A new essay by the European writer Fjordman:
Bertolt Brecht wrote a satirical poem after the 1953 East German risings:
After the uprising of 17 June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the People
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”
At the beginning of the 21st century, electing a new people seems to be exactly what Socialist parties in Europe are doing. Perhaps the greatest idea of the Leftist parties after the Cold War was to re-invent themselves as Multicultural immigration parties and start importing voters from abroad. In addition to this, they have managed to denounce the opposition as racists, bigots and extremists. A new alliance of convenience between Leftists and Muslim immigrants is taking shape in Europe. I think the deal is that the Leftist parties get a number of new clients, I mean voters, in return for giving Muslims privileges and subsidies, as well as keeping the borders more or less open for new Muslims to enter. As one Muslim put it: “I vote for the Socialists because they give me more money.” The Leftists are, in essence, electing a new people, replacing the one already there with one more supportive of their agenda.
There is, of course, nothing new in buying votes and “clients” by promising them access to other people’s money. This was the essence of Leftism in the first place. However, although this is probably a flaw in the democratic system, democracy has still functioned within the borders of stable nation states. This flaw gets a lot more dangerous when combined with massive immigration, where certain political parties simply import people from other nations, even vocal enemies of their country, to shore up their own short-term support in elections. This will in the longer term breed resentment among the native population, who will in this way be forced to fund their own colonization. In the context of Europe, Muslim immigration could turn democracy into a self-defeating system that will eventually break down because native Europeans no longer feel that it serves their interests.
Leftists and Muslims have a mutual short-term interest in keeping the Leftist parties in power, and a mutual long-term interest in weakening the traditional, Judeo-Christian culture of Europe, which Socialists at best view with indifference, at worst as an evil obstacle blocking the road to the Socialist Utopia. Besides, Socialists traditionally place little ideological importance on such trivial matters as national borders. I believe Lenin said that borders between Soviet Republics were unimportant, as Socialism would transcend all national and religious boundaries and render them a thing of the past, anyway.
Many Marxists still haven’t given up that ideal, after a century of failures. Hanne Andersen, a Danish Social Democrat, thinks that people from, say, Yemen or Pakistan should have as much right to live in Denmark as native Danes:
“I have for many years been of the opinion that it is incomprehensible that some people (especially from
the Danish People’s Party) think they have a greater right than other people to live in a specific part of the earth. All people, all over the world, who have respect for others, their religion, culture, history and values have, as far as I’m concerned, an equal right to live wherever they want to.”
Omer Taspinar describes how “Europe’s Muslim Street,” the 15 million or more Muslims of the European Union, is becoming a more powerful political force than the fabled Arab street: “This political ascendance threatens to exacerbate existing strains within the trans-Atlantic relationship. The presence of nearly 10 million Muslims versus only 700,000 Jews in France and Germany alone helps explain why continental Europe might look at the Middle East from a different angle than does the United States. Indeed, French and German concerns about a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq or Washington’s blind support for Israel are at least partly related to nervousness about the Muslim street at home.” “In Germany and elsewhere in Europe, a Muslim swing vote is already having a critical impact.”
Iranian-in-exile Amir Taheri, too, has noticed this “red-black” cooperation. According to him, Europe’s hard Left “sees Muslims as the new under-class” in the continent: “The European Marxist-Islamist coalition does not offer a coherent political platform. Its ideology is built around three themes: hatred of the United States, the dream of wiping Israel off the map, and the hoped-for collapse of the global economic system.”
This cooperation has received support from Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, the Venezuelan terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal. Carlos has said that
Islam is the only force capable of persuading large numbers of people to become “volunteers” for suicide attacks against the US. “Only a coalition of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the US,” he said. As Christopher Hitchens put it, “once you decide that American-led “globalisation” is the main enemy, then any revolt against it is better than none at all. In some way yet to be determined, Al-Qaeda might be able to help to stave off global warming.”
