Any organization or group with the words "Euro" or "Mediterranean" in the title is likely to consist of manipulated or calculating deux-rivistes -- that is, those who believe that the peoples of the two "rives" or banks, north and south, of the Mediterranean are not so much divided as united, or should be, by that body of water. The unknown or even secret agreements, governmental or quasi-governmental, according to which European states committed themselves to allowing the Arabs to freely promote a European Party Line on Islamic culture, Islam, and the Arab Muslim view of such matters as the Lesser Jihad against Israel, can be found in Bat Ye'or's Eurabia. By now many in Europe have become aware that their ruling elites have betrayed them on the matter of Islam and Muslim immigrants, but do not know exactly how, when, where. Eurabia helps tell them.
With deux-rivisme, the deux-rivistes replace the tiersmondistes. And to hell with the Christians of Black Africa -- as in the southern Sudan, or southern Nigeria, or the Cote d'Ivoire. French colonialism, consisting of the manipulation and corruption of local leaders and the application, where necessary, of French force, now stands foursquare with Muslim colonialism, and therefore with Arab imperialism. The "deux-rivistes" know which side of the mosque their bread is buttered on.
And what is the Article of Faith of the deux-rivistes? That Article of Faith is the belief that there must exist a natural commonality of interest between the "deux rives" (two banks) of the Mediterranean, and that the only thing truly separating the people and civilizations of each littoral is that body of water, one so easily overcome nowadays by all those Arabs from North Africa disembarking even now from their ships and planes to set up permanent camp in France, in Spain, in Italy. It is to view the Mediteranean not as a dividing line between Europe and its historic enemy, Islam, but rather as a now-trivial geographical obstacle to that once and future unified civilization -- that of the Mediterranean. And for the past two decades these "Mediterraneanists" have celebrated the effacement of that watery barrier. And they have led too many in power and in the media to believe that what unites these "Deux Rives" is far greater than all those trivial things -- such as Qur'an, hadith, and sira, and their effect on the minds of men -- that divide them. About the really important things -- olive oil, couscous, mint tea, cardamom -- well, according to the deux-rivistes who control so much of the public discussion, there is no division.
And so the real division, the one reflected in or caused by Islam itself, which uncompromisingly divides humanity between Believers and Infidels and offers loyalty to one and endless hostility, even murderous hostility, to the other, is ignored. But that teaching of such a divisiion between Believer and Infidel cannot be effaced or ignored, and its effects can be seen everywhere that Muslims and non-Muslims live in the same polity, whether in Dar al-Islam (Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Lebanon) or in Dar al-harb, where Islam does not yet prevail and Muslims do not yet rule. Until very recently, no one was allowed to notice this. Few even today permit themselves, or are permitted, to discuss that difference, that inculcated abyss that cannot, alas, be bridged by the non-Muslim side only, and cannot be bridged by the Muslims until the tenets of Islam itself, its canonical texts, are transformed.
The deux-rivistes tell us not to be silly. They tell us (as Tariq Ramadan helps to cheer them on) whatever they want to tell us about Islam and the history of Islamic conquest and of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. They tell us, indeed, whatever they want to tell us about the history of Western civilization, for they are secure in the knowledge that few Infidels have any knowledge of their own about these matters, and will be willing to believe whatever version of events is insistently presented and is plausible, and above all comforting, so that Infidels will want to believe it. So, we are told, where would the Renaissance in Europe have been without Islam? It was an outgrowth, we are told, of Islamic sources of intellectual ferment and skeptical inquiry. And isn't putting Man at the center of things, and Individualism -- aren't these really at the very heart of Islam? No wonder the Europeans had to look south for all that fruitful cross-pollination etcetera etceterum, that "cross-pollination" whose time, we are told, has come round again at last, and this time is not to be stopped.
