Survival and Resistance Under Nazism

Published on February 2017 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 29 | Comments: 0 | Views: 432
of 133
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Survival and Resistance under the Nazism
and the Islam Problematic Today
Researcher and Editor: Philippe L. De Coster, B.Th.,D.D.

Foreword
We live in a time of unparalleled instances of democide, genocide and
ethnocide. The Holocaust, the genocides in Darfur, Turkey, Cambodia, Tibet, &
Bosnia, the disappearances in Argentina & Chile, the death squad killings in El
Salvador, Stalin's purges, the killing of the Tutsi in Rwanda, the Islamic State
and the Salafists, but the list goes on. Mass violence, torture, violations of
fundamental human rights, and the mistreatment of human beings is not a new
aspect of humanity; documentation of such events spans the historical record.
Christianity since its creation in the first century of our time, they were as cruel
like the Islamic State in name of the Islam today. However, technology has
taken these cruelties to new levels.
2

It is imperative that a greater understanding of the psychological, cultural,
political, and societal roots of human cruelty, mass violence, and genocide be
developed. We need to continue to examine the factors which enable
individuals collectively and individually to perpetrate evil/genocide and the
impact of apathetic bystanders as fuel for human violence. While an exact
predictive model for mass violence/human cruelty is beyond the scope of
human capability, we have an obligation to develop a model that highlights the
warning signs and predisposing factors for human violence and genocide. With
such information, we can develop policies, strategies, and programs designed to
counteract these atrocities.

Nazi History Briefly
At the beginning of the 1930s, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party exploited widespread
and deep-seated discontent in Germany to attract popular and political support.
There was resentment at the crippling territorial, military and economic terms
of the Versailles Treaty, which Hitler blamed on treacherous politicians and
promised to overturn. The democratic post-World War I Weimar Republic was
marked by a weak coalition government and political crisis, in answer to which
the Nazi party offered strong leadership and national rebirth. From 1929
onwards, the worldwide economic depression provoked hyperinflation, social
unrest and mass unemployment, to which Hitler offered scapegoats such as the
Jews.
Hitler pledged civil peace, radical economic policies, and the restoration of
national pride and unity. Nazi rhetoric was virulently nationalist and antiSemitic. The ‘subversive’ Jews were portrayed as responsible for all of
Germany’s ills.
In the federal elections of 1930 (which followed the Wall Street Crash), the
Nazi Party won 107 seats in the Reichstag (the German Parliament), becoming
the second-largest party. The following year, it more than doubled its seats. In
January 1933, President von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor, believing
that the Nazis could be controlled from within the cabinet. Hitler set about
consolidating his power, destroying Weimar democracy and establishing a
dictatorship. On 27 February, the Reichstag burned; Dutch communist
Marianus van der Lubbe was found inside, arrested and charged with arson.
With the Communist Party discredited and banned, the Nazis passed the
Reichstag Fire Decree, which dramatically curtailed civil liberties.
In March 1933, the Nazis used intimidation and manipulation to pass the
3

Enabling Act, which allowed them to pass laws which did not need to be voted
on in the Reichstag. Over the next year, the Nazis eliminated all remaining
political opposition, banning the Social Democrats, and forcing the other parties
to disband. In July 1933, Germany was declared a one-party state. In the ‘Night
of the Long Knives’ of June 1934, Hitler ordered the Gestapo and the SS to
eliminate rivals within the Nazi Party. In 1935, the Nuremburg Laws marked
the beginning of an institutionalised anti-Semitic persecution which would
culminate in the barbarism of the ‘Final Solution’.
Hitler’s first moves to overturn the Versailles settlement began with the
rearmament of Germany, and in 1936 he ordered the remilitarisation of the
Rhineland. Hitler became bolder as he realised that Britain and France were
unwilling and unable to challenge German expansionism. Between 1936 and
1939, he provided military aid to Franco’s fascist forces in the Spanish Civil
War, despite having signed the ‘Non-Intervention Agreement’. In March 1938,
German troops marched into Austria; the Anschluss was forbidden under
Versailles. Anglo-French commitment to appeasement and ‘peace for our time’
meant that when Hitler provoked the ‘Sudeten Crisis’, demanding that the
Sudetenland be ceded to Germany, Britain and France agreed to his demands at
September 1938’s Munich conference. Germany’s territorial expansion
eastwards was motivated by Hitler’s desire to unite German–speaking peoples,
and also by the concept of Lebensraum: the idea of providing Aryan Germans
with ‘living space’.
At the end of the year, anti-Jewish pogroms erupted across Germany and
Austria. Kristallnacht – a state-orchestrated attack on Jewish property –
resulted in the murder of 91 Jews. Twenty thousand more were arrested and
transported to concentration camps. In March 1939, Germany seized the
remainder of Czechoslovakia; in August Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact of
non-aggression with the USSR. The next step would be the invasion of Poland
and the coming of World War II.

Genocide (Concentration Camps)
The systematic policy of racial extermination carried out against Jews by the
Nazis in Europe during World War II stands out as one of history’s most
horrifying events. This assault upon Europe’s Jewry began when Hitler came to
power in 1933 and culminated in the terrible orchestration of the ‘Final Solution
to the Jewish Question in Europe’, in which six million Jews were killed.
The Nazis targeted many groups for extermination, including Gypsies, Slavs,
the disabled and homosexuals, all of whom were labelled as ‘undesirables’ with
4

no future in the Nazi state. However the scale of persecution and murder of
Jews – presented in Nazi ideology as an insidious, lethal enemy of the Aryan
‘master race’ – was on a scale without comparison. The Nazis drew on a deeply
ingrained tradition of anti-Semitism which permeated much of Europe in the
1930s. And although the Nazis adapted their rhetoric to meet the times, those
who collaborated in the extermination of Jews across Europe were often
responding to much older prejudices.
From 1933 onwards, the Nazis implemented discriminatory policies against
German Jews, most infamously under the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, which
stripped them of German citizenship. In November 1938, Kristallnacht (the
Night of Broken Glass) – an attack on Jewish property engineered by
Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels – resulted in the murder of 91 Jews, and
the deportation to camps of more than 20,000.
After Germany conquered Poland in 1939, the persecution reached terrifying
new levels. Polish Jews were rounded up and forced to live in ghettoes, where
disease and starvation were constant threats. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union, the Einsatzgruppen (‘special operations groups’) followed in the wake
of advancing German forces. These paramilitary death squads under SS
command were made up of Nazi security forces and local volunteers. They
orchestrated mass killings of defenceless civilians: Communists, intellectuals,
gypsies, and above all Jews. At the ravine of Babi Yar near Kiev,
Einsatzgruppe C organised the war’s most notorious massacre, killing 33,771
Jews on 29 and 30 September 1941.
The implementation of ‘Death Camp Operations’ began in December 1941, at
Semlin in Serbia and Chelmno in Poland, where a total of over 400,000 Jews
were killed by the exhaust fumes of specially adapted vans. On 20 January
1942, at a conference in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee, the ‘Final Solution’ –
the annihilation of European Jews - was set up as a systematic operation headed
by Reinhard Heydrich. The Nazis began transporting Jews to a network of
concentration and extermination camps including Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka,
and the largest and most notorious, Auschwitz II-Birkenau, where Jews would
be either instantly killed or worked to death. A total of 1.1 million people (a
million of them Jews) were murdered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.
The horrific scenes of decaying corpses and emaciated prisoners which Allied
troops found as they liberated Nazi camps led to difficult questions about Allied
wartime policy towards Nazi genocide. Many felt that British and US
politicians, aware of what was occurring in Nazi German concentration camps
in German-occupied Poland, failed to act decisively for motives of political
5

expediency.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, many of the leading officials who manned the
camps were tried and executed, including Rudolf Hess, commandant of
Auschwitz, hanged in 1947. In addition, the term ‘genocide’ became part of
international law, due to the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide. Yet as events
in Yugoslavia and Rwanda have demonstrated, these steps failed to extinguish
the tragic shadow of genocide from the world.