Christopher Caldwell, writing about this Islamic-leftist alliance, tells of how the second annual European Social Forum in 2003 was held in three Communist-controlled suburbs around Paris. “Muslims were hugely overrepresented among the Social Forum’s delegates.” The yearnings of radical Muslims are now at the core of the Social Forum’s universe. “They have jostled aside the left-wing economics and focus on global markets that once dominated.” The key sign of this shift was the Forum’s anointing of Tariq Ramadan as the event’s co-star. Ramadan, a professor of Islamic studies in Geneva, Switzerland, is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and a hero to Muslims in Europe.
The Muslims are quite happy with this collaboration, at least for now: “We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestine: ahlan wa sahlan (welcome),” quipped Abu-Hamza al-Masri, the British Islamist firebrand who is awaiting extradition to the US on various criminal charges. “The Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy.”
The American William S. Lind calls this “the Marx-Mohammed Pact:” “What made possible the recent bombings in London (July 2005), and the many more that almost assuredly will follow in Europe and the United States, is the Marx-Mohammed Pact. Once again, two sworn enemies, Marxism – – specifically, the cultural Marxism commonly known as Political Correctness – – and Islam, have made a Devil’s bargain whereby each assists the other against a common enemy, the remnants of the Christian West.” “London was only a foretaste of what those policies will bring to Europe and America. If we dare rip down the camouflage nets cultural Marxism has erected to blind us we see Europe has two real choices: an infinity of Londons or second expulsion of the Moors.”
Of course, the same collaboration happened in Iran, where popular “reformers” such as Ali Shariati in the years before the 1979 revolution infused Islam with aspects of Western thought and made the Marxists believe that they could coexist with Islam. So they cooperated in overthrowing the Shah – and then all the godless Socialists were the first ones to hang from lamp posts around the country when Khomeini and his Islamic cronies seized power. The secular Leftists in Europe know fully well that they do not agree with religious Muslims on some issues, but they believe they are the senior partners in the alliance and that they can “ride the tiger.” That may be true now, but for how long will the situation remain like that?
In Denmark, writers Helle Merete Brix, Torben Hansen and Lars Hedegaard think the Muslim immigration and the clashes we are witnessing now is part of a third Islamic Jihad, a third attempt to conquer and subdue the West. The fist one came with the Arabs more than a thousand years ago, the second with the Turks in the early modern era. Will three times be the charm for the Muslims? Will they succeed this time?
During the first Jihad, Charles Martel, “The Hammer,” brilliant general and founder of the Carolingian Empire, the first Western power after the fall of Rome, defeated the Arabs in the Battle of Tours (or Poitiers) in 732, thus saving Western civilization, and by extension much of the world, from Islam. The Muslims underestimated the strength of the Franks, who they considered barbarians, and allowed them to pick both the time and place of the battle. The Muslims were also burdened with booty. During the battle, members of the Frankish army began freeing prisoners, and fearing loss of their riches, a significant part of the Muslim army abandoned the battle to protect their plunder. Although they managed to conquer Spain, Muslims thus lost the first shot at subduing the European heartland because they were too arrogant and underestimated the strength of their Western opponents, and were too weighed down by and concerned with their riches to fight effectively. Is the same thing happening now, only in reverse, with the arrogant West underestimating their Muslim opponents until it’s too late?
During the second Jihad, Jan Sobieski, king of Poland, routed the Ottoman armies that had laid siege to Vienna in 1683. Leading a combined force of Polish, Austrian and German troops, Sobieski attacked a numerically superior Turkish army until their lines were broken and the Turks fled in confusion. This was the last time Muslims came close to threatening the West in traditional warfare. They now prefer demographic warfare through migration, combined with terrorism.
The third Jihad started with the oil embargo, the influx of Saudi petrodollars and the beginnings of Eurabia and Muslim immigration to the West in the 1960s and early 70s. During the third Jihad, Leftists all over Europe seem to be opening the gates of Europe from within. “You want to conquer Europe? That’s ok. Just vote for us and help us get rid of capitalism and eradicate the Christian heritage of Europe, and we’ll let you in. In the meantime, you can enjoy some welfare goodies, and we will ban opposition to this undertaking as racism and hate speech.”
