A Report on the Counterjihad Summit

Counterjihad Brussels 2007 was planned and coordinated by the Center for Vigilant Freedom in order to bring together various European groups — members of political parties, interest groups, bloggers, and writers — to discuss the common danger they face from radical Islam in their respective countries, share reports on the encroachment of Islam and sharia in their countries, and outline the measures being used to resist it.

Counterjihad Brussels 2007

The event was more than just a talk-fest, with the second day of the conference dedicated to working groups.

The role of CVF in all of this was to act as the network cable and routers for all the different groups that are already grappling with the issue of the Islamization of Europe. We are just one such group performing this function; others such as SIOE are also working all across Europe for the same ends. We applaud and support all the networks of people who are striving towards the common goal.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The first day of the conference met at the European Parliament for a combination of featured speakers and reports for each European country represented at the conference. We adjourned and reconvened at dinner in the Flemish Parliament building for additional speakers, the award to Bat Ye’or, and informal discussion and networking.


1.   Keynote speeches

“Eurabia — How Far has it gone?”
Bat Ye’or

“Creeping Dhimmitude at the United Nations”
David Littman

2.   Country reports

Ten-minute summaries with statements of problems, current and planned activity

  a.   Belgium (Paul Belien/Filip Dewinter)   b.   Germany (Stefan Herre)   c.   France (Nidra Poller)   d.   UK (Gerard Batten)   e.   Sweden (Ted Ekeroth/Reinhard — FOMI)   f.   Denmark (Lars Hedegaard)   g.   Norway (Jens Anfindsen)   h.   Finland (KGS)   i.   Netherlands (Johannes Jansen)   j.   Italy (Adriana Bolchini Gaigher)   k.   Switzerland (Arnaud Dotezac)   l.   Romania (Traian Ungureanu)   m.   Austria (Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff)
3.   Working Lunch
4.   What can we learn from Israel’s ongoing fight with terrorism? (video, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Dr Arieh Eldad, member of Israeli Knesset
5.   From Dawa to Jihad (presentation is not public, but here is a video interview, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director, Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and of the Barnabas Fund
6.   Opposing Jihadism
Dr. Marc Cogen, professor of International Law, Ghent University
7.   The War Against Jihad : Understanding the adversary (presentation not public)
Sam Solomon, ex-Muslim and shariah law expert, author of the “Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding”
8.   Reception and Dinner

Islam — Is it the real problem? (video, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
Robert Spencer

The First and Last Enemy — Jew-Hatred in Islam
Andrew Bostom

In an earlier post I excerpted from Bat Ye’or’s opening speech in the European Parliament. Below are some additional excerpts from several speakers. Full texts of these and other speakers are available at Counterjihad Europa, as are the speakers’ biographies.

From David Littman’s speech:
– – – – – – – –

I would like to start with a prologue. In January 1971 I discovered a rare gem in the library of St. Anthony’s College, Oxford and — encouraged by Professor Bernard Lewis, then in London — I co-edited a slim volume, Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel under the pseudonym, “D.F. Green.” (1)

It contains a brief introduction and extracts from 25 lectures pronounced by senior Muslim scholars in 1968 at The Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, under the auspices of Al Azhar University. These scholarly Islamic transactions were published in 1970 (in Arabic and English) by the Egyptian Government Printing Offices, thus providing official backing.

Forty years ago it was disheartening to witness the principal religious leaders of the Arab-Muslim world convening for the sake of glorifying a Jihad ideology and vilifying another religion and an entire people, shunning neither expressions of abuse, nor the worst invectives — with lecture titles such as, The Jews are the Enemies of Human Life as is Evident from their Holy Book. The Supreme Judge of Jordan spoke on The Jihad is the Way to Gain Victory, and various forms of Jihad were strongly recommended by speakers. Jews are frequently denoted as the “enemies of Allah” or the “enemies of humanity.” This latter expression is even to be found in the opening speech of Egypt’s then vice-president. The Mufti of the Lebanon preferred the expression — “dogs of humanity”. (2)

These clerics affirmed then — as do others nowadays, and also the Iranian and Syrian presidents — that they differentiate meticulously between Zionism and Judaism and are against Zionism, but not against Judaism. There cannot be a more trenchant disproof than the arguments used at this 1968 Conference. Zionism’s odium is described as emanating from the perversity of Judaism. Zionists and Jews are treated synonymously. And this theological mindset has remained intact 40 years later — even greatly magnified — yet it is minimized by those who still refuse to see with their eyes and hear with their ears the clear message from Syria and Iran, from Hizbollah and Hamas, and from the Jihadist hosts .

