Islamic Resurgence in Europe in the 20th-21st Century

· History, Islam
Authors

Islamic Resurgence in Europe

Islamic resurgence is manifesting itself all over the globe today and the causes are not fully understood by most people. Many people, including politicians and world leaders do not appreciate the full significance of this resurgence; a movement more dynamic and sinister than the Crusades or Nazism or Communism ever was. We will examine the birth and the driving force of this movement to better understand the the causes of this resurgence and its potential consequences.


Abrahamic Faiths were/are Exclusive and Irreconcilable


The history of the Abrahamic faiths suggests that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have never been comfortable with with each another ever since the inception of these separate faiths. Each faith created an image of an “exclusive God,” and thus the righteousness of their peoples who worshipped that God. As acts of self-preservation and survival, each built insurmountable fences around their ideologies that ensured growth and excluded subversion. And like the tribal nomadic desert tribes of their origins, have ensured their survival by exclusivity, protectionism, and aggression which was part of their nomadic tribal culture. This is best understood by studying the Time line of these faiths. [1][2][3]


Moses:1393-1272 BC

 

While the pious and fundamentalists of each faith believed that their doctrines were the ONLY PATH to Heaven/Paradise so much so that many of the faithful  and devout followers were prepared to convert others by coercion or even at the point of the sword, or even to martyr themselves for their cause. There were subtle difference between these faiths. While Judaism and Christianity believed that the word of God was conveyed through Moses, and Jesus, to be disseminated to the people, this permitted some degree of flexibility in its interpretation since it was not the literal word of God but the conveyance of the message from God. Jesus, the first protestant to Judaism paved the way for a more liberal interpretation of Gods commands. Islam, on the other hand, has proclaimed that the Qur’an contains the literal word of Allah and thus it is immutable. This difference differentiates the faiths. Islam’s ideology is locked in a time capsule of the 7th century with no room for flexibility especially since it was declared by the Islamic scholars that “the doors of Ijtihad was closed” in the 10th century CE in Sunni fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). Hence, the Islamic  codes of ethics that applied at the time of the Prophet  Muhammad have not altered from then till today. Islam gauges the world with the wisdom and strict perceptions of the 7th century mores and ideologies. This is the main divide in the Abrahamic ideologies. There is no room for compromise between these different ideologies.

Nostalgia for Empire or Caliphates


It seems that with all cultures men who ruled have always dreamed of an everlasting empire under their rule leaving a legacy for posterity. I will attempt to confine the discussion here strictly to “religious empires” (Abrahamic, rather than political empires) and then only discussing events that are recent enough for it to be contemporary.

The Byzantine Empire – 330-1453 AD (1123 years) [4]



The Byzantine emperors were direct successors to the ancient Roman emperors and the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire of the Middle Ages with its capital in Constantine. The distinction  between the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire is a modern convention. Perhaps the defining date of separation could be allotted to 324 AD when Constantine I transferred the capital from Nicomedia (Anatolia) to Byzanitium (on the Bosphorus) that later was renamed Constantinople.

Roman_Empire

 

 

 

 

 

ROMAN EMPIRE

Byzantine_Empire

 

 

 

 

 

 

Byzantine Empire

 

Although Christianity was not the exclusive state religion, it enjoyed imperial patronage and was given support and generous privileges under Emperor Constantine I. Constantine I established that emperors should not decide on matters of religious doctrine, but such decisions should be determined by “general ecclesiastical councils” summoned for that purpose. Constantine convened “The Synod of Aries” and also the “First Council of Nicaea” thus establishing his authority as the head of the Church. Here was established and documented as the democratic foundations of Christianity and the “Christian Byzantine Empire.”  It is clearly seen that these “ecclesiastical councils”  interpreted and determined Christian doctrines and determined Christian rituals by consensus and that that has been the foundation of all Christianity ever since. These “ecclesiastical councils” established Christianity’s democratic consensus precedence for the interpretation of Biblical scriptures and traditions. This precedence clearly established in 324 AD, By Constantine I,  is what differentiates Christianity from Islam, that ecclesiastical councils(supreme body of Bishops) were the recognised body with the authority to interpret the Holy Text in order to settle disputes and disharmony within Christian sects, was largely based on the leadership and wisdom of Constantine I. The significance of this precedence cannot be minimised. This evolution was an evolution of the Tetrarchy system conceived by Diocletian in 293 AD, and later the hereditary succession systems.

When Constantine I came to power, he built his administration partly based on the system created in 293 by Diocletian, the system of Tetrarchy. Tetrarchy was essentially the delegation of powers to Augustus and to groom successors, or Caesars. But by the time Constantine I came to power the Tetrarchy system had collapsed and Constantine replaced it with the dynastic principle of hereditary succession. He stabilised the currency, the gold solidus and made important changes to the structure and strength of the army. The army was essential in the defence and the stability of the empire. Thus here was a Christian Empire, with an administration and military to ensure that it was able to ensure stability. The Byzantine army fought many wars, and preserved the empire. The Byzantine empire endured 1123 years.) [4]

The Crusades(11th,12th,13th century religious military campaigns)[5] [6]


Over a period of 200 hundred years, in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, a series of Christian sanctioned military campaigns were waged by the Holy Roman Empire and the Franks of France, against Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate, seen as political enemies of the Pope. The forces were made up of Roman Catholic as well as orthodox Christian armies primarily to recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule, also a call from the “Christian Byzanine Empire” for help from the Christian world, in this cause to stop the the expansion of Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia. [6]

The effect of Crusades has left indelible consequences on the social, economic and political aspects of the region. Above all, it highlighted then, as much as it remains a reminder today of the irreconcilable differences of objectives of the culture of Islam and that of Christianity.

The Ottoman Empire 1301-1922 (621 years) [7]


Under the reign of the Selijuks in Turkey (1098-1308) the Ottomans emerged from the “Oghuz” tribe who were settlers from the west of Turkey  but who began spreading the Islamic faith among hostile unbelievers in the Anatolia. The Selijuks were the first to maintain meaningful control over that area as a military state in 1300. As the warring tribes fought over territory, the Ottomans emerged in 1400 as having control over most of Anatolia and began encroaching on the Byzantine territories in eastern Europe like Macedonia and Bulgaria. By 1402, when the Ottomans established their capital at Edirne in Europe they were a serious threat to the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. Constantinople stood in the way of Islamic expansion and seemed to be a bastion against attempts at sieges and invasions.

The Islamic Ottomans were determined to eliminate the Christian supremacy in the region and to establish Islamic superiority. Not only would Islam triumph over Christianity by the conquest of Constantinople it would establish the Ottomans as the pre-imminent Islamic nation of the Islamic Umma, but it would also make the Ottomans the masters of east-west trade and commerce.

In 1453, the Turkish Ottoman Sultan Mehmed (1451-1520) conquered Constantinople and renamed her Istanbul. Under the patronage of Ottoman Sultans, the capital of the Ottomans, Istanbul, became one the the wealthiest and most cultured cities of the early modern world.

Under subsequent rulers like Sultan Selim I (1512-1520), followed by his son Sultan Suleyman (1520-1566), the Ottoman(Islamic) empire reached its greatest expansion over Asia and Europe. But this also meant the demise of the Byzantine (Christian) empire.

 

 

 

The Peak of the Ottoman Empire Map Source

Comparing the two maps, it is evident that Islamic Ottoman displaced the Christian Byzantine empire and went even much further. Little wonder that the Islamic world admired the Turkish Sultans for their triumph over the infidel Christians. The Ottoman Empire set a precedence and an example that Islam can triumph over Christianity, Inshallah.