Invasion Poland
On 1 September 1939, 62 German divisions supported by 1,300 aircraft began
the invasion of Poland. At 8pm on the same day, Poland requested military
assistance from Britain and France. Two days later, in fulfilment of their April
1939 pledge to support the country in the event of an attack, Britain and France
declared war on Germany. World War II had begun.
The Anglo-French declaration of war may have been unexpected, but Hitler’s
prediction that the campaign against Poland would be short and victorious was
correct.
At 6am on 1 September, as Warsaw was battered by the first in a succession of
bombing raids, two German army groups invaded Poland from Slovakia in the
south and Prussia in the north. The German air force, which had much more
advanced aircrafts than the Poles, quickly established air supremacy by
attacking and destroying the Polish air force in the air and on the ground. This
allowed German bombers to attack road and rail junctions, as well as
concentrations of Polish troops. Towns and villages were bombed to spread
terror among civilians and generate a fleeing mass of refugees which would
block the roads and prevent reinforcements from arriving at the front. Junkers
Ju-87 dive-bombers destroyed any strong points in the German path. By 8
September, German tanks were already on the outskirts of Warsaw. A week
later, the capital was completely surrounded.
A Polish counterattack on 9 September led to the Battle of Bzura, the largest
engagement of the campaign. Despite some limited early Polish success,
massive German air superiority, and their ability to quickly redirect forces to
meet the Polish attack, led to a crushing German victory.
Poland had been overrun in four weeks, long before any meaningful AngloFrench military aid could reach Poland, and proving Hitler’s conviction that
Polish armed forces would be no match for the Blitzkrieg (‘lightening war’)
6

unleashed by Germany.
The Soviet Union – which had spent the 1930s searching for a ‘collective
security’ agreement in Europe and had signed a non-aggression pact with
Germany on 28 August 1939 – also profited from the invasion. On 17
September the Red Army crossed the Polish border in the east, seizing a third of
all Polish territory. Some Poles fled across the border into Romania, eventually
reaching the west and continuing the war as the Free Polish Forces. Warsaw
finally surrendered at 2.00pm on 27 September.

The Battle of Britain
The Battle of Britain was a struggle between the German Luftwaffe
(commanded by Hermaan Göring) and the British Royal Air force (headed by
Sir Hugh Dowding’s Fighter Command) which raged over Britain between July
and October 1940. The battle, which was the first major military campaign in
history to be fought entirely in the air, was the result of a German plan to win
air superiority over Southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the
British air force and aircraft industry. Hitler saw victory in the battle as a
prelude to the invasion of Britain (codenamed Operation Sealion).
In May 1940, German forces had overrun Belgium, the Netherlands and
northern France using Blitzkrieg (‘Lightening War’) tactics. With the USA and
the Soviet Union both still mired in hesitant isolationism, and the French ally
toppled, Britain now stood alone against Nazi Germany. Yet as Hitler turned his
attention to the British Isles in the summer of 1940, directing a force of over
1,350 bombers and 1,200 fighters first against shipping, airfields, and finally
against towns, it became apparent that the Luftwaffe had the odds stacked
against it.
The Luftwaffe’s first disadvantage was that it was neither trained nor equipped
for the long range operations which became part of the battle. Its tactics were
based upon the concept of close air support for ground forces; they were
therefore ill-suited to the circumstances of the new campaign. The technical
differences between the fighter aircraft employed by two sides were negligible:
the RAF’s main fighter planes were the Spitfire and the Hurricane, whilst the
Germans relied primarily on Messcherschmitt fighters and Junkers dive
bombers. Yet to swing the odds in Britain’s favour, the tactical advantage that
German fighters had developed in earlier conflicts was negated once fighter
aircraft were ordered to provide close escort to the German bomber formations.
These formations had discovered to their own extreme cost that they were
7

unable to defend themselves.
During the battle, the RAF enjoyed the advantage of defending against attacks
launched from widely separated airfields, thus profiting from what strategists
call ‘interior lines’. This advantage was optimised by Britain’s system of radar
tracking and guidance. Furthermore, the added comfort of fighting over friendly
territory meant that pilots who crash-landed or parachuted out of their aircrafts
could return to battle. British fortunes were also helped by the fact that the
Luftwaffe had never subscribed to a concept of strategic bombing. British antiaircraft and civil-defence preparations were inadequate in the summer of 1940,
yet the Luftwaffe was unable to wreak the devastating effects feared by many.
The climax of the battle came on 15 September, a day in which the Luftwaffe
lost 56 planes and the RAF 28. During the twelve-week battle, 1,733 German
aircraft had been destroyed, compared with 915 British fighters. On 17
September, Hitler recognised the growing futility of the campaign and
postponed indefinitely the invasion of Britain. Yet this did not mean an end to
the bombing terror. German tactics were changed again and the Luftwaffe
resorted to indiscriminate bombing of larger cities, including London, Plymouth
and Coventry.

Belgium
Belgium remained strictly neutral, but was invaded by the Germans for a second
time (on May 10, 1940). The Germans struck at both the Netherlands and
Belgium at the same time. It was the start of the long anticipated German
offensive in the West. After a few months of the "Phony War", it was the turn of
the Low Lands and France. The German initiated their long awaited western
campaign on a wide front against the neutral Netherlands, Belgium, and
Luxemburg. The Luftwaffe played a key role in the German success in the west.
King Leopold before the War had promoted the construction of important
defensive fortifications from Antwerp to Namur in front of the German border.
These defences were quickly taken by the Germans. The British Expeditionary
Force rushed north to assist the Dutch. This meant that they were not present in
force to opposed the Germans when they broke through in the Ardennes.
Leopold, with the bulk of the Belgian Army, was surrounded by the Germans,
and capitulated. Leopold ordered his army to surrender and refused to flee with
officials to form a government-in-exile in England. His actions were resented by
some Belgians. His surrender at a crucial point in the battle for the low countries
8

left a critical gap in the Allied ring around Dunkirk and could have made the
evacuation impossible if the Germans had pressed their attack.

Belgian Neutrality
King Leopold III was an advocate of a more independent foreign policy for
Belgium before World War II, Leopold twice urged mediation of the conflict
between NAZI Germany and the Western Allies in the months immediately
before and after the outbreak of war in 1939. Despite the German invasion in
1914, Belgian after the War returned to a policy of neutrality. King Leopold's
policy of "armed neutrality" was whole heartily supported by the Belgian
people. After the outbreak of War, the King gave a radio speech in English to
the United States. He told America that the Belgian people's attitude came from
"Whose feels have evolved from age long struggles", Everyone fought their
fights on Belgian soil! The Belgian people wanted to be left alone and left in
peace. So, no matter how the Allies or Axis countries think, Belgium wanted to
be left out (October 1939).

German Invasion (May 10, 1940)
Belgium remained strictly neutral, but was invaded by the Germans for a second
time (on May 10, 1940). The Germans struck at both the Netherlands and
Belgium at the same time. It was the start of the long anticipated German
offensive in the West. After a few months of the "Phony War", it was the turn of
the Low Lands and France. The German initiated their long awaited western
campaign on a wide front against the neutral Netherlands, Belgium, and
Luxemburg. The Luftwaffe played a key role in the German success in the west.

Belgian Defensives
King Leopold before the War had promoted the construction of important
defensive fortifications from Antwerp to Namur in front of the German border.
Although Belgium had after the earlier German invasion had joined the World
War I Allies, after the War it decided to again seek security through neutrality.
And there was no military cooperation with Britain and France as Hitler steadily
moved toward war. Pacifist sentiment was strong in Belgium and it was widely
felt that cooperation with the Allies would attract German aggression. After
Hitler launched World War II, the Belgian Government declared its neutrality
and refused to allow either the British and French to enter the country to
strengthen its defence. When the Germans struck, the Belgian Army and the
King were shocked at the onset with the fall of border defences.

9

Fort Eban-Emael (May 10)
Fort Eban-Emael was a large underground fort dominating three well defended
bridges over the Albert Canal. It was modelled on the French Maginot Line forts
and considered impregnable. The Fort was manned by over 1,200 Belgian
soldiers. A 400-man German glider force silently attacked at dawn on May 10.
The German landed nine gliders directly on top of the Fort. They blasted their
way through the roofs of the gun emplacements and quickly disabled the guns.
With the defending artillery destroyed, the remainder of the German force was
able to quickly secure two of the three critical bridges over the canal. The
German armoured forces were then able to cross the heavily fortified Belgian
border without a fight, in a matter of hours.

The K-W Line (May 10-13)
The K-W line which the Belgians held on their own (May 10-13). This provided
a very strong defence. The Germans on May 13 using Blitzkrieg tactics
deployed Panzer divisions and supported by the Luftwaffe to break through the
Allied lines in the Ardennes Forest which the Belgians and French believed
impenetrable in an area where the Maginot Line ended near Sedan. When the
German panzers broke through in the Sedan region and the French had to retreat,
the Belgians were forced to abandon their strong positions along the K-W line.

French Command (May 13)
King Leopold III put his army under the command of the overall supreme allied
commanders, first Gamelin and then Weygand. In the air, the Belgian Army
never got support from the French or British. Belgian soldiers complained, "We
never saw any British planes, only German." The Belgian Army withdrew day
after day to conform with events outside their area of control. Gamelin on May
15 ordered a retreat of French forces from Belgium (May 15). German
paratroopers landed directly on top of the main defensive line at Fort Eban
Emael and used flame-throwers to force the Fort to capitulate. The French
sharply criticised Belgian withdrawals.

