Opinion: Jumping to Conclusions

Opinion: Jumping to Conclusions

When a Norwegian terrorist set off bombs against government offices and then murdered dozens of teenagers, the media first assumed the perpetrator was a Muslim. So did I, much as I did when terrorists blew up a Belarus metro station. And for good reason: Europe has seen various mass terror attacks in recent years, and 99% of them were committed by Muslims.

In both cases, though, I was wrong. In the case of Breivik, I started suspecting this wasn't a Muslim attack when I realized all targets were related to the Labour Party. A far-right attack like that was so unexpected, though, that I didn't hazard to guess otherwise before the attacker was caught.

After a Muslim terrorist opened fire in a French Jewish school, the media assumed the perpetrator was far-right. Though I doubt we'll see too many media articles beating themselves up about jumping to conclusions, as they did when they discovered their 'Muslim terrorist' was Norwegian far-right. I'll be posting whatever such articles I find on my 'in other news' page.

It's only human to jump to conclusions, especially when those conclusions are based on facts, such as Islamic terrorism. Instead of criticizing the media, I'd like to share with you what went through my head over the past couple of weeks as this story developed.

Opinion: Some thoughts on the attack in Liege

Opinion: Some thoughts on the attack in Liege

Earlier today Nordine Amrani, a 32-year old Moroccan, committed an attack in the center of Liege. Amrani threw grenades at a bus-stop, and then started firing with a revolver.

Belgian police have ruled out links to terrorists (ie, Jihadism). Isn't it Islamophobic to equate terrorism with Muslims? This was certainly a terror attack. Belgian newspapers are speculating that Amrani wanted revenge against the justice system. But bottom line - he didn't attack the justice system. He didn't attack policemen or judges or lawyers. He attacked Belgian civilians. A group of teenagers standing at a bus-stop. The casualties include an elderly lady and a baby.

From Amrani's point of view, he was taking revenge against Belgians. Though it seems that one of the casualties of his attack, Medhi Nathan Belhadj (15), is also Moroccan. Belhadj wasn't killed for being Moroccan, he was killed for standing with other Belgians in a Belgian bus-stop.

Norway: Justifying terrorism

Norway: Justifying terrorism

Following the recent terror attack in Norway, there's been a few different responses from the right-wing side, both politicians and pundits. Though the left-wing/media reaction to them all is the same ('you're supporting terrorism'), I think there's a big difference between them:

Opinion: The Islamophobia of killing Norwegians

Opinion: The Islamophobia of killing Norwegians

Opinion: Burning books

Opinion: Burning books

Recently there's been a few cases of publicized Koran burnings - starting with an American pastor who threatened to burn the Koran, and ending with a couple of cases in France and the UK in which police started an investigation into YouTube videos.

A famous line by Heinrich Heine is often quoted in this context: "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also." The 'proof' being the Nazis, who burned books, and then burned people.

The problem with this logic is that the Nazis did not burn books in order to burn books. They burned books in order to censor ideas and opinions.

Opinion: Do moderate Muslims exist?

Opinion: Do moderate Muslims exist?

A couple of weeks ago the Guardian was all aghast about the fact that the Quilliam Foundation accused moderate peace-loving Muslims of being radicals. The assumption being that if a Muslim is working for the Scotland Yard, then he must be moderate.

It looks like a slow news day, so I thought this would be a good time to share a few thoughts on the subject.

Opinion: Does Turkey want to be an empire?

Opinion: Does Turkey want to be an empire?


Over the past few months, reporting on Turkish PM announcements in Europe, I've noticed a certain trend, which led to a nagging question: Does Turkey dream of being an empire again?

Opinion: A confession..

Opinion: A confession..

I've got a confession to make. I'm not impressed by Vilks' artwork, and his Mohammad as a dog cartoon makes me uncomfortable. Why? The obvious reason might be because I'm pro-Islamic (thanks MI5!!), but it's a bit more complicated, actually.

On Sunday I posted a news story about the cartoon in question. A Dutch news-site used the cartoon to illustrate a story about the plot to murder Vilks. The cartoon was later removed, and the site claimed this had nothing to do with Muslim pressure.

I recently started posting more pictures on my blog, and so I thought of posting a picture of this cartoon. But I didn't, for several reasons:
1. It makes me uncomfortable
2. It can be found quite easily (Google 'Vilks' and it will come out on top)
3. As part of my post, I linked to several news-sites which posted the cartoon and kept it up

I expected an onslaught of readers who would attack me for my hypocrisy. Surprisingly, only one did.

Unless I miss some deep meaning in it, the cartoon itself is an insult. There are many, many cartoons on the net of Mohammad, all drawn with one express purpose in mind: to insult. I don't see a problem with them being posted online, or used as illustrations for news stories, editorials and cartoons. But, that does not mean I have to do so, either.

Lars Vilks drew this cartoon in response to the Danish Mohammad cartoon. I'm not a big modern art fan, so maybe I can't appreciate it as much as it should be. A couple of Swedish galleries decided this cartoon does have artistic value, and that it should be exhibited. However, they later realized the 'security' implications, and kicked Vilks from the exhibition, fearing Muslim riots. At that point, it stopped being a stupid cartoon and became a symbol for Muslim censorship. Vilks wrote an opinion column and published his cartoon in the press, to make a point, and that of course led to protests and threats.

