Bernard Lewis: Muslims ‘about to take over Europe’

Last night when I debated Dinesh D’Souza for what I hope is just the first time, he kept invoking Bernard Lewis. I would make a point about Islamic teaching or the jihad ideology, and he would respond by talking about Bernard Lewis. It wasn’t so much an Argument From Authority as an Argument From Bernard Lewis. Now, we have taken issue with Bernard Lewis in the past, and will not hesitate to do so in the future if we think it necessary; we do not believe, as some apparently do, that being the leading and justly renowned authority in a field confers infallibility. Nevertheless, at the same time it remains true that my areas of agreement with Lewis are much larger than any areas of disagreement I may have with him, and D’Souza’s attempt to portray me as the Anti-Lewis founders on any actual examination of what I have written (an examination D’Souza has clearly not made).

Anyway, Lewis has said this before, and he was right then, and he is right now. By D’Souza’s thesis, these Muslims are enraged by the cultural Left, and have thus been radicalized.

And as Andrew Bostom points out to me, Bat Ye’or saw all this in 1994, when she said: “I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism…we are light years away from such a development…On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking…All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years…” Lewis was light years away from saying anything like this at that time, but it is good to see that he is catching up.

“Muslims ‘about to take over Europe,'” by David Machlis and Tovah Lazaroff in the Jerusalem Post, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.

The Muslims “seem to be about to take over Europe,” Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent’s Jews, he responded, “The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim.” Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe’s future would be, “Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?” The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.

Lewis, whose numerous books include the recent What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East, and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, would set no timetable for this drastic shift in Europe, instead focusing on the process, which he said would be assisted by “immigration and democracy.” Instead of fighting the threat, he elaborated, Europeans had given up.

“Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence,” he said. “They have no respect for their own culture.” Europeans had “surrendered” on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement,” “political correctness” and “multi-culturalism,” said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    The Jews of Europe better be ready to leave because bad times are coming-it’s just like the period before Hitler overran the continent. The only good that might come from this is if Europe’s Jews end up in Israel-that country needs all the help it can get. Perhaps people driven away from Europe will instill some backbone into a spineless government and stop appeasing the palestinians.

  2. says

    It is very disturbing. I wish all these people who ingorantly spout off about multiculturalism and Muslim sensitivities could hear the violent, hateful tirades that are broadcast from the loudspeakers of the mosques hear in Cairo, that I hear every Friday during jumma. Even in the upper-class, “moderate” and ex-pat filled suburb of Maadi… it is blasted from every single mosque. I have lived and worked throughout the middle east, the Gulf and North Africa for many years… I am fluent in Arabic (written and spoken)… the stuff that one hears from the mosques, T.V, pop music and even the news papers is 180 degrees from what one hears when watching the western press, interviews with “moderates” like CAIR (…right) or any of the quasi- apologist.

    I have many “friends” that are Muslim… all of whom are extremely westernized … that is until you start talking about religion. Oh sure, they will say “you have the freedom to say bad things about your government, society and even your religion… in Islam, we have the same freedoms… We are free to say all the bad things we want about YOUR government, society and religion we want.”

  3. says

    Europeans had “surrendered” on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement,” “political correctness” and “multi-culturalism,” said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

    If Europe has crossed the threshold into the hallway of postmodern self-immolation, the US is standing at the door wondering whether to follow. Stuart McAllister said America is more of a market than a nation and, if that’s true, philosophical materialism may render it just as disillusioned and empty as it has the Europeans. You have to believe that what you have is worth defending before you care who’s taking it from you.

    The bulwark against cultural auto genocide in the US has been the influence of evangelical Christianity, not because of its theology, nor even because of its political influence, but simply because it is one of the few prevalent worldviews which does not logically result in a reductionism of life to it’s base impulses, and allows human life to be seen as something other than glandular and synaptic activity.

    There have been full frontal attacks on the church from the political left and from scientism (Richard Dawson) for centuries. The new element is the ‘entertainment’ news media, which has the ability to shape public opinion to an unprecedented degree. What’s at stake, theology aside, is the very notion that there is an America worth defending. Postmodern relativism can only provide this notion as a tenuous theoretical exercise, if at all.

  4. says

    There have been full frontal attacks on the church from the political left and from scientism (Richard Dawson) for centuries.