British Expeditionary Force Rushes North to Support the Dutch
Britain declared War on Germany following the German NAZI invasion of
Poland (September 1, 1939). The British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was sent to
the France and positioned along the Belgian border. At the time of the German
invasion, the BEF was composed of 10 infantry divisions organized in three
corps and a tank brigade. They were supported by a Royal Air Force (RAF)
force of about 500 aircraft. The BEF was about a tenth of the Allied force on the
10

Western Front. The BEF was commanded by General Lord Gort (1886- ). He
was Anglo-Irish and a World War I hero. He was a highly respected officer who
had commanded the Staff College. Interestingly the BEF was the only fully
mechanized force involved in the campaign. The Wehrmacht had a powerful
mechanized force, but a substantial part of the Wehrmact was still not
mechanized and relied on horses as draft animals. (This was still the case a year
later when Hitler launched Barbarossa.) Despite the example of Poland, Gort
and his command were unprepared for Blitzkrieg when the Germans struck in
the West. The general opinion was it was Polish weakness and not German
competence that was involved. After the German attack, as the Germans
anticipated, Gort ordered the BEF rushed north out of its prepared positions to
aid the Belgians and Dutch. The Dutch Army, however, after the bombing of
Rotterdam surrendered before the BEF could reach them. This also meant that
the BEF was not positioned to confront the German armoured force that broke
through to the south in the Ardennes. And once committed, it is not an easy
matter to turn an army around once set in motion, especially when heavily
engaged. The BEF was heavily committed and suffered substantial losses. The
ensuing German drive to the Channel meant that the BEF, the French First
Army, and the Belgian Army were cut off from the rest of the French Army.

Belgians Cut Off (May 20)
Rommel spearheading the Pazer reached the Channel near Abbeville, wetting
his boots in the Channel (May 20). King Leopold, with the bulk of the Belgian
Army, was cut off from the French and surrounded. As the encirclement
continued, the Germans dropped leaflets telling the Belgian soldiers that their
King and Government had left for England. The King, in response, on May 24
sent a message to his troops in which he indicated, "Whatever occurs, I will
share your fate" (May 24). This was a promise that the King subsequently did
not believe that he could honourably break.

Belgian Surrender (May 28)
King Leopold III without consulting the cabinet or the Allies surrendered the
Belgian Army and capitulated to the Germans on May 28. The British on the
same day began the evacuation at Dunkirk. [Rempel] King Leopold's actions
were widely resented in Belgium. His surrender at a crucial point in the battle
for the Low Countries left a critical gap in the Allied ring around Dunkirk and
could have made the evacuation impossible. Inexplicably Hitler ordered the
Panzzers stopped and the Germans had pressed their attack. There is
considerable difference of opinion as to the circumstances surrounding the
chaotic course of events in late May. His actions as Commander and Chief of
the Army during the German invasion of 1940 have been sharply criticized. To
11

many Belgians, Leopold's surrender to the NAZI's forces were in stark contrast
to his father's gallant resistance to the Kaiser's Army during World War I. The
King's surrender incurred the disapproval of many Belgians people and
Parliament. Not all Belgians were critical at the time. A Belgian source tells us
that the King's actions were praised by the over 2 million refugees trapped in the
pocket encircled by the Germans. He also reports that the majority of Belgians
are Flemish and the Flemings were supportive of the King. King Leopold saw
the situation as hopeless. He thus decided to spare his soldiers and people further
bloodshed in a lost cause. There was some support for this view. British Admiral
Sir Roger Keyes was at the King's headquarters during the fighting and insisted
that King Leopold had no military option but to surrender. This almost certainly
true, but a few more days of resistance would have made it easier for the British
and French at Dunkirk. The British and French were especially critical of the
King's actions and there was considerable criticism in the Allied countries.
Reynaud broadcast a vitriolic diatribe calling his majesty a traitor! One observer
believes that the French, whose army was disintegrating, needed a scape goat.
There is a reasonable question of who abandoned who. The Belgians were never
informed that the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) was abandoning them.
Certainly in the final analysis it was critical that the BEF be successfully
evacuated. If the Germans had destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, it is difficult to
see how Belgium could be liberated in 1944. Of course it understandably looked
very different to many at the time.

Dunkirk (May 26-June 2, 1940)
The surrender of the Belgian Army left the BEF seriously exposed. The British
fell back on the French port of Dunkirk on the Belgian border. The BEF was
within Hitler's grasp. Then Von Rundstedt/Hitler (historians differ) stopped the
Panzers to resupply and make needed repairs. This allowed the British a chance
to evacuate their men and many French. The Panzers had been only a few
kilometres south of Dunkirk and facing no serious opposition. Hitler ordered the
Panzers to halt. Some believe that Hitler hoped this gesture would help convince
the British to comes to terms, other believe that is was just as it was described at
the time, a needed pause to regroup and prepare for a more coordinated assault.
[Davidson, p. 408 and Fest, p. 630.] Whatever the reason, this 48-hour respite
allowed the British to organize a defensive perimeter around Dunkirk and begin
an almost miraculous withdrawn. Seven German divisions pressed toward
Dunkirk which was also subjected to intensive bombing by the Luftwaffe. The
Belgians had surrendered, but the surrounded French First Army continuing to
fight occupying key German forces while the British evacuated. The resistance
of the French First Army was critical in the success of the Dunkirk evacuation.
The British rushed all available craft across the Channel. Nearly 340,000 men
were evacuated from Dunkirk, including French and Dutch soldiers. This is even
12

more important that it sounds as almost all if the British soldiers were regulars
and would form the nucleus of the future British Army that was to play such an
important role in the War. [Moss] All of the BEF's equipment, however, was
lost. Leaving the British Army with little artillery and few tanks to face an
anticipated German invasion. Paris soon fell and the French signed a NAZI
imposed armistice. Saving the BEF, however, greatly not just enhanced the
chances of Britain's survival, but in fact was critical.

King Leopold III and World War II
His actions as Commander and Chief of the Army during the German invasion
of 1940 has been criticized by some Belgians and the British and French.
Leopold, with the bulk of the Belgian Army, was surrounded by the Germans,
and capitulated. Leopold ordered his army to surrender and refused to flee with
officials to form a government-in-exile in England. His actions were resented by
some Belgians. His surrender at a crucial point in the battle for the low countries
left a critical gap in the Allied ring around Dunkirk and could have made the
evacuation impossible if the Germans had pressed their attack. King Leopold
aroused further criticism by his marriage in 1941 to a commoner, who was some
looked on as pro-NAZI. To many Belgians, Leopold's surrender to the NAZI's
forces were in stark contrast to his father's gallant resistance to the Kaiser's
Army during World War I. Other Belgians believe that the King has been
unfairly criticized. King Leopold showed great courage by subsequently
refusing to administer his country under German control and lend any
appearance of legitimacy to the NAZI occupation government. Leopold was
held prisoner by the Germans until the end of the war, first in his castle at
Laeken, Busses, and later deep in Germany itself.

Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s suffering in WWII is often overlooked, perhaps unsurprising
given its small size. Declaring neutrality at the start of the war did not prevent
German occupation and by late 1942 the Nazis were intent on incorporating
Luxembourg into the Third Reich, rather than allowing it to be a self-governing
territory. Any remnant of Luxembourgish culture was stamped out, with the
Germanisation of language ruthlessly enforced. The political system was
dismantled and Luxembourg’s Jews shared the fate of their creed elsewhere in
Europe.
Attempts to recruit Luxembourgers into the Wehrmacht, however, met with
fierce resistance and a general strike in September 1942 marked one of the most
successful instances of passive resistance against Nazism. 21 strikers were
13

executed after their organized disruption paralyzed the movement of troops and
supplies through the country.
After the American push into Luxembourg during September 1944, the
Wehrmacht managed to win back part of the small state before finally being
expelled during the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945.
During this battle, the Germans made use of their V3 ‘Supergun’ against
Luxembourg City, the only instance of its use. Capable of firing 300No. 140kg
shells per hour, the V3 had been designed to fire upon London from the French
coast. In the end, Luxembourg goes down as the only territory subjected to its
wrath, although its contribution to the German war effort was negligible.
How many of the residents on the south side of the bridge know the history of
their immediate vicinity?
These are the questions asked today when construction workers prepare
intrusive works in areas that were heavily bombed. By using wartime aerial
photographs, an estimate of the likelihood of uncovering Unexploded Ordnance
can be arrived at.
It is important that these photographic archives are preserved, not just to aid the
safety of present-day soldiers but to remind us of the sheer inclusiveness of
WWII on the European continent.
Not even small, neutral, states like Luxembourg escaped. Conquered by the
Germans, bombed by the liberating Americans, stunned by the Nazi V3
cannons, the Luxembourgers can be proud of their survival.