Perhaps it’s time to republish a fourth edition, titled: Muslim Theologians on Jihad and on Jews and Israel — in the hope that readers may learn that today’s ‘culture of hate’ and of Jihad is nothing new.

Dr. Abdul Halim Mahmoud, then Head of the Islamic Research Academy and Rector of Al Azhar University, later published Jihad and Victory in which he made the same point about the Jews according to Scripture: (3)

Allah commands the Muslims to fight the friends of Satan wherever they are found. Among the friends of Satan — indeed among the foremost friends of Satan in our age — are the Jews. The Jews have laid down a program for the destruction of humanity, through subverting religion and ethics. They have already begun their control of the mass media, and their propaganda. They have falsified knowledge, violated standards of literary truth, and put conscience in the service of breaking down to implement this program with their money, and destroying humanity. As a consequence of such activities, the Jews have succeeded in gaining control and seizing power. But Allah — praise be to Him — will wreck the edifice that the Jews have built and eliminate their destructive machinations and double-dealing.

On 4 April 2002, Al-Azhar Grand Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi — the highest ranking cleric in the Sunni world — referred to the Jews as “the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs.” (3)

And fatwas by Muslim Brotherhood Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi use racist, genocidal language. (4)

In any counter-Jihad context, it would be advisable to reiterate, ad nauseam, hard irrefutable facts. For instance, the slogan of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement, founded in 1928, which is the blueprint for all the “Jihadist Martyrdom” Bombers states: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” This is virtually identical to article 8 of the 1988 Hamas Charter 60 years later, whose article 2 states that it is “one of the wings of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement in Palestine.“ (5)

From Lars Hedegaard’s country report on Denmark:

It is by now quite clear that the Danish cartoon crisis that erupted a few months after Jyllands-Posten’s publication of the Muhammed drawings on 30 September 2005 was deliberately triggered to test if Denmark was ripe for a take-over in the sense that the Danes were willing to bow to sharia law and accept their place as dhimmies.

Bernard Lewis went even further and observed that the death sentences against the Danish cartoonists and editors were a sign that the Islamic strategists were already considering Denmark to be part of the Dar al-Islam where the sharia applies.

As subsequent research has revealed, it is equally evident that the main instigator of the troubles in the shape of embassy and flag burnings, violent demonstrations, death threats and boycotts were Muslim states in cahoots with The Muslim Brotherhood.

I shall refrain from speculating as to why the leaders of the umma thought of Denmark as a soft spot ready to be conquered. Perhaps they had been looking for a suitable place to show off their global reach and decided that it might as well be Denmark since it presented itself as a target at the right time.

Recently the entire charade has been repeated following the Swedish artist Lars Vilks’ publication of a drawing of a prophet (he didn’t say it was Muhammed) as a dog in a traffic circle. The same death threats were issued although the street demonstrations were not as well organised or violent as in the case of Denmark.

Interestingly the Swedish experience sheds new light on the Danish case. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was roundly blamed and vilified for his refusal to meet with the ambassadors from Muslim states who would like to lecture him on the proper “tone” in the press and demanded an official apology. Rasmussen’s unwillingness to see the Muslim emissaries was then cited by Danish apologists for the imams as the true cause of the subsequent troubles. Had the Prime Minister only agreed to listen to the well-founded grievances of the concerned ambassadors, matters would never have got out of hand.

Well, the Swedish prime minister did receive a deputation of Muslim ambassadors to discuss internal Swedish affairs and he got precisely the same result as his Danish colleague – death threats.

The refusal of the Danish Prime Minister to issue a formal apology for activities that were perfectly legal under Danish law to countries that do not allow freedom of expression may be seen as proof that Denmark did not surrender. But the picture is mixed.

If we look at most members of the Danish elites – among writers, journalists, academics, the Lutheran Church and several political parties – particularly on the left – they were only too eager to apologise and publicly condemn Jyllands-Posten for using free speech for purposes for which it had never been intended, i.e. to cause dismay among Muslims. While paying lip service to the principle of free speech, these elites were perfectly willing to accept guidelines for its appropriate use issued by the self-proclaimed spokesmen for “1.6 billion Muslims”.

