Eurabia

[Rog]

Warning! Rog on his favourite subject!

 

I have just finished the book 'Eurabia' by Bat Ye’or.

 

I consider it an absolute MUST READ. It provides a perspective of the islamification of Europe driven principally by the French out of self interest and arrogance (no surprises there then)

 

A synopsis is here

 

http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_eurabia_122002_eng.doc

 

I believe it will appeal to anyone with any interest in what’s taking place either by providing further evidence of what we see before our own eyes ----- or alternatively as insight into what the 'enemy' are thinking by those who support it..

 

ISBN: 083864077X

 

Not cheap, but in my opinion a worthwhile investment by those who care.

 

The author.

 

Going under the nom de plume (for obvious reasons) of “Bat Ye’or” – that’s Hebrew for ‘daughter of the Nile’ - she was born in Cairo.

 

Her Egyptian nationality was revoked in 1955 because she was a Jew.

 

She left Egypt in 1957 for London as a political and stateless (real) refugees and in 1959 she was awarded British citizenship.

 

She now lives in Switzerland where she reads at Geneva University.

 

She has many other books and assorted papers published. Google for more.

[mollag]

Hey Roq, if the muslims want to take over europe how come its always the west invading the muslims and not vice versa? Cant remember the last time an islamic country invaded a christian country.

[Tugger]

FFS ..."www.dhimmitude.org" doesn't sound like a site with an anti-muslim agenda much.

 

Rog - are you a member of the BNP?

[Chinahand]

Rog, so what's your solution.

 

If Islam can never be reconciled with the thinking of the enlightenment - which is your contention, I think! - what do we do?

 

Prepare for Armageddon? Send them all back? Put up the baracades?

 

You post again and again telling us Islam will smother and destroy the west, democracy and enlightened-thought taking us back to the dark ages ... but I've don't think I've ever seen you try to give any policy prescriptions for this problem.

 

I've given up trying to convince you that you are on the extreme in your ideas, but I'd love to hear what you think we should do IF your ideas are true.

[Gladys]

There was an interesting docu on BBC Three this morning called "My Life with a Beard" or something similar. A Sikh (brown) documentary-maker grew his beard and travelled around London to see what reaction he would get after the London bombings. BTW he also carried a rucksack and wore a baseball cap. The first encounter was with some Met Police who questioned him on the "dodgy" characteristics of his attire; obviously, the very ones he had adopted for the docu.

 

Didn't watch it all, had to clear a bit of the lad's congestion, but it was an interesting excursion into stereotyping!

 

The world ain't perfect, it will probably never be so; but, as long as we focus on differences rather than similarities perfection will be further away.

[Rog]

Hey Roq, if the muslims want to take over europe how come its always the west invading the muslims and not vice versa? Cant remember the last time an islamic country invaded a christian country.

 

Been away hence slow in getting back.

 

The thing is, mollag, that the use of the words means different things.

 

To us the world has some 191 countries (193 if you add The Vatican and Taiwan ---) whereas in islam there are only two. Not only two, but they’re not even countries, they’re – hard to translate the arabic but although the direct translation is ‘house’ the semantic translation is somewhere between ‘house’ and ‘region’.

 

These two – let’s for the sake of convenience call them countries to keep the same units on both sides of the comparison, are Dar ul-Islam, meaning the ‘country’ of islam, and Dar –ul Haarb, the country of war. From an islamic viewpoint the 191 (193!) countries are closer to being super-tribes only.

 

So on that basis islam is constantly invading Dar ul-Haarb and has been doing for 1300 years, it’s just in the last few years with the cessation of The Cold War and the massive changes in immigration, especially in Europe, that the onslaught has intensified and now growing parts of Dar u-Haarb are being infiltrated, invaded, colonised, and being converted to additional parts of Dar ul-Islam.

 

That is obviously a simplification, there are other interim states that exist such as the ‘house of treaty’ which is an interim state where a part of Dar ul-Haarb moves to become Dar ul-Islam without (much) bloodshed and other minor ‘houses’ besides but they are always only steps on the inevitable path of conversion or regions and people to be islamic be it by conversion by the book – or by the sword (hence the symbol frequently seen on islamic flags etc) or out of plain economic necessity as took place in Africa hundreds of years ago.

 

So to your specific question – all the time and to a growing extent.

 

Now I know that this is a hot issue for me. Almost an obsession, but in part this is because I really DO have a deep understanding of the islamic mind and it grieves me to see how the West is being infected by what I see as the social equivalent of AIDS.

 

People for the most part simply have no idea about islam. They see it as being ‘just another religion’.

 

NO IT ISN’T !