    Correction to above: Dawkins. “Family Feud” was his other gig. :)

  5. says

    Clive,

    “Europeans had “surrendered” on every issue with regard to Islam in a mood of “self-abasement,” “political correctness” and “multi-culturalism,” said Lewis, who was born in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States.

    If Europe has crossed the threshold into the hallway of postmodern self-immolation, the US is standing at the door wondering whether to follow. Stuart McAllister said America is more of a market than a nation and, if that’s true, philosophical materialism may render it just as disillusioned and empty as it has the Europeans. You have to believe that what you have is worth defending before you care who’s taking it from you.

    The bulwark against cultural auto genocide in the US has been the influence of evangelical Christianity, not because of its theology, nor even because of its political influence, but simply because it is one of the few prevalent worldviews which does not logically result in a reductionism of life to it’s base impulses, and allows human life to be seen as something other than glandular and synaptic activity.

    There have been full frontal attacks on the church from the political left and from scientism (Richard Dawson) for centuries. The new element is the ‘entertainment’ news media, which has the ability to shape public opinion to an unprecedented degree. What’s at stake, theology aside, is the very notion that there is an America worth defending. Postmodern relativism can only provide this notion as a tenuous theoretical exercise, if at all.”

    And not just only Evangelical Christianity, but also but also conservitive Catholicism, and the traditional Eastern Orthodox Christians. Also do not forget the Orthodox Jews as well that have been a strong fortress for America.

  6. says

    “‘Self-abasement,’ ‘political correctness’ and ‘multi-culturalism.'”

    NB: the Left has nothing to do with our vulnerability to Islamic imperialism.

  7. says

    The citizens of a country have to believe that their country is worth defending, if they are to defend it. No civilization that is wallowing in neurotic guilt over its past is going to be able to summon up the moral rectitude or will to defend itself against an external threat.

    The multicultural Left has done its best to lay a collective “guilt trip” on the West for everything that has gone wrong with the world. But this has been much less successful with the average American than the average European for a very simple and prosaic reason: America really does have less to feel guilty about than Europe does.

    America has treated some of its people harshly. It shafted the American Indians repeatedly. And while it didn’t invent slavery, it inherited that institution from the British Empire and kept it going for decades before it finally put an end to it. However, on balance, America has been free of the bloody imperialisms of Europe. Except for the Monroe Doctrine applied to the Americas, America was always an isolationist nation; we had no empires of conquest in the world. And even the staunchist critics of America on the Left have been unable to find fault with the great principles enunciated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution (though we are excoriated for not always living up to those principles). Americans have a lot to be proud of, and that helps give us faith in our country when it is threatened.

    Europe? Not so much. Europe gave the world ruthless empires, two world wars, Fascism, Communism and Nazism. Along with the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust. It’s a lot harder for the average European to be proud of his continent’s geopolitical history. The term “colonialism,” which has been debased by the Left to lose most of its original meaning, did have an original meaning when applied to the Dutch, French and German empires.

    Europeans, I believe, aren’t proud of their continent’s track record as much as Americans, because frankly, their continent’s track record really does leave a lot to be desired.

    That’s why so many of our ancestors left there to come here in the first place.

  8. says

    I believe that Europeans made a conscious decision to accept Islamic domination. They saw Islam as the antidote to America. Now they are finding out that the `cure’ is worse than the disease, kind of like the medicine to cure toenail fungus, but causes severe liver damage. Now they have the liver damage, but are too focused on their clean toenails. It would be easy for America to wash its hands of Europe, but it won’t be that simple. Suppose the Islamized European nations decide to reclaim their `lost’ colonies; suppose islamized france wants back the Lousiana Purchase, or islamized Britian wants back the east coast? The fight will cross the atlantic sooner rather than later. America needs to prepare.

  9. says

    Let me see if I’ve got this right. D’Sousa says that the decline of morality in the West gives radical Islam an excuse, obstensibly, to incite violence against it.

    To fix it, Robert says we must “confront . . . the violent elements of Islam.” D’Sousa says, “No. We must show respect.”

    The war is already on. There is no fixing it.

  10. says

    Voerdire says: “The war is already on. ”

    Yes, the war is on.

    I advise you to be undercover – Resisters.

    Do not bring attention to yourselves.

    ANd do NOT have only one leader – who can be killed – but be ALL leaders.