The above illustrates the last major Islamic-Christian  military conflicts within our recent history and the nostalgic appeal to today’s Muslims. The practice of militant jihad was openly practised with great success against the Christians who became lost in an apathetic malaise in protecting their faith. Since the Byzantine empire’s demise and the failed attempts to revive the Christian movement with the Crusades, Christians have been influenced by the concepts of Liberalism and Multiculturalism into a state of appeasement and defeatism. It would appear that the Islamists been more successful in their promotion of Islam as a religion of peace  and that there is no god except Allah, better than Christian thought possible.

Although there have been many other wars since the above episodes, The Byzantine Empire, the Cursades, the Ottoman Empire, were clearly religious wars. But after WW II another phenomenon has occurred, i.e. the resurgence of Islam like never before.

World War II – Nazism – Jewish Genocide (Holocaust)


During the reign of Adolf Hitler during WW II, Nazi’s anti-Semitism was responsible for almost 6 million systematically executed Jews and left many more destitute refugees attempting to escape execution. When the truth of this genocide was exposed after the war, and the horror of the gruesome details of the methodical slaughter of these innocent people was exposed, the western world felt compassion for the Jewish sufferings and sought a solution by the approval and creation of an Independent state of Israel to provide a permanent home for the stateless Jew of Europe as referred to in the Bible.[8]

Eventually, with the approval of the United Nations, and the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 29 November, 1947 the United Nations General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, in favour of the Partition Plan, making some adjustments to the boundaries between the two states of Israel and Palestine.

Of the permanent members of the Security Council, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union voted for the resolution while the Republic of China and the United Kingdom abstained. The rest of the votes were as follows:

In favour, (33 countries, 59%)
Initially 30 countries (54%) were in favour:
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belorussian SSR, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Sought Africa, Ukrainian SSR, United States of America, Soviet Union, Uruguay, Venezuela.

An additional 3 (5%) switched to, “in favour”:
Haiti, Liberia, Philippines.

Against 13 (23%) countries:
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey Yemen.

Abstention, 10 countries (18%)
Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent 1 country:
Thailand.

The State of Israel Declared Independence on the 14th of May 1948

under a UN Resolution recognizing the right of the Jewish people to establish a state. The Declaration also promised that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.

On May 15th, the new autonomous state of Israel was invaded by Islamic troops from Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known to the Israelis as the War of Independence and to the Palestinians as “The Catastrophe.” After a short truce on June 11th, fighting broke out again on July 8th and stopped on July 18th, restarting again in mid-October and finally ending on July 24th 1949 with the signing of the armistice agreement with Syria. Israel retain her independence and gain 50% more territory than before the war.

On 22nd of September 1948, the Arab League established the All-Palestine government. The Arab Palestinian Congress named King Abdullah of Transjordan, “King of Arab Palestine.” This government was recognised by six of the seven members of the Arab League: Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The All-Palestine Government claimed jurisdiction over the whole of the former British Mandate of Palestine, its effective jurisdiction was limited to the Gaza Strip. The All-Palestine government was ineffective and officially dissolved in Egypt in 1959. (The Arab League created the Palestinian people, the nation, and have used every instrument of politics and terror to legitimise Palestinian existence.)

On October 28th, 1974 the Arab League committee held in Rabat designated the Palestine Liberation Organization as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.”

In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization “declared Palestinian statehood” and invoked UN Resolution 181(II)

as providing legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.
[Note: There were no Palestinian peoples nor a Palestinian State until 1948, and this was forced upon the United Nations by pressures from the Arab League.]

The General Assembly said Palestine’s declaration was “in line with General Assembly resolution 181(II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.” The “two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the consensus solution that has resulted in today’s continued conflicts. [9]

ZIONISM


Zionism was not a 20th century phenomenon, but was already conceived and written about in the 19th century. It was the dream of every Jew dispersed and persecuted throughout the universe. [10] [11]


The Aftermath of WWII, Roosevelt, R.Schuman, De Gaulle, & Euro-Arab Dialogue


Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin at Yalta



(1) When WWII ended, much of Europe was in ruins and exhausted, and millions of fighting men  and others were killed.  But Europe had to rebuild the devastation fast and needed men an materials. Critical was the need of a labour force to rebuild and convert the war industry into civil industries. Europe also needed fuel to fuel these industries so that Europe could re-establish her place in the world hierarchy.


(2) Arab/Muslim North Africa and the near East nations held almost all of the world’s supplies of energy, natural gas and petroleum so needed by Europe and America. But that is not all, there are still Billions of tons of other raw materials in the mountains of those countries and needed by all developed countries.

(3) The ex-colonial European nations who once controlled most of these Arab nations, knew and understood these Arab peoples and had close commercial relations with them. The re-kindling of these traditional contacts gave the Europeans a natural advantage over America and other aspiring nations.

(4) The Arabs/Muslim peoples were numerous, had a long cultural heritage, and have earned the reputation of being fearless warriors. Such people, if won over as allies would make a formidable front against any would be enemy of Europe (like communist Russia or capitalist American ambitions.)  The Europeans also hoped that the Islamic peoples would consider Europe as their allies and not to treat them with difference. (That is, to spare Europe from Jihadist acts.A naive assumption.)

(5) It was during the war that Charles De Gaulle saw the inevitable rise of America as a world power and a threat to European supremacy. De Gaulle, like many other European leaders, saw that America was determined to play her role in world political and commercial affairs as a major industrial powerhouse. De Gaulle clearly understood that President Roosevelt was determined to break the stranglehold that European nations had over world raw materials and export markets through their colonial monopolies. The only way to kill off the European supremacy in trade and industry was to end the monopoly of colonialism and to free those colonial nations to be able to make their own trading arrangements and where America could have an equal opportunity at breaking into these markets. Roosevelt was successful in introducing the Atlantic Charter, the wedge into forcing all European colonialists to surrender their colonies following WWII.

De Gaulle was also humiliated by France’s exclusion from the “1945 Yalta Conference” negotiations that was responsible for laying the foundations for post war Europe. De Gaulle saw the writing on the wall and realised that the only route France had to take to become  a leading nation in Europe again, was to create a Europe able to compete against American dominance.  France also noted the bond between Britain and America and thus decided  not to trust Britain consequently she (initially) blocked Britain’s membership in the EU in 1961 and again in 1967.

But France alone could never muster enough muscle to counter America’s powerhouse, but France, with the partnership of European nations and uniting with the Arab nations would provide enough muscle to counter America’s, as well as Soviet, supremacy.  De Gaulle began to plan the rebirth of France and Europe in cooperation with the Arab nations. This meant embracing “multiculturalism” as France was/is a Catholic nation averse to Islam.  Firstly, the Roosevelt plans for stripping of European nation’s powers over her colonies (suddenly/abruptly) caused loss of a world standing and prestige of European nations, and secondly,  the freeing of restrictions  over Asian and Islamic nations  gave these Arab and Asian nations a national sovereignty and voice they never had before. This created a sudden imbalance of power structures caused by the sudden creation of vacuums created throughout the world. France began to woo her ex-Arab colonies, to bring them into the European sphere  for closer cooperation and to provide preferential considerations with oil supplies. This closer relationship required an integration of economic and cultural co-operation that led to the formation of the “Euro-Arab Dialogue.”  Roosevelt’s vision of a new world order in reality uncorked the bottle that held the ” Islamic genie” in the bottle until 1949. Encouraged by the French wooing, the Arab nations having been assured of receiving the latest technology from Europe began, and in conjunction with France, began to demonise Israel and America. Paradoxically, it was F.D. Roosevelt’s destruction of European colonialism that triggered the “demonising of Israel and America from 1949 onwards.”