The point was made, though not the point that anybody claiming 'Islam is peace' wants to make.

After the news broke about the Muslim Jihadist plot to kill Vilks, several Swedish newspapers re-published his cartoon. They did not publish it in order to illustrate anything. They published it to make a point. The same happened in Denmark after the first plot was uncovered to kill Kurt Westergaard, the famous Mohammad cartoonist. Though after the famous axe attack, Danish newspapers did not republish the cartoons. Surveys show that the Danes are tired of this 'point making' as well.

Norway had its own Mohammad cartoon crisis, a few weeks ago, when somebody posted a link to a cartoon showing Mohammad as a pig on the PST Facebook page. The story was published in Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, together with the cartoon in question. Dagbladet didn't publish it to make a point, they published it in order to report about it. Strikes and threats of course followed.

Recently, the Tundra Tabloids discovered that the OIC published that very same Mohammad cartoon in their 'Islamophobia report'. The Danish media picked it up, followed by the Norwegians, and the OIC quickly removed the offending cartoon from their report.

But that only shows that they simply don't get it. The reason every Mohammed cartoon becomes a news story is not because they have any intrinsic value. It's because groups like the OIC make them into a story. It's because of the public outcry by offended Muslims and the constant threat of terror attacks (which so far were luckily averted) coming to 'avenge' and 'protect' Muslim honor. Europeans are not stupid. They realize that when a guy draws a cartoon it could be insulting. They might even understand the protests against it. But they also see that only response to continuous murderous attacks against cartoonists is silence from the Muslim community. Shouting 'Islamophobia!' is not going to make that go away.

'Muslim Jihadist plot' should be much more insulting than 'Mohammad is a pedophile'. Should be.

One wonders why a link posted on a Facebook page becomes top headlines and reason for concern in Norway. The answer is because Muslims all over the world made sure it would be. The fact that the OIC themselves published the cartoon just highlights their hypocrisy. But the basic hypocrisy in this issue is that this story even made it into their 'Islamophobia report'.

In the past I didn't publish many pictures on my blog, due to technical difficulties. I'm now trying to change that, and that might change my attitude towards what I post as well.

I post a lot of things I don't agree with, and I might also post pictures I don't agree with. For some reason, the 'let's see who can insult Mohammed more' type of cartoon, turned me off. I didn't feel like making a point. But, depending on circumstances, I might post such pictures in the future. If Dagbladet would have removed their story or image, for example, I would very probably have done so. If Vilks would have drawn his cartoon today, I might have posted it. I've posted various cartoons in the past on this blog.

But, frankly, I would prefer newspaper stop publishing cartoons to 'make a point' and instead do what they're supposed to be doing: report the news and serve as a platform for diverse opinions, in both cases, using the imagery necessary.

Jyllands-Posten write that the Islamists achieved a 'quarter' of a victory. But if Jyllands-Posten writes an entire 'how it unfolded' article in several languages and don't even dare show what cartoon they're talking about, it seems to me that the Islamists won 100%.

Opinion: Why don't the Jews join us?

Opinion: Why don't the Jews join us?

An orthodox Jewish reader once asked me why Islam-critics criticize EVERYTHING about Islam. Why do they criticize the religious aspects and don't just focus on violent Islamic ideology? 

Keep this question in mind as you read this.

A recent article in The Daily Telegraph brings a story which is repeated in various ways across Europe.  Malmö, Sweden, is the city with one of the highest proportion of Muslim residents, and its small Jewish community is fleeing an increase in Muslim antisemitic attacks.

Various anti-Islam, Islam-critical, counter-Jihad etc blogs and activists expect Jews to stand with them against the Muslims.  But Jews don't always do so, and, sometimes, for good reason.     

I do not deny the threat of Muslim antisemitism.  But why put the Jews on the spot?  When anti-Islam protesters wave Israeli flags, they might want to show that they're not antisemitic.  They might want to make the Muslims mad.  But what they're actually doing is focusing the hatred at the Jews.  The Jews are a tiny minority in Europe, and one which has been through quite a lot.  Why put them on the spot more than anybody else, and certainly more than any other endangered minority?

On the other hand, I do not think the only threat comes from Muslim antisemitism.

Jews face various threats, one of them being Muslim antisemitism.  Aside from that, Jews also suffer from Christian antisemitism, general European foreigner-rejection, and the possibility of genocide by proxy with the goading of the far left.  Even if they would be accepted with open arms, Jews face two much more serious threats.

The first is the threat of assimilation.  It's been called the 'Silent Holocaust'.  As Jews become more and more like their non-Jewish neighbors, as they reject ancient religious traditions and accept liberal values instead, they face the prospect of losing their Jewish identity.     

And now, another threat appears on the horizon.  Championed by the Islam-critics, European countries are starting to consider banning basic Jewish traditions.  Female modesty, boy's circumcision, kosher food, the sanctity of the Sabbath and Jewish holidays - all are being put on the chopping block.     

