin has been with widely praised.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volker_Weiß

[6] »Aspekte des neuen Rechtsradikalismus« und die totalitäre Demokratie, by Thomas Meyer

https://www.exit-online.org/textanz1.php

[7] Anti-Semitism grows in Malmö – “We feel afraid”, Expressen, December 14, 2017

Därför eskalerar antisemitismen i Malmö – “Vi känner oss rädda”

https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/darfor-eskalerar-antisemitismen-i-malmo–vi-kanner-oss-radda/

Three Latin American terrorist organizations appear on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations:

Shining Path (Peru)
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
National Liberation Army (Colombia)

None of them appears to have conducted operations in the US. None of the Hispanic organizations in the US appears to support these or any other Latin American terrorist organizations.

An article in The Atlantic called “Where America’s Terrorists Actually Come From” does not mention any terrorism related to Latin America or to Hispanics in the US.
Source: Where America’s Terrorists Actually Come From, by Uri Friedman, The Atlantic, Jan 30, 2017
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

Hispanic terrorism and political violence in the US before 1990:

In 1916 the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa with his army attacked the border town of Columbus, New Mexico, and met resistance from armed civilians and from the US army, which had several hundred soldiers stationed there. A total of 24 Americans died as a result of the attack, 9 of which were  soldiers and 15 civilians. The Villistas sustained between 90 and 170 killed. Six men were captured during the raid and tried. All but one were hanged.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Columbus_(1916)

1950 Puerto Rican nationalists try to assassinate President Truman at the White House, only manage to kill 1 policeman  
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Harry_S._Truman

1954 Puerto Rican nationalists shoot US Congressmen from the spectator gallery, wound several, kill none.
Source: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident

1960s Activitiees of anti-Castro Cuban terrorists in the US
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_United_Revolutionary_Organizations

1974 New York City bombings, allegedly by Puerto Rican nationalists
Source: Couldn’t locate any source

1976 Assassination of exiled left-wing Chilean politician Orlando Letelier and his American assistant Ronni Moffitt by Chilean secret police (DINA)
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Orlando_Letelier

Hispanic terrorism in the US after 1990:
Source: https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/

LIST OF HISPANIC TERRORISTS IN THE US SINCE 1990:

1. HISPANIC JIHADI TERRORISTS:

1A. Hispanic jihadi terrorists who were Muslims (all of them converts to Islam):

1. James Gonzalo Medina
2. José Padilla
3. Bryant Neal Vinas
4. Enrique Marquez
5. Jesus Wilfredo Encarnación
6. Alex Hernández
7. José Pimentel
8. Marcos Alonso Zea
9. Antonio Martinez
10. Miguel Santana
11. Mark Domingo
12. Sixto Ramiro Garcia
13. Ralph Deleon
14. Daniel Joseph Maldonado
15. Jamie Paulin Ramirez
16. Miguel Moran Diaz
17. Yosvany Padilla Conde
18. Harlem Suarez
19. Erwin Rios
20. Carlos Almonte
21. Matthew Llaneza
22. Esteban Santiago

1B. Hispanic jihadi terrorists  who were NOT converts to Islam:

23. José Noel
24. Vicente Adolfo Solano

2. HISPANIC NON-JIHADI TERRORIST:

     25. Santos Colon         Tried to kill the pope. Motive unknown.

5.3% of US terrorists are Hispanics. This is less than one third of their share of the population (18%), so far fewer Hispanics become terrorists that the general population.  

24 of the 25 Hispanic terrorists were either converts to Islam or had worked for ISIS or Al Qaeda

The 25th Hispanic terrorist (Santos Colon) wanted to kill the pope. His motive is unknown.

So 96% of Hispanic terrorists are jihadi terrorists, i.e. terrorists who kill for Islam.  ONLY ONE Hispanic terrorist was not a jihadi terrorist.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/?target=huma-abedin

LATEST FACT-CHECKS — HUMA ABEDIN

Sean Duffy stated on August 23, 2016 in an interview:

Says Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has “ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.” 

FALSE

By Tom Kertscher, September 14, 2016

Politifact claims that the Muslim Brotherhood “has not been involved in terrorism, rather it has functioned as a social organization and a political organization that participates in elections”. This claim is contradicted by numerous aauthors. See Appendix 1.

Politifact relied on the investigative skills of Tom Kertscher to decide that charges that Huma Abedin had links to the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t hold water.  

I reviewed a list of writings by Kertscher. See Appendix 4. This list of publications by Tom Kertscher shows that he knows nothing about Islam. A fact-checker who knows nothing about Islam is not qualified to check any facts connected to Islam.

Furthermore the grounds Kertscher provides to justify his decision show that he is very uncritical.  See Appendix 2. He relies on the opinions of several groups of “experts” without naming them.

He accepts the findings of an article simply because the article was published in “an academic journal”. However it turns out that the article he relied on to conclude that Abedin had nothing  to do with the Muslim Brotherhood was written by an academic, Khalil Al-Anani, who is himself clearly connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, since he is a professor in Qatar, which is world HQ for the Muslim Brotherhood, and whose ruling family is the Muslim Brotherhood’s principal sponsor.  Moreover he writes for Al Jazeera and the Middle East Monitor, two Islamist publications. Al Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar and is a prolific source of Muslim Brotherhood propaganda. See Appendix 3.

Recently another case came to light of Politifact’s egregiously biased “fact-checking”, in which Joseph Biden’s record on Social Security was whitewashed to make people forget Biden’s successive efforts to reduce the social safety net.[1]   

APPENDIX 1. MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

1. “Politics of Social Change in the Middle East and North Africa”, by Manfred Halpern, written in 1963 and commissioned by the RAND Corp, a top Pentagon contractor that is not known for groundless alarmism. Available online at http://www.rand.org/pubs/re… part 2.

Halpern writes on pp 134-143:

“CHAPTER 8: RESURRECTING THE PAST: NEO-ISLAMIC TOTALITARIANISM

Native Totalitarianism: the Sources of its Appeal…

… But the needs and emotions which inspired these expressions of Islam are not dead. They reappear in twisted form in the various movements of NEO-ISLAMIC TOTALITARIANISM. In Egypt, the largest Arab state, such a movement [i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood] has for decades been far more powerful and disciplined than the communist party….