    Do not look up to anyone – like many looked to Guevara or Castro or Mao or Kamenev, for any one can betray.

    TO GOD AND FREEDOM !

  11. says

    “The only good that might come from this is if Europe’s Jews end up in Israel-that country needs all the help it can get”

    What is it – is the a jewish website? I must be in the wrong place. Are the jews the only important people here? The rest of Eur. is also in danger.

    And BTW, Jews are leaving israel in flocks…because israel is a SOCIALIST State. And it has APARTHEID! APARTHEID!

    The truth hurts. Whatapartheid? Why the prejudice against their own sect of religion: THE SEPHARDICS!

    Read it and weep!

  12. says

    While looking on Amazon.com, I found two books by an author named Jefferson Mack. One is called Underground Railroad, and the other is called Invisible Resistance to Tyranny. I wonder if these books are legit, and not just for suckers. Also, I wonder if the FBI will start keeping tabs on anyone who purchases those books. After all, our credit card info, our bank info is available to anyone, not just the Feds. Anyone have those books by any chance?

  13. says

    “Europeans, I believe, aren’t proud of their continent’s track record as much as Americans, because frankly, their continent’s track record really does leave a lot to be desired.

    That’s why so many of our ancestors left there to come here in the first place.”

    Smugness again. And where do you think the American pioneers’ values came from? The Red Indians (sorry — Native Americans)?

  14. says

    “I believe that Europeans made a conscious decision to accept Islamic domination”

    The amount of BS being written on this site in recent days beggars belief — I just can’t keep up with it!

  15. says

    “Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence,” he said. “They have no respect for their own culture.”

    ————-

    “There have been full frontal attacks on the church from the political left and from scientism (Richard Dawson) for centuries. ”

    ———–

    Loyalties to what? Is it to religion?

    If this is the outlook, then perhaps it is best to look elsewhere, to discover where European loyalties lie.

    I’ve been to other websites and it seems that Europeans are turning to other philosophies – mind you, not religions, but philosophies – ways of life.

    The young people are realizing more and more that christianity was imposed on their antecessors and conversions was brutal – I do mean conversions of Pagans to christianity. ANd this was what happened all throughout Eur. – the Middle East and North Africa and Greece.

    Neither Constantine nor Justinian were saintly men, but swine! And Charlemagne, was another, swine ! – he had a only a veneer of religiosity for the sake of power – and had a plethora of wives and children – He couldn’t force the majority of the Saxons to convert to christianity – so he slaughtered them. Simon de Montfort was another.

    So! Now the majority of the young people today are turning back to Paganism.

    But the truth is that “paganism” is what every OTHER rival religion calls the philosophy of the native peoples. You know “It’s my way or the highway” kind of thing.

    They’re turning to Wicca and Goddess “religions” which presents a brighter outlook on life – and a view that everything is alive because it has the energy of the Creator in it, and that we were part of everything, the ALL That Is. And for this reason, there was a respect given to Nature, and a working together with it.

    In fact, the country people – those who farm, and live in the countryside,esp.as the people in Eastern Europe – Poland, Latvia, have always observed “pagan” ways and are now publicly taking up the “Old Ways” – in Eire – people are QUIETLY respectful of Nature.

    christianity has always been a veneer. Same as the Indios of Mexico and rest of South America. Same as christianity ITSELF – really – “pagan.”

    So this is what’s happening world wide.

    As far as I can tell, all cultures are returning to their former beliefs, or shall I say “gnosis?”

    christianity really only stays as long as the priests had the backing of the soldiers! ANd behind them, the Inquisition, still alive and well, under the name “Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei.”

    christians here will raise an outcry and sneer, but do a little research and see.
    the christian outcry will simply be cries of jealousy. I can just see the furious typing of thelogy coming on. But the fundamental religions have lost their hold – I mean – judeo-christianity ( an oxymoron if I ever heard of one) because they’ve had 2,000 yrs to change the world – and it’s gotten WORSE under their shift. The churches – NOT individual priests – the churches have done NOTHING to better world conflicts.

    As to the big deal of pope benedict – he just rocked the boat in Turkey and then went back to his marble palaces to eat sausage and schnitzle – dressed in fine silks. AND WHAT!

    In the Age to come – the profession of Science demanding “evidence” of everything unseen, combine with the reverence of spirituality, worship of a Creative Force.