I've written this in the past, and I will say it again: if circumcision and kosher food would be criminalized in Europe, Orthodox Jewry would disappear from Europe almost immediately.  The core of Jewish life would disappear completely.  Non-religious Jews would stay on and keep on being Jewish, but statistics show us that their grand-grandchildren have a very small chance of identifying as Jews and an almost zero chance of being Jewish according to Jewish law.  If there would be no religious Jewish community, they would have nothing to return to, either.

Judaism is not just a faith.  Jewish religious law is a way of life.  It is aimed at ensuring that Jews remain a separate, un-assimilable group among the nations.   As the Book of Esther describes the Jews: 'There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king's laws.. "  In the Biblical story, the Jews face physical destruction, but today they face an additional threat, that of having their culture disappear.

And now, as has been the case throughout much of their history, Jews are finding themselves once again caught between a rock and hard place.  When the French get all worked up about a restaurant deciding to sell halal food, when Europeans get upset at Turkish PM Erdogan for urging German and Belgian Turks to integrate but not to assimilate, when the Swiss and Austrians pass laws on what a house of worship should look like, what does that tell the Jews? 

Are Europeans fighting violent Muslim ideology, or are they fighting any religious community which refuses to assimilate?  Must Jews be forced to choose between physical attacks and spiritual decline?   

The Jews of Malmö might be leaving now because of antisemitic attacks, but they would leave even faster if Sweden would prevent them from practicing their religion.  These questions are not theoretical.  When elections in Belgium fell on a Jewish holiday, Orthodox Jews were fined for refusing to show up for poll-station duty.  Politicians in both Sweden and Switzerland are discussing banning circumcision and ritual slaughter.  Various countries are discussing banning head-covering for women.   The irony is that Islam can be much more flexible than Judaism when it comes to religious requirements.  Ban circumcision, and Muslims won't have a major problem, but Jews would be forced out. 

When you criticize Islam for being more than just a faith, for seeing itself as a nation, for having religious courts, for having laws about the most mundane aspects of daily life, for having demands on modesty, for having ritual slaughter, and for circumcising young boys: Keep in mind that Judaism has all that and more.

So what really bothers you?

Opinion: Why is the fear of a coming Eurabia so strong in certain quarters?

Opinion: Why is the fear of a coming Eurabia so strong in certain quarters?

Khaled Diab, a Brussels based journalist, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian debunking the Eurabian invasion theory. I've discussed the issue of demographics on this blog in the past (here, here and here).

But Diab doesn't only ask whether Europe will become Muslim (his answer being a resounding no). He also asks why Europe fears the possibility.

Though it might seem obvious to some, the question is actually two-pronged:
1. Why do Europeans think that Europe might become Muslim?
2. Why do Europeans fear such a possibility?

Diab's question seems to refer to the former. Why do Europeans think there's a chance Muslims would conquer Europe? Why do they think that Muslims could become a majority? Why do Europeans believe the 'myth' that Muslims might use birth-rates, immigration, or conversion as a weapon?

I think at least one answer is that prominent Muslims keep on saying so. Those Muslims might belong to very certain schools of Islamic thought. Some, like Gaddafi, might be viewed as complete nuts. But Gaddafi [1], and certainly people like Yusuf al-Qaradawi [2] or Amr Khaled [3], are extremely influential. They run global organizations dedicated to spreading their message, and those organizations are active in Europe as well. When they announce that Islam will conquer Europe, it does not really matter whether it makes sense or not, or whether they're correct or not. It sets up an equation where Islam is the conqueror and Europe is the vanquished.

"Then, there is the plain old fear stoked by the overexposure given to the most intolerant Islamic fringe groups and individuals. Certainly, there are some European Muslims who want to live according to sharia and there is even a lunatic fringe who would like to see Europe incorporated into some fantastical global caliphate."

Is it just overexposure?

Though most of the Muslims who say that Islam would conquer Europe do not live in Europe, they are very active in Europe and some claim to represent European Muslims. Al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, heads the European Fatwa Council and runs the Islam Online website, which has a special section for European Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood does have branches in Europe. Tariq Ramadan, who is considered a very influential Muslim in his own right, never talks about it outright, but his rhetoric is full of fighting words. Needless to say, Tariq Ramadan [4] doesn't think the idea of a Muslim-dominated Europe is so 'mythical', either.

So my answer to Diab is quite simple: If you think Europe shouldn't fear an Islamic takeover, tell that to the Muslims who threaten Europe. Don't just accuse the Europeans who believe them of being phobic, or believing the 'lunatic fringe'. A decade ago, the idea that a guy could bring down the World Trade Center using box-cutters sounded outlandish to some people too, but a certain lunatic fringe believed it was possible and kept on preaching and acting on it.

After you denounce Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Amr Khaled, Tariq Ramadan, and, yes, Gaddafi too, you could start working on ways to counter their influence.

---------

[1] Gaddafi: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent and the number is on the increase. The number of indigenous Europeans is falling drastically. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted to Islam. Europe will one day be a Muslim continent.”