Most disturbing of all was the fact that leaders of the Danish security police, known as the PET, reacted to the well-orchestrated onslaught against Danish interests at home and abroad by lauding the calming and benevolent influence of the Danish imams and declaring its intentions to collaborate more closely with them in future. The very people who had been instrumental in stirring up trouble by travelling around in the Middle East showing pictures that had not been printed in any Danish newspaper – including a photo that they claimed to be showing Muhammed as a pig, but was in reality a photo of a man participating in a pig-squealing contest in France.

The most important outcome of the Muhammed affair – undoubtedly Denmark’s most serious foreign policy crisis since 1945 – was that by and large the common man stood firm in his defence of free speech. Several subsequent opinion polls have confirmed that despite some erosion of support for Jyllands-Posten and the right to offend and ridicule religion, there is still a majority of unbowed Danes behind our old freedoms. We are thus faced with a truly remarkable state of affairs, where those who make a living out of writing are more than willing to stay within guidelines dictated by representatives of powers where teenage homosexuals are whipped and hanged in public, whereas the common folks defend the very freedom of speech for which the professionals have little use.

The resilience of the commoners makes Denmark stand out among so many of our neighbours as a country to watch.

From Andrew Bostom’s after-dinner speech:

Antisemitism did not exist in the traditional Islamic world… Antisemitism is, in fact, a relatively new phenomenon in the Arab world, gaining ground particularly since the eruption of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the mid-twentieth century. Nazi-style antisemitic books and publications have been produced openly. For example, there are at least nine different Arabic translations of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, which was translated into Arabic for the first time in the 1920s…The development of European-style antisemitism in the Arab countries is related to three major factors: first penetration during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of a variety of European ideologies and concepts into the Arab world, among them antisemitism; second, the collapse of traditional political systems and of the loyalties and practices associated with them, giving way to the emergence of nationalistic government structures less tolerant in their treatment of religious, ethnic, and ideological minorities; and third, and most crucial, the development of the conflict over the domination of Palestine, beginning with Jewish resettlement in the late nineteenth century, followed by the establishment of the State of Israel and the ensuing Arab-Israeli conflict…Themes borrowed from European Christendom were adapted by incorporating references in them.

But this very flawed construct ignores primary, uniquely Islamic components of Muslim Jew hatred, both past and present. Indeed, for the Muslim masses, basic Islamic education in the Koran, hadith, and sira (earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad) may create an immutable superstructure of Jew hatred on to which non-Muslim sources of Jew hatred are easily grafted.

The uncomfortable examination of Islamic doctrines and history is required in order to understand the enduring phenomenon of Muslim Jew hatred, which dates back to the origins of Islam. We can no longer view Muslim Jew hatred as a “borrowed phenomenon,” seen exclusively, or even primarily, through the prism of Nazism and the Holocaust, the tragic legacy of Judeophobic Christian traditions, or “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” from Czarist Russia.

Below are some excerpts from a few of the speakers’ biographies.

David Littman:

Born in London, he graduated in history and political science from Trinity College Dublin (B.A. with Honors and M.A), followed by postgraduate studies at the Institute of Archaeology (London University). In 1959 he married and he and his wife moved to Switzerland where they settled. In 1971, under the pseudonym, “D. F. Green”, he compiled and edited jointly with Yehoshafat Harkabi, Arab Theologians on Jews and Israel (English/ French/German, 1971-1976), and published historical articles in academic periodicals from 1975-1985. From the mid-1970s he translated, from French into English, many studies by Bat Ye’or on the condition of Jews and Christians under Islam (“dhimmitude”), co-translating three of her books. Since 1986, he has been active at UN human rights bodies in Geneva as a non-governmental organization (NGO) human rights defender, known for addressing many taboo subjects. He is currently the accredited representative of two NGOs: the Association for World Education (AWE) and the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), recently addressing the UN Council on Human Rights four times at its Sixth Session in September 2007.

Gerard Batten:

Gerard Batten was a founder member of the UK Independence Party in September 1993 and the first party secretary from 1994 to 1997. He fought local elections, a by-election, a European election, and two general elections as a UKIP candidate before being elected as the MEP for London in June 2004. He also serves as a member of UKIP’s National Executive Committee. In July 04 he was appointed to the Security & Defence Committee of the European Parliament and as the UKIP spokesman on Security & Defence.