In 1945 Mufti Haj Amin al-Hussaini of Jerusalem, a notorious Nazi ally, strongly advocated supporting the French leadership to unite the Arabs with European nations in an economic and geopolitical counterbalance to America’s influence in Africa and Europe. Haj Amin al-Hussaini, called for an active Franco-Arab alliance and was supported by French politicians and intellectuals and he called for an adoption of a coherent policy toward the Muslim world. All of them believed that France’s association with a Muslim federation extending over North Africa and the Middle East “would bring France and the Islamic world an ascendancy that would impress the Soviet Union and rival the United states.”  An opportunity was created through French ambitions, for the ascendancy of Islam in Europe.  When De Gaulle returned to power in 1958, France still had a pro-Israel policy, but after 1962 when Algeria gained independence, De Gaulle began to alter France’s policy in favour towards the Arab/Islamic world and became anti-Israel, and anti-America. De Gaulle set France on a long term plan to unity the Arab and European countries into a single, interdependent economic bloc that would be able to stand up to America.. France adopted an Islamophile orientation, and an anti-Semitic, anti-American stance, determined to win over the Islamic nations under French leadership. [12] [13]

The Schuman Declaration 9th May, 1950


Horrified by the scale and destruction caused by World War II, many Europeans never wanted a repeat of such  devastation ever again. The solution perhaps was for a European co-operation that would prevent  such divergent ambitions. Winston Churchill standing next to Robert Schuman called for a Franco-German reconciliation in a “United Europe on 14th July, 1946 in Metz.” In  Zurich Churchill called for a United States of Europe beginning with a Council of Europe. The Council of Europe was heralded as “the supranational communities” to form a fully democratic European integration.

The Schuman Declaration is a governmental proposal by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister, to create a new form of organisation of States of Europe into a supranational Community. It involved placing the “coal and steel industries of France, West Germany and other countries under a common “Authority” and led to the creation of the “European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). It was the forerunner of the European Union. Schuman is now considered as one of the founding fathers of the European Union (EU).

The Schuman Declaration have several distinct aims:

    It marked the Birth of Europe.
    It made war between Member States impossible.
    It encouraged world peace.
    It would transform Europe by a “step by step” process (building through
    sectorial supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe
    democratically, including both East and West Europe separated by the Iron
    Curtain.
    It created the world’s first supranational institution and,
    It created the world’s first international anti-cartel agency.
    It created a single market across the Community.
    It started with the coal and steel sector, would revitalise the whole European
    economy by similar community processes.
    It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as
    Africa. [14]
In 1951, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands signed the TREATY OF PARIS, the basis of the European Economic Community and later the European Union along with the Arab/Islamic relationships built up by France. All this initiative by Robert Schuman for a inter-related European union occurred even before De Gaulle came to power in 1958. But Schuman did not envisage including the Arab/Muslim nations in his visions. 

The Treaty of Paris (1951)


The treaty of Paris, sign on on April 18, 1951 between Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy and the Netherlands established the European Coal and Steel community (ECSC), which subsequently became part of the European Union. The treaty expired on July 23, 2002, exactly fifty years after it come into effect.

The treaty was seen as foundational in bringing together Europe in peace after the 2nd World War. By sharing the production of coal and steel, no one nation could control its production for their own nation’s armaments against her neighbouring nations without consensus of all parties. This assured peace among within Europe. [15]

Charles De Gaulle

Charles de Gaulle


In a press conference on 27th November 1967 Charles De Gaulle declared openly that, “the fundamental basis of the French Foreign policy was a cooperation with the Arab(Muslim) world.”

“The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples,” held in Cairo, in January 1969, passed a Resolution 15, 

“To form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the “Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation” was created and better known as “the Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAD.

France was the driving force in this unification envisaged by De Gaulle’s inner circle of similar minded Frenchmen, and with Arab politicians. 

De Gaulle began by condemning Israel and her policies of defending her own territorial rights, in a very anti-Semitic manner, a contrast to the previous France who, like the rest of Europe, had sympathised with the Jewish underdog. France began to demonise the great Satan America and this played into the delight of the Arab Muslims. (Many Americans have asked, “why so many people hate America and Americans?”  They now have the answer, a combination of French and Islamic demonising over 30 or more years does take its toll.) By degrees France ingratiated herself to the Arabs. But the relationship began innocuously and unnoticed, starting with cultural committees for the exchange and promotion of cultural, linguistic, religious, philosophical, educational, and scientific exchanges for creating a better understanding of the two cultures. These committees were well organised and planned by the Arabs to ensure that all levels of European establishments were well informed of Arab/Islamic views and sensitivities. It provided the Arab/Islam a unique opportunity to use all their persuasive skills to influence and disseminate an appropriate understanding of their culture and for Europeans to understand the sensitivities of the Arab/Islam in every aspect of Islamic life. All this was undertaken without sparing personnel or costs, much of which was borne by the EU anyway in their eagerness to win co-operation of the Arabs.


The Arab states demanded from Europe (1) access to Western science and technology (admitting their lack of development in this area), (2) European political independence from the United States, (3) European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and (4) the demonizing of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as (5) measures favourable to “Arab immigration and (6) the dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe. (7) This cooperation would also include the recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people and the PLO and its leader Arafat as their (legitimate) representative. (Up to 1973 there was “no Palestinian peoples or Palestinian nation.” It did not exist. The Arabs in that region were considered nothing more than “Arab refugees” even by other Arabs. But the Arab League were determined to create a Palestinian State with Arafat as leader who was sworn to rid the Middle East of Israel. (This will be the reason why he (Arafat/Palestinians) would never honour a real peace settlement or recognise the State of Israel.)

OPEC’s TRUMP CARD-OIL


As a result of the Yom Kippur War (Oct.6, 1973) between Israel and Egypt and Syria, the Arabs were going to use oil as their instrument of black mail in 1973 causing “the oil crisis.” OPEC announced that it would no longer supply oil to nations that supported Israel. This cause oil prices to soar, and an influx of petrodollars to countries like Saudi Arabia. But this crisis sent shivers down the European politicians and reminded them that they had to pay heed to some of the Arab demands and had to back the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The Arab big stick worked. It transformed the political attitudes of Europe.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD)


The Euro-Arab Dialogue is a cultural, economic and political institution to ensure an understanding and the integration between Europeans and Arabs. Its policies were that of “The European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation” established in 1974, and structured during conferences in Copenhagen Dec.15th,1973 and Paris July 31, 1974. Other organisations associated with it were the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation created in 1995 and backed by the “European Commission, EU.” (Little wonder that no EU parliamentarian has openly spoken out against the aims of the EAD because it was accepted EU policy to integrate such policies into EU policies.) 

The YOM KIPPUR WAR

The Yom Kippur war that was between Israel against Egypt and Syria created a crisis that allowed the Arab members of “the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC,” to use their “ultimate weapon,” “The Oil Embargo.” OPEC announced that “OPEC would no longer supply oil to nations who supported Israel.” This created the “Oil Crisis of 1973″ sending prices rocketing, and a flood of “petrodollars” into the Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia, and sending shivers down the spine of every politician/nation in Europe, who had any sympathies for Israel. It was this flood of petrodollars that permitted the Arabs, especially “the Wahabbi movement” in Saudi Arabia to fund a “worldwide Islamic resurgence.” But more significant was the realisation that it was the Arabs, and no longer the European powers, who were able called the tune. This was the beginning of the birth of Islamic resurgence, of “Islamic Political Correctness” “of acquiescence or  appeasement of European policies to accommodate Arabic demands for respect and acceptance.”

But the Arabs being pragmatic clever traders recognised the scientific, industrial, military and economic superiority of the European nations and saw the opportunity to fast track into this with a trade-off. But more importantly, the Arabs wanted respect and parity and the only way to achieve this was to replace European prejudices against the Arabs with a re-education of Europeans to appreciate the Arab language, culture, history, and scientific achievements, and the Islamic interpretation of Islam at all levels of European institutions, i.e., educational, religious, political, and social institutions. The Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAD, provided the Arabs/Muslims with this gateway.

