| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Peace in Our Time": Sara Townsley writes provocatively in the Cornell Daily Sun (thanks to the Norwegian Kafir).
Primarily at the initiative of Charles de Gaulle, the driving force behind the post-WWII integration of Europe has been the perceived need for a counterweight to American power. Tellingly, Jacques Chirac's best argument in favor of the proposed European Union constitution is that voting against it would benefit the United States. We wouldn't want that.Chirac is also urging E.U. negotiators to permit the Iranian government to enrich uranium, a step that would virtually guarantee the nuking of Tel Aviv, if not London or New York. But what began as French penis envy now animates the entire E.U.'s pathological compulsion to oppose the United States as an end in itself. Which makes perfect sense, if one understands that the E.U.'s broader security strategy is to aggressively undermine ours.
The E.U. began as an economic and trade alliance, evolving into a cultural and political alliance -- a United States of Europe. But as E.U. institutions have consolidated control over foreign policy, it has ransomed the security of the whole to expansionist Islamism. In her latest book, Eurabia, Bat Ye'or draws on an extensive array of primary source documents to describe the development of the Euro-Arab axis over the last three decades. Through a series of conferences and agreements known as the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), an army of anonymous Eurocrats has accomplished an incremental, collective suicide.
Motivated by a desire to "balance" U.S. influence, obtain protection from terrorism and assure a stable oil supply, the E.U. has guaranteed its Arab partners access to unlimited immigration, transfers of military technology and a climate hostile to the United States and Israel. Europe's efforts to accommodate Muslim immigrants remain wholly unreciprocated in the Arab world; in fact, Europeans are expected to tolerate asymmetrical treatment. It is a Faustian pact....
Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi, a Muslim Brotherhood honcho regularly described as a moderate, posted a fatwa in 2002 about the "signs of the victory of Islam" in Europe. He's right: day by day for 30 years, the E.U. has ceded tiny bits of its sovereignty and cultural identity, transforming the heart of the West -- Christendom, if you will -- into a subservient province of the global caliphate. Just as that other tiny minority of extremists did in the 1930s, Islamists have assumed dominance in Europe...
Read it all. Please.
Posted by Robert at April 20, 2005 2:45 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I hate to throw cold water on this but...
Although I could not agree more with what she has said, she has nonetheless plagerized most of the article. Looks like the stolen material is from fijordman.com and some from Bat Ye'or.
Better read the comments from her readers before you decide to sign up at Cornell.
Posted by: BillR![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 20, 2005 3:18 PM
Students interested in majoring in Islamic studies, or related matters, who do not wish to endure the non-stop nonsense presented in other well-known universities (Columbia being only the worst specific example of a general problem) might look into Cornell. Whether it was never as bad as elsewhere, whether the Forces of Muslim Apologists Never Quite Took Over, or whether Cornell is now in the middle of a Take-Back-the-Night attempt to begin to teach the truth about Islam, is unclear. There are signs, delicate signs, of sense of sensibility.
It may be like the war in the Pacific: taking territory back, island by Japanese-held island. All over this country, over the past several decades, apologists for Islam, with their hypertrophied attention to Israel and "Palestine," have ceased to teach about Islam, about Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. All the greatest scholars of Islam, had they then been applying for jobs, would not have been considered, would not have been promoted. Think of Schacht, or Margoliouth, or Snouck Hurgronje, attending the "slave market" at a meeting of MESA Nostra.
But not everyone who has had to pretend to go along in fact does go along. Not every member of MESA Nostra is a "made man" or a wise guy. Some are waiting to transform their own departments. Some are waiting for tenure. Some are secretly meeting, like dissidents in a dictatorship, to discuss the status of their profession and the need to seize back, from the Islamintern International (University Division), the teaching of Islam and related subjects. They would be greatly helped if all funding were to go to the teaching of certain forbidden subjects -- Jihad-conquest and Dhimmitude, for example. Who will endow the first chair in Dhimmitude Studies? And the second? And the third? Who will make sure that those who fill those chairs are not Muslim apologists?
