http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/magazine.cgi/Yr%202006/December/Views/Eurabian_Nights.html?seemore=y
   
  Eurabian Nights
   
    A Horror Travelogue
by Srdja Trifkovic
   
  Thousands of young Muslims, armed with clubs and sticks and shouting, “Allahu 
akbar!” riot and force the police to retreat. Windows are smashed; stores are 
looted; cars are torched. Europeans unlucky or careless enough to be trapped by 
the mob are viciously attacked, and some are killed.
  The scene could be Mogadishu in the aftermath of Pope Benedict’s Regensburg 
address; or Tripoli during the Danish-cartoons fury; or Karachi, Kabul, Gaza, 
and countless other cities in Dar al-Islam’s heartland, on any number of 
occasions. Yet a year ago, such scenes were unfolding, for weeks on end, in 
places with such names as Clichy-sous-Bois, Argenteuil, and La Courneuve.   
---------------------------------
    The trouble in the banlieus finally ended, as various Muslim “community 
leaders” had claimed it would, only when various levels of French officialdom 
quietly accepted that there were de facto no-go areas within the country, 
mini-Islamistans run by the dominant local majority. “Mon Clichy à moi, c’est 
ça!” just about sums it up, on the official website of Clichy-sous-Bois, whose 
population is 80-percent Muslim. 
  