The Battle of the Bulge
The Battle of the Bulge, fought over the winter months of 1944 – 1945, was the
last major Nazi offensive against the Allies in World War Two. The battle was a
last ditch attempt by Hitler to split the Allies in two in their drive towards
Germany and destroy their ability to supply themselves.
The Battle of the Bulge started on December 16th 1944. Hitler had convinced
himself that the alliance between Britain, France and America in the western
sector of Europe was not strong and that a major attack and defeat would break
up the alliance. Therefore, he ordered a massive attack against what were
14

primarily American forces. The attack is strictly known as the Ardennes
Offensive but because the initial attack by the Germans created a bulge in the
Allied front line, it has become more commonly known as the Battle of the
Bulge.
Hitler’s plan was to launch a massive attack using three armies on the Allies
which would, in his mind, destabilise their accord and also take the huge port of
Antwerp through which a great deal of supplies was reaching the Allies.
The plan was:
 The Sixth Panzer Army, led by Sepp Dietrich, was to lead the attack and
to capture Antwerp
 The Fifth Panzer Army, led by Manteuffel, was to attack the centre of the
American forces, capture the strategic road and rail centre of St Vith and
then drive on to Brussels.
 The Seventh Army, led by Brandenberger, was to attack in the southern
flank, as designated by Hitler, and to create a buffer zone to prevent
American reinforcements from attacking the Fifth Panzer Army.
 The Fifteenth Army was to be held in reserve to counter any Allied attack
when they took place.
Hitler believed that his forces would be able to surround and cut off Canada’s
First Army, America’s First and Ninth Armies and Britain’s Second Army. On
paper, it was a seemingly absurd plan – especially as Germany had been in
retreat since D-Day, her military was depleted of supplies and was facing the
awesome might of the Allies. However, Hitler, as commander-in-chief of the
military, decreed that the attack should take place.
The battle started with a two hour bombardment of the Allies lines that was
followed by a huge armoured attack with the majority of the German armoured
might base at the Schnee Eifel. The Germans experienced great success to start
with. Why was this?
 The Allies were surprised by the attack. They had received little
intelligence that such an attack would take place.
 Before the attack started, English speaking German soldiers dressed in
American uniforms went behind the lines of the Allies and caused havoc
by spreading misinformation, changing road signs and cutting telephone
lines. Those who were caught were shot after a court martial.
 The weather was also in Hitler’s favour. Low cloud and fog meant that the
superior air force of the Allies could not be used – especially the tankbusting Typhoons of the RAF or Mustang fighters from the USAAF
15

which would have been used against the German tanks. Though the
weather was typical for the Ardennes in winter, the ground was hard
enough for military vehicles to cross and this suited the armoured attack
Hitler envisaged.
However, the success of the Germans lasted just two days. Despite punching a
bulge into the Allies front line, the Germans could not capitalise on this. The
Germans had based their attack on a massive armoured onslaught. However,
such an attack required fuel to maintain it and the Germans simply did not
possess such quantities of fuel.
By December 22nd, the weather started to clear, thus allowing the Allies to
bring their air power into force and on the following day, the Americans started
a counter-attack against the Germans.
On Christmas Eve, the Allies experienced the first ever attack by jet bombers.
Sixteen German Me-262’s attacked rail yards in an attempt to upset the ability
of the Allies to supply themselves. However, without fuel for their armoured
vehicles, any success in the air was meaningless.
The Germans had advanced 60 miles in two days but from December 18th on,
they were in a position of stalemate. The fighting was ferocious. The New
Year’s period was a time of particularly intensive fighting as the Germans
attempted to start a second front in Holland. This time in the Ardennes coincided
with a period of intense cold and rain and the soldiers on the ground faced very
difficult conditions. Trench foot was a common problem for infantrymen, as was
exposure.
By mid-January 1945, the effect of lack of fuel was becoming evident as the
Germans had to simply abandon their vehicles. The 1st SS Panzer Division, led
by Lieutenant-Colonel Joachim Peiper, had to make their way back to Germany
on foot. This was the unit that was responsible for the Malmédy Massacre.
The Battle of the Bulge was the largest battle fought by the Americans in World
War Two. 600,000 American troops were involved in the battle. The Americans
lost 81,000 men while the Germans lost 100,000 killed, wounded and captured.
Could the Germans have won the battle? Almost certainly not, as they had one
huge problem – their inability to keep their armoured columns supplied with
fuel. Any form of armoured attack needed a constant supply of fuel – and Allied
bombing of fuel plants in Germany meant that such supplies did not exist. Field
Marshall von Rundstedt believed all along that the plan was too ambitious.
When on trial after the war, von Rundstedt said that “all, absolutely all,
16

conditions for the possible success of such an offensive were lacking.” His
views were shared by General von Mellenthin:
“The Ardennes battle drives home the lesson that a large-scale offensive
by massed armour has no hope of success against an enemy who enjoys
supreme command of the air. Our precious reserves had been expended,
and nothing was available to ward off the impending catastrophe in the
east.”
Also, Hitler’s plan that a successful attack would split the Allies was also based
on false hope. If anything, such an attack helped to engender a greater feeling of
kinship with one consolidated aim – to defeat Nazi Germany.

17

The Netherlands
On May 10, 1940, German troops invaded the Netherlands bringing war to
ended five days later as Dutch forces surrendered and German occupation of the
Netherlands officially began. Five years later, the Netherlands would be
liberated. However, the toll in human life and suffering during those five years
was enormous.
This talk will highlight the distinctive features of the Nazi occupation of the
Netherlands. Topics to be covered will include: a brief historical overview, the
ramifications of the geographic and political landscape of the Netherlands
during the Nazi occupation, and the consequences of Nazi invasion, rule, and
policies to human life. In addition, special attention will be focused on the
unique characteristic of Dutch resistance to Nazi occupation and the war. This
will be contrasted with the fundamental nature of resistance as exemplified by
Jehovah's Witnesses in the Netherlands and throughout Nazi occupied Europe
I looked out of the open window, over a large area of Amsterdam, over all the
roofs and on to the horizon, which was such a pale blue that it was hard to see
the dividing line. As long as this exists, I thought, and I may live to see it, this
sunshine, these cloudless skies, while this lasts I cannot be unhappy.
These words were written by Anne Frank in February of 1944 - a young girl's
description of life from an attic overlooking Amsterdam. For many individuals
today, Anne Frank's diary represents their only glimpse of Nazi assault on the
Netherlands - a narrow window onto that which was the Holocaust in Europe.
Between the time that Hitler seized power in Germany in 1933 until the end of
World War II in 1945, over six million Jews were killed by the Nazi machinery.
Less well known is that five million other individuals lost their lives as a result
of Nazi ideology including the physically and mentally disabled, Poles,
dissidents, Roma and Sinti, communists, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Holocaust was an incredibly complex moment marked by atrocity in human
history. While the media often presents it as a singular event, each country with
its diverse population and peoples experienced the Nazi assault uniquely. The
Netherlands was no exception. Tonight I will briefly discuss some of the unique
characteristics of the Nazi assault on the Netherlands and the Dutch response to
this assault. In addition, I will also briefly examine the response of Jehovah's
Witnesses to Nazi persecution.
The Netherlands had maintained during World War I, a policy of neutrality.
While many of their neighbours fell to the Germans during World War I, the
Netherlands remained outside of the war. With the advent of World War II, the
18

Netherlands sought to again remain neutral - a hope bolstered by a promise of
nonaggression made by Hitler. However, as with so many other promises made
by Hitler and the Nazis, this assurance proved worthless. On May 10, 1940, the
German army began its invasion of the Netherlands. Despite valiant efforts
made on the part of the Dutch military, the Netherlands fell to the Germans after
only five days of fighting. After the bombing of Rotterdam, the Dutch
capitulated.
Those five days were characterized by shock and horror particularly for the Jews
of Holland. Persecuted individuals who had initially fled to the Netherlands as a
safe harbour were particularly horrified. For those five days, many attempted to
flee the country. However, these frantic, desperate attempts were generally
unsuccessful.
At the time of Holland's capitulation, approximately 140,000 Jews resided in the
Netherlands. By the time of the war's end, the Nazis had deported 107,000 Jews
out of Holland. Of these, only 5000 survived to return home following the war
and 30,000 managed to survive in hiding or by other means. Thus, over 75% of
Holland's Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis. This represents the largest
percentage of Jews to die from a particular country with the exception of Poland.
Why was loss of life so high in the Netherlands? Were the Dutch particularly
anti-Semitic or callous? The answer to both is "no". More Dutch have been
honoured by Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance
Authority in Israel, as "righteous gentiles" than from any other country.
However, several factors, some of which made escape during those five days
impossible, are responsible for this tragic loss of life , primarily, the
Netherland's unique geographic and cultural features.
Attempts at escape from the Netherlands under Nazi control were virtually
impossible. First, countries bordering on the Netherlands were under German
control. Thus, flight across the Dutch border only meant entrance into another
Nazi controlled country. Second, the west and north borders of the Netherlands
consist of North Sea coastline. Safe passage through German patrolled waters
was highly dangerous.
Additionally, the Netherlands in 1940 was a densely populated country. The
land mass is approximately one and a half time the size of Massachusetts. Yet, it
was home to over nine million individuals. The land was flat providing little
forested, mountainous terrain suited for partisan activity or refuge. In essence,
the geography of the Netherlands provided no place to run and few places to
hide.