The basic trends are remarkably similar throughout Western Europe. I will start with describing the situation in the Scandinavian countries, as I’m Norwegian myself and thus have the most detailed knowledge of this region.
You know you have entered a strange, Eurabian world when leading politicians from Norway, a country straddling the Arctic Circle and with no colonial history, begin their election campaigns in the Pakistani countryside. Before Norway’s national elections in 2005, the leader of the Socialist Left party, Kristin Halvorsen, praised all the “blood, sweat and tears Pakistanis in Norway have spent on building the country.” While the deputy leader of the Socialist Left party has stated that he wants to abolish private property, its leader Kristin Halvorsen is in 2006 Norway’s Minister of Finance. 83 percent of Muslims in Norway voted for Leftist parties in 2005. The Labor Party got a majority of these votes, whereas the Socialist Left Party got 30, 5 %, more than three times the percentage it got among the general populace. Psephologist Anders Todal Jenssen pointed out that parties such as the Socialist Left party had the most liberal immigration policies, and that this probably contributed to this tilt towards Leftist parties among immigrants. Likewise, the Labor Party is seen as the primary guarantor of the generous welfare state. The Leftist parties won a very slim majority (in fact, a minority of the votes) in parliament in 2005, and formed a coalition government that has been notoriously anti-Israeli and critical of the USA, as well as appeasing towards Palestinian Hamas terrorists.
Before Norway’s Constitution Day, May 17th, in 2006, the Multicultural lobby in the country wanted to celebrate the day by singing the
Norwegian national anthem – in Urdu. The idea was that an Urdu version of the anthem would allow many immigrants from Pakistan, for example, to more easily express their love for Norway. The title of Norway’s national anthem is “Ja vi elsker,” which in English translates to “Yes we love (this country).” It may sound ridiculous to sing Urdu in Norway, but the capital city of Oslo in particular has a significant and fast-growing Pakistani community. In fact, it is expected that native Norwegians will be a minority in their own capital city within a generation. American writer Bruce Bawer, who lives in Norway, has pointed out in his book While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within, that there are now more direct flights from Norway to Pakistan than from Norway to the USA.
Samira Munir, Norwegian politician of Pakistani origins, received many death threats against herself and her family because of her work as a champion of the rights of Muslim immigrant women. She was found dead under strange circumstances in November 2005 at Kolbotn station, one of the suburban lines outside Oslo. Earlier in 2005, Munir had claimed that there was widespread cooperation between the Socialist parties and Muslim communities during that year’s elections in Norway. “The heads of families and the mosques would decide how entire groups of immigrants would vote. They made deals such as “How much money will we get if we get our people to vote for you?”, and the deals were always made with the Socialist parties” said Munir. It should be noted that her own, Conservative party was not innocent of this, either. Akhtar Chaudhry, politician for the Socialist Left party, stated that Norway with its welfare state was pretty close to the Muslim idea of Paradise, and that the welfare state was similar to Islamic concepts of social justice. Of course, he failed to mention that according to “Islamic justice,” non-Muslims should pay Muslims tribute as a sign of submission, and that undoubtedly many Muslim immigrants view the infidel welfare state in this way. He also failed to explain why Muslims cannot create such a “paradise” in their own countries, or whether the Scandinavian “Paradise” can survive a massive influx of Muslim immigrants.
In Denmark in 2005, less than five percent of immigrant voters supported the centre-right government, which had taken some steps in recent years to limit Muslim immigration. The country’s Leftist parties had the near unanimous support of Denmark’s immigrants. According to the Copenhagen Post, “over 95 percent of non-ethnic Danes with the right to vote say they support left-leaning opposition parties.” The most popular party with immigrants was the Social Democrats. The second largest party in parliament drew the support of 47.6 percent of immigrants. Second most popular was the Social Liberal Party, polling at 21.4 percent. This trend has not gone unnoticed by those wanting to limit Muslim immigration, such as the Danish People’s Party and its leader Pia KjÃ¦rsgaard: “Let’s be honest. The Radicals are not just cafÃ© latte-sipping people from the creative class. To a large degree, it is also largely composed of immigrants, and one could fear the result of the upcoming local elections in large cities, where there are large concentrations of immigrants that the Social Liberals pander to,’ KjÃ¦rsgaard said. In the Scandinavian and Nordic countries, non-citizen immigrants gain voter rights in local (but not national) elections after living in the country for three years.