Lars Hedegaard:

Lars Hedegaard is a historian, author, journalist and President of The Free Press Society — a Danish organization founded in 2005 for the protection of free speech. He is the co-founder and co-editor of the Free Press Society’s web magazine www.sappho.dk specializing in articles and commentaries on Islam, free speech and Western civilization that most of the mainstream press will not touch. He is a former Editor-in-Chief of the Copenhagen daily newspaper Information. Since 2000 he has been a commentator with the national daily Berlingske Tidende and a frequent contributor to radio and television programs.

With degrees in history (University of Aarhus) and English (University of Copenhagen) he has worked for publishing houses in the USA and Denmark and for several journals and newspapers. He is the author of a number of books on contemporary world history. During the 1990s he worked for the Nordic Council of Ministers, specializing in North European area studies. Since then he has devoted most of his time to the study of Islam’s impact on European and Western civilization, on which subject he has published a large number of articles in the Danish Press.

Adriana Bolchini Gaigher:

Journalist and national president O.D.D.I.I. Observatory of Italian and International Law. Director of the on-line magazine Lisistrata. She is also a campaigner for social problems and participates in an independent capacity in the administrative elections of the PSI. (Partito Socialista Italiana). In 1978, she was a victim of a terrorist attack carried out by the terrorist group Prima Linea in Milan.

She is active in the social and political field, writing reviews on problems in the cities and she founded the on-line magazine, Lisistrata and an associated blog, plus hosting a network of various other websites. Some years before 2001, she began to notice problems with immigrants, particularly Muslims and began to investigate. She learned about the Muslim Brotherhood, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the terrorist strategies of Wahabbi Sunnis and its associated anti-western hatred and the conflict arising from the Khomeini revolution with the appearance of martyrs and suicide bombers which led to the massacres of the American and French military in Lebanon. After the 11 September, the nature of the Muslim invasion became an incontrovertible truth. Finally she realised that Italy is becoming infiltrated by Islamic traditions and usage, leading towards the application of Sharia, to which she is vehemently opposed and for which she has received death threats.

Aryeh Eldad:

Prof. Aryeh Eldad, M.D. (אריה אלדד‎, also spelt Arie Eldad) is a member of the Israeli Knesset and a physician. He belongs to the Moledet party, part of the National Union list in the Israeli Knesset. Eldad is a professor and head of the plastic surgery and burns unit at the Hadassah Medical Center hospital in Jerusalem. He studied medicine at Tel Aviv University, where he earned his doctorate. He served as the chief medical officer and was the senior commander of the Israeli Defence Forces medical corps for 25 years and reached a rank of Tat Aluf (Brigadier General). He is renowned worldwide for his treatment of burns and won the Evans Award from the American Burns Treatment Association. He heads the Ethics committee of the Knesset. He is head of the sub-committee for anti corruption struggle, member of labor welfare and health committee, head of sub committees for organ transplantation and Para-Medical Professions. He is a member of the Science and Technology committee, and head of the Lobby for Anti-corruption struggle.

A reminder: the complete text of the above selections, along with much more material from the conference, can be found at Counterjihad Europa.

16 thoughts on “A Report on the Counterjihad Summit

  1. Although hating another human being should be banned, the Jewish religion and language asks for hate. A non-jew is called a goy, plural goyim, meaning cattle! Who wants to be called that without feeling bad? Then the infamous prayer on the day of atonement, the Kol Nidr. Please read the text of that prayer sung three times in the congregation at the Synagogue. All vows, contracts and promises made in the coming year are beforehand rendered nul and void! With other words, the word of a Jew to a goy has no binding value whatoever! Is it strange that there is anti Jewish sentiment going around? Is the Jewish religion that finds its own members superior to all others not the culprit?

  2. captainzen

    Is the Jewish religion that finds its own members superior to all others not the culprit?


    The culprit is projection: looking for flaws in the other instead of beginning with our own.

  3. Captainzen – how many Jews have demanded we conform to their guidelines – or else (like muslims)? How many Jews have flown planes into our skyscrapers? Taken diplomats and professors hostage? How many Jews have beheaded any hostages?

    Goyem? Is that the best you can come up with? Ever use the word ni**er? spi*k? wop? cracker? chinK? I’m certain you’ll recall using a derogatory or racist term at some point in your life.

    About that prayer. . .I’ll take a jab at answering for it . . .

    From a book titled: “JIHAD in the West”. A prescient work by Paul Fregosi as it was published pre 9/11 in 1998.