19

Culturally, Dutch society was stratified largely on the basis of religion. Thus,
close friendships between Jews and Christians were uncommon in war-time
Holland. This made it difficult for Jews to find a place of hiding within the
homes of Gentile neighbours - individuals that they did not know. For those
Jews with Christian friends, to accept shelter carried with it the knowledge that
discovery placed their friend's lives into jeopardy. Additionally, most Jews who
went into hiding did so as individuals. Rarely, were entire families hidden as in
the case of the Franks. Thus, to go into hiding not only endangered the wellbeing of one's Gentile benefactors but often meant abandoning other family
members including elder parents, spouses, siblings, or children.
One survivor has argued that a higher percentage of Dutch Jews died within the
concentration camps than any other national group as their decency was their
undoing. This could also be applied to life in the Netherlands as well. Failure to
hide almost assured deportation to Auschwitz or the death camp of Sorbibor.
Sixty thousand Jews were deported to Auschwitz; only nine hundred and
seventy-two survived. Thirty-four thousand Jews were deported to Sorbibor;
only two - two out of thirty-four thousand - lived to return to the Netherlands.
In 1938, Germany annexed Austria and overnight German law went into effect
including all restrictive anti-Jewish legislation. The invasion of Poland and
Czechoslovakia resulted in immediate martial Nazi law and leadership.
However, the invasion of the Netherlands resulted in neither. While the royal
family including Queen Wilhelmina fled into exile in Britain, civilian leaders
were not replaced. Rather, the Dutch civilian administration was subsumed by a
civil German administration. Additionally, Dutch law remained in effect.
What accounts for this unique pattern of Nazi behaviour in the Netherlands and
how did this impact Dutch resistance to Nazi assault?
Hitler and his associates did not want to alienate the Dutch people - a people
they considered to be of "superior" Germanic breeding. As as result of the Dutch
religious stratification, the Dutch people could be certified as almost 100 percent
Aryan. Hitler's ultimate goal was to make the Netherlands a part of Germany
following the war. Through annexation of the Netherlands, Hitler hoped to
further infuse the new Reich with the Aryan ideal. With this goal in mind, the
transition to Nazi rule in the Netherlands was less abrupt and dramatic. While
the Dutch had heard of the atrocities against Jews from Vienna and other cities
following Nazi invasion - Jews forced to get down on their hands and knees to
scrub the streets, synagogues burned to the ground, the rounding up of Jews into
ghettos, and worse - none of this happened upon implementation of German
civil administration.

20

This relatively uneventful transition had several effects. First, although the
Dutch people were shocked and demoralized by the unexpected loss, they
relaxed a bit. Many were deceived into believing that the Nazi occupation would
not entail great hardship or the anticipated atrocities. Second, Dutch culture and
tradition reinforced the idea of obedience to the law. These two factors
combined led many to believe that all they needed to do was outlast the German
occupation. Many believed that the war would be short-lived and thus, through a
process of seeming cooperation and delay, the impact of Nazi occupation on the
Dutch, including Dutch Jews, would be negligible. Unfortunately, the Nazi
occupation lasted five years with devastating consequences for all of the
Netherlands including the Hunger Winter of 1945.
The resistance movement was slow to take form in the Netherlands. As Nazi
oppression slowly took shape, so did Dutch resistance. Hitler underestimated the
Dutch people and the Nazis were unprepared to deal with the primarily non
militaristic character of Dutch resistance. In many ways, there are some striking
similarities between the Dutch resistance and the spiritual resistance on the part
of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Much of Dutch resistance can be characterized as either passive resistance or
non-violent active resistance. For example, immediately following the Nazi
occupation, American and British films were banned from theatres replaced by
German movies including German newsreels. Dutch patrons took to walking out
or booing during the newsreels. Thus, new laws were passed prohibiting such
behaviour. Subsequently, attendance at films dropped. Radio broadcasts under
Nazi control consisted principally of propaganda. Thus, while it was illegal to
listen to British radio, many Dutch began to listen to the BBC and radio
broadcasts from the Dutch government in exile. In 1943, over one million radio
sets were confiscated by the Nazis in response to these acts of resistance.
Additionally, the Dutch resisted becoming assimilated into Nazi ideals and
culture. They considered themselves Dutch and looked towards the day for
renewed Dutch independence. Subtle acts of rebellion occurred that underscore
this desire. On Prince Bernard's birthday, many people took to wearing orange
carnations - orange being the symbol of the Dutch ruling family. When mailing
letters, stamps were affixed to the upper left hand corner as many believed the
upper right hand corner was reserved solely for the stamp of Queen Wilhelmina.
Symbolic gestures that their heart's remained true to the Netherlands. Only oneand-a-half percent of the Dutch population joined the Dutch Nazi party. In 1943,
when university students were required to sign an oath of loyalty to the
occupying forces, over eighty-five percent refused to sign and thousands rushed
into hiding.

21

Many a Dutch were active in speaking out or publishing against the Nazis.
These activities occurred in spite of the great risk involved. To be caught meant
imprisonment or deportation possibly to Mauthausen from where few returned.
Clergy regularly read letters from the pulpit. Underground newspapers
flourished and were particularly invaluable after the confiscation of radio sets
and the loss of electricity during the later years of the war.
Following the Nazi invasion, Dutch Jewry continued to enjoy the benefit of
equal citizenship under Dutch law. However, soon, small oppressive measures
were taken and began to escalate. First, Jews were prohibited from serving as
volunteer air-raid wardens. Later, German Jews were ordered to leave the Hague
and other coastal towns and the process of registration began. In September of
1940, it was decreed that Jews could no longer be admitted into civil service, not
impacting those already in these positions. However, just two months later, all
Jews were dismissed from civil service including the Chief Justice of the Dutch
Supreme Court and forty-one university professors. Students and fellow
professors protested. The last decree of 1940 mandated the registration of all
Jewish businesses.
Nineteen forty-one began with the mandate for registration of all Jews living in
the Netherlands. Maps were drawn up identifying the name, age, gender, marital
status, and location of all Jews living in each city and town.
In response to these oppressive measures against the Jews, the Dutch
Communist Party - a political party already deemed illegal by the Nazis but still
operating within the Netherlands - organized what has become known as the
February Strike. On Tuesday, February 25, 1941, municipal workers of
Amsterdam went on strike essentially shutting down public transportation within
the city. Over the course of the day, the strike intensified as metal and shipyard
workers, white collar workers, and manual labourers joined the strike. The strike
continued until Thursday, spreading across the country to other cities. An
infuriated Nazi administration struck back hard, squashing the strike. It
however, remains the only such general anti-pogrom strike to have occurred in
Nazi-occupied Europe.
In 1943, more mass strikes broke out in response to deportations and
conscription of Dutch labour into Germany. The 1944, the railroad workers
strike, while in and of itself an act of resistance, was further supported by a
secret underground organization which provided financial support to the striking
workers. This group also worked to provide food and money to those in hiding.
Finally, underground resistance groups were organized to serve a variety of
functions including the rescue and sheltering of Jews and other persecuted
individuals. Underground cells were involved in the manufacture of false papers
22

or acted as couriers of secret documents to countries outside of the Netherlands
to assist Allied war efforts. It is estimated that over fifty to sixty thousand
individuals were directly involved in underground activities with hundreds of
thousands more offering assistance. More than ten thousand lost their lives as a
direct result of their courageous efforts.
According to Louis de Jong:
In 1944, Queen Wilhelmina, who completely identified with the men and
women of the Dutch underground, in some of her broadcast speeches
characterized the Dutch nation as 'a nation of heroes.' Not a single underground
paper felt compelled to approve this qualification. They knew better. Most
people, however anti-German their feelings, tried to protect themselves, their
families, and their property, adapting themselves to the increasingly difficult
circumstances of daily life. It was but a minority that proved willing to accept
great personal risks and to put everything, even life itself, at stake.
Nations of heroes do not exist. But there were among the Dutch tens of
thousands of ordinary human beings, men and women, who did save the
country's soul.
While most individuals are aware of the extreme persecution of the Jews during
the Holocaust, far fewer are aware of the brutal persecution of Jehovah's
Witnesses by the Nazis. Approximately one month after Hitler claimed power in
Germany, all religious literature printed by Jehovah's Witnesses was banned
from circulation. Hitler referred to the Witnesses as "so-called Earnest Bible
Students" and as "troublemakers". He confiscated their literature and their
property and said that it was "for the protection of the people and the state."
Within six months, a number of Witnesses had been sentenced to terms in
prisons and concentration camps being among the first individuals interred at
Dachau.
Why did Hitler so vehemently despise Jehovah's Witnesses? Such a question of
course is multifaceted and has many answers. However, one factor was certainly
clear. Hitler could not control the Witnesses nor gain their allegiance. The
Witnesses refused to serve in Hitler's army as they were already in the army of
Jehovah. The Witnesses refused to salute Hitler as their allegiance was to God.
As such, the Witnesses continued their teaching and publications in spite of
increasing persecution and assault at the hands of the Nazis.
The work of Jehovah's Witnesses can be viewed as a form of resistance spiritual resistance. Despite proclamations and decrees, the Witnesses continued
to engage in Bible study and prayer. They continued to reach out to individuals
with their literature and preaching.
23