A vitriolic row erupted into the heart of Denmark’s general election campaign early in 2005 when Islamic leaders urged the country’s Muslims to vote against the ruling centre-right coalition. Kasem Said Ahmad, a prominent Muslim community spokesman, said he “advised all Muslims to oppose the government.” Mr Ahmad organized a gathering of imams in an anti-government message during that week’s Friday prayers. Danish Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, who was eventually re-elected, responded angrily and immediately to the proposed intervention of Denmark’s imams: “They should keep their fingers out of politics,” Mr Fogh Rasmussen said. “In Denmark we keep politics and religion separate. Imagine if Danish priests were to use church pulpits to urge people to vote for particular parties,” he said. Morten Messerschmidt, a member of Denmark’s Parliament for the Danish People’s Party, says that “everybody should have expected that the leftwing would be the first to cry out against the Muslim intolerance. But for some reason only a few have done so. It has to do with a screwed up idea of cultural relativism.” “Secondly I believe it has to do with power — it is well known that the Muslim minorities in Denmark are voting for leftwing parties. And some politicians — in Denmark as well as in many other European countries — are deliberately campaigning for these votes. Of course you wouldn’t like to disturb the people handing you your paycheque.”
In the spring of 2006, Sweden‘s largest Muslim organisation demanded in a letter, signed by its leader Mahmoud Aldebe, that Sweden should introduce separate laws for Muslims. The letter was a list running over several pages with aggressive demands for just about everything; separate family laws for Muslims, regulating marriage and divorce, that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in their religion and the language of their original homeland. Sweden’s Equality Minister Jens Orback called the proposals “completely unacceptable.”
However, it looks increasingly as if the election in September will be a very close race, and the Leftist parties will be dependent upon the support of immigrants to remain in power. As Nima Sanandaji points out in FrontPage Magazine, “Swedish public television exposed that the leading Social Democratic party had started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslim clergies.” For several years the Christian wing of the Social Democratic party, called The Brotherhood, has been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, president of Sweden’s Muslim Association. Already in 1999, Aldebe proposed that sharia, Islamic law, should be introduced in Sweden. After the last election in 2002, Sweden’s Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime minister GÃ¶ran Persson, congratulating him on his victory and hoping that Persson would work for implementing some of the demands of the Association in the future. The Muslim Brotherhood has earlier stated that for them, “Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and it] shares the ideals of the [Swedish] Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], and have very good relations with Sweden’s Christian Social Democrats. “The Social Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the mosque’s worshippers].” Israeli authorities in 2006 called Sweden “the most anti-Israeli country in Europe.” The number of rape charges in the country has quadrupled parallel with Muslim immigration in recent years.
During the elections in the United Kingdom in 2005, the Labour Party tried hard to win back the traditional support from Muslims in Britain, many of whom threatened to leave the party in favor of anti-war Respect Party candidate George Galloway or even the Liberal Democrats because of Tony Blair’s support for the war in Iraq. The most visible result of this was the attempts to pass a law banning incitement to “religious hatred.” Prominent Muslims have stated their hope that according to this new law, it would be a crime to use terms such as “Islamic terrorism.” The bill has been proposed in the British Parliament several times, but stranded on opposition from the House of Lords. As newspaper the Daily Telegraph stated, “it is a bone tossed to those who claim to speak on behalf of a Muslim community that overwhelmingly resides in Labour inner city heartlands.” “If such a law had existed in the 1980s, Salman Rushdie might have been prosecuted for writing Satanic Verses rather than being protected by the British state.” A local Labour candidate in London, Oona King, who eventually lost her election to Galloway, was accused of double standards after dropping references to Muslims in leaflets for predominantly white areas. One of the leaflets stated: “Oona voted to protect Muslims from hate crimes.” But in the other leaflet it said: “Oona voted to make incitement to religious hatred a crime.” One of her colleagues tried to lure British Muslims back into the fold with the following arguments: “Labour and British Muslims: Can we dream the same dream?” “Are you still unconvinced that the Muslims need or should want a Labour Prime Minister in Downing Street? Tony Blair is the first Prime Minister to have ever read the Qur’an, to quote from it and to talk about it.” “The Muslim Council of Britain has been at the forefront of lobbying the Government on issues to help Muslims. Recently Iqbal Sacranie, the General Secretary of the Council, asked Tony Blair to declare that the Government would introduce a new law banning religious discrimination. Two weeks later, Tony Blair promised that the next Labour Government would ban religious discrimination. It was a major victory for the Muslim community in Britain.”