Paradoxically, EAD, fitted into the French plans (1960) and their ambitions of integrating and controlling the Arabs once again. It recreated nostalgia of re-establishing the French 19th century dream of creating and governing a French-Arab empire. But above all, the oil crisis was the catalyst to cement the European States into accepting fully and to cooperate with the newly created Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAD.

The Euro-Arab Dialogue symposia of Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983) recommended the following, accompanied by a policy of accepting an open influx of Arab and other Islamic Immigrants into Europe in large and uncontrolled numbers.

The EAD Symposia of Venice and Hamburg Recommended:


1. The coordination of efforts made by Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe,
2.  The creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centres in European capitals,
3.  The necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans,
4.  The necessity of cooperation between European and Arab Specialists in order to present a positive picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to the educated public in Europe.

These agreements were perceived to be “politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic in nature” and thus it was decided that these agreements could not be set out in written documents or treaties. All proceedings and decisions were conducted in “closed sessions with no official minutes recorded.” [16]

The European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was founded in l974, in conjunction with “MEDEA Institute,” and “the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation (1955), with the backing of the European Commission, were the principal agents and supporters of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

In the European nation state,the EAD established a close relationship with their domestic policies to ensure a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centres, school textbooks, student and youth associations, and tourism. The EAD were also influential in interfaith dialogues and policies. EAD therefore were determined to alter the attitude of Europeans towards Arabs and Islam by establishing a strong network of associations for a comprehensive symbiosis and cooperation and partnership on cultural policy, economy, and demography.

With a membership of over six hundred members from all major European political parties and active in the European parliament, the (European) Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, 1974, has fused a symbiosis of Muslim Arab and Europe in a way no one could envisage and would have fulfilled Charles De Gaulle’s wildest dreams. Its goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting a free circulation of goods, men, and ideology. The original prime mover of this symbiosis was De Gaulle and France, and Europe following reluctantly but abiding by the tide of the Arab/Islamic invasion into the Christian ideologies and culture. This pan-Mediterranean union of Europe and Islamic North Africa has indeed grown from a secret illegitimate waif into a force powerful to worry and stifle Americas domination of either Europe or the Islamic nations of North Africa. Can this genie be controlled or contained in its own ambitions, as the tail now wags the body. [16]

 

On the cultural front there began a complete re-writing of history, which was first undertaken during the 1970s in European universities. This process was ratified by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in September 1991, at its meeting devoted to “The Contribution of the Islamic Civilisation to European culture.” It was reaffirmed by French President Jacques Chirac in his address of April 8, 1996 in Cairo, and reinforced by Romano Prodi, president of the powerful European Commission, the EU’s “government,” and later Italian Prime Minister, through the creation of a Foundation on the Dialogue of Cultures and Civilizations. “This foundation was to control everything said, written, and taught about Islam in Europe.

Over the past three decades, the EEC and the EU’s political and cultural organizations have invented a fantasy Islamic civilization and history. The historical record of violations of basic human rights for all non- Muslims and women under sharia (Islamic Law) is either ignored or dismissed. In this world view the only dangers come from the United States and Israel. The creators of Eurabia have conducted a successful propaganda campaign against these two countries in the European media. This fabrication was made easier by pre-existing currents of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in parts of Europe, although both sentiments have been greatly inflated by Eurabians and their collaborators.

On January 31, 2001, with the recrudescence of Palestinian terrorist jihad, European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten declared to the European Parliament that Europe’s foreign policy should give special attention to its southern flank (the Arab countries, in EU jargon), adding that he was delighted by the general agreement to give greater visibility to the Mediterranean Partnership.

Bat Ye’or thinks that “Our politicians are perfectly informed of Islamic history and current policies by their embassies, agents and specialists. There is no innocence there, but ‘tremendous inflexibility in corruption, cynicism and the perversion of values.”  [17]

Eurabia is a novel entity. It possesses political, economic, religious, cultural, and media components, which are ‘imposed on Europe’ by powerful governmental lobbies. While Europeans live within Eurabia’s constraints, outside of a somewhat confused awareness, few are really conscious of them on a daily basis.

This Eurabian policy, expressed in obscure wording, is conducted at the highest political levels and coordinated over the whole of the European Union. It spreads an anti-American and anti-Semitic Euro-Arab sub-culture into the fiber of every social, media and cultural sector. Dissidents are silenced or boycotted. Sometimes they are fired from their jobs, victims of a totalitarian “correctness” imposed mainly by the academic, media and political sectors.

According to Ye’or, France and the rest of Western Europe can no longer change their policy: “It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued through immigration policy, propaganda, church support (acquiescence), economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it.” 

The EU founders “were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.” Booker and North call the European Union “a slow-motion coup d’état: the most spectacular coup d’état in history,” designed to gradually and carefully sideline the democratic process and subdue the older nation states of Europe without saying so publicly.

The irony is that France is now held hostage by the very forces she herself set in motion. The Jihad riots by Muslim immigrants in France in 2005 demonstrated that Eurabia is no longer a matter of French foreign policy, it is now French domestic policy. France will burn unless she continues to appease Arabs and agree to their agenda.

The growth of the Islamic population is explosive. According to some, one out of three babies born in France is a Muslim. Hundreds of Muslim ghettos already de facto follow Sharia, not French law. Some believe France will quietly become a Muslim country, while others are predicting a civil war in the near future.

Maybe there is some poetic justice in the fact that the country that initiated and has led the formation of Eurabia will now be destroyed by its own Frankenstein monster. However, gloating over France’s dilemma won’t help. The impending downfall of France is bad news for the rest of the West. What will happen to French financial resources? Above all, who will inherit hundreds of nuclear warheads? Will these weapons fall into the hands of Jihadist Muslims, too? [17]

The influence of the “Euro-Arab Dialogue,” EAD, cannot be minimised or overlooked. The EAD, ensured the cooperation of both Arab and European television, radio, and press media, publishing houses, academia, cultural centres, school textbooks, student and youth associations, and tourism. EAD has a strong influence on inter-faith policies and dialogues. So the EAD has cooperation and influence in national policies, the economy, demography and culture. These recommendations accompanied by a deliberate privileged influx of Arab and Muslim immigrants into Europe in uncontrolled enormous numbers is an attempt to create a cohesive symbiosis of the two cultures. The effectiveness of the EAD’s influence in European politics can be seen with the “political correctness” and “appeasement” approach of our parliamentarians as well all media avenues in the past 30 years. [13][16]


I have looked at some of the publications of these joint committees, and it is clear that the insistence of Arab/Muslim rights and supremacy predominates these committees. And what is clear is that most of the European members of these committees accept and agree with Islamic views without any dissension’s or opposition. The Judeo-Christian views are never considered, except for making apologies and deciding in favour of  Muslim demands. like the building of Mosques, the introduction of Sharia Laws, positive discrimination in quangos and government appointments. What is also apparent is that all proclamations, policies or decisions always favour Arab/Islamic sentiments. This goes right across the committees from educational, trade, economic, science, political, or even ministerial levels. It is as though there was an invisible (divine) order ordering all European participants to acquiesce to all Arab demands. 

Summarising the Factors that Encouraged Muslim Immigrants to Europe


(1) End of WWII meant Europe needed materials and labour to rebuild. May,1945
(2) Charles De Gaulle’s dreams of France’s leadership to lead Europe as the counterbalancing force to America and Russia by including Arab Muslims into his coalition. This creating symbiosis with Arabs and Europeans. (1967)
(3) The creation of the Euro-Arab dialogue open the unregulated floodgates of Islamic immigration into Europe with the surreptitious connivance of the EU. Until today Europe is flooded with Muslims who are now large enough in numbers to demand recognition of their Rights and their cultural heritage as Muslims. (1974)
(4) The “Oil Embargo” (1973) convinced the European nations to support Euro-Arab Dialogue and its symbiosis, or be starved of fuel.
(5) 9/11/2001-USA & 7/7/2005-UK the two supporters of Israel were left in no doubt that Islam meant what it said. The cost since then for National Security has been astronomical and many many serious Jihadist plots have been circumvented by good intelligence, so far.
(6) Jihadism, the prime mover in Islam, is well and thriving ensuring Islam’s territorial expansion.