And don't forget, those Infidels are told, to form in your mind at moments like these a mental picture of the grave old men murmuring low, among the low murmurs of fountains, in the stately courtyards of the House of Translators, at the Court of Haroun al-Rashid in Baghdad in the old days. Or of Maimonides, no doubt being tended in his final illness by a special set of Muslim doctors sent by kindly Saladin himself. Or think of Washington Irving's Alhambra, and the Moor's last sigh, and how splendidly everyone got along in Al-Andaluz, by the Guadalquivir, and the scent of orange-blossom -- holiendo a azahar -- and the gitanillas overflowing beyond the black grillwork of the whitewashed walls, and the narrow alleys in Cordoba, or Seville, or Grenada (all at different times, of course, depending on how the Reconquista was doing).
Oh, and now is the time to mention that long and glorious list of the Great Men of Islamic Civilization who Practically Constructed -- in their days off -- the Western world. One must never fail to mention those Great Figures. Dominique de Villepin never fails to mention them when he gives his little speeches and deuxriviste pep talks in Cairo, or at the "Library" (whew -- $225 million in Euros down the drain) of Alexandria, or anywhere he dares to travel in the Maghreb. So here they are. Get out your pencils, and note them down: Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Rhazi. Oh, have I left anyone out? Yes, I forgot to mention Avicenna, Al-Rhazi, Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Averroes. And perhaps I did not mention Averroes, Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, Al-Rhazi, Avicenna. Oh, how silly of me to have forgotten to mention, and I'll add them here, if you don't mind -- Averroes and Avicenna. And also Al-Rhazi. Did I leave anyone out? Oh yes, Al-Farabi. Sorry.
What a list. How can Europe be expected to top that, with its pathetic little list of supposed "great men"? Or the Chinese, on their high Tang horse? Or the Koreans, or the Japanese, or the Mayans with their supposed calendrical and other scientific achievements? Don't even try to top that list of Great Islamic Achievers. And please don't bring up the matter of just how many of them were orthodox, and how many practically apostates. And certainly do not begin looking into which ones were Persians and Turks and which ones were Arabs. That would not be fair. That would not be kind. That would even be Islamophobic.
And Ibn Khaldoun. He's a medieval pop star these days. I'm sure he didn't mean that bit in his classic Muqaddimah which perfectly tracks the language of 9.29. Or if he did, and it does, do I seem enthusiastic enough? Another honored chair in his name should smooth things over.
Ibn Khaldun, as a good Muslim, counselled the duty of participating in Jihad (that is, the real Jihad to spread Islam, not the "inner Jihad" that Karen Armstrong tells us, relying on an "inauthentic" Hadith, outside one of the compilations of the most authoritative muhaddithin).
Whatever his great achievements as a historiographer (see Rosenthal's translation of The Muqaddimah, or Introduction, to his vast work), Ibn Khaldun has become the favorite of Infidels not because of this, but because he represents, like tulip tiles from Iznik or Qur'anic calligraphy (when you don't know Arabic), something for Infidels to focus on, to be enchanted by beyond all measure (how can Iznik tiles somehow replace the contents of Florence, Rome, Venice?), as they try to cling to something wonderful about Islam. Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khaldun.
Read Ibn Khaldun on Christianity, and on Jihad, and the influence of the heat that explains the inferiority of black Africans, and that should do a bit to make the enchantment of the so-called "father of modern sociology" wear off.
There is, by the way, a certain former Pakistani diplomat, a smooth man, who somehow (how do these former Pakistani diplomats do it?) transformed himself into the "Ibn Khaldun Professor" at American University, but who, in a recent exchange, professed complete ignorance of Ibn Khaldun's writing about the duty of Jihad. You decide which is worse: whether that smooth man (google his name and "Posted by Hugh" for more on his trips, with adoring American students in tow, to Pakistan to "confront the extremists" in their mosques) was lying, and knew perfectly well what Ibn Khaldun wrote, or that he didn't, even though he is the Ibn Khaldun Professor, know what Ibn Khaldun wrote.
A toss-up.
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=254
Hugh, those names are so confusing to the average non-arab that if there were repeated in the manner above, out of order, and repeated, most would not even realize they were hearing the same names twice or thrice. Our ears don't hear it.