[2] Amr Khaled: "The Muslims keep having children, while the Europeans don't. This means that within 20 years, the Muslims will be a majority, which may have an exceptional influence on the decision-making."

[3] Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "his means that Islam will come back to Europe for the third time, after it was expelled from it twice… Conquest through Da'wa [proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da'wa." And "This means that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice - once from the South, from Andalusia, and a second time from the East, when it knocked several times on the door of Athens."

[4] Tariq Ramadan:

Q: (..) At some point Muslims may be in the majority. I think in one sentence: How safe is multiculturalism with the people who entered Europe under the banner of multiculturalism?

A: (...) The way people are dealing with them being a majority has also to do with the way they are educated, and the way they see the other. So let us, for the time being, when you are in this situation, to go through a very deep educational process, by saying to the people: you have no right to impose your religion, you have to respect the principles of the other, you are not here to spy on people, you are not here to impose anything, you are here to be respected, to respect and to be respected. These teachings are very important. So, I think this is the only way forward. Because if we are scared of numbers, it's over. Because you know, the numbers are going to grow. [Ed: Interestingly enough, Ramadan did not answer that Islam is already European.]

Opinion: Is the Reformation over?

Opinion: Is the Reformation over?

In the recent debate about the minaret ban, Tariq Ramadan, the known Swiss Muslim Reformer, announced that Islam is already a European religion. "Islam is Swiss", "Islam is French" and "Islam is European", he declared in various interviews and opinion pieces.

In 2003 Tariq Ramadan published "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam". As the book says: "Ramadan's goal is to create an independent Western Islam, anchored not in the traditions of Islamic countries, but in the actual reality of the West(...) 'Western Muslims and the Future of Islam' offers a striking vision of a new Muslim identity, one that rejects for once and for all that Islam must be defined in opposition to the West."

Back in those days, Western Islam was still something to strive for.

In his most recent book, "What I believe", Ramadan explains his mission differently "building bridges, explaining Islam and making it better understood". When he talks about Western Islam specifically, he starts by speaking about a process: "We are witnessing the birth of a Western Islamic culture within which Muslims remain faithful to fundamental religious principles, while owning up to their Western cultures. They are both fully Muslim as to religion and fully Western as to culture, and that is no problem at all."

But later, he says that "Western Islam is now a reality". Ramadan explains: the young Muslims of Europe speak the local language as their native tongue, they are immersed in the local culture, and they feel at home and intend to stay there. Ergo, Islam is now completely Western.

Supposedly, good news - the Great Islamic Reformation is over! And nobody even noticed.

Why does language, music or 'feeling at home' make Islam European? Only Ramadan knows. Can a Muslim expect Europe to adapt to his religion - that polygamy should be legalized and that freedom of speech doesn't include insults to religion - and still claim that his religion is now European? According to Ramadan, we don't need to adapt to European values. As long as we have a language and a job, we're all Europeans, right?

Reformation usually implies some element of reform, and I have yet to see any. Is there really a difference between Muslims in the Muslim world and Muslims in Europe? Some attitudes might be different, but it's the same Islam. I have not yet seen any European Muslim scholar declare that polygamy is illegal or that cutting a thief's hand off is a thing of the past.

Ramadan wonders why Europeans are 'Islamophobic'. Maybe it's because even the greatest Reformer doesn't recognize that there are some fundamental values that Europeans do care about.

Opinion: An unspoken assumption

Opinion: An unspoken assumption

A few thoughts on the Swiss minaret ban vote.


I didn't post my prediction for the minaret vote, but I expected the initiative to pass, for several reasons:


1. Though a couple of polls showed a majority opposing the minaret ban, others polls showed an even split and even a majority favoring the ban.


2. A general poll on Swiss attitudes towards Muslims showed that the Swiss do not want Islam in their face.


This poll also showed quite clearly that the German-speaking cantons supported the ban, while the French-speaking cantons opposed the ban, though less strongly:

Similarly to the general perception of Muslims in Switzerland, the debate about building minarets shows greater resistance in the German-speaking areas (48% against, 38% for, 14% no opinion) than in the French-speaking areas (38% against, 42% for, 20% no opinion).

3. The way I see it, the anti-minaret people had the enthusiasm factor on their side.

The pro-minaret people were fighting for freedom of religion, which is generally considered a Western value. But particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we all know how much Europe is willing to fight for Western values.

The anti-minaret people were fighting for their national identity. They were fighting to define Switzerland as a Swiss country, which happens to be a very appealing idea to the Swiss. The ban very simply tells Muslims that they might be tolerated guests, they might be allowed to build their homes in Switzerland, but they are not at home. Unlike the French headscarf ban, there is no attempt here to hide behind a ban on 'religious symbols' or 'large crosses'.

In the battle between liberal values and ethnic identity, I would bet on ethnic identity.



There was an unspoken assumption behind this initiative, expressed by the following quote:

"If we give them a minaret, they'll have us all wearing burqas," said Julia Werner, a local housewife. "Before you know it, we'll have sharia law and women being stoned to death in our streets. We won't be Swiss any more."