    One paragraph found midway down page 22 is haunting . . .

    The Jihad originates in the Koranic teaching and was practiced by Muhammad in his lifetime against Jewish and pagan tribes in the Arabian peninsula, and soon after his death against the Persians and against the Christian peoples of the Byzantine empire, Syria, and Palestine. Hundreds of years later it terrified Europe. “From the fury of the Mahommedan, spare us, O Lord” was a prayer heard for centuries in all the churches of central and southern Europe.

    Ever heard of that marvelous harmony Jews enjoyed as dhimmis under Islamic rule. Could the Jewish prayer you refer to have anything to do with the humiliating contracts Jews and other ‘people of the book’ were forced to take in order to survive?

    History has to be burned into the imagination before it can be received by reason – Thomas Macaulay 1847
    GoV – thank you for providing the details from these events. I listened to the audio provided by Atlas and have transcribed the tape –
    From Dawa to Jihad (presentation is not public, but here is a video interview, H/T Atlas Shrugs)
    Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director, Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and of the Barnabas Fund

    Transcript follows:

    PG (Atlas): Hello, I’m here with Patrick Sookhdeo, am I saying that correctly?

    PS: Sookhdeo

    PG: Sookhdeo. You just gave a very powerful presentation at this conference, and I wanted to discuss with you – just how far infiltration of Islam is in Western societies, particularly you focused on Britain .

    PS: That’s correct. I think that its important that we separate out the countries because Islamic infiltration is dependant on a number of factors. And in some places, they have been able to make much more headway than in others. I think the UK is by far the place where they have made the most headway.

    PG: Why is that?

    PS: I think there are several reasons. I think, firstly British policy of successive governments followed a policy of multiculturalism. It was politically driven and effectively enshrined Islam. Which meant, it was politically acceptable . It was allowed to develop socially and culturally. I think thats a very big area , the multicultural. I think the second where the majority of Muslims came from, they came from the Indian sub-continent. British policy during the days of the hiraj was to allow the Muslims a degree of autonomy in terms of ‘how’ they could live out their religious lives, known as communalism. And so, when they came here, although initially they were part of society, gradually they began to develop much more, this communal position furthered by a British policy of multiculturalism. And I think that in the last forty years, Islam has rediscovered it’s roots. Classical Islam has rediscovered the Qur’an, the hadith, it’s Sharia and they have discovered an Islamic identity. I think these things together has projected them very much into a community which is distinctive.

    PG: So you would say that they have, not a choke hold but a strong hold in the UK.

    PS: They have created blocks, you could say power blocks from which they can influence. And those power blocks are geographical. Where, in areas they form the majority – also in society, where they can lead a society in matters of government, where they can seek to shape governement policy. So, I would say that they are present in many different aspects of British life.

    PG: How did they do that? What was their strategy? It wasn’t by accident, certainly . .?

    PS: No no. It was very well thought out and fortunately, many had not done work on this. Back in 1979, there was the Islam in Europe conference, and one of their basic strategies that arose was that Muslims should NOT integrate as individuals in society but rather as communities. So they emphasised the development of Muslim communities – in other words, they would become majority in given areas and then they would go to the next stage which was to engage the political bodies in that area. If you had to reduce their strategy over the past 30 years it would firstly the creation of an Islamic consciousness, and all muslim women would wear the hijab, everyone eats halal meat – those very basic things that gives visibility to the Muslim community. They know “who” they are. And their Sharia, their law, it now becomes operative within. Secondly, to create organizations and institutions. For example, an Islamic Woman’s Society, an Islamic legal society, an Islamic educational society . . .now, each of those societies sits down and works out it’s principles and sets “what are our objectives” . “where do we want to go”, “how are we going to get there”. “how does Islam fit within this” and “where does our law come in”. Once they have that in place, they move to the third stage which is to say to their local authority “look, we have lots of Muslim children in school, should not the school cater for our children, in terms of dress, in terms of ramadan, in terms of food, in terms of education ?” They’d say, politically, we’re here, should we not be present on national days , should we not be a part of everything. So what has happened is they’ve engaged the political structures at local, regional and national levels. Islam has now been accepted and brought into the center. That engaging also had to do with the media, social, cultural, religious bodies all operating in tandem so their presense was known, it was felt. And then there is the final stage which is the threat. If you don’t give way to what we want, then we are not to blame if you are attacked. Now in England, we have had our 7/7 and sadly, Muslim leaders came out and said, “It’s really British government policy is to blame because you/we are in Iraq killing Muslims. You can’t blame our young people. In other words, they are saying to the government, ” you have got to follow our foreign policy . We will tell you what to do”. So you’ve got that fourth stage which is where violence is threatened or utilized.