    Science + Spirituality will = 1
    /
    (“scienticism”- a new word?)

    In other words, science will exist alongside with spirituality – NOT religion.

    So, European Statisticians and so-called experts should look for “loss of loyalties” in other areas, where they haven’t cared to look before.

  16. says

    “The amount of BS being written on this site in recent days beggars belief — I just can’t keep up with it!

    Posted by: JFGR”

    Would you prefer the BS in the general news media?

    It is YOUR responsibility to take pieces of news and be discerning, fellow!

  17. says

    allat,

    Modern Islam — and medieval Islam — slaughters pagans, and doesn’t even give them a choice of “pay the Jizya”. Modern Western Judaeo-Christianity, on the other hand, not only does not have an imperative to slaughter pagans, it positively participates in socieities (which are dominated by secularism anyway) which nourish unprecedented freedom and learning about the history and anthropology of paganism for those who wish to pursue a “neo-paganism”.

  18. says

    allat,

    P.S.: I don’t know if you know this, but in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world where there is official sharia law, people deemed to be pagans are executed: in Saudi Arabia, every Friday after mosque sermons, various “criminals” are executed, and among them are people accused of “witchcraft” — which can include anything from astrology, the practice of magic, to worshipping gods.

  19. says

    “Bat Ye’or saw all this in 1994, when she said: “I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism…we are light years away from such a development…On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking…All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years…” Lewis was light years away from saying anything like this at that time, but it is good to see that he is catching up.”
    — from Robert’s comment above

    Lewis has been wrong about a number of things. He was wrong, dead wrong, in his enthusiasm for the Oslo Accords. Indeed, he debated Douglas Feith once on this, and Feith, who did not know about Islam enough to discuss Muslim treaty-making and the model of Al-Hudaibiyyah, was without a main weapon, but still managed, purely on the basis of the disastrous wording of that agreement and on the consistent pattern of “Paleestinian” ignoring of even the most limited promises that it had had to make, to defeat Lewis soundly.

    Ask Lewis about his support for the Oslo Accords, and he replies, testily and laconically, “I was wrong.” But he has never written about this. He has never explained what it was that he was wrong about. Was he wrong becuase Arafat was a bad man who couldn’t be trusted? Was it something in the particular circumstances? Or was it, rather, something deeper, wider, more profound, something that means that any agreement made by Muslims with Infidels is going to be breached whenever and wherever possible? Does Lewis read about the history of Arab treaty-making with Israel? Surely he knows that every single agreement made by Israel with the Arabs, while being scrupulously observed in every jot and tittle by the Israelis, has always been violated by the Arabs whenever they can get away with it, and they have been able to get away with it quite often.

    Why does Lewis not write about this? Why doesn’t he explain, or first explain to himself, why he was wrong about the Oslo Accords? Lewis was more than an enthusiast; he would call people up,and hector them if they had in public, or in front of any others, differed from Lewis’s at least public unbridled enthusiasm for Oslo, was dressed down by Lewis. Such was the experience of one prominent person who had listed all of the many violations by Arafat, early on, of the Oslo Accords. Lewis told him to keep quiet about this, for fear it would “endanger” the Accords themselves which, of course, were a farce from the begining. The same prominent personality has reported that when he took issue privately with Lewis, for something Lewis had said about how Jerusalem was “sacred to three faiths,” Lewis whispered sub rosa to him words to the effect that “yes, you are right, I agree” but also “right now you shouldn’t say such things.” And others have reported similar discrepancies between Lewis’s private and public remarks, but it is his public remarks that affect the thinking of his acolytes, and his worshippers, and all those who, like Dinesh D’Souza, apparently find Lewis to be the first, and also the last word, on Islam.

    And why doesn’t he, Lewis, explain how wrong he was about that Iraq venture, helping to persuade or echo the crazed idea that American soldierss would be “greeted as liberators” and that “the liberation of Baghdad would make the liberation of Kabul seem like a funeral procession” and did nothing to explain to Cheney or others upon whom he apparently had a certain influence, what the Sunni-Shi’a split was, how deep and durable it was and how the recent history of Iraq had only made it worse, and how demographic changes in Iraq (the Shi’a having multiplied faster than the Sunnis, just as they have been doing in Lebanon), and the power of not secularists like the Shah, but fanatical Shi’a in Tehran, insured that the Shi’a would never give up, and of course the Sunnis inside and outside Iraq can never acquiesce in losing power, and Baghdad, the most important city outside of Mecca in the mythology of Muslims, to the Rafidite dogs, those quasi-Persians, of Shi’a Islam.