It's quite a jump from building a minaret to being forced to wear a burqa and Sharia law. The unspoken assumption is that Islam is taking over. The ethnic European identity is in danger of becoming a minority, and the majority ethnic identity will soon be Islam.

The minaret ban is not intended to make Islam more 'European'. It is intended to keep Islam out of the public view, as if that would make Islam go away.

A minaret ban might cause some Muslims to think twice about immigrating to Switzerland, but it will not stop the demographic trend in which Muslims are outpacing the 'locals'.

The Swiss popular referendum model is a two-edged sword. Swiss Muslims are scattered rather evenly around the country, and as their proportion in the population grows, they will have more and more power. Once Muslims have enough power to win such referendums, I expect it will be next on the list of things to go.


Because in the final tally, the Swiss would rather keep their national identity, as symbolized by the cross on their flag, over so-called 'Swiss values'.

Opinion: On Islamophobia and other forms of racism

Opinion: On Islamophobia and other forms of racism

Several days ago I posted a translation of several questions from an interview with René Danen, chairman of Nederland Bekent Kleur, an anti-discrimination group.

There were a few important issues brought up in the interview, but unfortunately, I feel that Danen didn't face up to those issues.

Danen was asked a very important question: Where is the boundary between Islamophobia and strong criticism of Islam due to (just) fear?

His answer was that since criticism of Islam is used today to attack all Muslims, it's incitement. In other words, there are "excesses which justly deserve strong criticism", but they can't be expressed, due to the political climate.

Asked about Wilders' opinion specifically, Danen said that anything Wilders says is colored by his racist perceptions, and therefore he can't agree with anything he says.

And so, for example, if Saudi Arabia permits a marriage between a 10 year old girl and an 80 year old man, and authorities do not stand up for the 'bride' when she runs away, you're not allowed to voice criticism. Does Danen really believe that by not voicing criticism of obvious wrongs he's helping fight anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe?

Danen said as follows: "All forms of discrimination and racism are just as reprehensible."

This is true. But his group only deals with discrimination and racism against minorities. If Danen really believes what he says, I'd like to see him express this view next time there's an anti-White/anti-Dutch incident.

Comparing Islamophobia and Antisemitism, Danen says: "In the media and politics it's mostly Islamophobia and discrimination of Muslims which currently predominate."

This is also true, if you compare anti-Muslim sentiments and old-fashioned anti-Jewish sentiments. However, antisemites today are more likely to voice their antisemitic opinion using Israel as cover. Antisemitism might not be common in the media and politics, but it's just fine for a columnist or politician to say that Israel, the Jewish state, should be dismantled, or that parts of Israel should be ethnically cleansed of Jews.

In other words, Danen is fighting all forms of discrimination and racism, except when he doesn't. Which is a very unfortunate position for an anti-discrimination group.

Open Thread: "politically impossible" level of immigration

Open Thread: "politically impossible" level of immigration

Newsweek and the Guardian both came out recently with articles claiming that fears of a Muslim takeover of Europe were exaggerated. Newsweek with the article Why Fears Of A Muslim Takeover Are All Wrong and the Guardian with Fears of an Islamic revolt in Europe begin to fade.

Newsweek, btw, speaks of Eurabia, but ignores the fact that Eurabia does not mean a Muslim Europe. Rather, it's a conspiracy theory advanced by Bat Ye'or, saying that Europeans and Muslims made secret deals to ensure massive immigration into Europe. Polls, surveys and declining birthrates do not prove or disprove the conspiracy theory itself.

In any case, both articles claim that the Muslim community in Europe won't grow as fast as the doomsays claim, partly because Muslims don't have as many children as people think, and partly because it will be politically impossible to support the levels of mass migration needed for such a population explosion.

That phrase has been nagging at me. When I re-read the articles carefully, I realized it apparently come from the same source too.

Newsweek:

For the number of Muslims to outnumber non-Muslims by midcentury, it would require either breeding on a scale rarely seen in history or for immigration to continue at a pace that's now politically unacceptable. More likely, new controls will slow Muslim immigration. (..) Bottom line: given the number of variables, demographers are loath to make predictions about the number of Muslims in Europe in the years to come. "You would almost have to make it up," says Carl Haub, the senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau in Washington. And the idea of a Muslim majority any time soon? "Absolutely absurd."


The Guardian makes it an actual quote:

"There is no reason why immigrants in Europe are going to have more kids than in their countries of origin," Haub told the Observer. (..) More radical predictions, such as the claim there will be a Muslim majority in the EU in the next half century, are just "plain silly", said Haub, as they depend on "physically impossible" rates of natural growth or "politically impossible" levels of mass immigration.


What does "politically impossible" or "politically unacceptable" mean? I would think it means that people are concerned about the levels of immigration and would therefore take steps to prevent additional immigration. In other words, these articles claim that there's no danger of a 'Muslim takeover' as long as Europeans are concerned about Muslim immigration. But even more than that, they claim there's no fear of a Muslim takeover, while at the same time claiming that the European authorities, under public pressure, will introduce "new controls to slow Muslim immigration". Fear or no fear?