Hugh, those names are so confusing to the average non-arab that if there were repeated in the manner above, out of order, and repeated, most would not even realize they were hearing the same names twice or thrice. Our ears don't hear it.
So true! Not only would we say "WOW, what a long list of scholars," but no one would even think to ask "Where these islamic apostates?"
Ah, fantasyland; such a lovely place.
This site has disabused me of the notion that we owe the Muslims a damn thing. We would have been ten times better off without them.
In any event, we didn't get a lot out of them after a thousand years of them eating our lunch (and parking their asses in the Silk Road; thereby denying us access to it). We've more than returned the favor.
Perhaps a work similar to Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia will soon be produced by Hugh Fitzgerald and or Robert Spencer or other comprehensively addressing a similar set of arrangements and agreements between US elites (be they democrat, republican, libertarian, socialist, communist, etc.). The deeds of “liberal” anti-USA, pro-islamists, anti-Western Civilization proponents, anti-capitalists, anti-liberty, etc., (i.e. leftists) have recently been relatively well documented -in numerous books-and leftist produced works which defelect guilt away from itself, but it becomes more apparent that appeasement and agreement from elites of all variations (including those assumed to be the least likely sources) is now occurring (and most likely has for a long time (e.g. once oil money began to flow between elites circa 1920’s)). If the revelation of “secret plans by Israel” to bomb Iran and USA President’s re-buildup of forces in the mid east –aimed at Iran, Syria, palestian terrorists, comes to pass – who/what stands to benefit the most. That will be –again- and defying all logic and sanity of US national defense - the chief protagonist of the global islamization – Saudi Arabia as it will then become – by default (?!) or more likely by secret agreement-the undisputed power in the mid-east.
As I was reading about how the Renaissance wouldn't have been possible without the five (is that right, or was it fifteen?) I was wondering how much further advanced we'd have been if we hadn't been spending so much time and energy fighting violent jihadis throughout the world and if the great library in Alexandria hadn't been destroyed by the Arab savages.
I can come up with more Jews and/or Scots who have contributed inventions and philophies to the world than I can come up with from the total world of Islam throughout its entire history.
It's nice that they can always bring up these same scholars as their benefit to western culture and history, but as the song says, "what have you done for me lately."
"Ibn Khaldoun. He's a medieval pop star these days."
-- from a posting above
Here are some statments by Ibn Khaldun:
1. On Jihad As a Duty
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united , so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same time. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defense. It has thus come about that the person in charge of religious affairs is not concerned with power politics at all. , royal authority comes to those who have it, by accident and in some way that has nothing to do with religion. It comes to them as the necessary result of group feeling, which by its very nature seeks to obtain royal authority, as we have mentioned before, and not because they are under obligation to gain power over other nations, as is the case with Islam. They are merely required to establish their religion among their own .That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority for about four hundred years. Their only concern was to establish their religion."
(quoted in Andrew Bostom, "The Legacy of Jihad," page 161)
And Ibn Khaldun on the Christians (relevant to all the criticism aimed at the Pope, for his quoting of Paleologos at Regensburg):
"Thereafter, there were dissensions among the Christians with regard to their religion and to Christology. They split into groups and sects, which secured the support of the various Christian rulers against each other. At different times there appeared different sects. Finally, these sects crystallized into three groups, which constitute the sects. Others have no significance. These are the Melchites, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians. We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur'an. To discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."
Do you think Ibn Khaldun made himself clear on the duty of Jihad in the first excerpt? Do you find any ambiguity there, or in the second excerpt, when in discussing the Christians he writes that "we do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief," for "all of them [the Christian sects] are unbelief" as "clearly stated in the noble Qur'an"?
And what do you think Ibn Khaldun could have meant when he wrote, about Christians that "[t]o discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."
Any ambiguity there? Anything subject to various interpretations?