  In practice, this means that local groceries refrain from selling wine, and 
young Muslim men feel emboldened to use violence against “sluts”—women who do 
not follow Islamic ways. Many more French-born Arab girls wear the hijab today 
than did so a year ago: It is their protection against mutilation and gang 
rape. Failing to do so makes them fair game for both: A knife slash across the 
scarfless girl’s cheek from the lip to the ear is especially common and known 
as a “smile.”
  The demand for communal self-rule is not new, and it will be made with 
increasing frequency in the years to come. Of some 25 million Muslims in 
Western Europe, the majority already consider themselves autonomous, a 
community justifiably opposed to the decadent host society of infidels. This 
demand is but the first step: It will lead to the clamoring for the adoption of 
sharia within segregated Muslim communities and, finally, for the imposition of 
sharia on the society as a whole.
  Europe’s elite class is prepared for this challenge. Dutch Justice Minister 
Piet Hein Donner—a Christian Democrat—sees the demand as perfectly legitimate 
and argues that sharia could be introduced “by democratic means.” Muslims have 
a right to follow the commands of their religion, even if that included some 
“dissenting rules of behavior”: “It is a sure certainty for me: if two thirds 
of all Netherlanders tomorrow would want to introduce Sharia, then this 
possibility must exist. Could you block this legally? It would also be a 
scandal to say ‘this isn’t allowed’! The majority counts. That is the essence 
of democracy.”
  The same “essence” was reiterated in similar terms last July by Jens Orback, 
the Swedish Integration [sic] Minister, who declared in a radio debate, “We 
must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a 
minority, they will be so towards us.” Yes, when we become a minority; the fact 
that, four months later, both Orback and his Social Democratic government 
remain in power aptly illustrates Sweden’s political and cultural scene.
  Until a generation ago, Sweden used to be one of the safest and most 
law-abiding countries in the world. Today, in the southern city of Malmö, the 
authorities are no longer able to deal with the problem of crime among Muslim 
immigrants, 90 percent of whom are on welfare. They make up one third of the 
city’s 300,000 people; at the city’s Rosengrad School, of 1,000 students, only 
2 were Swedes last year. “If we park our car it will be smashed—so we have to 
go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other,” says policeman 
Rolf Landgren. Both vehicles are needed to escort Swedish ambulance drivers 
into certain neighborhoods. Robberies of all sorts increased by 50 percent in 
2004 alone, with gangs of young Muslims specializing in mugging old people 
visiting the graves of relatives. Thomas Anderberg, head of statistics for the 
Malmö police, reported a doubling of “rapes by ambush” in 2004. Almost all of 
the increase is attributable to Muslim men raping Swedish women.
  Next door in Norway and Denmark, two thirds of all men arrested for rape are 
“of non-western ethnic origin”—the preferred euphemism for Middle Eastern and 
North African Muslims—although they account for under five percent of their 
residents. The number of rapes in Oslo in the summer of 2006 was twice that of 
the previous summer. All “gang rapes” in Denmark in 2004 were committed by 
immigrants and “refugees.”
  The victims are overwhelmingly Scandinavian women, yet only one in twenty 
young Muslim men say they would marry one. Their reluctance is explained by an 
Islamic scholar, Mufti Shahid Mehdi, who told an audience in Copenhagen that 
European women who do not wear a headscarf were “asking to be raped.” His view 
is shared by Unni Wikan, a professor of social anthropology at the University 
of Oslo and a self-described feminist; she holds that “Norwegian women must 
take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found 
their manner of dress provocative: “Norwegian women must realize that we live 
in a multicultural society and they must adapt themselves to it.”
  Swedish courts are adapting by introducing sharia principles into civil 
cases. An Iranian man divorcing his Iranian wife was ordered by the high court 
in the city of Halmestad to pay Mahr, Islamic dowry ordained by the Koran as 
part of the Islamic marriage contract.
  In the judicial sphere, Britain has gone even further, legitimizing sharia 
compliance even in criminal cases. A key tenet of sharia is that non-Muslims 
cannot try Muslims, or even testify against them; and this has been upheld by 
Peter Beaumont, QC, senior circuit judge at London’s Central Criminal Court, 
the Old Bailey. Before the trial of Abdullah el-Faisal, a preacher accused of 
soliciting the murder of “unbelievers,” Justice Beaumont announced that, “[f]or 
obvious reasons, members of the jury of the Jewish or Hindu faith should reveal 
themselves, even if they are married to Jewish or Hindu women, because they are 
not fit to arbitrate in this case.” (One can only speculate what would be the 
reaction if equally “obvious reasons” were invoked in an attempt to exclude 
Muslims from the trial of BNP Chairman Nick Griffin for “Islamophobia.”)
  The legitimization of sharia has also penetrated culture—both high and 
popular. In the fall of 2005, British audiences enjoyed a widely acclaimed 
production of Tamburlaine the Great, Christopher Marlowe’s 16th-century 
classic. Few noticed, however, that several irreverent references to Muhammad 
had been deleted. An essential scene in the play, in which the Koran is burned, 
became the destruction of “a load of books” relating to any culture or 
religion. Director David Farr and Simon Reade, Old Vic’s artistic director, 
said that, if they had not altered the original, it “would have unnecessarily 
raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great 
religions.” Both agreed that, in any event, the censored version—produced 
partly with public funds—was better than the original, making the play more 
powerful and relevant.
  The British Council, another taxpayer-funded organization that sponsors 
cross-cultural projects, sacked one of its press officers, Harry Cummins, for 
publishing four articles in London’s Sunday Telegraph. British Muslims took 
exception to his observation that Muslims had rights to practice their religion 
in the United Kingdom that were not enjoyed by Christians in the Islamic world, 
“despite the fact that these Christians are the original inhabitants and 
rightful owners of almost every Muslim land.” His cardinal sin was to note that 
“it is the black heart of Islam, not its black face, to which millions object.” 
Abdul Bari, deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, welcomed 
Cummins’ firing but expressed “dismay” that the publishing company had not 
taken action against the editor of the Sunday Telegraph as well.
  Public funds were also used to build state-of-the-art senior housing in 
London’s East End. This housing is to be reserved strictly for Muslim “elders”: 
English and other white pensioners need not apply. Sirajul Islam, in charge of 
social services at the local borough of Tower Hamlets, responded to the 
journalists’ questions about racial and religious equality by stating that a 
“one size fits all” approach to public services was no longer acceptable in 
21st-century Britain: “Tower Hamlets is fortunate to have a diverse mix of 
communities, and the council strives to ensure that its services are responsive 
to the differing and changing needs of its residents.”
  That these and other fortunes are befalling Britain under “New Labour” is 
perhaps to be expected, but the revamped Tory Party hardly offers an 
alternative. Determined that out-Blairing Blair is the only way to regain 
power, it has, under David Cameron, jumped on the multiculturalist bandwagon 
and come out in support of retaining and expanding racial, ethnic, and 
sex-based quotas. Cameron’s colleague, Conservative Party Chairman Francis 
Maude, claims that immigration has been “fantastically good” for the United 