The Birth of “MULTICULTURALISM” (1990)


Coincidentally, “multiculturalism” is a modern movement, a product of the liberal elite of the West, but stimulated by a series of events in European history. Briefly:

(1) The Schuman vision, May 9, 1950 following the ravages of WWII.
(2)  Charles De Gaulle came to power in 1958 determined to recreate France into a world leader and power again by uniting France and the Arab nations again. He envisaged a symbiosis between Europe and the Arab nations to counter American superiority.
(3) The formation of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, (EAD) beginning around 1973&1974 by the formation of “The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation.”
(4) Around 1990, the concept of “Multiculturalism” was promoted and met great appeal from the left-wing and many minority groups. Was it a coincidence that this movement appears to follow the creation of the EAD?[26] [27]
(5) Multiculturalism has been widely adopted in Europe, Canada, America, Australia but not in India, China, Japan, South East Asian Countries, or Islamic countries.

The acceptance of minority cultures into predominantly one culture nations has been going on since man inhabited the earth. Most minority races have in one way or another adapted into their host nation and never considered an issue of great concern. Whether multiculturalism would in effect create a more equal society is questionable. But the promoters of multiculturalism seem to believe that it would change the world for the better. 

Multiculturalism is seen by many minority people seeking better opportunities in the West as the lifting of prejudices against them. These would include peoples like, Africans of different faiths, Hindus from India, Muslims from the Middle East and Asia, Buddhists from Asia, who not only will find better opportunities for employment but would immediately enjoy the high standards of social services that are non-existent in most of their native countries. Their standard of living is transformed overnight by immigrating to Western nations.

Having examined the concept of multiculturalism, I see it as a double edged sword. On the one hand it affords all peoples equal treatment in jobs and social welfare benefits, it also permits freedom of religious beliefs and culture especially as most Western nations practice and observe secularism. 

Secularism plus multiculturalism does not promote assimilation and integration of the immigrants, but instead will create ghettos of different cultures withing the host nation. There will be The Spanish quarter, the German quarter, little India, the Pakistan neighbourhood, the Turkish quarter, the Thai neighbourhood, the China Town, the Tamil area, with little integration. In other words, multiculturalism provides the rights of immigrants to live in ghettos in a totally different culture from the host country. Most immigrants do not want or intend to be assimilated into the host country but wish to cling on to their own heritage’s. This system is already in existence all over the world without multiculturalism. But the (unspoken) intention of multiculturalists is to open up western nations to an unrestricted influx of their fellow countryman. This causes resentment among the native inhabitants who see their share of benefits given to immigrants who have made no contributions to the system. And it is also quite evident that the immigrants will exploit every benefit available without any shame believing that it is they right to have such benefits as all others. Many even have such surpluses as to be able to send part of what they receive to their other families in their home country.

Although most immigrant families live a totally separate cultural life from that of the host nation, they by and large live harmoniously within that environment even if they are not physically and culturally integrated, but they do not cause undue social problems or make unreasonable demands with an exception, Islam.

Islam is a group of immigrants that cannot and will not assimilate or integrate with non-Islamic peoples. This is a part of the Islamic ideology that they are prevented, by their beliefs and their faith to be able to integrate with non-Muslims unless they are the dominant group. Islam is an undeviating “supremacist ideology” and “must be the dominant religion and culture where they are the majority, or where they have established supremacy.” And to struggle and to fight for supremacy is the goal and aims of Islam in order to create a peaceful world of Dar Al Islam, a nation of peace. This can only mean that the ultimate aim and objective of all Muslims is to struggle to establish Islam as the dominant religion wherever possible. With that aim of all Muslims, and multiculturalism favours their entry into all nations, multiculturalism becomes oxymoron as a concept. Multiculturalism with secularism permits free access for Islam, with no limitations, and is the gateway for the destruction of the Western Christian ideologies. [27]

The Future of Islamic-European Symbiosis


It is quite apparent that the insidious erosion or European state sovereignty to be replaced by Islamic demands for recognition of their religious rights, equality,  representation in government institutions, recognition of Islamic Sharia Laws, and Islamic customs will gradually be imposed and implemented in European states with the passage of time. This is happening in most European nations today. This gradual Islamisation of Europe did not happen by accident but with the active participation of all European Union political leaders as mentioned earlier. Although some of the documentation has been listed here, it has never been publicly referred to in Parliaments, the media, or in public discussions. Why has this never written about or openly discussed. The silence by the media or the politicians on this topic is ominous. Let us look at some of the causes and effects of this surreptitious sly infiltration of Islam into the European culture:


(1) The Resurgence of Jihad since 1945 (WWII)

Since the end of WWII in 1945 we have seen a resurgence of Jihad after it had fallen into desuetude for many, many years. Why this sudden resurgence? Jihad, the driving force of Islam has been an integral part of Islamic/Quranic ideology for the past 1400 years, but it now seems to have resurfaced with a vengeance. Why? What has changed to rekindle this fundamental fervour? 


Some believe that it was the end of colonialism that unleashed the pressure safety valves of a boiling cauldron, and for which the Muslims can thank F.D.Roosevelt for his perseverance in “slaying the European dragon of colonialism.” The question no one has clearly established is, did Roosevelt do this for altruistic humanitarian grounds (like it similarity with the American war of Independence), or was it for American commercial interests,  to opening up the monopolised  European colonial markets that America needed for her exports? The resulting consequences are the same, Roosevelt removed the lid that held the Islamic zeal for Jihad in check, but much too suddenly and without any plans for a smooth and gradual transition of power. This sudden void propelled the only literate and intellectuals into power by default. This meant that the religious leaders of these Islamic nations were suddenly empowered. The fundamentalist Islamists, like the Ayatollahs and Mullahs, were given a free hand to gain religious and political power and to enforce and control strict Islamic values on all their citizens like Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Algeria, Palestine and so on. At the time, the West lauded such a move, replacing all the previous dictatorial, despotic and corrupt leaders with religious (Islamic) leaders seemed a good solution. Surely, Islamic leaders would be similar to Christian leaders who would rule, guided by the codes of religious ethics. But unknown to Western leaders was that the ideology of Christianity and that of Islam were different and that the result would be a divergence of religious doctrines.


(2) “Inshallah-fatalism”

The philosophy of “Inshallah-fatalism” (By the Will of Allah), has for centuries held back Arab and Muslim countries from making any intellectual, scientific, industrial, economic, cultural development. Hence, Islamic nations have always been retarded in being able to create scientific technology and wealth through human efforts by comparison to the Western nations (even if they refuse to acknowledge it.) But by an accident of geology, Arabs found oil in abundance on their lands and since l973 ten trillion dollars revenue was accumulated from the sale of oil and gas to oil-consuming nations, mostly in Europe. This created, suddenly, the greatest transfer of wealth in human history and seen as a special blessing from Allah.


So almost overnight Arabs could buy anything,  influence, skills, knowledge, technology, armaments, souls, nations, with the bounty that Allah has provided. Great cities and civil works were built, almost overnight, built by bought foreign skills(some at slave labour conditions) from the West and the East. People from all over the world flocked into the Middle East to seek lucrative wages for their skills, even with strict Islamic laws of abstinence and social restrictions by Western standards, and other Islamic restrictions, to earn high wages, (except the construction industry that has been paid poorly and poor living conditions provided by the gang-masters, or the domestic maids who came to serve the Arab masters but many were exploited.)