    He promoted, instead, his Shi’a friends, inveigled by them, or rather sharing with them their own forgetting what the people and country of Iraq were really like. Chalabi, for example, the man who had been out of Iraq since 1958, when he left it as a boy, or Kanan Makiya, who left it a dozen years ago, or Rend al-Rahim Francke, who co-wrote that book with Graham Fuller, or others, who like many of the most westernized, secularized, advanced representatives of the Arabs or Iranians, exaggerate the numbers of those who think as they do, forget the primitive masses, avert their eyes, or will not speak openly, about the permanent presence of the gorilla in the room, Islam, and so are guides in the end to very little.

    And Lewis would write articles that stoopoed to political advertising for a specific candidate –the most egregious being that article he wrote proposing a Hashemite king for Iraq, a preposterously unrealistic proposal, which he co-signed with James Woolsey for the Wall Street Journal, a piece so transparently meant to promote plummy-voiced Prince Hassan of Jordan, Lewis’s friend and host in Ammann, that he should have been ashamed to publish it.

    And then he got angry, got visibly angrly, about those who questioned the democracy project, the belief, in Bush’s unforgettable words, that “ordinary moms and dads in the Middle East” just want freedom. Lewis’s own contribution to the standard authority on Islam, written several decades ago, explains why the Arab “hurriya” is not the same thing as English “freedom.” Lewis knows, or once did, that in Islam it is the revealed will of Allah that should be the guide to the slaves of Allah, and not the slaves of Allah who, by expressing their will, through mere head-counting, mere elections, mere expressions of what mere mortals want or think they want, that should determine political legitimacy. And the location, in Islam, of legitmacy of government in the Ruler who is a Muslim, and never in the people, is something Lewis, who has on more than one occasion tried to hush people up, told them they should not raise certain issues, should go along with certain pretenses about Islam, now looks about, and sees that whenever he has supported a policy – the Oslo Accords, the Iraq farce — he has been wrong. And yet he does not stop to think about exactly how and why he was wrong, or what obligation he has, to his many acolytes and admirers who bristle at any criticism of him, why he was wrong. And why was he wrong? He was wrong because, all of his life, he has simply failed to make sense of his vast learning, in order to see clearly the permanenent menace and malevolence of Islam toward Infidels.

    He missed, he underplayed, he would not quite allow himself to understand, that anti-Jewish feeling in the world of Islam had no need, as he has maintained, of the example of Europe’s antisemitism or of the Nazis. Just because the antisemitism of Islam differs in its origins from that to be found, historically, in Western Christendom, and just because the Muslim mistreatment of Jews was only part of a larger program of mistreatment of mistreatment of all non-Muslims, is no reason to deny, as Lewis has, the antisemitism or anti-Jewish aspect of Islam, that is clear, and strong, and not to be denied or whitewashed.

    Finally, why did Lewis for so many years behave so badly toward Bat Ye’or? Why did he urge othewrs not to give her a forum in Israel? Why did he do nothing to encourage the reception of her work, and behind her back try to undercut it as “polemical” (and going on to echo Muslim objections) except when his interlocutor proved too knowledgeable for him to get away with those behind-the-scenes belittlements.

    Now that he is going about telling us that the threat to the Western world is real, that Israel is imperilled (and imperilled partly by the doings of Bernard Lewis, and the powerful people he has helped to mislead about the Oslo Accords, about “democracy” in Iraq, about antisemitims in Islam, about Islam itself), he owes a setting down, in writing, of why he supported the Oslo Accords and why he was wrong to, of why he believed that in Iraq Americans would be greeted as “liberators” and that the whole Iraq the Model project made sense because he apparently believed that democracy and Islam can go together quite well (after all, didn’t caliphs and other Muslim rulers have advisers? Why, yes, they did. And didn’t they consult with others? Why yes, they did. They did consult, in order to make sure that they were doing the wise, the islamically correct, theing. So what? What does that have to do with Western-style democracy with its location of legitimacy in the expressed will of the people, and its emphasis on the rights of the individual?).