    PG: Now, in America, this is starting to happen. I’m on the “Stop the Madrassa” coalition. There is a school in Brooklyn, an Arabic school and we’re trying to stop it. But it’s certainly not the first, and I can see in the UK, they’ve been very successful, have they not? Are there a great many Muslim schools, public schools?

    PS: Very much so. In fact, . the worrying feature is that our present Labour Government has decided to fund at least one hundred Muslim schools. So you have independant Muslim schools, thats outside of the state funding.

    PG: Yes, we have that too

    PS: And the government is now saying, “we need now to fund them and to bring them into the state sector as Muslim schools – which I think is an unwise decision to take.

    PG: And so , what do you think is the next step in the UK? What happens next?

    PS: I think the worrying factor is how far these communities are going to go in terms of some kind of autonomy. If they form majorities within given geographical areas. . . that is already happening. . .

    PG: That is happening.

    PS: And if non-Muslims are being pushed out, if they create their own institutions, which they’ve done. If they’re able to Islamicize police forces, which they’ve already done – and capture political power – At what point do they say these areas are now going to be under Sharia, and we will determine “who” comes in and “what” can take place within? Let me give you two illustrations. Dogs. Muslims are currently saying their hadiths, traditions say that dogs are unclean and should not be in these areas. So what happens if you have a dog? Another is alcohol. What happens if you have a taxi driver who is this Muslim, he picks up somebody who has alcohol at this alcohol shop. Does that mean the alcohol shop will have to close down? Or advertising. One may not like some advertising if they advertise beer or scantily clad ladies. Should they all be removed? So it has huge impact on what happens within a community. My concern for the states, I think, is not just madrassas which are developing, but actually Islamic communities of the type which we have seen develop in the UK.

    PG: Like Dearbornistan.

    PS: Exactly. That is now happening in the states.

    PG: Now, if George Bush could have done something differently after 9/11. Did he do anything that you think could have been done differently? Done better? More effectively? Or is this just a runaway train?

    PS: I think Mr. Bush’s strategy, and may I add, I doubt any other incumbent would have done it differently because they had to safeguard the American people. That was the priority.

    PG: yes

    PS: And it meant that they had to develop Homeland Security for the first time join up all the dots and all the security agencies working together properly, good immigration laws with much greater emphasis on counter terrorism. I, personally, think he did the right thing. But I think secondly, he had to go after the perpetrators. And so, it was right that the Taliban, al qaeda was attacked in their back yards, so to speak, in Afghanistan.. And I don’t think Mr.Bush could be faulted . Again, as I said, any incumbent would have done the same .

    PG: Do you think the train has left the station?

    PS: I think in the UK, it has. Because the Muslim community has been allowed to develop in such a way that it’s going to be very difficult for outsiders to influence it. It could be, she could be influenced from within. It would mean the Muslim community leaders standing up and saying, “Look, we want to come back into the station and we want to be a part of life “. Thats a decision they have got to take. But if they continue to preach separation, the development of a parallel society, old Indian version of communalism, then I think it is very very difficult to see a way ahead.

    PG: Why would they back peddle when they have been so successful? I don’t understand. I mean, what would be the objective? They are achieving their objectives this way.

    PS: I think that you would, are not happy . . .there are some young professionals who have embraced Western values, particularly separation of religion from state. Internal, private law rather than public. Really they’d appreciate a liberal Western society. And I think people like that obviously do not want an Islamic state. I think there are some Muslim leaders who are sitting down and saying, Look we have fled from rigid societies, do we want to replicate those societies here? Is it possible for Islam to adjust to a contemporary Western society? So I think we’ve got those thinkers. The real dilemma is, the communities are conservative by nature, even though they are traditionalists. Their leadership tends more the hard line. They’re the Jamaat, the Muslim Brotherhood. Their leaders are actually saying, “well, we got what we wanted, and it’s taking us where we want. And more than that Western society, secular society is so corrupt, we don’t want that! We want our children and our families to grow up in our own communities, with our own religion and with our own law ” In other words, we want a Muslim street. That’s where the tension is going to be.