Huge sums of money were spent to acquire military know-how and hardware, creating a huge supply chain of middle-men and fixers. There grew an army of middle-men who unblocked embargoes, boycotts, and supply routes for contraband weaponry and supply chains that made vast fortunes for the successful. Famous companies and many nations were involved in the mad rush to sign profitable contracts, and famous political names were inadvertently involved. But because of the amounts of money involved most dubious deals were swiftly swept under the carpet and away from scrutiny. Suddenly, backward Arab countries now possessed the most sophisticated of weaponry. But this weaponry did not only remain in the hands of the Arab states but filtered down to support Jihadists (Islamic terrorists) and even to tribal conflicts. In other words, sophisticated western weaponry found their way into the hands of Hamas, and Fatah, and the Taliban, and the Pakistani Taliban to be used against the West. These arms suppliers were from all countries that produced arms including Russia, China, USA and Israel.

The oil wealth was not squandered on while elephants alone, but have been used to extend their Dawah, or proselytising, through generous donations, significantly through the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia. Wahhabis have financed mammoth symbolic Mosques in all the major cities of the world in the Western as well as the Islamic world, portray Islamic dominance and a symbol of superiority. Madrassas and mosques are built, and even supplied with Islamic teachers and Imams throughout the world but particularly in the West like America. Islamic charities can be found under all kinds of different guises throughout the western world and under the protect of western secularism and multiculturalism. Armies of Western hirelings, and media, are bought directly or indirectly including public relations experts, former government officials and diplomats, journalists, academics all ready to sing the Islamic tune, and it is obvious that this has been very successful especially in the European Union, (EU,) and America. But oil dollars are not confined to non-violent pursuits, because training camps in Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere are financed and supplied from this abundant and non-exhaustible fund constantly topped up by the West’s insatiable appetite for Oil and Gas.

(3) The European Union (EU) opened the floodgates for unregulated Muslim immigration into Europe


On the political front, as explained above, the Euro-Arab Dialogue,(EAD,) with the total compliance of the European Union, (EU,) have admitted the uncontrolled and unregulated immigration of millions of Muslim migrants in Europe, encouraged by their own governments as part of the plan to a positive influence over Europe. Pakistanis have chosen England, Turks chose Germany, Algerians chose France, Moroccans chose Spain, Indonesians chose Holland, with miscellaneous Muslims to all parts of Europe, bringing with them, their wives and children to settle but above all their culture and their religion. They enjoyed all the social welfare benefits of the indigenous peoples even when they had not previous or presently contributed anything toward the system. So coming from nations providing
 no social welfare benefits to a system of being given everything to raise their families, it must have been like a miracle from Allah. But no matter how generous the host nation or its people were to these Muslims, the Islamic culture has not allowed Muslims to integrate into a non-Islamic culture. In fact the Muslim immigrant has been instructed  never to accept as friends, Jews or Christians. All Muslims regard non-Muslims as infidels, no matter how generous and accommodating these infidels may try to be. This is an essential trait of Islam that is not understood by most people but especially by our Parliamentary representatives. This fact is a fact that the Western leaders find impossible to comprehend and even throw more concessions and money in the hope that it will change attitudes. But Islam is rigid and cannot be compromised.


Millions of Muslim immigrants have settled in the West and produced 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants (now citizens), and have succeeded through the Euro-Arab Dialogue  to influence the EU and  have obtained many concessions and recognition of Islamic demands. The EU conscientiously practices  “political correctness” so as not to offend the sensitivities of the Muslims, but now Muslims are now pressing for more rights and privileges as a Muslim community like the acceptance of Sharia Laws in the host Christian countries. Having intimidated the host countries with threats of violent demonstrations Paris and London), and proof of their powers over oil supplies and prices, and with Jihadist acts like 9/11 and 7/7 and mass demonstrations in France, Muslims are being selected (by positive discrimination) to serve in government institutions including Britain’s Houses of Parliament as obvious acts of appeasement. Such is the extent of Muslim influence on European governments today. Mulims have exploited all the freedoms afforded them in the West, such as political and civil freedoms, democracy,  Human Rights, Secularism, and Freedom of Religion, formulated by Western nations over centuries of political evolution. While Muslims have staunchly clung on to their restrictive and exclusive religious and political views, taking advantage of western freedoms but these same Muslims will do away with such freedoms as soon as they are in a position of dominance.


(4) 20th Century Western technology has aided the advancement of Islam 


Strange as it may seem, 20th century technology has given a helping hand to the 7th century ideology of Islam. But it is also serves a constant reminder to all Muslims throughout the world of their obligations to Allah through the miracle of electronics. The rapid ease of modern communication has made it possible for fast and efficient communication and instructions right across the globe in a matter of seconds. It is now possible to spread Islamic propaganda to even the remotest villages in any nation as long as they have the radio or other means of communication like the modern Television via satellite or a mobile telephone. Even coded messages can be sent openly through radio, television, or telephones to Islamic operatives operating in distant lands. The call to prayer can be sent to remote villages to remind Muslims of their duty to Allah. Islamic propaganda can now be transmitted through international Islamic channels like Al-Jazeera and are keenly absorbed by Muslims from Tower Hamlet in London to Dearborn, Michigan, to the banlieues of Paris, Lyon and Marseille. Their influence and speed of communication is an asset to the Islamic movement. The greatest advantage is that through the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the support of the EU, European media have been gagged from transmitting anything uncomplimentary about Islam. So today the media is heavily tilted in favour of Islamic views and bias. The European nations, as a result of their policy of political correctness agreed to in the EAD, completely restrain their media, and the public in countering or challenging Islamic propaganda for fear of being accused of being Islamophobic or for breaking faith with Islamic nations having agreed to mutual cooperation through the EAD.

In this day of instant access to information via the internet, there is no excuse not to be able to find information that one has doubts about. But there are minds that are receptive of information, and there are also minds that also reject information they find uncomfortable. There are minds that have built-in filters to reject any contradictions to their set of beliefs. Most Muslims would not even  read anything that challenges Islamic concepts, and are closed to other doctrines.

Every Muslim must observe the First of the 5 Pillars of Islam:


(1) The shahadah: “I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
This is a declaration accepting the “total submission to the will of Allah” and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. The Holy Quran is accepted as the literal word of Allah, no other views matters and are thus inconsequential. Thus the Word of Allah is immutable. (Unquestionable.) This has produced Muslims who have learned to suppress any doubts or questions about Islam and to accept total submission to Allah, and the acceptance of the Quran and Islamic teachings. This total submission and acceptance of the Quran and Islam has led to the apathetic lack of the inquiring mind or for the less academic has led  to a total intellectual laziness and indifference even at the expense of depressing the individual to the service of Allah. This mental submission is a part of the Islamic group culture, and in order to be a part of the group all deviations from the Quran or Islamic ideology will be considered blasphemous by the group. Thus conformation is assured and everyone conforms to the strict regime of Islam. This results in practically a fascist doctrine since Islam is a total belief system and thus totalitarian in doctrine. [18]

The Future of Europe


It is obvious that there is only One Islam but many different Muslims.  This  must be fully appreciated before the following generalised remarks. It has been observed that second and third generation Muslims in Europe have shed most of their compliant personalities of their parents and are much more defiant and demanding, but are no less devout Islamists. In fact living in the freedom of the West these Muslims are even more defiant and aggressive than their cousins who still live in the old country. The following links and references will support some of these observations. [19] [20]

Daniel Pipes believes that the way Europe emerges vis-a-viz the Islamic influence in European politics in the coming years will have an impact on America as well as the rest of the world. He visualises the European-Muslim relationship has three possible options: (1) a harmonious integration, (2) the expulsion of Muslims, or (3) an Islamic takeover.