Those young Europeans and Americans who contentedly buy one of those very prettily-covered books (camels, Iznik tiles, a Sassanian rhyton or most likely, a mosque with minarets, or an interior of that mosque with graceful geometic designs that would do the compiler of "A Grammar of Ornament" proud) should not be so entranced by the visual. The exploitation of those pretty pictures is common, and is especially obvious in the books of Esposito and similar apologists. It is as if a book on Khomeini's Islamic totalitarianism had on the cover some Persian miniatures depicting Layla and Majnoon. Same effect, same inability of all but the clearest-minded to make sense, to keep things straight, to study the texts and the history of Islam, and not to be distracted by the prettiness of some fountain, in some garden, in some mythical demi-paradise of Andalucia or Baghdad.
Keep your wits about you. So you don't lose your heads.
I sort of figured it out, but I want to know the details - so I'm gonna hv to read "Eurabia"
now.
My take - is the basic one - that there's an Unbalanced Force has tried to overcome Humanity for millennia- enslave the Human Spirit through all means - brute force and religion and monarch/nobles. Our plight was heard by THE GOD - Who sent a Great Soul to teach us many things.
The final great onslaught by the Unbalanced Force has been islam - and now, this force is making an all out effort to enslave humanity for eternity.
However,this Unbalanced Force will win if We, Humans - imitate the violence of islam.
So - what's left is to figure out ways to overcome and resist this islam.
Perhaps in the way of the struggle for Civil Rights of the Blacks in the 60s.
WITHIN THE LAW...of what Yeshua taught.
Even when one is not christian, The Man's Teachings are good for all humanity. Who doesn't want the Golden Rule applied to themselves?
I must emphasize to you People - NOT EVER to have leaders. A leader can be brought down in many ways ( as was Gandhi - as was MLK) - leaders also betray (as did Lenin, as did Castro - as did bush/congress, as I'm afraid Chavez of Venezuela is doing).
And the the Black Civil Rights Movements stagnated.
So, be your own Leaders, the any Resistance Movement. Rely on yourselves. ANd get your advise from your Soul's connection to THE GOD.
One thing that Yeshua did teach is that "In My Father's House There are Many Mansions.." -
do NOT be afraid to lose the physical body for the cause of Evolving back Home.
Learn from the Enemy - they're NOT afraid - they have a cause and a perceived Heaven.
THAT'S why they've been winning.
Remember Patrick Henry! Along with the Constitution/Bill of Rights, these are Great words:
MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
---------------
Whatever anguish of spirit, and the danger of my life, I commit my Cause to the Freedom and Liberty of Mankind and the Human Spirit.
SO BE IT!
It is amusing and amazing that European proto-dhimmis would be touting the Mediterranean as a basis for "bridge-building", when according to the Belgian historian Henri Pirenne, the conquering Muslims effectively shut down the Mediterranean after centuries of free-flowing commerce and cultural exchange that no previous carriers of imperialism, from the Romans on back, had ever felt the intolerant and hostile need to ruin.
Henri Pirenne (1862-1935) in his famous book Mahomet et Charlemagne (Mohammed and Charlemagne) argued, among many other things, that the rise of the unique imperialism of Islam transformed the Mediterranean from a viable conduit of economic commerce and inter-cultural exchange into a hostile wall between East and West. Though Pirenne does not develop too articulately a thesis for why Muslims did this, I think it was largely due to the intolerant categorization inherent in Islamic culture of all Ferenghis ("foreigners", derived from the word "Frank", a lingua franca term for all Westerners -- and by extension, all foreigners or all Infidels -- and which has become part of the vocabulary of Islamic countries stretching from Morocco all the way to Indonesia*) as members of an unclean "Other".
*[I remember a moment of epiphany -- prior to my wake-up call on 9/11 -- when I had found the word Ferenghi (it has variant spellings) in a dictionary of the Indonesian language, and then a few months later, in a Kurdish dictionary.]