Neo-Islamic totalitarian movements have played an important role elsewhere in the Middle East as well. The Fadayan Islam assassinated Iranian Premier Razmara in 1951; the Khaksar movement assassinated Pakistani Premier Liaquat Ali Khan in 1951. A similar Pakistani group, the Jama’at-i-Islam, in April 1958 won a majority of seats in the Karachi municipal assembly.

… IN THEIR CONCERN FOR ISLAM THEY DO NOT HESITATE TO KILL FELLOW MOSLEMS…

THE NEO-ISLAMIC TOTALITARIAN MOVEMENTS ARE ESSENTIALLY FASCIST MOVEMENTS. THEY CONCENTRATE ON MOBILIZING PASSION AND VIOLENCE TO ENLARGE THE POWER OF THEIR CHARISMATIC LEADER AND THE SOLIDARITY OF THE MOVEMENT. THEY VIEW MATERIAL PROGRESS PRIMARILY AS A MEANS FOR ACCUMULATING STRENGTH FOR POLITICAL EXPANSION, AND ENTIRELY DENY INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL FREEDOM. THEY CHAMPION THE VALUES AND EMOTIONS OF A HEROIC PAST, BUT REPRESS ALL FREE CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EITHER PAST ROOTS OR PRESENT PROBLEMS….

The reconstruction of society through the “spiritualization of politics” has been a permanent theme of opposition politics in Islam. While European fascism was compelled to propagandize myths that were new to the majority of the population, neo-Islamic totalitarianism simply exploits the tradition of converting Islam in times of crisis into an apocalyptic vision of spiritual and political redemption. The Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood, for example, calls itself simultaneously “a reformist movement, an orthodox path, a mystic reality, a political society, an athletic group, a scientific and cultural organization, an economic corporation, and a social idea.”

[Footnote 7: … Such a formulation made it easy for the Brotherhood to live at the same time in the traditional and the modern world. Whenever it was threatened by repression, it replied that it would confine itself to religious issues, meaning its propagandizing mission. Whenever it felt free to act, it declared it was concerned only with religion, since in Islamic tradition, religion comprehends all things.]

Most of the program is concerned with tactics that express its mood.

Like fascism, neo-Islamic totalitarianism represents the institutionalization of struggle, tension, and violence. …

the movement is forced by its own logic and dynamics to pursue its vision through nihilistic terror, cunning, and passion….Like fascist movements elsewhere, the movement is so organized as to make neo-Islamic totalitarianism the whole life of its members.

The members of the “family” also assume financial responsibility for each other.” All members in all branches at each meeting renew their sworn allegiance to the head of the organization: “I hear and I obey.”… engaged in parades, athletics and street-fighting.”

After swearing secrecy on a Koran and a pistol, the members of the secret apparatus were organized in groups of five.

… stimulates an intoxicating sense of nihilism in which the willingness to sacrifice one’s self becomes more important than the object for which the sacrifice is made.

… are sent to death as robots have the illusion of dying as martyrs …

meetings, this litany of slogans is shouted again and again:

ALLAH IS OUR GOAL!

THE PROPHET IS OUR LEADER!

THE KORAN IS OUR CONSTITUTION!

HOLY WAR IS OUR PATH!

DEATH IN ALLAH’S SERVICE IS OUR LOFTIEST HOPE!

ALLAH IS GREATEST, ALLAH IS GREATEST!

… so much talk about “the art of death” among the members of the Egyptian Brotherhood …

… a program of repression and death for the insider, aggression and death for the outsider.

The Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood was exceedingly active in social welfare. It opened a number of free schools for the elimination of illiteracy and the fostering of religious culture;” [my stress]

Please note that when this was written, in 1963, the US was ALLIED with the Muslim Brotherhood against the Nationalist Egyptian dictator Gamal abd el Nasser.

2. The Muslim Brotherhood was funded by Nazi Germany

Carol, Steven (2015). Understanding the Volatile and Dangerous Middle East: A Comprehensive Analysis. p. 481. ISBN 9781491766583. After ten years, the Ikhwan had only 800 members, but the Muslim Brotherhood became a regional force after receiving massive aid from Nazi Germany. […] In 1939, they transferred to al-Bannah some E£1,000 per month, a substantial sum at the time. In comparison, the Muslim Brotherhood fundraising for the cause of Palestine yielded only E£500 for that entire year. This Nazi funding enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to expand internationally. By the end of World War II, it had a million members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_al-Banna

3. The Muslim Brotherhood actively persecutes Christians in Egypt

Muslim Brotherhood involvement in persecution of Egyptian Christians

https://islamophiliawatch.blogspot.com/2018/07/muslim-brotherhood-involvement-in.html

APPENDIX 2. GROUNDS PROVIDED BY KERTSCHER FOR HIS CONCLUSIONS:

because unnamed “experts” didn’t think that Huma Abedin had links to the Muslim Brotherhood;

because of an article by a Muslim Brotherhood propagandist, Khalil al-Anani, that he read in “the Middle East Journal, an academic publication” See Appendix 3.

because “The Washington Post Fact Checker” didn’t think that Huma Abedin had links to the Muslim Brotherhood  “after interviewing a number of [unnamed] experts”;

because  “suspicious-sounding connections to her [Huma Abedin’s] parents” don’t count because that would be “guilt by association”, assuming that relationships between children and parents are the same in deeply religious Muslims families in the Middle East as in the US.

Furthermore the claim that “Abedin was an editor at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, Saleha Abedin, who remains editor-in-chief” was deemed irrelevant, because there is no explicit mention of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

APPENDIX 3. REFERENCES TO KHALIL AL-ANANI FOUND ONLINE

Politifact claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood “has not been involved in terrorism, rather it has functioned as a social organization and a political organization that participates in elections”. The source for this claims was the article “Upended Path: The Rise and Fall of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, by Khalil al-Anani, The Middle East Journal, Middle East Institute, Volume 69, Number 4, Autumn 2015, pp. 527-543 Paywall

I googled Khalil Al-Anani. He writes for Al Jazeera and the Middle East Monitor, two Islamist publications. He is a professor in Qatar, which is world HQ for the Muslim Brotherhood. .  

Khalil Al-Anani – Middle East Monitor

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com › 6-author › khali…

The constitutional amendments currently being discussed by the Egyptian parliament represent a major step towards establishing authoritarianism in Egypt.