Gordon Brown, Blair’s PM-successor-in-waiting, paid tribute to British Muslims as “modern heroes” who brought hope and idealism to the country. He said they had “contributed to Britain spiritually and economically because Islam was a religion that encouraged fair play, social justice and equality.” Labour PM Tony Blair himself called Islam “progressive” and praised the Koran for being “practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.” This was after the Jihadist terror bombings in London in July 2005, and while several Muslim clerics in the UK were openly calling for overthrowing the West and British democracy. Maybe Blair, Brown and their ilk didn’t read writer Spengler of the Asia Times Online, who, while reviewing Melanie Phillips’ book “Londonistan,” noted that “revulsion and contempt color Muslim attitudes toward the British leftists who most desire to appease them.” In all fairness, it should be mentioned that even Conservative Party leader Michael Howard in 2005 spoke of the “immense” contribution Muslims have made to British life. Mr Howard said the “economically vibrant, culturally creative, socially aware” British Muslim community enriched modern Britain.” This attempt of flirting with Muslims voters met with little success, however. The Tories complained in 2005 that it was difficult for them “to win the cities.” As elsewhere in Europe, Muslim immigrants in Britain tend to be concentrated in major cities, thus consolidating the grip Leftist parties had on these areas. In the Netherlands, the municipal elections in March 2006 were won by the Labour Party, the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA). The balance was tipped by the Muslim vote. Eighty percent of the growing immigrant electorate voted for the PvdA, while the remaining Muslims voted for smaller parties of the extreme left. This phenomenon prompted De Telegraaf, the largest paper in the country, to write that the immigrants have become a “power block.” A case in point was the Amsterdam borough of Geuzenveld-Slotermeer. Here the PvdA won 54% of the votes. Of their 13 seats, however, 5 were won by Turkish and 2 by Moroccan candidates. This means that more than half the seats of the largest party were won by Muslims. The situation resembled that in the regional parliament of Brussels, Belgium, the so-called “capital of Europe,” where the Parti Socialiste was the largest party. Over half its 26 seats were held by Muslim immigrants. As the online Brussels Journal noted, “the electoral strength of the Left in Western Europe is increasingly based on the immigrant vote, as the Left caters for voters who favour extensive redistribution of taxpayers’ money to so-called “underprivileged” groups such as immigrants.” “In many West European countries the parties of the Left are actively catering for the growing Muslim vote. The Left realizes that the Third World immigrants guarantee its power base because these immigrants moved to Western Europe attracted by the generous welfare benefits that the parties of the Left promote.”
The PvdA leader Bos was worried about the poor competence of many of these newly elected immigrants. He said that “our new immigrant councillors” are bound to cause trouble because their “political culture” is often incompatible with Dutch politics: “They conduct politics according to the culture of their home countries, where clientelism is the norm.” Bos’s words were widely reported by the Dutch media and caused anger among the newly elected PvdA councillors, some of whom hinted that Bos had made a racist remark. According to the Institute for Migration and Ethnic Studies of the University of Amsterdam 80% of the non-indigenous electorate voted for Labour. This explains why cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Breda and Arnhem succumbed to the Left.