(1) Harmonious Integration/assimilation of Muslims into the Western Culture


A harmonious integration of Islam with the Western Christian culture would be, of course, the most desirable solution, particularly for the Europeans. The Europeans, in the EU, have leaned over backwards in an attempt to make a modus vivendi possible. Every European politician has dreamed that they would find the solution to this seemingly unbridgeable gulf. But  any scholar of Islam will verity that this gulf cannot be bridged because integration/assimilation is alien to the ideology of Islam. This view has been best expressed by the Pope Benedict XVI a theologian who must have attempted ernestly to find a solution to this impasse.[21]

But there will remain many either ignorant people/politicians who will insist that a solution will be found to resolved this problem, or foolhardy enthusiasts who will continue to champion this dream of assimilating the Islamic faith into the Christian culture. The faith of Islam is immiscible with that of Christianity or any other faith and we have to accept this fact. The proof lies in 1400 years of Islamic-Christian history. [22]

(2) The Expulsion of Muslims from Europe


This would be a complete reversal of European Union policy. As illustrated above, with the pioneering lead of Charles De Gaulle, the European Union, and with the direct assistance of the Arab League, and the formation of the Euro-Arab dialogue, all parties agreed to integrate the Arab culture with that of European culture to form a strong united intermingling of peoples, culture, and economy so as to counter balance an American or Russian dominance. All parties entered into this cooperation with their eyes wide open and with great hopes.

As the numbers of Islamic immigrants grew in European cities, and with the support of liberals and Human rights activists, they began to make demands for Islamic equality and even preferences over indigenous needs until the indigenous citizen’s patience began to run out. As a consequence new reactionary parties like, The British National Party, the English Defence League, Belgium’s Vlaamse Belang, the SIOE (Stop the Islamisation of Europe), have mushroomed and have gained considerable support.

Ralph Peters, American author, believes that, “Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having many babies, Europe’s Muslims are living on borrowed time.  Predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe ignore history and Europe’s ineradicable viciousness.” He predicts that, “Muslims will be lucky just to be deported, and not killed.”

Claire Berlinski, agrees implicitly, pointing to the history of  “ancient conflicts and religious intolerance” that could trigger violence in Europe with precedence like the Spanish Inquisition, or the Nazi genocide. Islamists have been prodding the West to see how far they able to get away with their demands, and signs of European impatience has been steadily growing with clear resentment shown regarding Islamic uncontrolled immigration, the lack of will to deport illegal or criminal Muslims to their country of origin,  against the defiant symbolism of the Burqa, or the demands for symbolic Islamic symbols like mosques, and madrassas, and Islamic charities, hateful Islamic demonstration’s on our streets. The head of steam is slowly but surely building up with each Islamic defiant act. It will not require much to trigger off violent reactions when the indigenious population realise that they will have to wrest back the country they might well lose. [23]

Unfortunately, the reaction of Islamists to the growing anti-Islam movements is to use threats and violence. This is what western governments have striven to quell. One day it can easily get out of hand, and out of control, to be worse than the French “intifada” of the late 2005 and if this happens and a civil war breaks out, we have ourselves to blame for letting it fester for so long. The Islamic aggressive ideology, Jihad, could easily spark a wider and controllable conflict that could cause a reaction more extreme than the Inquisition.

Cardinal Miloslav Vik, (77yrs), Czeck Archbishop of Prague said, Muslims were well placed to fill the spiritual void created as Europeans empty the Christian content of their lives. Europe will pay dear for having left its spiritual foundations and that this is the last period that will not continue for decades when it(we) may still have a chance to do something about it.”

Cardinal Vik did not blame Muslims for the crisis as Europeans had brought it upon themselves by exchanging their Christian culture for an aggressive secularism that embraced atheism. “Today, when the fighting is done with spiritual weapons, which Europe lacks while Muslims are perfectly armed, the fall of Europe is looming” He called for Christians to respond to the threat of Islamisation by living their own religious faith more observantly.” [24]

(3) An Islamic Takeover


There seems to be a fatalistic apathetic attitude to all the warning cries of the Islamisation of Europe. Our citizens don’t seem to care or worry about the  threat of Islamisation, or at least show little concern, in fact they even tar those who speak out against this intrusion as Islamophobic. Our political leaders, either out of ignorance or “political correctness” keep on telling the world that “Islam is a religion of peace,” and “Islam is a rich culture that has a lot to offer us,” as though they (our politicians) were actually proselytising for Islam. How ridiculous the situation is?  Our Archbishop has even gone so far as to promote the introduction of Sharia Laws alongside our own judicial system. It all seems so surreal, like a Hollywood horror story before your very eyes.

No one even takes any notice when author Mark Steyn’s book, “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It,” argues that the Western world “will not survive the 21st century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries.” It will be replaced by an Islamic ideology.

The late Oriana Fallaci wrote that with the passage of time, Europe would become “a province of Islam, a colony of Islam.”

Bat Ye’or’s predicts Europe being taken over, by stealth, to create a new identity that she called “Eurabia” and all non-Muslims reduced to the state of “dhimmis.”

Yet, the citizens and politicians of Europe are not agitated or up in arms as they were with the threat of Nazism, or later Communism. These politicians are playing the threat down, and doing everything to appease the Muslims in order to buy time and buy peace for their time in office. They are even censoring the media so that the citizens are pacified and believe that all is well and the government will take care of things. But it is obvious to everyone, even some of our clergy that the Western culture is being stealthily overwhelmed by the encroachment of Islam.[23]

Demography by Religion


Let us look as a few facts and figures:


World:
2.1 Billion Christians of various denominations.
1.6 Billion Islam adherents of various sects. (20%)
1.1 Billion Atheists, Agnostics, nonreligious, secular, pagans.
900 Million Hindus
394 Million Chinese traditional religion (Taoist/Buddhist/Confucianism)
376 Million Buddhists
300 Million Primal-indigenous
100 Million African Traditional & Diasporic
23 Million Sikhism
15 Million Spiritialism
14 Million Judaism
Fertility:
Western Europe has a fertility rate of 1.6 which is below the replacement rate of 2.1 child per woman. 17% of Europe’s children are under 15 years of age.

The Muslim world has a world fertility rte of 3.0 children per woman. 30% of the Muslim population are under 15 years of age.

According to the United Nations, Europe will need 16 million immigrants between 2000 and 2025. Where will they come from?

According to “the Economist” 3rd April, 2003 the following is the distribution of Muslims in some European countries:


7.0% France
3.9% Sweden
3.4% Germany
3.4% Belgium
2.7% United Kingdom
2.0% Netherlands
2.0% Denmark
1.6% Italy
1.1% Spain
It is predicted that by 2020 the World Muslim population will be:


1,010 Million In Asia
510   Million in Africa
210   Million in Europe
30     Million in America
By the year 2020 it is estimated that there will be:

1790 Million Muslims in the World, of which
1010 Million Muslims in Asia (57%)
510   Million Muslims in Africa (29%)
210   Million Muslims in Europe (12%)
30     Million Muslims in America (2%)

However if Turkey were to join the European Union, Europe would acquire 70 million extra Muslims today, (80 Million by 2020), which is a population that is greater than the total German population. In 1959 Turkey applied for membership in the EU. She applied again in 1987. In December 1999 her membership was endorsed by the Heads of States at Helinski. In December 2004, The EC opened negotiations again. The hesitation was because of fears of the impact of the Turkish Islamic population on Europe. A fear that has suddenly been realised at this late stage and is best expressed by Michel Rocard, President of the Commission of Culture in the European Parliament who wrote:

Turkey has what can scare. It is the third world, it is Islam a tour door step.(It will be the trap-door through which Muslims from the rest of the Ummah can flow.) It is 66 million inhabitants, a little more that (either) England, Italy or France. In thirty years it will not be far from 100 million inhabitants exceeding thereby Germany which is the first country of the the Union”.