Here is a helpful review of that Pirenne book at Amazon.com:
Belgian historian Henri Pirenne's thesis, that the Mediterranean World of Antiquity was broken by the rise of Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries and not by the Germanic invaders of the fifth and sixth centuries has been subject to endless criticism, debate and revision since Mohammed and Charlemage was first published in Europe in 1937.
In Pirenne's view, the conquest of the eastern and southern coasts of the Mediterranean, of Spain, and of the important islands had shut off the movement of world trade which had flourished during the late Roman times. The result of this closure returned western Europe to an earlier "natural" and rural economic system, which set in motion a shifting of the balance of power in Europe from the Mediterranean region to the north.
Although by the time Mohammed and Charlemagne was published the theory that Rome had collapsed suddenly under the impact of the immense German invasions during the fifth century was being qualified, it was Pirenne's theory on the end of the Ancient World and the beginning of the Middle Ages that upset traditional historical conceptions. He advanced the thesis that the Ancient World ended only after the Arab invasions of the seventh and eighth centuries had swept around the coasts of Mediterranean and had converted it into a Moslem lake on which, as one Arab writer said, the Christians could no longer "float a plank." This, Pirenne argued, had been accomplished by the last quarter of the eighth century and had destroyed the essential unity of the Roman Empire. For centuries the Mediterranean had been a "Roman lake" the Mare Nostrum of the Romans which held the great imperial structure together: Rome's trade and commerce, its military and naval might, the important exchange of ideas.
The Mediterranean unity of the Roman Empire had not, according to Pirenne, been destroyed by the German tribes that had occupied the western Empire. The Germans admired the superior Roman civilization and diligently set about to continue it, copying everything from the Roman emperors' dress and ceremonies to the government structures and gold coinage. They did whatever they could to preserve Roman culture.
This book is a classic which is as timely today as it was when it was first published on the eve of WWII. Read it for Pirenne's immaculate scholarship and his then provocative theory that the Teutonic "barbarians" were the upholders and awestruck heirs of Rome and not its destroyers--that distinction belongs to rise Islam.
The Mr Spencer, you hv mentioned:
"olive oil, couscous, mint tea, cardamom --"
May I remind you, sir, that:
-olive oil comes from the north of the Mediterranean, also.
-couscous - not much sought after in the West - is a form of pasta.
-mint comes from temperate climes.
- cardamon - comes from a India
Blessed be,
And I have failed to say to Mr. Spencer, how remiss of me:
With this "Speech" you have outdone yourself, sir:
Standing up - enthusiastically applauding:
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
Dang!
I thought the Ferenghi were characters from Star Trek!
"'olive oil, couscous, mint tea, cardamom --'"
May I remind you, sir, that:
-olive oil comes from the north of the Mediterranean, also.
-couscous - not much sought after in the West - is a form of pasta.
-mint comes from temperate climes.
- cardamon - comes from a India"
-- from a posting above
The olive oil-couscous-cardamom-mint-cardamom business was merely meant to show the level -- that of a book of Moroccan cooking -- of the kind of thing that is given exaggerated attention, while what is in the minds of men, what is taught about Believes and Infidels, or about free and skeptical inquiry, or about Western modes of artistic expression, is pushed aside, and all we get is that cuisine, that Qur'anic calligraphy, and a few picture-postcard mosques, the kind you buy on your picture-postcard vacation to some Club Mediterranee in Tunisia or Morocco where you see, learn, comprehend, absolutely nothing. And then you go home after your week's sunning on the other rive, and to keep that memory alive you buy, say, a Gallimard Folio paperback of Ibn Khaldun, or Tahar Ben Jelloun, telling you all about "racism" by which he mainly and really means, how badly Infidels treat Muslims, especially Arab Muslims from North Africa.
I saw last night "The Invasion of trhe Body Snatchers." I made the obvious connection. That movie should be shown more often, and the obvious connection made by tens of millions of others. Not least in Occupied France.
"The olive oil-couscous-cardamom-mint-cardamom business was merely meant to show the level -- that of a book of Moroccan cooking -- of the kind of thing that is given exaggerated attention, "
--------