There are some parallels between Dutch and Witness resistance.
First, the Dutch refused to accept the mantle of Nazism - they fought to retain
their identity as Dutch. Similarly, Jehovah's Witnesses also refused Nazism.
They courageously continued their work identifying themselves as servants of
Jehovah. They refused to bow to Hitler or to accept the tenets of National
Socialism despite the most brutal strategies of the Nazis. For example, Jehovah's
Witnesses were the only group that could leave the concentration camps at any
time simply by signing a statement denouncing their faith. Under threat of death,
faced with torture, starvation, and beatings, few signed the declaration.
As the Dutch continued to speak out and publish against Hitler and Nazism, so
did the Witnesses. Throughout the Nazi occupation of Europe, the Witnesses
illegally published and distributed literature some of which focused on the
atrocities being committed by Hitler and the Nazis. In fact, some of this
literature managed to be distributed in the concentration camps against
incredible odds. Jehovah's Witnesses were the only Christian group that
uniformly spoke out against Hitler and Nazism often paying for this resistance
with their lives.
Additionally, the Witnesses established an underground network. This network
served many functions including hiding Witnesses who were being sought by
the Nazis and those who had recently escaped from neighbouring countries. The
underground also played a role in the transport and distribution of food. This
included not only food for the body but spiritual food in the form of literature
and readings.
Finally, one could argue that the Witnesses engaged in an occupation long strike
against involvement in the Nazi war effort. Witnesses refused to serve in the
military. They refused to be involved in the production of war materials and
supplies. This resistance was consistently met with Nazi hostility and resulted in
imprisonment and potential loss of life.
Acts of resistance on the part of the Dutch and Jehovah's Witnesses provide us
with models of courage in the face of atrocities. They provide for us lessons in
the value of belief, of community, and of involvement.
After World War II, the Netherlands gave up its identity as a neutral state and
has become an active participant in world affairs. They are charter members of
both the United Nations and NATO. They have been actively involved in U.N.
peacekeeping forces and The Hague serves as the current home to the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

24

In this time of current crisis in Kosovo as well as other places around the world,
it is imperative that we not turn our back or look away. Rather, we must look to
those models of courage and commitment, and choose action in accord with our
individual faiths and beliefs.
To quote Elie Wiesel1,
There may be a time when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must
never be a time when we fail to protest.

France
The German campaign is being carried out for the most part through the medium
of the new Paris daily, Pariser Zeitung, which first appeared on 15 January last.
It is written in German and contains eight to 12 pages, with an occasional singlesheet supplement in French summarising the news contained in the German part.
This paper, the only source of information for the French people and the German
army of occupation in northern France, has its "own correspondent" in Vichy
(it does not circulate in unoccupied France) who summarises the Vichy press as
though it were the press of a foreign country. The policy of the Pariser Zeitung
is, of course, anti-British, anti-communist and anti-Semitic, and there is a daily
anti-British cartoon; but that is not the interesting thing about it.
The interesting thing is the immense care that is taken to please the French
people and to show that German and French culture are not only essentially
harmonious, but are complementary to each other. "Collaboration" is the daily
theme, profuse flattery being addressed to the French businesses represented at
the Leipzig fair, to the France Européenne exhibition, to the French banking
system, to the particular French political and economic gifts that could play their
part in the new Europe. There are glowing articles about Paris, its monuments,
places of historic interest, its cafes, gaiety, charm, its bread, its women. "The
beauty of Paris is that she is really like an impressionist painting," ran one
typical sentence in a recent article.

1

Eliezer Wiesel is a Romania-born American novelist, political activist, and Holocaust
survivor of Hungarian Jewish descent. He is the author of over 40 books, the best known of
which is Night, a memoir that describes his experiences during the Holocaust and his
imprisonment in several concentration camps. Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1986. The Norwegian Nobel Committee called him a "messenger to mankind," noting that
through his struggle to come to terms with "his own personal experience of total humiliation
and of the utter contempt for humanity shown in Hitler's death camps," as well as his
"practical work in the cause of peace," Wiesel has delivered a powerful message "of peace,
atonement and human dignity" to humanity.

25

Nightclubs are praised and advertised. The suggestion is implied that Paris, with
its historical, cultural and entertainment value, is to become the chief centre of
recreation and relaxation for the German overlords of the future, and that France
will thereby be contributing a valuable part in the future working of the New
Order in Europe.
The emphasis that is laid on the life of Paris during the period of military
occupation is designed to show that French cultural life is flourishing
as impressively as before the occupation. French singers are given objective
praise as artists. French authors, playwrights and actors are encouraged. The
French film industry, suppressed in the early days of the occupation, is now
resuscitated and encouraged, whereby the German authorities indirectly claim
credit as the rebuilders of French cultural life.
The surprising feature of this German campaign is the persistent emphasis
placed upon the future role of German-France as the holiday resort for the Nazi
Herrenvolk, and the new attempt to win Paris by flattery instead of by
repression.
The Observer, 7 September 1941

French resistance: Gisele Guillemot remembers
Like the good soldier that I was, I did what I was told. I typed out pamphlets,
passed on messages and took care of supplies. There had been a lot of illicit
passage through Calvados ever since Daladier had decided to break up the
Communist party in response to the German-Soviet pact of August 1939. As
well as ordinary party members, there were former politicians and city
councillors who had clearly just escaped from prison.
I was responsible for finding them provisions and getting them their papers. At
that time, everything was bought with supply coupons, from pairs of socks to
household stocks. We organised raids on the town halls to get to these golden
tickets. We operated in a downsized team, two or three people maximum,
preferably in little villages to minimise risk. At the first opportunity – a door left
open or a moment of absent-mindedness from the receptionist – we rifled
through everything we could find: tickets, stamps and identity cards. The most
insignificant document could prove useful to our organisation.
From time to time I went to see the rural folk who supported our cause. They
would get hold of things to improve the day-to-day lives of our comrades. Every
week I would take all kinds of forbidden treasures in the panniers of my bike:
eggs, meat, but also weapons, incendiary fuses and dynamite. With my
26

youngster's manner and my schoolgirl's outfit I was the ideal recruit for this kind
of mission.
We knew that the Wehrmacht carried out unannounced controls at the entrance
to villages. Each time I felt like my life was hanging by a thread. I avoided
looking at the soldiers for fear they would be able to see the panic in my eyes.
While they inspected my panniers I would think of the documents or the
revolver I was hiding under the food. In general the Germans made do with a
cursory glance, then laughed knowingly: "Ach, black market!"
I knew from experience that they would put up with our little bit of food
trafficking, especially when they were dealing with a young lady. Even so I
dreaded the fatal moment when a rather more zealous soldier would have the
curiosity to look underneath the meat. Some days I would be seized by
irrepressible anxiety. The fleeting vision of a man in a trench coat through the
reflection of a shop window would instantly plunge me into a state of total
panic. A suspicious noise on the staircase and I would think I was about to be
arrested, taken to the Gestapo and tortured. Our bosses had often talked to us
about the bathtub torture that the Germans inflicted on Resistance members.
Would I be able to take it without talking? It was my greatest fear.
From Résistante (Michael Lafon), translated by Lizzy Davie

Treaty of Versailles
On 28 June 1919, the peace treaty that ended World War I was signed by
Germany and the Allies at the Palace of Versailles near Paris. Allied interests
were represented by the ‘Big Three’: British Prime Minister David Lloyd
George, French Premier George Clemenceau and US President Woodrow
Wilson. The Great War had devastated Europe. Vast areas of north-western
Europe were reduced to moonscapes; French and Belgian villages and towns
had disappeared without trace. The conflict decimated Europe’s male
population. Both sides suffered casualties on an almost incomprehensible scale.
France had suffered more than 1.4 million dead, and more than 4 million
wounded. In total, 8.5 million men had perished.
Many voices at Versailles held Germany responsible for the war, calling for the
country to be crushed economically and militarily, rendered incapable of future
aggression. Clemenceau was the most ardent advocate of this view. Backed by
the French public, he wanted to bring Germany to her knees. He called for
Germany to pay huge sums of money, known as reparations. Lloyd George was
aware of Britain’s appetite for vengeance, and publicly promised to ‘make
Germany pay’. Yet privately, anxiety produced by the Russian Revolution
convinced him that Germany needed to be a bulwark against Bolshevism. If
27