    PG: And this Muslim Street, do you think it would welcome Christians and Jews and infidels? It’s not in the book, Patrick.

    PS: Well, thus far in the UK, they are saying they don’t want them because they have had anecdotal evidence of people being pushed out of those areas of conflict and violence . And the Muslim Street is the Muslim Street under Sharia, otherwise they are going to create zones into which non-Muslims are not going to be allowed into.

    PG: I think that is very dangerous . Your opinions on Turkey entering into the European Union. Do you have any thoughts on that?

    PS: Very much so. Turkey is a member of NATO and a very valued member. I can see a place where Turkey, in terms of economics and trade can have a relationship with the European Union. For Turkey to become a full member of the European Union would pose real challenges to Europe. The size of the Turkish population by 2020, it could get up to a hundred million, that’s about a quarter of Europe would be of an Islamic position. The present government is moving away from the secular state and is moving towards an Islamist state. Europe is very weak in terms of its foundations, it’s Judeo-Christian basis is very weak

    PG: which makes it so very easy to infiltrate.

    PS: Precisely. I would be uneasy with a fully integrated Turkey into the European Union because I believe it could pose real difficulties for Europe for the future . If, there are those who have suggested that if Europe [Turkey] enters the European Union by 2020, Europe could have as much as 45% Muslim.

    PG: Wow.

    PS: It begins to pose real difficulties for a country which would then be shaped by Islam.

    PG: And in regards to the global jihad, by the way, I just purchased your book, “The Global Jihad”, is that available yet, is that on Amazon yet?

    PS: It’s Amazon UK. It’s being published in the US next month.

    PG: Maybe we’ll do a show with you when that comes out and help you sell some books.

    PS: Thank you.

    PG: How Israel fail? Israel, most assuredly failed. Not always, not throughout history. But you have to say the current leadership is weak. What would you have done differently? If you were advising. . .

    PS: Yes. Are you thinking in the context of Hizb’ allah?

    PG: Yes.

    PS: I think if one is going to war then one needs to decide to pursue it absolutely or not at all. Secondly, there is a temptation now to use air power because no one wants more body bags. And air power by itself is not sufficient. Thirdly, the issue of ground troops was very significant and how far they would move, but more than that, Israel underestimated the fighting capabilities of Hizb’ allah. She will need to take seriously an irregular force fighting asymetrically and she will have to look at how she can engage in that, particularly if her air power takes out buildings from which insurgents can hide bombs. I think the whole strategy needs to be re-looked.
    PG: Well, thank you very much and good luck.

    PS: Thank you so much too.

    PG: Well, thank you very much and good luck.

    PS: Thank you so much too.

  4. Um… actually “goyim” means “nations”. The israelites were referred to in the bible as “goy gadol”, a great or numerous nation, and “goy israel”, the nation of israel. They even have a song called “goy israel” in their prayerbooks. Are they calling themselves cattle?

  5. Whenever the Bible refers to non-Jews in the Old Testament, it refers to them as “the nations.”

    Isiaiah speaks of “the nations” (lit. goy) being brought into the covenant in the future.

    Here’s the definition of the word via Strong’s concordance.

    Here’s its usage.

  6. heroyalwhyness:

    Please limit comments to about 5 or 6 paragraphs.

    The one you put up is 9 pages, 2,646 words.

    While they are perfectly accceptable words, there are simply too many of them for a comment.

    No one clicking on to this page will read anything so lengthy…it’s just one of those blog things: comments short.


  7. Dr Zen:
    You say in your first comment that “hating another person should be banned” — but how does oneu control another’s thoughts??

    What I do control is the comments posted on my blog. And when you start blaming the Jews for 9/11, etc., your comments will be taken down.

    Civility and courtesy — or Coventry.

    You decide.

  8. Yehudit–

    When I was young, and briefly in nursing school in New Orleans, we weren’t allowed out on Friday nights unless we were going to synagogue.

    My best friend was Jewish so we signed out every night and went to temple. I must say, I learned some Yiddish rather than Hebrew…not much of which I can repeat here…

  9. heroyalwhyness —

    Dymphna did not mean to deprecate the value of your transcription. It’s an invaluable resource, which I will eventually format and post. I thank you very much for doing it.

    You can always email us with lengthy pieces like this. I have your email address somewhere, but can’t find it. 🙁

Comments are closed.