 

It’s a very dangerous very nasty ideology that is totally opposed to the freedoms that we in the West now take for granted and it is these freedoms and our tolerance that form the conduit for this foul ideology to invade and colonise our countries, and these freedoms that are utterly destroyed wherever islam has taken hold.

[Chinahand]

Rog, so what's your solution.

 

If Islam can never be reconciled with the thinking of the enlightenment - which is your contention, I think! - what do we do?

 

Prepare for Armageddon? Send them all back? Put up the baracades?

 

You post again and again telling us Islam will smother and destroy the west, democracy and enlightened-thought taking us back to the dark ages ... but I've don't think I've ever seen you try to give any policy prescriptions for this problem.

 

I've given up trying to convince you that you are on the extreme in your ideas, but I'd love to hear what you think we should do IF your ideas are true.

[Rog]

Rog, so what's your solution.

 

If Islam can never be reconciled with the thinking of the enlightenment - which is your contention, I think! - what do we do?

 

Prepare for Armageddon? Send them all back? Put up the baracades?

 

You post again and again telling us Islam will smother and destroy the west, democracy and enlightened-thought taking us back to the dark ages ... but I've don't think I've ever seen you try to give any policy prescriptions for this problem.

 

I've given up trying to convince you that you are on the extreme in your ideas, but I'd love to hear what you think we should do IF your ideas are true.

 

For one thing stop letting people present islam as being ‘just a religion’. It isn’t.

 

Then educate our children in what islam REALLY is, including the differences in the way that moslems see the world compared to the Western viewpoint. We really do live in a different reality from them once we move beyond the mundane.

 

Next withdraw charitable status from mosques. That’s a must-do’ and soon.

Also remove ‘islam advisers’ from government and close all religious schools of all faiths be they C of E, RC, Jewish, whatever. They are an anachronism any way.

 

There is very little that can be done without hurting people in some way and to some extent as all change has the possibility of at the very least causing discomfort, but what could be done to good effect would be to start by educating people about islam as it actually is, and not as it is presently being presented whereby the bad things done are an exception and in error from the teachings.

 

Exposure of the realities of what is involved in islam. All of it.

 

But the danger is that unless it is done carefully there would likly be a huge backlash against the decent people who are little more than notional moslems and who live decent lives in spite of their following islam (much as the notional Christian follows the C of E.). Once people got over the first disbelief then the shock of realising what’s involved, there could well be bloody mayhem. Literally.

 

There is option #2.

 

Accept that we now have a number of islamic colonies established in the UK, - and we do - accept the situation, and identify the concentration thereof, give it regional status as per EU rules, and in effect establish partition between the rest of GB and this islamic region in the same way that India was partitioned with the creation of Pakistan.

 

That seemingly ludicrous proposal may actually be the least costly way forward in terms of human suffering all round.

 

Best of all though is education. Education of the British people as to what a viper they are nurturing and also education of those who follow islam but I fear that it would be easier to introduce devil worship into the Vatican than achieve that.

[mollag]

I understand where your coming from with this, this is effectivly what we did in Kosovo, an established religous majority [ muslim] within a self defined area was supported for independance against the wishes of the country recognied for sovereignty[ christian]. So its Kosovo today, Bradford tomorrow.

Problem is that we, GB set the rules, it may come back and bite our ass.

But i cant agree with the view of Islam being a threat to world, sure there are radicals in Islam who would propose these ideas but they are very minor numbers. Similarly there are plenty of nutter christian and judaic radicals with mad ideas, but they do not represent their chosen ideologies in any great way. Ian Paisley, the acceptable face of protestantism? I dont think so.

 

And we shouldnt minimise just how badly we have trated these people historicaly. We could fill a page with dates and events where european countries have invaded and raped these countries, from the first crusades to this Iraq shambles. Is it any wonder that they hate the west?

My family are of this small Island and i am probably representative. My father served in palestine, one uncle in egypt, one in Lebanon. My great Uncle is buried in Basra [1916] his brother served in Egypt, my Grandfather in the Dardenelles. And so it goes, so i ask how many times has an Islamic country attacked England? none of course. How many Islamic countries have we attacked? too many to mention.

 

And we wonder why they hate us.

[Rog]

But this is about the essence of islam and about the massively different way that even reasonably devout moslem sees the world compared to the way that a Westerner does.

 

For one thing our governments, thank goodness. At the most pay little more than lip service to religion and our laws are designed to support ajust society. Well, in theory a just society but that’s another matter.

 

For example even in Israel if my neighbour utters the name of G-d I don’t have to get him stoned by law. In fact the laws against getting stoned down there are somewhat draconian but that’s another matter.

 

Likewise most reasonable Christians have a HOPE for a ‘hereafter’ but beyond taking care not to run up too large moral overdrafts that’s about as far as they go.

 

Not so in islam. In islam any law introduced by man is by it’s very necessity to be acceptable to the state it MUST NOT affect in ANY WAY existing koranic law and that extends beyond sha’ia which is more about penalties than anything else.

 

So democracy as we know it is actually a blasphemy by it’s very concept under islam and any laws so enacted must NOT be accepted by a muslim. This is not a matter of interpretation as many think it is but an absolute dictate. The way that so many moslems in the West get around this is to elect not to want to break our law, not out of respect for or intended observation of it but simply in order to ‘live within the treaty’ or even to avoid the consequences of breaking our laws.

 

As for hate – there is no doubt that historic hatred exists but that is not what is at the core of the confrontation between the Two Houses. It is the belief that we are an abomination by our non-islamic ways and the imperative for them to convert the whole world to islam that is the real driving force. If islam represented progress in some way then there might be at least some positive outcome in this but such is not the case.

 

The rooting of the morality, codes, and concepts of islam in a savage tribal domain of 1300 years in the past, one that by its very nature can not ‘modernise’ or adopt to modernity, and that at its heart has nothing more than unfounded superstition by being absolutely based on a myth and that is the real bummer.

 

Let’s see if we can agree on a quick and dirty definition of evil.

 

Evil is that which is injurious to people and / or to their progress towards greater knowledge, happiness, and freedom.

 

On that basis I absolutely and unequivocally declare that islam is evil.

[mollag]

If i am to be honest, i believe all religions to be evil, as historical evidence shows, perhaps i should amend with, man in pusuit of his religion can be evil, and as an athiest i conveniently remove myself from the equation.

 

Had i not the experience of spending considerable time in an islamic country and having very many friends who are muslim, then i could be swayed by your view, but when i am in Turkey i see nothing of which you speak, not a jot. Where does this very large and populous country fit within the model?

[Rog]

The collapse of the Ottoman empire that resulted in the emergence of modern day Turkey as a secular state really has and continues to cause trouble in the region but to deal specifically with Turkey ---

 

Whereas it was founded by Mustapha Ataturk as a secular country with a predominantly islamic population that situation gas been changing with time and at a worryingly increasing rate especially recently. The “Justice and Development Party” which has a growing 30% of the electorate supporting it has roots in Islamic political movements and is seen as having a very hard-line religious agenda.

 

The party's leader has been banned from parliament for inciting hatred. He can’t take a seat in parliament there because he was jailed for the deliberate public reading of a religiously inflammatory and hate filled poem.

 

Today the islamic parties – especially the “Justice and Development” lot - along with the influence that the mullahs have on ostensibly secular politicians – is resulting in all sorts of legislation the most obviously being the marginalizing of places selling booze to the outskirts of many cities but that of course is only the tip of a large and very nasty iceberg.

 

What will be interesting is to watch the possible trouble between the secular military in Turkey and the increasingly islamic government.

 

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo had some interesting comments on the way that a land, once conquered by islam, is considered by muslims to then for all time to belong to islam.

 

Here’s a bit of it – hard work, but interesting.

 

Muslims are nevertheless united by their creed, their law and the

powerful concept of the umma, the totality of Muslims worldwide.

 

The process of migrating and establishing a Muslim community in a

non-Muslim context has an important place in Islamic theology. The word

hijra is used to describe such a migration, in particular the migration of

Muhammad and his followers in 622 AD from Mecca where they were persecuted

to Medina where they established the first Islamic state. Eight years

earlier another hijra had occurred when Muslim refugees found freedom of

worship in the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia.

 

Muslims see the establishment of a Muslim community in the UK as a

contemporary hijra. But an important question concerns which seventh

century hijra they compare it to: the hijra to Abyssinia in which the

Muslims became contented and loyal subjects of a Christian king or the

hijra to Medina where they seized political and military power.

 

While the Muslim scholar Imtiaz Ahmed Hussain has indicated that he looks

to the Abyssinian model, many other Muslims seem to look to the Medinan

model. A book published in 1980 by the Islamic Council of Europe gives

instructions for how Muslim minorities are to work towards achieving

domination of European countries through a policy of concentration in

geographical areas.

 

The Muslim writer, Amir Taheri, tackling the question of “Why Paris is

Burning”, described how France’s policy of assimilation began to fail when

(Muslim) immigrants grouped themselves in concentrated areas. The

resulting alienation, says Taheri, opens the way for radical Islamists to

promote religious and cultural apartheid. Some are even calling for

Muslim-majority areas to become like an Ottoman millet i.e. to organise

their own social, cultural and educational life in accordance with their

religious beliefs. In parts of France, says Taheri, a de facto millet

system is already in place, seen in Islamic head-dress, Islamic beards,

Islamic control of the administration, and the elimination of cinemas,

dance-halls and shops selling alcohol and pork.

 

The Muslim community in France is well on the way to becoming a millet, a

state within a state. The only substantive goal still outstanding is the

implementation of Islamic law (shari’a) instead of French law.

 

Muslims in France have by and large rejected the concept of the integration

of individuals and are working instead for the integration of communities.

The same is happening in the UK, where the concept of multiculturalism has

long been popular.

 

Two other Islamic principles are important subjects of debate amongst

contemporary Muslims. The first concerns “sacred space”. Islam is a

territorial religion. Any space once gained is considered sacred and

should belong to the umma for ever. Any lost space must be regained - even

by force if necessary. Migrant Muslim communities in the West are

constantly engaged in sacralising new areas, first the inner private spaces

of their homes and mosques, and latterly whole neighbourhoods (e.g. in

Birmingham) by means of marches and processions. So the ultimate end of

sacred space theology is autonomy for Muslims of the UK under Islamic law.

 

 

Radical Muslims hope for the re-establishment of the Caliphate, abolished

by Atatürk in 1924. The possibility of a Southern Europe Caliphate and a

North Sea Caliphate has been raised.

 

The other important principle is the classic Islamic division of the world

into Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) where Muslims rule and Dar al-Harb

(the house of war). The sinister name for non-Muslim territory indicates

that Muslims have an obligation to wage war until it becomes Dar al-Islam.

There is much debate within Islam today as to whether or not the West is

Dar al-Harb. Non-Muslims can be thankful for alternatives such as Dar

al-Sulh (House of Truce) and Dar al-‘Ahd (House of Treaty).

 

Some radical British Muslims used to believe in a “covenant of security”

which forbids Muslims living in the UK from engaging in military action

within the country. Preposterous though it seems, they held that, were it

not for this “covenant”, they would be duty-bound to attack the majority

community. Most now believe the covenant to be null and void because of

the UK’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

But the most radical of all hold that the covenant of security applied only

to Muslims who had sought refuge in Britain, not to those who were born

here. In the words of Hassan Butt, “They [the British-born] owe nothing to

the Government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to

be protected by Britain.”

 

In Britain we have already many examples of Muslim violence. Some are

within the community – ethnic violence such as Kurds against Pakistanis in

Peterborough or so-called “honour killings”. Some are between Muslims and

other communities such as the blacks vs Asian Muslims in Birmingham or the

armed black Muslim gang-members in south London threatening to kill those

who will not convert to Islam. Will we see the same patterns of sectarian

violence as in Pakistan, the homeland of so many British Muslims? Shias and

Sunnis killing each other, and the persecution of Ahmadiyyas by Sunnis?

 

 

Most alarming of all is the prospect of Muslim secessionist violence in the

UK as in Kosovo, the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere (Huntington’s

much-reviled “bloody borders of Islam”). Now this is happening –

apparently – in France. A radical Muslim preaching at Hyde Park Corner on

6th November called for what had happened in France to repeated here. He

urged all Muslims to move into Muslim areas, after which any churches would

be expelled. He told his audience that Europe had once been Muslim and

called on them to make it Muslim again.

 

Many British cities already have concentrated Muslim communities.

Conservative estimates based on census returns indicate that Bradford had a

Muslim population of just under 49,000 in 1991, rising to over 75,000 in

2005. But Sher Azam, President of the Bradford Council of Mosques, claims

that 100,000 Muslims in Bradford attend mosque each week, suggesting a

total Muslim population in Bradford far in excess of this. Whatever the

true figures, it is clear that within a few years, Bradford and many other

British cities will have Muslim majorities. It is also clear that the

often-quoted figure of 1.6 million for the total British Muslim population

must be a gross underestimate.

 

Islamic enclaves would be defined by Islamic values, education, politics,

religious practice and above all law. They would be “cleansed” of any

non-Muslim presence. This cleansing is already beginning by means of

threats and violence to isolated churches in Muslim-majority areas. Even

Islamic law is already semi-established, in that a multitude of shari’a

councils and shari’a courts exist which deal with family issues,

effectively creating an unofficial parallel legal system within the UK.

 

 

Unless the multiculturalist policy, which has been indirectly facilitating

the separatist agenda of radical Islamists, is reversed immediately, we

shall wake up and find we have sleepwalked into a situation of apartheid

and segregation. If we sleep long enough we may even wake up to find

that, like Paris, London is burning. Or that we are living in an Islamic

state.

[mollag]

Many things are written, not all are true and much of what you show does not add up, ghettos are a fact of life for most immigrant communities, and they last as long as assimilation takes, usually a generation. This is historically the way things occur. This does not make them a threat or a takeover method though some may wish to use them as such.

The writers you are quoting are fringe to say the least, they are not representetive of the whole of Islam and i think that this country and the USA in particular are demonising muslims as a convenient scapegoat for their foreign policy failings, now where has that happened before.

As i have said, i speak with muslims, i attend muslim weddings, i speak with Imans and i can assure you, they would look in horror at the way they are depicted in the west, they do not want convert us, that is a thing christianity does to other religions, they respect and live in peace with other religions.

I flew to Istanbul at xmas and the plane was mainly filled with hasidic jews who have lived and worked the gold market in Istanbul for centuries, that could not occur if muslims were as intolerant as you say..

 

I have no doubt Roq that we of the west are the aggressors, we are the ones killing muslims in their homelands, and have been for hundreds of years, stop our aggression and theft, problem gone.

[Rog]

Many things are written, not all are true and much of what you show does not add up, ghettos are a fact of

Many things are written, not all are true and much of what you show does not add up, ghettos are a fact of life for most immigrant communities, and they last as long as assimilation takes, usually a generation. This is historically the way things occur. This does not make them a threat or a takeover method though some may wish to use them as such.

 

If we were only dealing with immigration then I would agree --- but we are not.

 

The influx of people especially many of those from Asia who are mohammedan is not immigration – that’s what we see the Sikhs and Hindu’s from the region doing – it’s colonisation.

 

There is no wish to integrate, no wish to disperse, no wish to adopt to the ways of the host country, in fact only a want to create islamic colonies in line with what is being warned about. THAT is the reality.

 

The writers you are quoting are fringe to say the least, they are not representetive of the whole of Islam and i think that this country and the USA in particular are demonising muslims as a convenient scapegoat for their foreign policy failings, now where has that happened before.

 

The writers that I quote are on the fringe but for one reason only –the reality of what is taking place is not yet realised by the majority but thankfully there are now growing numbers of people who ARE realising just what is taking place. This is not about demonising mohammedans nor about diverting attention from a foreign policy that is actually trying to address the threat to our world – for that si what it really is – it is about exposing an ideology that is utterly alien to our way of life, our values, our aspirations, and our freedoms.

 

As i have said, i speak with muslims, i attend muslim weddings, i speak with Imans and i can assure you, they would look in horror at the way they are depicted in the west, they do not want convert us, that is a thing christianity does to other religions, they respect and live in peace with other religions.

I flew to Istanbul at xmas and the plane was mainly filled with hasidic jews who have lived and worked the gold market in Istanbul for centuries, that could not occur if muslims were as intolerant as you say..

 

You know very little about the REALITY and DEPTH of islam. You may well have met a number of mohammedans and found them nice decent people as I have also. In the same way I have met more than a few Christians (and Jews!) who are dyed in the wool bastards. The issue is not the people, it is the ideology that they follow to varying degrees. THAT is what we must avoid letting get any further foothold in the West. THAT is what must be turned back, either that or isolated.

 

As for the coexistence of non-islamic groups within islam, that is another not well understood issue. These people were = and still are - subject to horrendous restrictions and subjected to a significantly higher tax and lived in a very temporary arrangement indeed.

 

Religion of peace? That would make a cat laugh.

 

You and others should also bear in mind that islam is (as far as I know) the ONLY ‘religion’ that not only advocates the telling of lies but under some circumstances actually directs that it should be done.

 

And I can quote chapter and verse to prove that statement of fact.

 

I have no doubt Roq that we of the west are the aggressors, we are the ones killing muslims in their homelands, and have been for hundreds of years, stop our aggression and theft, problem gone.

 

Then your views of the world and knowledge of history are at the very least skewed. The death toll on both sides is massive and the antagonism is and has been that conducted by islamic forces and conduct or as at present that which has been the response to islamic activities. What’s more the ‘problem’ of the islamic imperative to convert the world will NEVER be gone whilst islam has any standing or until it has achieved its aims.

 

We are now well embroiled in WW3. It kicked off 1300 years ago but it’s only in the last few years that it’s heated up.

 

Maybe the Cold War and the battles that took place by proxy between the Capitalist nations and the Communist nations, often in islamic countries, diverted attention and activities, maybe it’s the end of the cold War that has changed the scene, but WW3 it is.