Khalil al-Anani – Al-Monitor

https://www.al-monitor.com › pulse › authors › khalil-…

Khalil al-Anani is a scholar of Middle East studies at the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University. He is the author of the forthcoming …

Khalil al-Anani | | Mada Masr

https://madamasr.com › contributor › khalil-al-anani

Dr. Khalil al-Anani is a leading academic expert on Islamist movements, Egyptian politics, and democratization in the Middle East.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/profile/khalil-al-anani.html

Khalil al-Anani

Khalil al-Anani is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Doha Institute for Graduate Studies in Qatar. He is the author of Inside the Muslim Brotherhood: Religion, Identity, and Politics (Oxford University Press, 2016).

APPENDIX 4. LIST OF KERTSCHER’S WRITINGS:

Articles published:

https://muckrack.com/tom-kertscher/articles

The chief technology officer at GE Renewable Energy on hiring more women in tech and overcoming imposter syndrome as a leader

By Tom Kertscher

businessinsider.com — This story requires our BI Prime membership. To read the full article, simply click here to claim your deal and get access to all exclusive Business Insider PRIME content. Danielle Merfeld has been the chief technology officer at GE Renewable Energy, which has nearly 40,000 employees in more than 80 countries, since 2017. To get to this point, Merfeld hustled, first in school by asking for a job in a lab at Notre Dame as a freshman, then working her way up in various departments at GE.ABOUT 18 HOURS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

PolitiFact: Fact-checking Joe Biden’s claim that he was among the poorest in government

By Tom Kertscher

tampabay.com — By Tom Kertscher, PolitiFact Staff WriterIn challenging President Donald Trump to release his tax returns, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he had released 21 years of his returns and then claimed relative poverty for himself. “I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government — in Congress and as vice president,” Biden said. Biden, who turns 77 on Nov. 20, was born into a working-class family in Scranton, Pa.6 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Green New Deal doesn’t mention abortion, but Nikki Haley’s attack on it does

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — Candidates who are supporting the Green New Deal are “promoting abortion in third world countries to control the population!” — Nikki Haley on Saturday, October 26th, 2019 in an emailByTom Kertscheron Friday, November 1st, 2019 at 1:39 p.m.Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, served as ambassador to the United Nations under President Donald Trump.11 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

US-backed Jordan-Syria barriers to fight ISIS aren’t border-to-border ‘wall’

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — The United States paid for a 274-mile wall between Jordan and Syria, “approved by the Dems in the house and senate,” in order “to keep ISIS out.” — Facebook posts on Monday, September 16th, 2019 in a Facebook postByTom Kertscheron Friday, November 1st, 2019 at 2:29 p.m.Special operations forces from Jordan and the United States conduct a combined demonstration with commandos from Iraq in Amman, Jordan, on June 20, 2013.11 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Fact-checking Joe Biden’s claim that he was among the poorest in government

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — “I entered as one of the poorest men in Congress, left one of the poorest men in government, in Congress and as vice president.” — Joe Biden on Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 in answering questions from reportersByTom Kertscheron Wednesday, October 30th, 2019 at 10:45 a.m.Then-Vice President Joe Biden arrives on Air Force Two in Beijing, China, with his son Hunter Biden and his granddaughter Finnegan Biden on Dec. 4, 2013.13 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Fox News analyst correct: Impeachment inquiry is following rules by questioning witnesses in private

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — The impeachment inquiry hearings “going on behind closed doors over which Congressman Schiff is presiding—they are consistent with the rules” of the U.S. House of Representatives.15 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

asdfadsfadsf

By Tom Kertscher

bettergov.org — asdfdsfadsfads20 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke falsely claims he hasn’t talked about confiscating guns

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke is not talking about confiscating Americans’ guns  — except for when he is talking about it. On Oct. 16 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” co-host Joe Scarborough opened an interview with the former Texas congressman by saying: “Tell us about your plan on the confiscation of guns which, obviously, many believe is unconstitutional, also very concerned that it plays right into the hands of Republican candidates.”21 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Mulvaney wrong that Donald Trump won’t profit from choosing Trump resort to host G-7

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — The trips that President Donald Trump has made as president to resorts he owns have raised questions about whether he has improperly enriched himself or violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits high-level U.S. officials from accepting gifts or benefits from foreign governments. So, White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney was ready when he opened an Oct. 17 news conference by speaking about the annual Group of Seven summit.25 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

After attacks by Turkey, Trump falsely claims Kurds in Syria are much safer now

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — “The Kurds are much safer right now.” — Donald Trump on Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 in answering questions from reportersByTom Kertscheron Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 at 5:28 p.m. Smoke and dust billow from targets in Ras al-Ayn, Syria, caused by bombardment by Turkish forces on Oct. 15, 2019. Turkish artillery pounded suspected Syrian Kurdish positions.26 DAYS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Did Elizabeth Warren lose a teaching job because she was pregnant?

By Tom Kertscher

politifact.com — Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tells a different story today than she once did about how she lost a teaching shortly after graduating from college. The Massachusetts senator now says she lost the job because she was pregnant. She didn’t say that in the past. Is it possible to reconcile the two accounts? PolitiFact went back to her past and present comments, and reviewed publicly available documents on the matter.ABOUT A MONTH AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

A founder who worked at Tesla and Apple says one class taught by a legendary Wharton professor inspired how he runs his business. Here are the big psychological insights he gained.

By Tom Kertscher

businessinsider.com — This story requires our BI Prime membership. To read the full article, simply click here to claim your deal and get access to all exclusive Business Insider PRIME content. Sankarshan Murthy is the founder of Bumblebee Spaces, a robotics startup. Before starting his company, Murthy worked at Apple as a product manager, then at Tesla as a staff product technologist.

ABOUT A MONTH AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Jess Kelly ’08 (CLAS)

By Tom Kertscher

magazine.uconn.edu — The “feminist awakening” of Jessica Kelly ’08 (CLAS),as she calls it, occurred when she saw friends in high school and college suffer sexual harassment and assault. It motivated her. “Just the sort of gut reaction of dread and sadness around that made me want to learn more about feminism and women’s studies,” she says. The first class Kelly took at UConn was women’s studies.ABOUT A MONTH AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

Padres beat Brewers 2-1 behind Lamet’s 14 strikeouts

By Tom Kertscher

thepublicopinion.com — MILWAUKEE (AP) — Dinelson Lamet struck out a career-high 14 and Kirby Yates fanned pinch-hitter Ryan Braun with a runner on second base to close out the San Diego Padres’ 2-1 win over the playoff-contending Milwaukee Brewers on Wednesday night. The Brewers, who had won four in a row, began the day tied with the Cubs for the second NL wild-card spot. Rookie Seth Mejias-Brean hit his first career home run as the Padres ended a six-game losing streak.2 MONTHS AGO    Open in Who Shared Wrong byline?

---

[1] How Corporate Media ‘Factchecked’ Biden’s Calls for Social Security Cuts Into Oblivion, by Joshua Cho, FAIR, March 27, 2020

How Corporate Media ‘Factchecked’ Biden’s Calls for Social Security Cuts Into Oblivion

Book review by Michèle Tribalat[1], March 2019, translated into English

of “History of French Islamization 1979-2019″, by a group of writers, L’Artilleur, 2019, 687 pages

INTRODUCTION

The authors of this book, who have preferred to remain anonymous, had the brilliant idea of recording what has been said and written on immigration and Islam throughout the past forty years. The book contains a great number of archival material.

The book’s title, “History of French Islamization” instead of “History of the Islamization of France” stresses the fact that it was the French people who were talked into renouncing their character as a nation, because they were betrayed by their elites whose mission has become that of domesticating the natives, despite the latter’s reluctance to do as they are told.

The authors narrate the gradual development of an Islamophile ideology, driven by a substantial part of the intelligentsia and by media elites whose left-wing doctrine over the years became hegemonic and now constitutes the prelude to a new historical epoch.

Each of the 40 chapters corresponds to one year in this process.

The first chapter thus begins with the Iranian revolution of 1979, commented by these words of Serge July in the newspaper Libération: “Joy makes its entry in Tehran”. Who recalls that in 1979, in response to the words of Georges Marchais [at the time the leader of the French Communist Party], Libération published a column by Fredj Stambouli of the University of Tunis who even back then proposed decolonization of the minds of Westerners, in order to allow them “to accept and even to encourage the legitimate right of Others to remain what they want to be”? It was the late 1970s, and the concept of assimilation had already fallen into disrepute. Even back then it was the natives who had to adjust to the newcomers.

Back in the 1980s the words of so-called “moderate” Muslims were received politely, even if they said the same things as people considered Islamists. In Le Monde in March 1989, Mohammed Arkoun, a great “moderate” if ever there was one, without raising the least outcry, could thus reproach “the Enlightenment’s concept of reason for having replaced theological reason” . No one contradicted him.

Twenty-five years later, the conditioned reflex of blaming the victim or lying by omission has become so widespread that the press sometimes reports exactly the opposite of the words uttered, while simply leaving out the most awkward parts.

This is the subject of chapter 2014.

That year, the “moderate” Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Paris mosque and president of the French Muslims Council (Conseil français du culte musulman – CFCM), an association that claims to represent French Muslims — presented to the press a Citizens’ Coexistence Agreement for Muslims in France concocted by the French Muslims Council. It sounds good to our ears. At the press conference, Dalil Boubakeur was careful not to mention article 5 of the agreement concerning Muslim attire, which made the headscarf an Islamic obligation. The few media that mentioned this convention found it to be grounds for rejoicing. However none of them mentioned article 5.

For instance, Le Monde declared that “this message could not have come at a better time”. It added that “the text also endeavors to remove the suspicions hanging over Islam. Islam is perfectly compatible with the laws of the Republic” it proclaimed […], the text affirms that “the Muslims of France wish to join the renewal of religious thought on Islam” and “adjust their practices” to French society. Jean-Louis Bianco[2] (chairman of the government’s Secularism Commission) also welcomed this step forward. Médiapart, Le Nouvel Observateur and the Education League had nothing but praise for it.

An open letter from three women from the “Women without a veil” group in Aubervilliers was published in Marianne denouncing the French Muslims Council, but it received no response.

Feminists remained deathly still.

Emboldened by this deliberate contempt [for the women of Aubervilliers], Dalil Boubakeur renewed his offensive in June 2017 by posting on the website of the Paris mosque texts hostile to Christianity and Judaism that were insulting and contemptuous and which basically repeated Islamic doctrine on the subject. Nobody dared contradict him.

Fortunately, the 2006 chapter reminds us of the shameless treatment that the French media accorded to Robert Redeker, a philosophy teacher who was threatened with death and forced to go into hiding for having written in Le Figaro what others before him had written about Islam.[3]

I grant that it’s easier and less risky to take the side of the strongest.

Olivier Roy called Redeker’s essay “a series of idiotic remarks” (“un tissu d’imbécilités”), and Le Monde called it “hollering” (“des vociférations”). Libération spoke of a “satanic essay” (“tribune satanique”).

The editor in charge of the Opinion page of Le Monde smugly reassured her readers that if Redeker’s article had been submitted for publication to Le Monde, “we certainly would not have published it”.

So we find the “usual suspects”, including Le Nouvel Observateur, which had the efforntery to write that Robert Redecker was not the victim of Islamists, of vindictive Muslims, but “of his own conceit as a thinker”, thus calling his competence as a philosopher into question.

It was a blood bath.

Témoignage chrétien (Christian Witness) joined the fray by calling Robert Redeker’s article an Islamophobic insult worthy of the extreme right, and Paris Match pushed the moral reversal to its extreme by calling it a “chronicle of hate” written by a “simpleton” in quest of fame, who was unworthy of being defended in the name of freedom of speech.

The book’s authors consider this an inversion, denounced chapter after chapter, that turns the victim into the aggressor.

Olivier Roy earned the grand prize for cowardice when, in September 2006, he accused Robert Redeker in Libération of “deliberately risking a fatwa”, and that he should not be astonished at what might happen to him.[4] In Esprit, Olivier Roy[5] called Robert Redeker a “racist”.

And if you want to go back to Chapter 1989, you will find the same kind of intellectual cowardice in the Rushdie affair.[6]

Let us simply recall that the great Jacques Berque[7] wrote in Le Figaro at the time that he would have preferred that The Satanic Verses not be published in France, and thought that Salman Rushdie could under no circumstances be considered a hero of free thought after having so grossly insulted the prophet of Islam.

Let us not  forget the Danish cartoons of Mohammed published in 2005, which gave the members of the European Parliament the opportunity to display  their valor by adopting a resolution denouncing excesses of freedom of speech likely to  incite “religious hatred, racism and xenophobia” and expressing their “heartfelt sympathy for the people   who were offended by the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad “. The EU Council of Ministers issued a resolution in which it saw fit to state that “freedom of expression must respect religious beliefs and convictions”. We see here how the meaning of “incitement to hatred” is reversed, as described by Flemming Rose, who speaks of inversion of cause and effect in his book The Tyranny of Silence —  which, by the way, has never been translated into French. Let us recall the amazement Flemming Rose felt when he was welcomed on 10 December 2005 to participate in a debate organized by Amnesty International and the Danish Institute for Human Rights, on seeing a banner displayed at the meeting-place bearing the Orwellian slogan “Victims of freedom of speech”. French president Jacques Chirac himself condemned the cartoons. The book illustrates how this inversion progresses, and the efforts that must be expended in order at least to silence those who still conserve a modicum of sanity.

The French Muslims Council was so impudent as to demand a law against blasphemy, and its demand was relayed by none other than Éric Raoult, a former Minister of Integration!

As we know, this cartoon affair reinforced the tyranny of silence denounced by Flemming Rose,[8] whose disastrous effects are skillfully described throughout the pages of this History of French Islamization.

Even without a written blasphemy law, freedom of expression has become a thing of the past. The growing number of lawsuits [brought against those who criticize Islam] is very intimidating. Fear has damaged the notion of respect and tolerance. Salman Rushdie feared above all that good people might give in to fear by calling it respect. Jens-Martin Eriksen and Frederik Stjernfelt, two Danish researchers, speak of “mafia respect”.

The political, intellectual and media elites have betrayed their duty to defend freedom of expression. Instead they have too often deluded themselves into believing that they are defending the weak and the underprivileged.

This book allows us to take the measure of what separates us today from a not so distant past when scholars of Islam, who have now fallen into oblivion because of what they wrote, (for example Jacques Ellul[9]), wrote things that today would propel them into the 17th chamber[10], not to mention receiving death threats.

And school books are at the forefront of “progress”.

---

[1] http://www.micheletribalat.fr/442059853

[2] A French Socialist politician who at the time was chairman of the Observatoire de la laïcité, the government Secularism Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Bianco https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatoire_de_la_la%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Redeker In 2006 a philosophy teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, of Toulouse, was forced into hiding after publishing an article in Le Figaro attacking Islam. This provoked death threats against himself and his family. He began receiving round-the-clock police protection and changing addresses every two days, after publishing an article calling the Koran a “book of extraordinary violence”, Islam “a religion which … exalts violence and hate”, and the prophet Muhammad a ‘merciless warmonger, a pillager and a butcher of Jews.’” (“Exaltation de la violence : chef de guerre impitoyable, pillard, massacreur de juifs”)

In an interview with i-TV he said that he had received several e-mail threats threatening himself and his wife and three children and that his photograph and address were available on several Islamist internet sites. “There is a very clear map of how to get to my home, with the words: “This pig [French-Arabic slang “gwer”, from the Arabic gawri, meaning pig, and, by extension, infidel https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/gwer%5D must have his head cut off”,” he said. Another e-mail says: “You will never again be safe on this earth. One billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill you.”

He complained that the education ministry had left him alone and abandoned. He said the ministry “has not even contacted me, has not deigned to get in touch to see if I need any help.” Redeker was forced to quit teaching and accepted an offer from Education Minister Gilles de Robien to work at the state research institute CNRS.

On 3 October 2006 a group of renowned French intellectuals published an appeal in support of Robert Redeker in Le Monde, among them Elisabeth Badinter, Alain Finkielkraut, André Glucksmann, Claude Lanzmann (with the editorial staff of “Les Temps Modernes”) and Bernard-Henri Lévy. They saw their most fundamental liberties endangered by a handful of fanatics under the pretense of religious laws, and decry the tendency in Europe to avoid “provocations” in order to not anger supposed foreign sensitivities.

[4] In French colloquial speech, “fatwa” has a much more specialized meaning than merely “legal opinion issued by a qualified Islamic scholar”. In colloquial French fatwa means death sentence. It refers to Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa of 1989 in which he condemned Salman Rushdie to death for the blasphemy allegedly contained in his novel “The Satanic Verses”.

[5] One of the best known Middle East experts in France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivier_Roy_(professor)

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy

[7] A French Orientalist (1910-1995) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Berque

[8] Flemming Rose, The Tyranny of Silence, Cato, 2014, 237p See the video at https://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/tyranny-silence

[9] (1912-1994) A French sociologist and Christian anarchist who, however, appears to have written nothing about Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul

[10] The 17^th Chamber of the Superior Court of Paris (La 17e chambre au tribunal de grande instance de Paris) decides cases involving published statements. It is guided, on the one hand, by the Law of Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 and on the other hand by the French law of libel.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/17e_chambre_du_tribunal_de_grande_instance_de_Paris

The Speck in Your Brother’s Eye – The Alleged War of Islam Against the West, by Jan Jaap de Ruiter, Rozenberg Quarterly, no date (about 2012)

Jan Jaap de Ruiter is a Dutch Arabist. He criticizes Geert Wilders. I find his critique faulty, NOT because I am an unconditional defender of Geert Wilders, which I am not, but because Ruiter makes stupid mistakes and tells lies, some of them quite glaring and easy to disprove, and disprove them I do in this review of his review of Geert Wilders’ book, which I haven’t read.

Geert Wilders is a rather odd figure. I certainly don’t agree with everything he says. For example Wilders is a global warming skeptic, which I find indefensible. Some of Ruiter’s critiques are justified.

I wonder what moved Ruiter to write this piece of garbage. Assuming be really did write it. Perhaps it is the work of some flunky. It looks like a quicky. Perhaps it’s something he had to do so he continues to get access to his Arab sources. That is par for the course. A German architectural historian specialized in Islamic architecture wrote a Wikipedia article about mosques in Germany, and he completely omitted the oldest mosque in Germany. Why? Because it’s an Ahmadi mosque, and the Ahmadis are outcasts. No Muslim considers Ahmadis part of the ummah, because their founder proclaimed himself a prophet, which is a terrible faux pas in Islam, since Mohammed is considered the seal of the prophets. But for an architectural historian to exclude an Ahmadi mosque on purely theological grounds, when Ahmadi mosques are typical mosques in every respect, shows complete disregard for historical rigor and a servile attitude toward Mohammedan bigwigs.   

De Ruiter harshly attacks Wilders although initially his grounds are difficult to understand, because they are abstract and philosophical: e.g. the nature of truth. “Each person is entitled to their own truth”. WTF?

He writes that according to Geert Wilders “The negative stereotypes of Islam are the truth. Its violent character, its wish to impose itself on others and conquer the world, as he points out later in the book, this is the truth about Islam.” Ruiter does not attempt to refute Geert Wilders on this point. Why not?

Geert Wilders has for many years lived under 24-hour police protection, as Ruiter himself admits. That is because he is a caustic critic of Islam. He is not alone. In dozens of countries critics of Islam need police protection. Seyran Ateş, the reformist Muslim who is imam of a mosque in Berlin, has the same degree of police protection as the German minister of defense[1], and she is not even a critic of Islam as such, but merely espouses a more modern approach. Is that not sufficient to classify Islam as a violent ideology? What additional evidence does Ruiter need?  Why doesn’t he try publishing a cartoon of Mohammed and see what happens to him?  

To try to disprove Islam’s violent character and its wish to impose itself on others and conquer the world are hopeless undertakings from which Ruiter wisely desists.

Ruiter warns that if “the thoughts of this [i.e. Wilders’] book find their way into a political program and actually be carried out; the inevitable result would be war. Not a war started by Islam against the world and Geert Wilders, but a war against Islam, a war against Muslims.”

He makes no attempt to explain this statement. It seems to be a rehash of the idée fixe of some people that Islamophobia and wars of intervention in Muslim countries are merely two sides of the same coin. Or perhaps what he means is that adopting those ideas would entail war against West European Muslims. Frankly, I don’t see why that should be the case, unless European Muslims start an insurrection. As far as I can tell, Geert Wilders’ program entails thwarting the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to establish Muslim parallel societies in Europe. Why should that lead to war?

“What I criticize,” continued Father Delorme, who has worked for decades in Lyon’s most troubled neighborhoods, “is the work of hardening of the religious identity operated by some organizations that have an interest in discrediting such popular Islam; I am thinking in particular at the current of the Muslim Brothers…I came to understand that they were dangerous when I saw that they cut the ties between the young and their families, explaining that their parents did not practice the true Islam, that they were not on the right path. I also understood that they wormed their way into institutions, taking advantage of secularism, using the rhetoric of secularism, but using it only as a means; for basically they were against integration, and the identity they sought was that of a community of Muslims, living autonomously in the Republic, like a potent countervailing power.”[2]

Ruiter writes that Islam “shares this drive to spread its message all over the world with that other great world religion, Christianity.”

This is an outrageous lie. Islam expressly sets out to conquer the world by the sword and Christianity does not. The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity in this respect is shown by the Valladolid debate of 1550 and 1551[3] between Bartolomé de las Casas, nowadays considered a pioneer of the struggle for human rights, and  Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. They argued about whether the inhabitants of the New World had any natural rights, what just causes there might be for making war on them, and the lawfulness of the Spanish conquest of America. Both argued on the basis of natural law and made no reference to church doctrine.

Such a debate would have been unthinkable in Islam, since the Qur’an itself tell Muslims to go forth and conquer any infidel who does not willingly submit to Islam.

Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e., embrace sharia law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya [extortion money] with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued.”

Ruiter writes that Geert Wilders “demands of Islam and Muslims [that they] disappear, to cease to exist.” That may be true of Islam but not of Muslims. Wilders never said he wants to eliminate Muslims.

He is surprised to read that Wilders does not dislike Muslims as such.

“Surprisingly, he attenuates his view of Islam as a violent ideology by stating that ‘I am talking about the ideology of Islam, not about individual Muslim people. There are many moderate Muslims, but that does not change the fact that the political ideology of Islam is not moderate – it is a totalitarian cult with global ambitions’ (p. 26).”

What is surprising about that? Ruiter confuses Muslims  with Islam, an elementary mistake often committed by the crudest Islamophobes. 

Why is that an attenuation? His view of Islam as a violent ideology and his view of Muslims as normal human beings are not in the least contradictory. I happen to share those views.

He disputes the claim that western countries abide by the laws of war, because both sides used poison gas in the 1st World War and the Americans used a chemical weapon in Vietnam.

However in the 1st World War use of poison gas in warfare was still lawful. It was not abolished until 1925, with the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925.[4]

The chemical weapon the Americans used in Vietnam, Agent Orange, was not yet forbidden. It was declared illegal in 1976, after the Vietnam War was over, through the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques adopted on 10 December 1976 at the 31st Session of the UN General Assembly.[5]

Wilders distinguishes between Christian and Muslim martyrs because Christian martyrs killed nobody whereas Muslim martyrs are by definition warriors. Ruiter retorts that Nasser’s Muslim Brotherhood victims likewise killed nobody.

“Christian martyrdom, so he explains, ‘refers to suffering unto death for the sake of faith’ (p. 64). Islam’s, he goes on to argue, is different: ‘Islamic martyrs are not those who suffer and die for the truth, but those who are killed while making others suffer and die.’”

The Wikipedia article Shahid supports Geert Wilders.[6]

The Quran, chapter 3 (Al Imran), verse 169–170:[7]

Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah

…

The Quranic passage that follows is the source of the concept of Muslim martyrs being promised Paradise:

The Quran, chapter 22 (Al-Hajj), verse 58–59:[9]

Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah, and are then slain or die,- On them will Allah bestow verily a goodly Provision

“Those who leave their homes in the cause of Allah” is a traditional name for jihadis.

The Wikipedia article Shahid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid#Death_in_warfare

is mostly devoted to Muslim warriors who die in battle. There is scarcely any mention of peaceful martyrs. Consequently Wilders is right and Ruiter is wrong.