A Woman's Right to Choose

A Woman's Right to Choose


Update: Law proposal will ban gender-based abortion

----------


Swedish health authorities have ruled that gender-based abortion is not illegal according to current law and can not therefore be stopped, according to a report by Sveriges Television.


The Local reported in February that a woman from Eskilstuna in southern Sweden had twice had abortions after finding out the gender of the child.


----------

Swedish law is based on modern Western norms, giving the woman full control of her body. However, though this might seem like an extension of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, this is something completely different. The reason the Swedish health authorities had to check whether aborting a fetus due to its sex is legal is because there have been several such cases recently. And these cases are not based on some capricious whim by a certain woman who wants a baby of a certain gender. It's based on a culture where a boy is worth far more than a girl.

These women are not coming only from Sweden. In Norway such abortions are illegal and therefore, women who are being pressured to have boys, go to Sweden.


----------


In a previous case, a man was sentenced to a fine of 4,000 Swedish kroner for threatening to put a pistol to a doctor's head if she didn't tell him the fetus' sex, according to Svenska Dagbladet


(..)


Midwife Sara Kahsay says the practice is probably more common among cultures where it's especially important to have baby boys. She says it's not uncommon for her to get calls from women who want to know the sex of their fetus very early on.


"There is no doubt that some them experience enormous pressure to have baby boys," she told VG.


----------


Do these women really have a choice? The Swedish system is trying to empower women to decide on their own, but in this case, they're empowering the husbands to force the women to have boys. The system is trying to have full equality between boys and girls, but in this case, it allows for boys to live, and girls to die.


A woman's choice is only a valid reason as long as it's really a choice. In recent years Europe has seen this very debate on the topic of hijab. Muslim women who want to wear the hijab say it's their choice, and they're right. But there are many Muslim women for whom wearing a hijab is not a choice, and these women need the protection of the law as well.


The Swedish health authorities will have to find a way to maneuver between a woman's right to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy, and a woman's right to choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy, or a pregnancy that is unwanted by certain members of her family. As the law is today, it assumes the latter is never a problem.

Netherlands: Mistranslation?

Netherlands: Mistranslation?

I reported about this story here and here. The Dutch media "mistranslated" Khalid Yasin's words on Geert Wilders and caused a great big controversy.

Meanwhile, the media are having a hard time investigating their own..


------------

Whose fault was it? According to Expatica, it's clear:


During a lecture on Friday, which has since been released on YouTube, Sheikh Yasin said he hoped that Mr Wilders would be given a judicial "slap on the wrist".


According to the PVV, Mr Yasin said that Mr Wilders should be flogged, but a study of the YouTube recording has revealed that this was not so. (Source: Expatica)


------------

Here's news agency Novum's take on things:


In the speech, according to Fritsma [PVV parliament member], the sheik supposedly said that Geert Wilders should be flogged because he insulted Islam. According to Wilders, Fritsma bases this point of view on a report of AD. In the clip on YouTube Yasin doesn't say such words. (Source: Elsevier)

------------

Closer to the truth, though apparently news agency Novum can't double check their own information and bring facts.

De Telegraaf says it was based on 'a newspaper report that said that the sheik had said in Rotterdam that Geert Wilders should be flogged'. (Source: Telegraaf)


------------


DutchNews, on the other hand, has no problems pinpointing the source of the "mistranslation":


The AD newspaper reported that New Yorker Khalid Yasin had called for Wilders to be given a 'traditional punishment such as a whipping' during a speech in Rotterdam on Friday.


But later it emerged that Yasin said in English that Wilders deserved a 'juridical slap on the wrist' for making his 10-minute anti-Islam film Fitna.


(..)


The weekend mistranslation led to calls from the PVV and the Rotterdam political party Leeftbaar Rotterdam for Yasin to be expelled.


The AD has not explained how its reporter came to make such a simple translation error.


(Source: DutchNews)


------------

But DutchNews doesn't get it fully right either. They're quoting from AD's own explanation:


A passage in the speech of the American Muslim preacher Khalid Yasin about PVV leader Geert Wilders has been interpreted wrongly by AD.

Yasin talked in the lecture, which he gave last Friday at the Islamic University of Rotterdam, in English about a 'judicial slap on the wrist'. That has been wrongly translated as a 'traditional punishment such as flogging'. Yasin actually meant that the PVV politician should get a 'judicial slap on the wrist' [now translated to Dutch].

The preacher repeated this once more during a press conference in the mosque 'Dar al-Hijra' in Rotterdam-South. Yasin regrets his statements have been wrongly interpreted. (Source: AD)

------------


This piece above, which is titled "Yasin's speech wrongly translated", doesn't include an explanation, it doesn't even include an apology. Even worse, it's trying to rewrite the original article, which they have since removed from their site.

Thanks to Google archive here it is:

Geert Wilders moet eens ouderwets met een riem worden gegeseld. Dat bepleit de internationaal omstreden Amerikaanse moslimprediker Khalid Yasin.


(..)


De prediker zei ook dat Wilders zijn verontschuldigingen moet aanbieden aan alle moslims.


(Source: AD)


In English:

Geert Wilders should be whipped with a belt like in the old days. That argues the international controversial American Muslim preacher Khalid Yasin.