Germany was left destitute, extreme left wing politics would find support among
the population. Germany should not be treated leniently, but neither should she
be destroyed.
Wilson believed that Germany should be punished in a way that would lead to
European reconciliation rather than revenge. Although the US public
increasingly supported isolationism, Wilson called for the creation of an
international peacekeeping organisation. Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’, his
blueprint for the post-war world, called for self-determination for all European
peoples, an end to secret treaties and European disarmament.
On 7 May, the treaty was presented to Germany. She was stripped of 13 per cent
of her territory and ten per cent of her population; the border territories of
Alsace and Lorraine were returned to France. Germany lost all of her colonies,
75 per cent of her iron ore deposits and 26 per cent of her coal and potash. The
size of the army and navy was drastically cut, and an air force and submarines
were forbidden. The Germans also had to officially accept ‘war guilt’ and pay
reparations to the tune of £6,000 million.
For the Allies, the treaty had created a just peace which weakened Germany,
secured the French border against attack and created an organisation to ensure
future world peace, to be called the League of Nations. Yet the backlash in
Germany against the Versailles ‘Diktat’ was enormous. Territorial losses to the
new Polish state on the Eastern Front (where Germany had actually been
victorious) outraged many Germans. The demilitarization of the Rhineland and
the incorporation of large numbers of Sudeten Germans into the new state of
Czechoslovakia provoked similar feelings. Perhaps the greatest resentment,
however, was caused by the ‘War Guilt Clause’, which forced Germany to
accept full responsibility for causing the war. In a nation that had lost 2 million
men, and was quickly developing a myth that it had not been militarily defeated
in the war, but ‘stabbed in the back’ by its own politicians, this was difficult to
bear.
As Germany sought revisions to the treaty, the US Senate rejected the Versailles
settlement and vetoed US membership of the League of Nations. This was to
contribute to its failure as an international peacekeeping organisation in the
unstable and dangerous years leading up to World War II. It was instability that
the Versailles Treaty had done much to avoid and in the end created.

28

Leagues of Nations France and Great Britain
Appeasement, the policy of making concessions to the dictatorial powers in
order to avoid conflict, governed Anglo-French foreign policy during the 1930s.
It became indelibly associated with Conservative Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain. Although the roots of appeasement lay primarily in the weakness
of post-World War I collective security arrangements, the policy was motivated
by several other factors.
Firstly, the legacy of the Great War in France and Britain generated a strong
public and political desire to achieve ‘peace at any price’. Secondly, neither
country was militarily ready for war. Widespread pacifism and war-weariness
(not to mention the economic legacy of the Great Depression) were not
conducive to rearmament. Thirdly, many British politicians believed that
Germany had genuine grievances resulting from Versailles. Finally, some
British politicians admired Hitler and Mussolini, seeing them not as dangerous
fascists but as strong, patriotic leaders. In the 1930s, Britain saw its principle
threat as Communism rather that fascism, viewing authoritarian right-wing
regimes as bulwarks against its spread.
The League of Nations was intended to resolve international disputes peacefully.
Yet the League’s ineffectiveness soon became apparent. In 1931, when Japan
invaded Manchuria, the League condemned the action. However, without either
the weight of the US or the power of its own army, it was unable to stop Japan.
By 1937, Japan had launched a full-scale invasion of China. In October 1935,
the League imposed economic sanctions but little more when Mussolini invaded
Abyssinia. In March 1936, a cautious Hitler remilitarised the Rhineland,
forbidden under Versailles. The feared Anglo-French reaction never came. In
the League’s council, the USSR was the only country to propose sanctions.
British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin ruled out the possibility.
Germany and Italy now realised that the democracies were seeking to avoid
confrontation, so both countries continued to ‘test the limits’. During the
Spanish Civil War, Hitler and Mussolini contravened the ‘Non-Intervention
Agreement’, sending troops, equipment and planes to back the rebels. Their
intervention was ignored by the international community. When Chamberlain
became Prime Minister in May 1937, the pattern of appeasement had already
been set. In March 1938, Hitler’s Anschluss (union) with Austria was once again
met with Anglo-French impotence and inaction.
Czechoslovakia had been created under Versailles, and included a large German
minority mostly living in the Sudetenland on the border with Germany. In mid29

September 1938, Hitler encouraged the leader of the Sudeten Nazis to rebel,
demanding union with Germany. When the Czech government declared martial
law, Hitler threatened war.
On 15 September, Chamberlain met Hitler at Berchtesgaden. Without consulting
the Czech authorities, he pledged to give Germany all the areas with a German
population of more than 50 per cent. France was persuaded to agree. Hitler then
altered his criteria, demanding all the Sudetenland. At the Munich Conference
on 30 September, Britain and France agreed to his demands. Chamberlain was
confident that he had secured ‘peace for our time’.
Appeasement was not without its critics. Churchill believed in a firm stand
against Germany, and Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden resigned in February
1938 over Britain’s continued acquiescence to fascist demands. The left-wing
also attacked Chamberlain’s blindness. In March 1939, when Germany seized
the remainder of Czechoslovakia, it was clear that appeasement had failed.
Chamberlain now promised British support to Poland in the case of German
aggression. A misguided belief in ‘peace in our time’ was replaced by a
reluctant acceptance of the inevitability of war.

The Fall of France
By May 1940, Europe had been at war for nine months. Yet Britain and France,
despite having declared war on Germany in September 1939 following Hitler’s
attack on Poland, had seen little real fighting. This tense period of anticipation –
which came to be known as the ‘Phoney War’ – met an abrupt end on 10 May
1940, when Germany launched an invasion of France and the Low Countries.
The German plan of attack, codenamed Case Yellow, entailed an armoured
offensive through the Ardennes Forest, which bypassed the strong French
frontier defences of the Maginot Line. The advance would then threaten to
encircle French and British divisions to the north, stationed on the Belgian
frontier.
The German offensive quickly overwhelmed Dutch forces, and the bombing of
Rotterdam persuaded the Netherlands to surrender on 15 May. And although
German forces in the north encountered strong French and Belgian resistance,
the main German thrust through the Ardennes met with tremendous success.
French second-rate divisions in the area were not prepared or equipped to deal
with the major armoured thrust that developed (the forest and poor roads were
thought to make this impossible), and were hammered by incessant attacks by
German bombers.
30

Just four days into the invasion German troops crossed the Meuse river, and had
broken through the French lines. Attempts by the Allies to launch counterattacks
by air and land either failed with heavy losses, or were thwarted by the pace of
events. The British Expeditionary Force, along with the best units of the French
army, were still in the north and had seen little fighting. But the German
breakthrough to the south now forced them into rapid retreat to avoid being cut
off with their backs to the sea. On 20 May German tanks reached Amiens and
effectively trapped the British, who now made for Dunkirk and an unlikely
attempt at evacuation to England.
In these desperate circumstances, an evacuation plan known as ‘Operation
Dynamo’ was hastily prepared in Dover by Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay. His
strategy included an appeal for all civilian vessels that could cross the Channel
to help ferry the troops from the beaches to larger ships offshore, or to evacuate
them entirely. Between 26 May and 4 June - a period during which Hitler halted
the advance of his troops on Dunkirk - 200,000 British and 140,000 French
troops were evacuated to England. Nine allied destroyers and approximately 200
civilian vessels were lost during the evacuation, and the RAF suffered severe
casualties covering the operation from the air.
On 5 June, the Germans swung southwards and French resistance finally
collapsed, although not without heavy fighting. On 10 June, Italy
opportunistically entered the war on Germany’s side. Four days later, the French
capital fell, provoking the flight of the French Government to Bordeaux. The
Government capitulated on 25 June, just seven weeks after the beginning of the
invasion.
The British 51st Highland Division - stationed in the Maginot Line when the
fighting started – was forced to surrender at St Valéry. During the final
evacuation of British troops from St Nazaire on the Atlantic coast, the troopship
Lancastria was sunk with the loss of around 4,000 refugees, British troops and
crew. Reluctant to take the risk that the French Navy would end up under
German control, Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to present French warships at
Mers-el-Kebir with an ultimatum to sail to Britain or to a neutral port for
internment. When this offer was rejected on 3 July, British ships bombarded the
fleet, killing 1,600 people. Although this operation did much to assure America
of the strength of the British purpose, it and the evacuation of Dunkirk did
immeasurable damage to Franco-British wartime relations.