    Cultivated, linguistically well-trained, clearly much more learned, possessing a fluent pen, the last of the old-style Orientalists, feline when he wants to be (that masterful dispatching of Said in an essay, and especially that single footnote about “thawra”) why can’t Lewis, who along with his friends, such as Bassam Tibi, sees and is alarmed, at long last do what Goitein, who came to respect, admire, endorse the work, and the warnings, of the far-sighted Bat Ye’or, or Maxine Rodinson who after a lifetime of left-wing tiersmondiste sympathy for Islam finally came to appreciate Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim” (a book assigned to Lewis for review by the TLS, a review he never dared to write) why can’t Lewis do the intelligent, correct, and finally, the decent thing, and tell us where he was wrong, and why Bat Ye’or, and why Ibn Warraq, and why others, have been grimly right.

    Now. While he still has time. And when it matters.

  20. says

    Europe is stable and will be stronger in 2050 than it is today. The trip-wire will be failure of the social safety net, which will happen long before Islam can gain any real power. France will go first.

  21. says

    “‘Self-abasement,’ ‘political correctness’ and ‘multi-culturalism.'”

    NB: the Left has nothing to do with our vulnerability to Islamic imperialism.
    Posted by: counterjihadi

    The LEFT has everything to do with that. The Left is responsable for Open Borders. The Left is the ACLU and AI and the millions of other “human rights” groups who go to bat for terrorists. The Left has infested our media and our institutions of learning.

    What a STUPID thing to say, troll.

  22. says

    …The Left is responsable for Open Borders….

    Let me remind you Bush and McCain are big time open border advocates. To them, there is no USA, only an America that includes all of Latin America and the rest of the world. .

  23. says

    … hush people up, told them they should not raise certain issues, should go along with certain pretenses about Islam…

    This is the history of Infidelia: Sssshhhh, you might make the ever-sensitive Moslems angry, so hush!

    Yes, there were a few bursts of courage and fight, when the Hindu princes led the fight back, when the real Iberians counter-punched, and even in France when the Franks fought, and much later in Romania and Serbia and Austria when the Huns and Slavs took a swipe. Oh, and in Israel too.

    610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1848 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001

    … and behind her back try to undercut it as “polemical” (and going on to echo Muslim objections) except when his interlocutor proved too knowledgeable for him to get away with those behind-the-scenes belittlements.

    So, who was this interlocutor?

  24. says

    The entire break away Protestant movement thought that Pagan Catholicism was the anti-Christ religion but now that might need an update. But Rome does seem to invite all faiths to deal with worldly problems again a very Babylon thing to do.

    The book of Daniel says the last empire would be iron mixed with clay. The Iron was the Roman Empire so this last empire would be a revived Rome Empire hence the EU. But what is the clay? Could the clay be the tiled Mosques as their centrepiece of creativity as to Islam? Could it be a future race with Roman Arab bloodlines or just a joint economy? But it does say they don’t mix so I guess Islam and Democracy is like chalk and cheese after all. Well anyway also present non-Catholics think the 7 hills is still Rome. But even so Mecca is surrounded by 7 hills also. We do not know yet precisely the future but we know what to look out for and new things will be revealed as time goes on, because that is the point when it does happen people will know. But Babylon being Iraq also has its own story to tell you never know it might control Europe or they could be one entity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome

    So all this seems like its not far fetched it can happen, if 1 Muslim can force a all of Italy to have it’s schools to take down it’s crosses what can a few million do? Europe is in zombie mode and still does not wake up as the article suggests. If this article has some truth in which seems most likely then it’s not that surprising, Christians have always thought that a Beast system that is oppressive like the Romans will once again come about at the end of the age. This has always been the belief but what form has not yet come about. That is the mystery, what will drive Europe to this become this beast? But at the same time Iraq is also mentioned as the centre of the world economy, it may end up as the richest City but not as the strongest Empire as Europe will be. Time will tell but expect the unexpected who would have dreamed, Iraq, Iran Syria and Israel would be back in the headlines in 1940 let alone Europe like the Romans as entity again?