This is all doable. The government can help, by carefully directing money to those who are most likely to produce a cadre of people able to understand the theory and practice of Islam -- in other words, who are able to see Esposito and his ilk for what they are, and have become well-versed in the real scholarship, most of it produced in that Golden Age of Orientalism, 1880-1960.
In some universities, however, the presidents will have to take a closer look at their departments of Middle Eastern studies, with the understanding that ordinarily the objectivity, as understood in the Western world as an ideal, simply does not exist for most Muslims, "scholars" or otherwise, whose mode of presentation is entirely that of apologetics. Often people in the field do not realize this until they have spent decades trying to overlook this fact, to make allowances for their colleagues. They really needn't.
They should keep in mind the great scholars of Islam, such as Schacht, Margoliouth, Jeffery, Levi-Provencal, Snouck Hurgronje, K. S. Lal, and dozens of others, and forget altogether about pleasing Muslim colleagues, or those non-Muslm colleagues who have exhibited such deference to Muslim sensibilities, and have been so seemingly impressed with Islam, that Total Regulation and Total Explanation of the Universe that, in so many ways, is akin to Fascism. And there is scarcely an intelligent ex-Musim in the world who, now thoroughly disabused of that belief-system, would disagree.
Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2005 4:03 PM
Hugh, I am buying a few lottery tickets tonight. If I win big - I'll fund that chair if you or Mr. Spencer fill it.
Posted by: miira at April 20, 2005 5:03 PM
Gentlemen, I stand admonished!
Sara Townsley, the author of the article I accused of plagerism is in fact, the author of the article I read in fjordman.
Nonetheless, read the comments from the conservative haters. I suspect the comment by Marie is taqiyya .
at April 20, 2005 5:04 PM
Barkis is willin'.
Posted by: Hugh at April 20, 2005 7:50 PM
Re the EU, let's not forget that the US supported European integration for a long time, too; whether Le Grand Charlot had 'penis envy' or not. Another factor that should not be forgotten--especially know that Ratzinger has become Pope--was that Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of postwar Federal Germany, was (a) a cnservative Catholic politician who hated both Naziism and Communism passionately, (b) gifted with a deep historical sense that still looked on "Europe" as Christendom", and (c) saw the Franco-German hatreds that had festered from the Napoleonic era onwards to be something bad for the two countries concerned, Europe, and the whole world.
And, when there was something a-brewing that seemed to guarantee that the Germans and French wouldn't have another go at each other, could anyone blame the Americans, Brits, and certain others from hoping that it would succeed?
Frankly, regardless of Jack the Rat's footsie with the mad mullahs, when the EU started out, it looked very much like NATO out of uniform.
Posted by: Kepha at April 20, 2005 11:44 PM
Hugh,
I don't know if Cornell is any better than Columbia or any other school, but I must point out that Sara Townsley is a graduate student in Biochemistry, Molecular and Cell Biology. That puts her in the category of learning science instead of Marxist political claptrap and dhimmitude -- in other words, clear thinking.
Posted by: Don Miguel at April 21, 2005 5:52 PM
To Don Miguel above:
Training in hard sciences certainly helps limit the number of complete idiots, or even half-idiots. But it is not true that outside of science everything need be "Marxist political claptrap and dhimmitude" -- it only looks that way.
And at Cornell, had one been a student there fifty years ago, one could have taken courses on French literature with Morris Bishop, with M. H. Abrams on English literature, and with Vladimir Nabokov on Russian literature. No Marxist claptrap in Goldwin Smith Hall in those days.
Posted by: Hugh at April 21, 2005 7:53 PM
Hugh,
You are right. I did not mean to imply that any non-science field was inherently "Marxist political claptrap and dhimmitude" -- just that it is unlikely to be found in the natural sciences.
Posted by: Don Miguel at April 22, 2005 2:25 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)