Some points Ruiter makes about Geert Wilders are well taken:

“In February 2012, it [Wilders’ party] put up a website where people could vent their complaints about Eastern Europeans ‘who steal our jobs and cause innumerable nuisances by their antisocial drinking and shouting behavior’.” Also Wilders’ erratic political behavior.

Geert Wilders writes that people in the west “are fair-minded” (present tense).

Ruiter then asks about the Roman Catholic Inquisition. In Spain the Inquisition was abolished in 1812, more than two centuries ago. So it is definitely past tense. Consequently it is utterly irrelevant, since Wilders wrote “ARE fair-minded”, not ”HAVE ALWAYS BEEN fair-minded”.

“The West conquered half the world and depopulated large parts of it through violence and diseases.”

Perfectly true. Likewise past tense. Besides, since Europeans didn’t know about epidemiology, they couldn’t know that their diseases would wipe out the American population. After all, when Europeans went to Africa, it was the Europeans who were wiped out by African diseases.

“A regrettable aspect of Wilders’ claim that Western culture and civilization are the best in the world today is that it is hardly ever mentioned as an independent statement. It is virtually always mentioned in comparison with the perceived evil nature of Islam.”

Why is that regrettable?

Geert Wilders says that Westerners forgive and forget their expulsion from the lands of their forebears, whereas the Palestinians are still resentful.

To disprove Geert Wilders, Ruiter cites Serb memories of their conquest by the Ottoman Empire in Kosovo, and he cites German associations of descendants of Germans expelled from Poland after 1945.

Serbs are hardly typical.

As for Germans, “what about the German people who once lived in what is now Western Poland and the former Sudetenland. Are they at peace with what happened to them right after the Second World War? How come there are numerous associations whose members long for the days when their ancestors were still living in these regions?”

The declaration of the German refugees from eastern Europe “Charta der deutschen Heimatvertriebenen” of 1950 says nothing about returning to their land. It renounces revenge.

 “We, the expellees, renounce all thought of revenge and retaliation. Our re-solution is solemn and sacred in memory of the infinite suffering brought upon mankind, particularly during the past decade. We shall support with all our strength every endeavor directed towards the establishment of a united Europe in which the nations may live in freedom from fear and coercion. We shall contribute, by hard and untiring work, to the reconstruction of Germany and Europe. …”[7]

That was only a few years after they were expelled. Read what a Palestinian youth has to say today, seventy years after his ancestors were expelled:

Statement of a Palestinian youth

Hasan al-Habeel, a Gazan youth who has just arrived in Turkey to pursue his studies, shared with Anadolu Agency his year-long experience in participation in the Great March of Return.

“As a Palestinian youth, who lived the Second Intifada and experienced three Israeli wars launched over Gaza, the Great March of Return represents the most critical stage in my life,” he said.

“Every member of my family, including father and mother, were taking part in the protests,” he said. This way of struggle, al-Habeel argued, “revived the people’s awareness about the right to return. We have seen elderly people, children, women and youth flocking to the security fence,” he said.

“It is all about the hope that the Great March of Return has created. The Great March of Return has nipped in the bud all claims that the new generation of the Palestinians would forget about this right one day,” he said.

Al-Habeel believes that the mass participation of young Palestinians in the protests means that “they look to the right to return as a holy issue that will not be forgotten or relinquished”.[8]

There is obviously no comparison between the Germans expelled from eastern Europe after 1945 and the Arabs expelled from Palestine after 1948. Wilders is proved right once again.

In sum, Jan Jaap de Ruiter has produced a worthless piece of lying propaganda and proved himself a servile myrmidon of Oriental despotism. 

---

[1] 100 Morddrohungen gegen liberale Moschee-Gründerin [100 Death theats against liberal mosque founder], by Martin Lutz, Die Welt, 1 July 2017

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article166155366/100-Morddrohungen-gegen-liberale-Moschee-Gruenderin.html

[2] The Role of Non-Violent Islamists in Europe, by Lorenzo Vidino, November 2010, CTC, Volume 3, Issue 11

https://ctc.usma.edu/the-role-of-non-violent-islamists-in-europe/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_Environmental_Modification

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid#Death_in_warfare

[7] Charter of the German Expellees

https://www.bund-der-vertriebenen.de/charta-auf-englisch

[8] 71 years since Nakba, Palestinians still long for home. Palestinians use the term “Nakba”, or “The Catastrophe” in Arabic, to refer to the 1948 expulsions by Zionist gangs, by Ali Abo Rezeg, Anadolu Agency, 15.05.2019

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/71-years-since-nakba-palestinians-still-long-for-home/1478860

Why words matter: mainstreaming anti-Muslim discourse, by H.A. Hellyer, Open Democracy, 27 October 2019

Mr. Hellyer complains that right-wing extremists who shoot up mosques parrot things they read in the media. He infers that the things they read in the media are what drives them to shoot up mosques. The “rhetoric makes the discourse of the terrorist that much more possible”. He specifically mentions two racist terrorists: Anders Breivik, who perped a massacre in Norway in 2011, and Brenton Tarrant, who murdered about 50 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.

“Phrases similar to those used by both the suspect in the Christchurch massacre and Anders Breivik are found in the writings and speeches of US President Donald Trump (‘I think Islam hates us’) and his former political advisor Steve Bannon (Islam is ‘the most radical’ religion in the world). They echo the words of popular talk show hosts like Bill Maher (the Muslim world ‘has too much in common with ISIS’) as well as noted writers like Melanie Phillips of The London Times (‘Islamophobia is a fiction to shut down debate’) and Rod Liddle of The Spectator (Islam is an ‘illiberal, vindictive and frankly fascistic creed’).”

“The point is this: while all of those writers and personalities aren’t the equivalent of the terrorist who carried out the outrageous attack in New Zealand on March 15, their rhetoric makes the discourse of the terrorist that much more possible.

“Unfortunately, the caustic language used to describe Muslims of the West is not that rare [They didn’t say “Muslims of the west”. They said “Islam”.] . In fact, it’s been mainstreamed in ways that we have been ignoring. Take for example the Australian senator Fraser Anning, who, in the immediate aftermath, said that the attacks highlighted the ‘growing fear over an increasing Muslim presence’ in Australian and New Zealand communities. If that is not blaming the victim, I am not sure what is.”