  25. says

    Hugh writes: …why can’t Lewis… at long last do what Goitein who came to respect, admire, endorse the work, and the warnings, of the far-sighted Bat Y’eor, or Maxine Rodinson who after a lifetime of left-wing tiersmondiste sympathy for Islam finally came to appreciate Ibn Warraq’s “Why I Am Not a Muslim” (a book assigned to Lewis for review by the TLS, a review he never dared to write) why can’t Lewis do the intelligent, correct, and finally, the decent thing, and tell us where he was wrong, and why Bat Ye’or, and why Ibn Warraq, and why others, have been grimly right.

    Here’s a comment about dhimmitude by S.D. Goitien in 1970, from an article in the on-line journal American Thinker:

    “…a great humanist and contemporary of the French Revolution, Wilhelm von Humboldt, defined as the best state one which is least felt and restricts itself to one task only: protection, protection against attack from outside and oppression from within…in general, taxation [by the Muslim government] was merciless, and a very large section of the population must have lived permanently at the starvation level. From many Geniza letters [these were a gold-mine of primary sources about Muslim life and legislation, studied for the first time in the West by Goitien] one gets the impression that the poor were concerned more with getting money for the payment of their taxes than for food and clothing, for failure of payment usually induced cruel punishment… the Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by Wilhelm von Humboldt or the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al”Islam, the House of Islam. Its treasury was mal al”muslumin, the money of the Muslims. Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws…As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence…In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/dhimmitude_and_the_doyen.html

  26. says

    So B. Lewis says Europe will be Islamised – what a load of B.S. – the only reason that the Muslims are tolerated is that the general public dont see them as a threat – sure they are a pest and a nuisamce but a threat to our way of life is just not comprehended – you have to understand that most of the 400million people in Europe have nothing to do and never encounter the 20million who live here – mostly in Ghettos- No the minute they are perceived as a REAL threat then the gig will be up for them – this is the Continent that gave you the holocaust – dont think for a second we have changed .

  27. says

    I agree with Lewis’s observation that Europeans seem to have given up. Britain’s a great example. On one side you’ve got the yobs (the ones who, among other things binge-drink themselves into oblivion, or until they start vomiting on the sidewalks.) On the other side you’ve got the Islamist purists, the jihadists. It’s two hideous extremes — neither one of which is attractive. And I don’t know which is worse.

    On the one hand you’ve got the pro-Arab Brits who disparage everything even remotely “British”, (you’ve got that Prince running around celebrating everything “Islamic” — as if the re-invocation of the seventh century into the 21st century is the grandest, most wonderful future he can possibly imagine); then you get the minorities (immigrants) who’ll gladly go along with all the disparaging assessments…”Yeah, Britain sucks.” It’s ghastly. I happened to see that CNN’s Amanpour and her report on Britain — some areas — it looks like Peshawar. Unbelievable. Then Amanpour cheerfully pointed out that half the mosques in Britain do not allow women inside to pray (women must remain outside, if they want to pray). Well isn’t that just wonderful!

    I think if someone wanted to see (witness) a society in almost total disintegration, and in a cultural collapse, then it’d have to be Britain…

  28. says

    Allat wrote:

    “”The amount of BS being written on this site in recent days beggars belief — I just can’t keep up with it!

    Posted by: JFGR”

    Would you prefer the BS in the general news media?”

    No — BS is BS wherever it is written.

    “It is YOUR responsibility to take pieces of news and be discerning, fellow!”

    Of course, but here we are dealing not with “pieces of news”, but in people’s opinions of that news, fellow.

  29. says

    “I think if someone wanted to see (witness) a society in almost total disintegration, and in a cultural collapse, then it’d have to be Britain…”

    Ohmygod, I’ll be round to the US Embassy for my visa tomorrow!

  30. says

    J.S. wrote:

    “Good Plan, JFGR [to apply for a visa to the U.S.]. Do like your fellow former Brit — Christopher Hitchens (he’s a yank, now).”

    Oh, but do you think they’d have me, J.S., as a tainted Brit? What do I have to do to grovel? Would you put in a good word for me, J.S., pleeeeaaase? [/irony off/]

  31. says

    Oh stop that — you know I have such a soft spot for grovelers!

    Ahem! Actually, there do appear to be some who seem to have a rather thin skin…(I have heard on the BBC some of the most vicious, disgusting anti-American rants imaginable. Including ones which state that Americans deserved 9/11, etc., etc.)