(..)

The preacher also said that Wilders should apologize to all Muslims.


[Note that this original report has no byline]

------

Why, you must be wondering, is this important?

First, since the public, which relies on the media, was duped. And nobody cares enough to either apologize or to explain how it happened.

Second, because there are preachers who DO say such things. AD single-handedly ensured that any such claims will be met with skepticism in the future. Are you sure? Maybe it's a mistranslation from Arabic? Maybe you didn't hear it correctly? Maybe it was taken out of context? Unless proof is produced either way, people will be faced with having to decide between believing a Muslim preacher or the media. As it stands now in the Netherlands, the preacher is much more believable.

Yasin's speech was attended by journalists, some of whom later described the speech as being very tolerant. AD's own report after the event did not say anything about whipping or flogging and instead said that Yasin 'kept far from controversial statements' and that he called for 'tolerance in the world without diffrentiating between religious denominations' (Source: AD)

So, why did AD's reporter think Yasin said Wilders should be whipped with a belt? This wasn't a 'mistranslation'. If it was, it was quite an embellished one. Did the reporter just make things up, or was he basing himself on what he was told? In either case, it's something AD should explain to the public. Particularly if it wants the public to trust them, and by extension the rest of the media, in the future.

Belgium: Threat or joke?

Belgian broadcasters VRT and TRM, as well as independent news site Indymedia, received a DVD terrorist threat. More on the DVD here.

Belgian authorities have decided in the meantime not to change the threat level, which is currently at its lowest.


What can we learn from the DVD? Here's my pop-analysis:

1. The text uses Flemish regional slang which means the creators probably live in Belgium.

2. The only words in Arabic are those which appear at the beginning and end of the clip. They are written in the Roman alphabet, which shows that the creators know it from spoken language, but can't necessarily write them. However, the Dutch text is clear and concise, which shows the creators are not thinking in Arabic.

3. The film is subtitled and not spoken, my guess is that this is so as not to give any clue to the accent or age of the speaker. It is not improbable that the video itself was taken off a Jihadi website and is not that of the creators themselves.

4. The film does not mention the Koran or quote from it and therefore I would guess the creators don't know enough about it, or don't care enough to base their terrorist threats on it. Yet, I think the phrase 'caravan of victory' points to knowledge of Islam.

5. The text itself seems threatening to me. It does not look like something written by bored kids. It mentions all the basic points, seeing the people as an accomplice to the government and responsible for its actions, mentioning Western decadence, yet not going overboard with it. It is clear and to the point. As far as I can see, it is very similar to other threatening videos, but does not contain the same imagery. In other words, it was written by somebody who thought of the essence and not of the additional Arabic sounding themes.

Is there a real threat here? Even if the DVD is 'real', it does not necessarily follow that whoever prepared it can make true on their threats.

I suppose we'll know soon enough whether it was a joke or not. I'm guessing it's not a joke, but that the creators aren't 'real' Jihadis. What do you think?

Guilt of Association

The US elections recently focused on Barak Obama's connections to former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.  Sarah Palin's accusation that Obama was 'palling around' with terrorists was received by the Democrats and the media in two ways: some claimed that associations don't matter while others accused Palin of racism for daring to bring up the topic.

The Conservative response is, of course, that the people you associate with do matter - especially when you seem to have a common political ideology - and that it's easy to accuse one of racism even when no racism was implied or intended.

This brings to mind the debate about the Counter-Jihad movement. 

The Austrian nationalist parties doubled their power in the recent elections, getting close to 30% of the vote.  These parties have a tough anti-Muslim and anti-immigration stance.  They also apparently have interesting views on Jews.  For example, the Freedom Party of Austria is helping out Moshe Aryeh Friedman in his case against the Jewish community who banned him after he participated in the Iranian "World without Zionism" conference.     

It's extremely easy to shout 'Nazis!", "Racists!", "Islamophobes!".  The question is not what the media is shouting, or what the 'politically correct' establishment decides.  The question is what you do and who you do it with.

Some would claim that the West is currently at war with the global Jihad movement and that any partner is acceptable in this fight. 

One example is Soviet Russia, who joined the Allies in WWII in the fight against a common enemy.  However, the war against Nazism was one where military might actually mattered.  The war against Jihad and extremist Islam is mainly one of ideology.  You can't join the fight unless you know what your ideology is and you can't win unless you make it clear what you're fighting for.  In that sense, what do extremist ethnicist nationalists add to the Western liberal ideology?  If you're fighting for your right to express your opinion freely and they're fighting to cleanse the country of foreigners - do you really share the same ideology?
 
It should also be mentioned that Soviet Russia joined the fight against the Nazis only after the Soviet-Nazi partnership fell apart.  The victory of the Allies in Europe was followed by half a century of global battle against Communism.  If your ally is not truly a 'partner', you'll find him round the bend once you win your mutual battle.  Maybe this is what Europe is heading for, who knows.

In "While Europe Slept" Bruce Bawer focuses on the problem of integration in Europe.  It doesn't matter if you're a Muslim from a third  world country or an American who grew up on liberalism and democracy.  You'll always be an outsider and you'll never belong, because you're not 'ethnic'.  Can Europeans be nationalist - patriotic, love their country, love their national culture - without being ethnicist?  Can Europeans accept new immigrants who truly want to join their new nation?

For Americans it's not a problem.  For Europeans, I'm not sure it's possible.   

London: Hotels go Sharia?

A few days ago I received an email from a certain chain of hotels in London saying they found my site 'quite relevant' and asking if I'd like to exchange links.

Why would a hotel in London be interested in Islam in Europe? The possibilities of a scoop swirled in my head. Are they thinking of starting a Sharia division? Attracting Muslim overseas visitors? Throwing out all alcoholic products? Banning bacon? Or are they just spamming anything that moves on the net, hoping to get their link rating up?

Let's say I don't fall for spam... what about hidden advertising?

Last week I posted on article on my blog about the UK's first Sharia compliant insurance company. My problem with this announcement was that I've already posted such articles twice before. There is probably some small difference between these three companies, a difference which enabled journalists to come out with such headlines, but this has gotten to me to start wondering if these announcements aren't really advertisements in disguise.

A Sharia hotel chain with plans to open up 40 new hotels in Europe over the next five years have been getting press coverage for close to a year, most recently in Denmark, where they're not even interested in opening up hotels. Interesting article, maybe, but as far as I know, not one hotel has been built yet.

These articles make for a lot of business. The business in question gets a lot of free publicity, newspapers get bought, and everybody is happy. As a blogger I often 'play my part' and help propagate the story.

My question to you, my readers: Where is the line between news and advertising?

Opinion: ... and then what?

Quite a few writers have recently published articles about the future of Europe, looking at various solutions to the problems with its Muslim population. This includes both anonymous blog writers (here and here), as well as more well-known authors such as Daniel Pipes (here).

If in the past it seemed that analyses of this type focused on demographics, today they focus on possible responses by the 'native' European population as it becomes more and more xenophobic.

There are quite a few pitfalls in trying to analyze the future. Taking different forecasts into account, by 2050 the Netherlands will be under water, Europe will be undergoing an ice-age and the world be will be in the midst of a nuclear war. In other words, a flooded, freezing, nuked Europe, with a Muslim majority. That is, if they would still be there .

Putting aside the issue of 'proposed solution' vs. 'trying to forecast what the future might bring', what bothers me with these analyses is that they do not take into account what will happen afterwards.

This article is not going to offer solutions. I think there are quite a few things European countries could do, and I generally write about those options on my blog (see here). Rather, it is an outline and I might update it in the upcoming weeks.

Let's say Europe does not deal with its own problems, that xenophobia and anti-Islam attitudes take over. A possible outcome is that Islam will be outlawed, and any resident of immigrant origin will be forcibly deported or killed. My question is, and then what?

'Solutions' like deportation and genocide remind me of a small child who goes through a tantrum. Ok, so he finally calms down, and then what? The world will probably continue to revolve, Europe would still be facing a serious decimatory threat, and the third world would still be there, looking hungrily towards the West and its job opportunities.

I bring here a few issues to think over.

1. Europe cannot uphold its current lifestyle level without immigration. Will Europe attract anybody after going through a racist upsurge probably inflamed by anti-immigration rhetoric? How many immigrants, of any religion or race, would come to Europe? How many would be left?

2. After its dismal failure in accepting the foreigners who wanted to integrate (Jews), and the likewise failure in accepting the foreigners who didn't want to integrate (Muslims) - will Europe be given another chance?

Given a theoretical assumption that Europe would have a consistently increasing immigrant population that is fully Christian and fully integrated, and that this immigrant population would be non-white. How many people would still talk about the 'demise of the ethnic European'?

3. Will this genocide also extend to the rest of the Muslim world? Are there any volunteers to gas or otherwise murder a billion people? how will such large scale genocide, or deportation, in Europe affect the rest of the world? What would such an attack mean for such small Christian communities like the Copts and Assyrians? Would they survive it?

4. Many European converts are attracted to Islam since they see it as an alternative to Western culture and as the religion of the underdog. These Western immigrants tend to radicalism and terrorism more often than the 'ethnic' Muslims. How would a massive civil war affect the urge to convert? If Islam becomes an illegal religion in Europe, would it attract more or less people?

5. Liberal democracy - the mindset needed for a state to turn against its own citizens in such a way and to massively deport or kill innocents together with subversives, is one of totalitarianism. With the lack of liberal democracy:

- How many people would leave Europe in final disgust and who would be left? Would Europe manage to rebuild itself culturally and economically?

- Who would restore human rights? The US had come to Europe's rescue in the past when totalitarian forces threatened to take over. If the totalitarian force is Europe itself and all Europeans support it, why should the US risk it's neck fighting for Europe's freedoms?

The world continued in its everyday business after the Holocaust, and 60 years later Europe is still dealing with the implications. If Europe once again turns against its own citizens, due to their religion or belief, disregarding the innocence or lack thereof of each victim, I forecast it will take much longer than that to rebuild. Muslims and other minorities will thrive elsewhere, but Europeans would face a much more serious problem.