In Germany in the general election in 2002, numbers have indicated that about up to 90 percent of the Muslim voters backed SchrÃ¶der’s left-wing coalition. “Some 200,000 German Muslims voted for Schroeder in the elections which he won by only 9,000.” Poll data from 2005, when the Social Democratic SPD narrowly lost the election to the conservatives and joined in a coalition with Angela Merkel as Chancellor, indicate that 77 percent of Turkish voters planned to vote for the Social Democrats, followed by 9.2 percent for the Greens and 7.8 percent for the Left Alliance. Pundits said that the Muslim vote was likely to reward SchrÃ¶der’s Social Democrats (SPD) for its anti-Iraq war position and pro-Muslim policies. A meager 4.8 percent said they would cast votes for the conservative CDU. Cem Ã–zedmir, a member of the European Parliament for Germany’s Green Party, said the Christian Democrats had made a strategic decision in not trying to attract Turkish voters. “It is too high a cost,” he explained. “For every Turkish voter the party might win, it would lose two or three German voters because of the party’s conservative attitudes toward immigration and its social base.” Guelay Yasin, manager of the Turkish-German Chamber of Commerce, made it clear for which party most of her members would vote. “We will vote for the party which supports Turkey’s membership to the EU,” Yasin said. The Social Democrats would profit from this since SchrÃ¶der had personally supported Turkey’s becoming a member of the EU.
In fact, the major challenge to the Social Democrats in vying for the Muslim vote in Germany, especially the country’s 2.6 million Turks, 840,000 of them with German passports, comes from other Leftist parties. Some warned that the SPD could lose a number of Turkish voters to the newly formed and immigrant-friendly Left Party, a group born out of the marriage of former East German communists and Oskar Lafontaine, the ex-chief of the Social Democrats. Hans-Christian StrÃ¶bele, a member of parliament for the Green Party, in 2006 triggered a debate by calling for an official Turkish translation of the German national anthem. Conservatives worried it would send the wrong signal about integration. A Turkish version, StrÃ¶bele said, could demonstrate how multicultural German society has become. “I would see it as a sign of integration if citizens of Turkish descent could sing the third verse in Turkish.”
Early in 2006, the secretary general of Italy‘s largest Muslim organisation, the Union of Islamic communities in Italy, called on Italian Muslims to vote for the Party of Italian Communists at the general election. The leader of UCOII said that their party’s willingness to accommodate the needs of the Muslim community was a good reason to vote for them – even placing at the end of his email the logos of the Party of Italian Communists and its allies at the Senate, the Greens, both members of the center-left coalition. Just weeks after Italian Muslims recommended voting for the Communist Party, a Communist minister in the newly elected Leftist coalition of Romano Prodi, super-Eurocrat and former President of the European Commission, which won a very slim majority and ousted right-winger Berlusconi, decided to make it easier for immigrants from North Africa to enter the country. Italy’s new Social Solidarity Minister, Paolo Ferrero, touched off an immigration controversy by announcing that under Prodi’s new center-left government, “any foreigner with a job should be allowed to stay in the country.” “The declarations of Minister for Social Solidarity Paolo Ferrero on the delicate issue of immigration were met enthusiastically by the people who are waiting to set sail from other shores of the Mediterranean” said deputy Senate speaker Roberto Calderoli, who belonged to Italy’s anti-immigrant Northern League. “Announcing the closure of temporary shelter camps and the abolition of the Bossi-Fini law will unleash an invasion.” Italy is facing a growing number of illegal workers from North Africa. There has been an increase in arrivals to Italy by sea, as “Moroccans who used to cross into Spain to get into the rest of Europe are changing tactics and now going by boat from Libya to Italy.” Libya has become the bottleneck of much of the immigration from Africa and of a large part of the Middle East.
Leading Sunni Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi and others have hailed the coming Islamic conquest of Rome, just like Constantinople was conquered in 1453. “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after being expelled from it twice. Islam entered Europe twice and left it”¦ Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies.” The Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-‘Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy, concurred: “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians (“¦) will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam”¦”
Given the actions of European Leftists, Qaradhawi could end up being right in his predictions.