“ U.S. authorities are making the same mistakes, and in exactly the same order, as those that the British government has made. Violent Islam is the problem and therefore some other form of yet to be decided upon peaceful Islam is the solution.” So says Douglass Murray, a British expert on religion and culture. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/author/douglas-murray/ for biographical data)
The importance of looking to the European experience is simply a case of being able to identify the steps in the process of soft Jihad, and to see the symptoms for what they are. Mr. Murray is entirely correct as a forthcoming post will attempt to demonstrate. Islamists are patient, clever, excellent strategists and forward thinking. Time is not of the essence; only progress is of the essence.
Charles de Gaulle, because, well…; because he was Charles de Gaulle set the stage for the European evolution to Eurabia. de Gaulle envisioned a unified Europe, economically connected and strongly allied with Arab populations in North Africa and the Middle East as a counterweight to the U.S. Haj Amin al-Hussaini former Mufti of Jerusalem and Adolph Hitler’s strongest ally in the Muslim world during WWII was a vocal supporter of de Gaulle’s strategy.
Europe’s transition to Eurabia began in 1973 (there is even an official logo and a flag). The European Economic Community (ECC) lead by France and The Arab League established the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD). The EAD process and subsequent development of entrenched bureaucracies began the inexorable move toward convergence of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The European motivation was oil, new export markets, economics and terrorism, securing the former, avoiding the latter. The price of entry from the Arab side of the table was an evolving anti-Americanism, rejection of Israel and of U.S. support for Israel. The motivation of the Arab League was “soft Jihad”. Soft Jihad defined as a new level of “sensitivity” to Islamic concerns, language and culture, as well as a vehicle to repopulate Europe with Muslims and the eventual establishment of Islamic Shari’a as the dominating legal system in Europe dictating a new standard of moral, legal and cultural norms.
The EAD was a many headed beast and the complexity of it defies brief review, the seminal history was written by Bat Ye’or, “Eurabia, The Euro-Arab Axis” and is recommended reading for anyone interested in understanding the process and benchmarks of Soft Jihad.
Bat Ye’or identifies three early stages in the soft Jihad process:
- Gradual erosion of resistance typically concurring with economic weakness due to “tribute” paid to Muslim rulers. (In the modern case that would be oil.)
- Insecurity caused by massive immigration and the subsequent process of alteration and substitution of one civilization by another.
- Emergence of powerful alliances politically and economically connected to Muslim goals and priorities.
Arabs seeing the need for a Western voice in their pursuit of Israel correctly judged European needs: Capital, markets, demographic support relative to the European working class and security. The Arab agenda was focused on pressuring Israel, supporting the Palestinian agenda, “sensitivity” to Arab political positions and mitigation of U.S. influence in the region. The rhetoric of the agreements is often flowing and satisfies all requirements of small L traditional liberalism. The common calls for respect, religious diversity, human rights, etc evolved into a European deal with the devil as the fundamental Arab social construct, despite the flowery rhetoric, fundamentally rejected the very values that were the basis for European systems of justice, social order and the EAD agreements. The Europeans looked the other way at totalitarian regimes in Middle East and North Africa that had demonstrated none of the tolerance enshrined in EAD documents and agreement. The Europeans made a deal with an Arab world that did not and does not exist.
In 1999 French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine opined; “The United States is the primary international problem tending to inadmissible hegemony and unilateralism.” This attitude came to dominate European attitudes toward the U.S in subsequent years. This attitude is also oft repeated by Islamists; “the U.S. got what it deserved.” “It’s U.S. foreign policy that is the problem.” The quote from the Foreign Minister was one of thousands that preceeded it in European academia, media and elite political circles. This anti U.S. position was one of the prices to be paid by the Europeans for the EAD fantasy.
As a result of EAD policy millions of Muslims have immigrated to Europe, they have brought with them their religious, legal and cultural imperatives; they have not acclimated to European culture nor did they have any intention to do so.
At the Lahore Second Islamic conference in 1974 Secretary General Mohammed al-Tohami called for the faithful to “outstrip” non-Muslim countries.” Abbas ali Amid Zanjani justifies this manner of soft jihad; (Qur’an 4:140) “Allah will never give the disbelievers a way against the believers, Islam surmounts, Islam is not surmounted.”
Base line agreements with the Europeans such as the U.N. Conventions on Human Rights should be accepted by all parties. This agreement was abrogated by The Cairo Declaration in 1990. In response to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights the Arab Nations adopted the Cairo Declaration. The Declaration specifically and clearly defines human rights only in the context of Islamic jurisprudence and Shari’a. The Cairo Declaration is unequivocal; “to guide all humanity, which is confused;” “to affirm (man’s) freedom and rights to a dignified life in accordance with Islamic shari’a.” The declaration goes on; “All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah.” Secular Europeans raised no protest as they blindly maintained the necessary fantasy.
The EAD process crept along: economic agreements, adoption of Arab positions related to Israel and Palestine, push back against U.S. policy and open immigration policies throughout Europe. The process nearly always commenced with academia: cultural exchanges, educational exchanges, agreements to promote Arab and Islamic language and culture. Common agreements related to Islam’s importance in European history. A series of small appeasements built brick on brick created the foundation for Europe to be subjected to evolving Islamic dhimminitude; in this case the jihaz tax (tax paid by non Muslims in Muslim lands) was oil and political appeasement.
While the call for Muslim immigration began at the outset of what would become the EAD process at the Cairo Conference in 1975 and was supported in each subsequent meeting it found it’s voice in 1977 with a conference at the University of Vienna; “Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization.” The recommendations of this conference, staged under the auspices of the EAD would include recommendations regarding open ended Muslim immigration to Europe.
The call for “the faithful to “outstrip” non-Muslim countries” had found its form as part of the EAD process. These proposals were accepted by the EAD’s General Commission in secret; the only proof of their acceptance being the obvious implementation that occurred.
In 1978 the process continued with the EAD adopting a 14 point declaration essentially guaranteeing Muslim immigrants economic, educational, vocational and legal equality.
Also in 1978 at the Damascus meeting of the EAD General Commission; an agreement to “examine” the history books of the two regions. Damascus also validated the idea of homogeneous ethnic communities. Within two decades these communities would house millions of Muslim immigrants. At the outset rejection of European legal systems was evident as was the call for implementation of Shari’a.
1983; EAD sponsored discussions at The Hamburg Symposium. At this juncture the issue became a more wide ranging codification of immigrant rights; “enjoy equality of treatment as to living and working conditions, wages, economic rights, rights of association and the exercise of basic public freedoms.” Special training was required for civil servants, medical staff, members of the police force, teachers, social workers and anyone else engaging the Muslim immigrant community. The way for non-assimilation and Shari’a was open as there were no expectations that immigrants would conform to the host countries law, culture or civic requirements. Precedents established that would wreak havoc in the current day.
To say the processes addressed above have continued to evolve would to state the obvious as there are, at last count, 52 Million Muslims in Europe nearly 13 million per decade since the onset of the EAD. Over 12,000 a day!