    And, just because someone says that many Brits don’t seem to want to stand up and support their country — formerly known as (Great) Britain, that illustrates a disappointment. I am disappointed with Brits like the Ken Livingstone’s, the George Galloway’s, the prince Charles’s, the wife of Tony Blair, on and on and on. Horribly, horribly disappointed. (And, I would never have expected it — NOT from your history — sadly, I recently read an article which argued, “this generation of Brits is not a Churchill’s generation…”)

  32. says

    allat, you sound very much like an Islamist yourself with your anti-Christian ranting and raving. Obviously, you’re no Christian yourself, and I doubt you have ever been one. I would even go so far as to accuse you of being an ex-Muslim, because it is clear you make no distinction between culture and religion. To you, being cultural means being pagan. To me, being cultural means self-discovery and self-preservation, which requires a separate discussion altogether.

    Nonetheless, your disparaging of the Christian faith is telling in and of itself. What is your goal here? As a Christian by choice, borne from a race that unilaterally adopted the faith over the first six centuries, I find it difficult to understand your argument that Europeans are leaving the faith now, because they are “discovering” their ancestors were “forced” into it. How “lefty” can a people be? I can understand this being the case between Muslims and Islam, because then we are talking about a lineage of complete mind control.

    Let’s not pretend here. What you are predicting and relishing happening already happened in a place called Russia. We know how that turned out. Then you talk about science as if it is being impeded by Christianity. Here is a news flash for you: Before your Islamic obstacle, in God’s grace Christendom was on the fastest course of scientific discovery!

  33. says

    zonie kafir,

    But with diversity comes differing opinions, at times heated. That’s to be expected. We’re not marching all together in lock step. In fact, I think this is one of the beauties (one of the finest features) of democracies — the diversity and openness.

    Doing things in secret (without transparency), or trying to get others to shut up because you don’t like what they have to say — that’s the hallmark of a tyranny (or a tyrannical way of thinking — like that of Political Correctness, which is designed to silence dissenting opinions — as others have noted PCness is like a religious orthodoxy — you’ll be excommunicated should you speak the unspeakable to the PCers.). (And Tyranny — Just also happens to be one of the hallmarks of Islam, imo).

  34. says

    zonie kafir excuse me if I step on the toes of holier-than-thou envious lefties who are as Christian loathing as they are Muslim loathing, but whose priority has always been Christianity. All the while, these humanist zealots successfully sabotaged and hijacked our countries, and facilitated their infiltration by all hostile countries and peoples. Then they go on forums with their venom on Christianity, talking everything Christian is bad, everything not Christian is good. Give me a breakā€¦.

  35. says

    There is in Lewis a creeping hostility to “Europe” which has never been noticed, so far as I can see, and which is particularly visible in his pet thesis that anti-Semitism came to the Arab world from Europe in the eighteen-sixties. Regulars on this site will know that that is nonsense, and that nobody needed to teach to the followers of Muhammad to hate Jews. It seems to me that this extremely ill-grounded forecast – by which Lewis appropriates, without acknowledging it, the least valuable part of Bat Ye’or’s theories – appeals to him because of what must seem to him a hideously pleasing counterpass. But it is not going to happen. When Muslims become more than a public-order issue, the European masses, which never had any admiration or sympathy for them, will harden their position even further. Then what? Muslim immigrants are less well educated than their native counterparts, less financially stable, less capable of generating power in every way. The only power they have is numbers – and numbers they exaggerate.

    Incidentally, Allat, in which parallel world did you discover a Europe where the majority of the young are becoming neo-Pagans? The one I live in regards neo-Pagans as an oddity, mostly bound up with neo-Nazi groups.

  36. says

    zonie kafir,

    OK, now I see why you were taking exception to the name calling (re: Allat and yourself). Yes, things get heated…but usually (well, most of the time anyway) ya got to let it go…can’t take it too seriously…(some people are more thin-skinned than others, and you really never know what might set them off — say, someone says a sharp word about Britain and its Dhimmitude — suddenly cause a tirade of abuse — but that’s life…) I guess everyone has his or her “touchy points…”

  37. says

    Balrog: We think YOU amd Europe are a ‘disease’.

    I guess that we will just have to go call up a mosque in Orange County and have them send a mujahideen army over there to go blow you and Europe to smithereens!!!

    Hey! If this approach was good enough for europe then it is good enough for us across the pond.