Hellyer makes no attempt to disprove any of those statements. His only argument is that they can be used to justify violence against the people criticized. If I say neoliberalism is a harmful ideology, that might cause violence against neolibs. If I say fascism is a harmful ideology, that might cause violence against fascists. If I say rape is an odious crime, that might cause violence against rapists. But none of those statements are false. Neoliberalism and fascism are indeed harmful ideologies, and rape is indeed an odious crime. If denouncing those ideologies and that crime might lead to violence against their perps, some other solution must be found other than telling critics to shut up.

A different approach is possible. Instead of denouncing those who criticize them, Muslims might try to change in order to make those criticisms inapplicable. For example renounce certain bloodthirsty passages in the Qur’an. But in May 2018 Al Azhar in Cairo, the most revered seat of Sunni Islamic learning, rejected such demands out of hand.

In May 2018,

“the French newspaper Le Monde published a letter signed by some 300 French public figures across the party lines including former president Nicolas Sarkozy. In it, they “ask that the verses of the Qur’an calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be obsoleted [i.e. pronounced obsolete] by theological authorities.” … Titled “Manifesto against the new anti-Semitism,” the signed letter focuses especially on the rise of Muslim violence against France’s Jewish minority: “French Jews are 25 times more likely to be attacked than their fellow Muslims. 10% of the Jewish citizens of Ile-de-France — that is to say about 50,000 people—were recently forced to move because they were no longer safe in some cities and because their children do not could attend the school of the Republic more. This is a low-noise ethnic cleansing…”

 …

From a Muslim perspective, because the Koran is Allah’s word, it cannot be tampered with or altered in any way (if Sarkozy et al. made these claims in certain Muslim countries they would either be incarcerated on blasphemy charges or killed outright).”

 … Al Azhar, “located in Cairo and attached to the government of Egypt … is the Muslim world’s most prestigious “university” (that is, madrasa) and regularly hosts—and engages in “dialogue” with—the likes of Barrack Obama and Pope Francis.

 … Responding to the French letter, the deputy chief of Al Azhar, Dr. ‘Abbas Shuman, said that “The call from 300 French persons to freeze verses in the Noble Koran, which they claim urges the killing of non-Muslims, is unjustifiable and unacceptable.” And if that wasn’t clear enough, he exclaimed, “No to freezing one letter from the Koran—and those calling for it can go to hell!”

 … “For we have no verses,” insisted Shuman, “that command the killing of others, unless they commit one of the crimes that do earn the death penalty, such as murder, or raising weapons against us. Nor are we responsible for those [e.g., ISIS] who do not correctly understand the verses, who take them at face value without referring to the tafasir [exegeses] of the ulema.”

 … Perhaps he had forgotten about Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e., embrace sharia law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya [extortion money] with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued.” All authoritative exegeses see this verse as enshrining Islam’s “messianic” mission of subjugating infidels by force.

 … It is only now, when Muslims are militarily/economically weaker than and vulnerable to the Western world that claims that such verses don’t really mean what they plainly say have become popular among Muslims, especially those involved in “dialogue” with the West.
I have in my possession an authoritative Arabic manual titled Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by Dr. Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After providing several proofs, he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute

and live in submission, and then they refuse.” In other words, Koran 9:29, as it is.[1]

 …

Hellyer cites the massacres in Norway and New Zealand in 2011 and 2018. By 2011 there had been an unbroken string of Islamic terrorist attacks all over the world that had already lasted 30 years and still shows no signs of stopping. That was accompanied by an unprecedented wave of Muslim migration to western countries that demographically transformed countries like Belgium, France and Sweden. Likewise there had already been an unbroken series of critiques of Islam by numerous writers. None of those critiques led to any change in Muslim behavior, or even any honest discussion of the critiques. Instead, all criticism was brushed off as malicious bigotry.

Consequently massacres of Muslims are a phenomenon that arose only after many protests against Muslim excesses had been ignored, dismissed or answered by glibly dissociating Islam from any violent behavior.

Hellyer says that words matter. Do these words matter?

Allah, grant victory to Islam and the Muslims…”
“We must prepare ourselves in accordance with the religion of Allah and the Law of Allah. We must educate our children on the love of Jihad for the sake of Allah and the love of fighting for the sake of Allah.
July 6, 2001, Sheikh Muhammad Ibrahim Al-Madhi, Sheik ‘Ijlin Mosque in Gaza
https://www.memri.org/reports/palestinian-authority-sermons-2000-2003

That is exactly what Rod Liddle means when he says “Islam is an ‘illiberal, vindictive and frankly fascistic creed’”.

Neither Hellyer nor any other apologist for Islamic extremism has ever addressed such extremist twaddle. These words evidently don’t matter.

Massacres are bad, of course. So is white nationalism. But they both occur only in countries where the Muslim population has grown explosively, Islamist organizations have arisen that are financed by and take orders from Muslim countries that suit the interests of the latter and hate preachers financed from abroad incite mosque congregations against Jews and the west. All of this against a background of worldwide Islamic radicalism that does not hesitate to proclaim its hatred for the west, and a parallel wave of Islamic terrorism. Hellyer ignores all this.

What is especially worrying about Hellyer is that he holds important positions in the British bureaucracy in charge of combating Islamic extremism.[2] How can he perform his duties properly of he implicitly denies the existence of Islamic extremism or considers it irrelevant to how the public views Muslims?

His ambivalent attitude is compounded by his deceptive rhetorical maneuver of designating all the criticisms he cites as criticism directed at “Muslims of the west”. All of them expressly refer to Islam, not to Muslims, let alone “Muslims of the west”.

This insidious mendacity reveals on whose side Hellyer really is. Hellyer is obviously an apologist of radical Islam.

Hellyer denounces the words of Australian senator Fraser Anning, who said that the attacks highlighted the ‘growing fear over an increasing Muslim presence’ in Australia and New Zealand.

All terrorism in Australia for the past 40 years has been Islamic terrorism, although Muslims make up only about 2% of the population. Is that insufficient reason to fear Muslims?

---

[1]  “Go to Hell!” Egypt Responds to French Call to Revise Koran, by Raymond Ibrahim, May 10, 2018

http://data.eliasbejjaninews.com/newselias18/english.may11.18.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._A._Hellyer