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) reported the biggest rise in violent attacks had taken in Britain, Holland, Sweden, and Denmark. (As I differ from Mahdi Elmandjra’s writings I will quote for other sources until I can verify his statements.) [25]

From my reading of news articles, Muslim men in Europe, unfettered by the restrictions of Sharia Law, and taking out their sexual frustrations on the indigenous women in Europe. But I will only touch on the culture of rape in the Islamic world. This is a view of Muslims:

 

We (Muslims) don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.” 

Rape by Muslim men in Europe is epidemic in proportions. Muslims have brought their decadent sexual mores to Europe. Muslims believe that Allah as said that all women who do not cover themselves up (As Muslim women do)  are guilty of encouraging men to lust after them. Also, non-Muslim women are considered the enemy(infidel) and subduing them can be considered as “subduing the enemy in the name of Allah, and as war booty, is fair game.” [25]

Such disrespect of women is unacceptable to the western culture and has caused  irreparable alienation of the two cultures.

Mahdi Elmandjra, attempts to exonerate the primitive attitudes of the Muslims by saying:

The backwardness of the Islamic world are caused by (1) Illiteracy, (2)poverty, (3) Quasi-absent scientific research, (4) cultural alienation, (5) an unfair status of women, (6) major restrictions in the field of human rights and (7) freedom of expression.


(1) Illiteracy: The cultural, nomadic, and rural style of life and the Islamic educational aims and syllabus does not encourage academic excellence.

(2) Poverty is endemic in the Islamic world, even though Billions of Oil Dollars are sloshing around in the coffers of the rulers. It is the Islamic system of keeping the peasants close to the point of serfdom.

(3) The Inshallah philosophy, and the immutability of the Quran and religious texts prohibits the inquiring mind from childhood. The brain becomes lazy and afraid to apply scientific inquiry, especially about Islam.

(4) Cultural alienation is the result of the exclusivity of Islam and her rigid inflexible ideologies.

(5) The skills and potential of women, 50% of the population, is suppressed and lost to their community.

(6) Human rights is subject to Islamic rights and Islamic laws and is thus self curtailing.

(7) Freedom of Expression is constrained because there is to be no criticism of Allah, or Islamic values or beliefs. [25]

So it would seem that the backwardness and inferiority of the Islamic world is self-imposed. Imposed by the exclusive doctrines of Islam. And this is not about to change as it has so remained for 1400 years to date.


Conclusions:


(1) The faith of Islam is immiscible with that of Christianity or any other faith and we have to accept this fact. The proof lies in 1400 years of Islamic-Christian history. Thus any hopes for Islam being assimilated into the Western civilisation is fantasy.

(2) Ralph Peters, American author, believes that, “Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having many babies, Europe’s Muslims are living on borrowed time.  Predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe ignore history and Europe’s ineradicable viciousness.” He (Ralph Peters) predicts that, “Muslims will be lucky just to be deported, and not killed.”

This could happen with a lot of grief and bloodshed. Or probably could happen because of bloodshed.

(3) Bat Ye’or’s predicts Europe being taken over, by stealth, to create a new identity that she called “Eurabia” and all non-Muslims reduced to the state of “dhimmis.”

Unless Europeans see reality and are prepared to fight to the death for the preservation of their culture, Europeans will be taken over by stealth.
References: 

[1]  Timeline Jewish History: http://www.akhlah.com/history_tradition/torah_timeline.php
[2]  Timeline Christian History:
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/timeline.htm
[3] 
Timeline Islamic History: http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/timeline.htm
[4]  The Byzantine Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire

[5]   The Crusades (1000-2010): http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Crusades&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:50&prmd=ivb&ei=dJJaTLL8A-imsQbls_lq&ved=0CIcBEMsBKAM
[6]   The Crusades (11,12&13 C): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
[7]   Timeline Ottoman Empire 1000-2010:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=The+Ottoman+Empire+Timeline&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bXz&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:50&ei=5qNaTNTPK4TFsgbTxYiSAQ&ved=0CGsQywEoAw
[8]   Holocaust Statistics: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-statistics.htm
[9]   Formation of the Jewish and Palestinian States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Formation_of_the_Jewish_state
[10] Zionism: http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm
[11] Timeline Zionism: http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm
[12] Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis [paperback]: Author Bat Ye’or
[13] Eurabia: Partial text: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfK9SqHSaccC&dq=Eurabia&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=2h1HTPmvDoWUjAe_xPS1Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&f=false
[14] The Schuman Declaration, 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuman_Declaration
[15] The Treaty of Paris, 1951: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Treaty_of_Paris_%281951%29
[16] Euro-Arab Dialogue Institutions: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401
[17] Foundation of the Dialogue of Cuultures and Civilisations, Cairo, 1996:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/eurabia-code_19.html
[18] Islamic Resurgence: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/8724/sec_id/8724
[19] The Cultural Muslim: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/8724/sec_id/8724
[20] A True Muslim: http://knol.google.com/k/understanding-islam-a-study-edited-19-11-08-updated-14-03-09-16-06-09-13-12-09#COGNIZANCE_OF_A_TRUE_MUSLIM
[21] Why Islam cannot change:The Pope: http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/why-islam-cannot-change/1l23x9udotn1a/51#NO_REFORMATION_IN_ISLAM_IS_POSSIBLE%283A%29_Pope_Benedict_XVI
[22] Timeline Islam: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Timeline+Islam&hl=en&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:50&ei=B8teTKSuNKKH4galmfjNBw&ved=0CGkQywEoAw

[23] Europe’s Future: http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/90/europes-future
[24] Cardinal Miloslav Vik: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6942088/Cardinal-says-Christian-Europe-is-to-blame-for-Islamisation.html
[25] Future for Islam in Europe: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:5yi9C1radqsJ:www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/ElmandjraFutureIslam.pdf+Islam+in+Europe:Future&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiGzkwXNI3BAp7AySTIfPTpBj4hsCTul5aPtOxy_sWVC3iQltDEKSuoNRu5I2yU42hLglji4pYgvlRxYDM6S64ucv7VIHrmCPTJCBxpYoBNxC2ivaThsnx5ARdlaPH62ImQWFAv&sig=AHIEtbSQfdJJHm6B0zLktwLCvmi7XvLu8w

[26] Multiculturalism: http://www.multiculturalbunk.com/

Related References:
1. The Dark side of Multiculturalism: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1700515/posts
3. Multiculturalism a thread to liberal Democracy: http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-k-chief-rabbi-multiculturalism-is-a-threat-to-liberal-democracy-1.231554
3a. Multiculturalism Self inflicted defeat of the West: http://www.globalpolitician.com/26303-multiculturalism
5. Multiculturalism, Islam and Clash of civilisations:
8 British views on Multiculturalism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3600791.stm
9. Toward a definition of Multiculturalism: http://www.rosado.net/pdf/Def_of_Multiculturalism.pdf
13. Europe: Choosing between Israel and Arab: http://www.jcpa.org/israel-europe/ier-pazner-05.htm
14.* UN Plans for partition of Palestine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
15. History of Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#1917.E2.80.941948:_British_rule:_the_Jewish_national_home
16. Timeline Jewish history & Israel: http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_timeline.htm
17. Timeline Israel: http://contenderministries.org/middleeast/timeline.php
18.* UN Plans for partition of Palestine: Including supporting nations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
19. Revival/renewal of Islam: http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0682
20. Understanding the Resurgence of Islam: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/8724/sec_id/8724
22. American future re: Eurabia: http://americanfuture.net/?page_id=2679
23. Muslim Brotherhood’s Conquest of Europe: http://www.meforum.org/687/the-muslim-brotherhoods-conquest-of-europe
25. Eurabia Code Part I: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1401 See [10]
28. Choosing between Israel and Arabs : http://www.jcpa.org/israel-europe/ier-pazner-05.htm
33. Islamic Demography Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNfn-ReNUak
35. Inshallah -إن شاء الله
36. Cultures collide: Muslim Immigrants will be expelled from Europe:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de
37. The Hypocrisy of Imperialism:Islam:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: