‘How long before Europe falls?’ US Islamophobe asks

“Many French authorities seem bewildered and unable to deal with the uprising. What did they expect?  When a country opens its borders and allows Muslims to pour in without demanding that they accept the local culture, riots should not have been a surprise. A growing number of Muslims that have immigrated to European countries, it seems, come with no intention of blending with the locals. They have come with a purpose and that purpose is to take over the country. Many Muslim immigrants gather together, live in poverty, are unemployed and living on the dole with nothing to do but reproduce, get angry, and be taught endlessly that Islam will make it better. Of all the countries in Europe, France has probably been the most accommodating. This is its reward.”

Barbara J. Stock at Renew America, 6 November 2005 

‘Eurabia on the rampage’

Mad Mel offers her take on the French riots, drawing her inspiration from Jihad Watch and Bat Ye’Or. “Multiculturalism, the doctrine that governs Britain and Europe and which grew out of a war upon their values from within by allowing the values of minorities to trump the majority, has been applied by the west to appease an ideology that has declared war upon its values from without.”

Melanie Phillips’s Diary, 4 November 2005

Of course, the distinguishing feature of French policy is in fact that it rejects multiculturalism in favour of secular nationalism. As a number of commentators have pointed out, this is a contributory factor in the current unrest, as it is difficult for the government to address the problems of oppressed communities when officially these minority cultures do not exist – everyone is supposed to be a French citizen and by definition enjoys equal rights.

When Melanie Phillips and her fellow right-wingers rail against multiculturalism, it’s clear that what they’re really having a go at is the existence of a multicultural society rather than multiculturalism as a policy. It is essentially a racist argument against the very existence of minority communities – at least when those communities are Muslim, that is.

Fine words cannot disguise it: the clash of civilisations is real

And, needless to say, it’s not Western civilisation that’s to blame. Michael Burleigh explains: “Dialogues between civilisations, Christian, Islamic or other, are fine, but a constant part of this must be the grim reality that visited Van Gogh on a cold northern street, an event depressingly indicative of the ethnic and religious complexity of Europe. We cannot wish away the clash of civilisations.”

Times, 5 November 2005

Anti-Islam rant from Julie Burchill

Burchill“I wonder why Prince Charles seeks to big up powerful, theocratic Islam – which already controls so much land and wealth and yet will kill and kill to gain more – and not vulnerable, pluralistic Israel?” Julie Burchill asks.

Times, 5 November 2005

Robert Spencer applauds this sterling example of “anti-dhimmitude” from Burchill. “Read it all”, he urges.

Dhimmi Watch, 5 November 2005

More offensive right-wing drivel about the Paris riots

Paris“Lax immigration policies, prostration to the god of multiculturalism, and the refusal to fight fire with fire are three reasons why Muslim ‘youths’ in Paris are rioting in the streets. As I see it, the religion of Islam is inherently incompatible with the concept of individual liberty, a crucial component of western countries. It’s no accident that a culture like the West and a nation like the United States were envisioned and created by people who were either Christians and/or biblically literate and/or respected the Christian tradition. In countries under Islamic law, there’s no such idea as ‘individual liberty’. You’re either a Muslim or in danger of having your throat sliced open.”

La Shawn Barber’s Corner, 3 November 2005

This analysis is wholeheartedy endorsed by Robert Spencer, who heads his post “French rioters continue to prove multiculturalist relativism a dismal failure”. It appears to have escaped Barber’s and Spencer’s attention that official state policy in France is resolutely anti-multiculturalist, requiring as it does the subordination of minority cultures to the dominant French “national” culture. But never let facts get in the way of a right-wing cliché, eh?

Jihad Watch, 3 November 2005

Right-wing deputy Philippe de Villiers, leader of the Mouvement pour la France, who has said he wants to “stop the Islamization of France”, told RTL radio that the problem stemmed from the “failure of a policy of massive and uncontrolled immigration”.

Associated Press, 3 November 2005

‘Violent Muslim youth riot for seventh day in Paris’

The link is to Fox News but the headline is all Front Page Magazine’s own.

Front Page Magazine, 3 November 2005

Robert Spencer also supplies his own headline – “French Muslims riot for seventh night running” – to a Reuters report entitled “French youths riot for seventh night running”. He explains: “The difference between the Reuters headline and mine epitomizes the difficulty the French have in facing the real dimensions of this problem. For it is ultimately not a problem of disaffected youth who just need jobs and money, but of youth who consider the French government a foreign power, and one that ultimately must be replaced by a very different kind of government.” It’s suprising Robert doesn’t propose a headline reading: “Muslim rioters demand restoration of the Caliphate.”

Jihad Watch, 3 November 2005

And over at the BNP website we are told that “the scale of the violence by Muslim gangs is unprecedented and highlights the hatred and contempt for western society by the rioters”. This “demonstrates the folly of allowing a flood of inassimilable migrants into the heart of western cities”. In other words, an almost identical analysis to Robert Spencer’s.

BNP news article, 2 November 2005

For an alternative view see BBC News, 2 November 2005

The Islam debate in the Netherlands

On Tuesday evening, the day before the Van Gogh commemoration, a debate on Islam was held in Amsterdam. Amidst tight security, some of the most prominent participants in the continuing Dutch Islam debate came together to discuss their views.

Perhaps the most remarkable contribution came from left-wing thinker Paul Scheffer, who put forward an argument he elaborated the same day in a commentary in the NRC Handelsblad newspaper. Muslims, he said, rightfully demand freedom of religion in Europe. The enjoyment of this right to freedom of religion, however, necessarily entails the duty to defend this right for others, both fellow Muslims and non-Muslims. Paul Scheffer argues that political Islam in particular is not ready to accept this basic democratic principle and is, therefore, in need of reform.

Paul Scheffer is one of the most reasonable and moderate voices among Dutch critics of Islam. More radical ones, such as Arabist Hans Jansen and Somali-born liberal-conservative MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali, are less hopeful about the prospects for reform. They both argue that what they call “pure Islam” cannot be reconciled with the principles of democracy. In order to be democratic, Muslims therefore have to “dilute” Islam and strip it of some of its essential teachings.

According to Hans Jansen, Theo van Gogh’s murderer was primarily driven by verses of the Koran. Speaking at the debate in Amsterdam, he said: “Pure Islam has everything to do with terrorism. The Sharia advocated by its adherents always contradicts human rights”. Similar views can be regularly heard and read in the Dutch media.

Radio Netherlands, 3 November 2005

Row as Christmas lights renamed

Christmas is bannedA decision to call Christmas lights “Winter Lights” in south London has been condemned as showing a “total lack of respect” for Christians.

Advertisements for the switch-on of the lights in multi-cultural Lambeth have renamed them, apparently for fear of offending other faiths.

Tory councillor Bernard Gentry told the BBC: “Christmas appears to have been cancelled in our borough”.

BBC News, 2 November 2005

However, a council spokesman was quoted as making the not unreasonable point: “The term winter lights simply reflects the fact that a number of religious festivals take place over the winter period when the lights are switched on.”

The Times, 2 November 2005

Predictably, this produced the usual Islamophobic response in the right-wing press, with the Express splashing the story under the headline “Christmas is Banned: It Offends Muslims”. In fact the other obvious winter festival involving the display of lights is Diwali. So it would appear that the change of terminology was motivated more by the desire to avoid offending Hindus. And why not? You can imagine the outcry from the Tory press if the winter lights used at Christmas were described as “Diwali lights”.

‘Condi says Islam is a religion of peace and love’

“While I never imagined Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be a conservative, I used to think she was vaguely connected to reality. Her October 25th speech at an Iftaar dinner (marking the end of Ramadan) disabused me of that notion. It was an exercise in crescent-kissing to put even her boss to shame. Upping the ante on Western Muslim mania, madam secretary promoted Islam from religion of peace to ‘religion of love and peace’. (You always hurt the ones you love?) Islam’s love letters usually come with TNT attached….

“One who shares Condi’s pro-Prophet euphoria is the House of Windsor’s Dumbo. Prince Charles is heading here to lecture us on the need for greater acceptance of the swellest religion ever. Re: Islam, ‘I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational’, the Prince of Wales maintains. Did Neville Chamberlain take too confrontational an approach to the Third Reich?”

Don Feder at ChronWatch, 1 November 2005