Kingdom.
  Such inanities are light years away from Churchill’s warning, over a century 
ago, that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam:
  Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. 
It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at 
every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms 
of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization 
of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.   
Churchill’s prescience could not envisage the possibility that the invader 
would find his best friends and allies at No. 10, Downing Street, at the 
European Community Headquarters in Brussels, and in dozens of chancelleries and 
palaces across the Old Continent. Their joint efforts are helping change the 
face of Europe. Its southern maritime frontier is as porous as that on the Rio 
Grande. Boats packed with thousands of migrants from Africa and Asia land 
somewhere along Europe’s coasts every day. Their numbers are unknown, but the 
cumulative effect is not in doubt: By 2050, these people will
 account for one third of Europe’s young residents.
  In Germany, mostly Muslim immigrants already account for about one quarter of 
all teenagers and ten percent of the population as a whole. But mention 
“integration” to Evelyn Rühle, a teacher in Wedding, a predominantly Turkish 
suburb of Berlin, and she will murmur, “disintegration, more likely,” with a 
sad smile. Her students’ Muslim parents routinely demand the separation of 
girls and boys in sports and take their children out of biology classes. Most 
students speak poorer German than immigrant children did 20 years ago. Their 
extracurricular activities are limited to attending Koran classes, and many 
speak only Turkish or Arabic at home.
  The growth of digital television has made a host of Turkish and 
Arabic-language channels available, intensifying language problems and 
nurturing identities that are informed more by the situation in Lebanon, Gaza, 
or Iraq than by the events in Paris, Berlin, or London. Millions of Muslim 
youths all over Europe live in a parallel universe that has very little to do 
with the host country, toward which they have a disdainful and hostile attitude.
  The elite class responds to hostility with ever-greater inclusiveness. 
Giuseppe Pisanu, Italy’s former minister of the interior, who is responsible 
for controlling the country’s borders, declared three years ago that the high 
fatality rate of North African illegals on the high seas en route to Sicily was 
“a dreadful tragedy that weighs on the conscience of Europe.” His reaction was 
paradigmatic of the utopian liberal mind-set. If “Europe” should feel guilty 
that people who have no right to come to its shores are risking their lives 
while trying to do so illegally, then only the establishment of a free 
passenger-ferry service between Africa and Southern Europe—with no passport or 
customs formalities required upon arrival, and a free shuttle to Rome or 
Milan—would offer some relief to that burdened conscience. Now that Sr. Pisanu 
and his boss, Silvio Berlusconi, have been replaced by a leftist government 
even more deeply committed to tolerance and diversity, this solution
 may finally become a reality.
  The tangible results in Italy are as devastating as the moral and spiritual 
ones. In Venice, the invaders have taken over the Piazza San Marco. In Genoa, 
the marvelous palazzi that Rubens so admired have been seized by them “and are 
now perishing like beautiful women who have been raped.” In the late Oriana 
Fallaci’s native Florence, a huge tent was erected next to the cathedral to 
pressure the Italian government to give immigrants “the papers necessary to 
rove about Europe,” and to “let them bring the hordes of their relatives” to 
Italy. As Fallaci described it:
  A tent situated next to the beautiful palazzo of the Archbishop on whose 
sidewalk they kept the shoes or sandals that are lined up outside the mosques 
in their countries. And along with the shoes or sandals, the empty bottles of 
water they’d used to wash their feet before praying. A tent placed in front of 
the cathedral with Brunelleschi’s cupola and by the side of the Baptistery with 
Ghiberti’s golden doors . . . Thanks to a tape player, the uncouth wailing of a 
muezzin punctually exhorted the faithful, deafened the infidels, and smothered 
the sound of the church bells . . . And along with the yellow streaks of urine, 
the stench of the excrement that blocked the door of San Salvatore al Vescovo: 
that exquisite Romanesque church (year 1000) that stands at the rear of the 
Piazza del Duomo and that the sons of Allah transformed into a shithouse.   
Europe is increasingly populated by aliens who physically live there but 
spiritually belong to the umma. They do not want to
 “adapt” to Florence or any other new abode they conquer; offended and 
intimidated by beauty and order, they instinctively want to remake it in the 
image of Anatolia, Punjab, or the Maghreb. Their influx, made possible by the 
Pisanu malaise, is making the transformation irreversible.
  A century ago, Pisanu’s class shared social commonalities that could be 
observed in Monte Carlo, Carlsbad, or Paris, depending on the season. Their 
lingua franca was French. Englishmen, Russians, and Austrians shared the same 
outlook and sense of propriety, but they nevertheless remained rooted in their 
national traditions, the only permanent vessels in which Weltanschauung could 
be translated into Kultur. Today’s “United Europe,” by contrast, does not 
create social and civilizational commonalities—except on the basis of wholesale 
denial of old mores, inherited values, and “traditional” culture. It creates a 
cultural similarity that has morphed into the dreary sameness of 
antidiscriminationism. The Continent is ruled by a secular theocracy focused on 
the task of reforming and reshaping the individual consciences of its subjects.
  The fruits are greeted with haughty arrogance by Tariq Ramadan, professor of 
Islamic studies at the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, and a grandson of 
Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan insists that Muslims 
in the West should conduct themselves not as hyphenated citizens seeking to 
live by “common values” but as though they were already living in a 
Muslim-majority society and were exempt on that account from having to make 
concessions to the faith of others. Muslims in non-Muslim countries should feel 
entitled to live on their own terms, Ramadan says, while, “under the terms of 
Western liberal tolerance,” society as a whole should be obliged to respect 
that choice.
  If such respect continues to be extended, by the end of this century, there 
will be no “Europeans” who are members of ethnic groups that share the same 
language, culture, history, and ancestors and inhabit lands associated with 
their names. The shrinking populations will be indoctrinated into believing—or 
else simply forced into accepting—that the demographic shift in favor of Muslim 
aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and 
morally unsustainable societies.
  The “liberal tolerance” and the accompanying “societal obligation” that Tariq 
Ramadan invokes are key. “No other race subscribes to these moral principles,” 
Jean Raspail wrote a generation ago, “because they are weapons of 
self-annihilation.” They need to be understood and discarded. The upholders of 
those principles must be removed from all positions of power and influence if 
Europe is to survive.
   
  Foreign-affairs editor Srdja Trifkovic is the author, most recently, of 
Defeating Jihad.
   
  This article first appeared in the December 2006 issue of Chronicles: A 
Magazine of American Culture.
   
  www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi
www.trifkovic.mysite.com
   
  ****************
  ***************


Slobodanka Borojevic
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
http://serbianna.com/columns/borojevic/
   

 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Одговори путем е-поште