31

Adolf Hitler and the Jehovah’s Witness
The Nazi regime targeted Jehovah's Witnesses for persecution because they
refused, out of religious conviction, to swear loyalty to a worldly government or
to serve in its armed forces. Jehovah's Witnesses also engaged in missionary
activity to win adherents for the faith. The Nazis perceived the refusal to commit
to the state and efforts to proselytize as overtly political and subversive acts.
Unlike Jews and Roma (Gypsies), whom the Nazis targeted for perceived racial
reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses had the option to avoid persecution and personal
harm by submitting to state authority and serving in the armed forces. Since
such submission would violate their religious beliefs, the vast majority of
Jehovah's Witnesses refused to abandon their faith even in the face of
persecution, torture in concentration camps, or death.
Founded in the American city of Pittsburgh in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell as
the International Bible Study Society, the group took the name "Jehovah's
Witnesses" in 1931. The Society began missionary work in Europe in the 1890s.
In 1902, the first branch office of the Watch Tower Society opened in Elberfeld,
Germany. In Germany, Jehovah's Witnesses became known as the Society of
International Bible Students. By the early 1930s, some 25,000 to 30,000
Germans (0.38 percent of a total population of 65 million) were members of the
Jehovah's Witnesses or interested sympathizers.
Even before 1933, Jehovah's Witnesses were targets of prejudice. Mainstream
Lutheran and Catholic churches deemed them heretics. Moreover, citizens often
found the Witnesses' missionary work—knocking on doors and preaching—to
be invasive. Individual German states had long sought to curb the missionary
work through strict enforcement of statutes on illegal solicitation. At various
times, individual jurisdictions actually banned Witness religious literature,
including the booklets The Watchtower and The Golden Age. During the
Weimar period, however, the German courts often ruled in favor of the religious
minority.
Before the Nazis came to power, individual groups of local Nazis (party
functionaries or SA men), acting outside the law, broke up Bible study meetings
and assaulted individual Witnesses.
After the Nazis came to power, persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses intensified.
Witnesses believed themselves to belong to Jehovah's Kingdom and considered
all worldly powers unwitting allies of Satan. They refused to swear loyalty to the
Nazi regime. Moreover, their international theological and organizational
contacts were anathema to the Nazi police state. Initially, Witness indifference
to the Nazi state manifested itself in the refusal to raise their arms in the Heil
32

Hitler salute, join the German Labour Front (which all salaried and wage
workers were forced to join after the Nazis outlawed trade unions), participate in
Nazi welfare collections, and vote in elections. Likewise they would not
participate in Nazi rallies and parades.
Nazi authorities denounced Jehovah's Witnesses for their ties to the United
States and derided the apparent revolutionary millennialism of their preaching
that a battle of Armageddon would precede the rule of Christ on earth as part of
God's plan. They linked Jehovah's Witnesses to the Nazi idea of "international
Jewry" by pointing to Witness reliance on certain Old Testament texts. The
Nazis had grievances with many of the smaller Protestant groups on these
issues, but only the Jehovah's Witnesses refused to bear arms or swear loyalty to
the state.
When Germany reintroduced universal military service in 1935, Jehovah's
Witnesses generally refused to enrol. In Germany, as in the United States, they
had refused to serve in the armed forces during World War I. Although they
were not pacifists, they refused to bear arms for any temporal power. The Nazis
prosecuted Jehovah's Witnesses for failing to report for conscription and arrested
those who did missionary work for undermining the morale of the nation.
The children of Jehovah's Witnesses also suffered under the Nazi regime. In
classrooms, teachers ridiculed children who refused to give the Heil Hitler salute
or sing patriotic songs. Principals found reasons to expel them from school.
Following the lead of adults, classmates shunned or beat the children of
Witnesses. On occasion, authorities sought to remove children from their
Witness parents and send them to other schools, orphanages, or private homes to
be brought up as "good Germans."
Soon after Hitler became chancellor, Bavarian authorities issued a ban on the
International Bible Students' Society. During the spring and summer of 1933,
many other German jurisdictions followed suit. Twice during 1933, police
occupied Witness offices to confiscate religious literature. Despite official
pressure and harassment, Witnesses continued to meet and distribute their
literature covertly. Literature was often smuggled in from abroad.
Initially, leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses sought to find a way to work with
the Nazi government. In October 1934, the leadership sent a letter to the Reich
government, explaining the Witnesses' core beliefs and their commitment to
political neutrality. The letter stated that Jehovah's Witnesses "have no interest
in political affairs, but are wholly devoted to God's Kingdom under Christ His
King." German authorities responded with economic and political harassment.
Witnesses who continued to missionize or who refused to participate in Nazi
33

organizations lost their jobs and their unemployment and social welfare benefits,
or were arrested.
In response to Nazi efforts to destroy the group, Jehovah's Witnesses became an
island of spiritual resistance to the Nazi demand for absolute German
commitment to the state. The International Society of Jehovah's Witnesses fully
and publicly supported the efforts of its brethren in Germany. At an international
convention in Lucerne, Switzerland, in September 1936, Witness delegates from
all over the world passed a resolution severely condemning the Nazi regime.
The international organization also produced literature denouncing Nazi
persecution of Jews, Communists, and Social Democrats, criticizing the
remilitarization of Germany and the Nazification of its schools and universities,
and attacking the Nazi assault on organized religion.

Anti-Semitism rise across Europe in worse times since
Nazism
Experts say attacks go beyond Israel-Palestinian conflict as hate crimes strike
fear into Jewish communities.
In the space of just one week in 2013, according to Crif, the umbrella group for
France's Jewish organisations, eight synagogues were attacked. One, in the Paris
suburb of Sarcelles, was firebombed by a 400-strong mob. A kosher
supermarket and pharmacy were smashed and looted; the crowd's chants and
banners included "Death to Jews" and "Slit Jews' throats". That same weekend,
in the Barbes neighbourhood of the capital, stone-throwing protesters burned
Israeli flags: "Israhell", read one banner.
In Germany last month, molotov cocktails were lobbed into the Belgische
synagogue in Wuppertal – previously destroyed on Kristallnacht – and a Berlin
imam, Abu Bilal Ismail, called on Allah to "destroy the Zionist Jews … Count
them and kill them, to the very last one." Bottles were thrown through the
window of an antisemitism campaigner in Frankfurt; an elderly Jewish man was
beaten up at a pro-Israel rally in Hamburg; an Orthodox Jewish teenager
punched in the face in Berlin. In several cities, chants at pro-Palestinian protests
compared Israel's actions to the Holocaust; other notable slogans included: "Jew,
coward pig, come out and fight alone," and "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas."
Across Europe, the conflict in Gaza is breathing new life into some very old, and
very ugly, demons. This is not unusual; police and Jewish civil rights
organisations have long observed a noticeable spike in anti-Semitic incidents
each time the Israeli-Palestinian conflict flares. During the three weeks of
Israel's Operation Cast Lead in late 2008 and early 2009, France recorded 66
anti-Semitic incidents, including attacks on Jewish-owned restaurants and
34

synagogues and a sharp increase in anti-Jewish graffiti. But according to
academics and Jewish leaders, this time it is different. More than simply a
reaction to the conflict, they say, the threats, hate speech and violent attacks feel
like the expression of a much deeper and more widespread antisemitism, fuelled
by a wide range of factors, that has been growing now for more than a decade.
"These are the worst times since the Nazi era," Dieter Graumann, president of
Germany's Central Council of Jews, told the Guardian. "On the streets, you hear
things like 'the Jews should be gassed', 'the Jews should be burned' – we haven't
had that in Germany for decades. Anyone saying those slogans isn't criticising
Israeli politics, it's just pure hatred against Jews: nothing else. And it's not just a
German phenomenon. It's an outbreak of hatred against Jews so intense that it's
very clear indeed."
Roger Cukierman, president of France's Crif, said French Jews were
"anguished" about an anti-Jewish backlash that goes far beyond even strongly
felt political and humanitarian opposition to the current fighting: "They are not
screaming 'Death to the Israelis' on the streets of Paris," Cukierman said last
month. "They are screaming 'Death to Jews'." Crif's vice-president Yonathan
Arfi said he "utterly rejected" the view that the latest increase in anti-Semitic
incidents was down to events in Gaza. "They have laid bare something far more
profound," he said.
Nor is it just Europe's Jewish leaders who are alarmed. Germany's chancellor,
Angela Merkel, has called the recent incidents "an attack on freedom and
tolerance and our democratic state". The French prime minister, Manuel Valls,
has spoken of "intolerable" and clearly anti-Semitic acts:
"To attack a Jew because he is a Jew is to attack France. To attack a
synagogue and a kosher grocery store is quite simply antisemitism and
racism".
France, whose 500,000-strong Jewish community is one of Europe's largest, and
Germany, where the post-war exhortation of "Never Again" is part of the fabric
of modern society, are not alone. In Austria last month, a pre-season friendly
between Maccabi Haifa and German Bundesliga team SC Paderborn had to be
rescheduled after the Israeli side's previous match was called off following an
attempted assault on its players.
The Netherlands' main antisemitism watchdog, Cidi, had more than 70 calls
from alarmed Jewish citizens in one week last month; the average is normally
three to five. An Amsterdam rabbi, Benjamin Jacobs, had his front door stoned,
and two Jewish women were attacked – one beaten, the other the victim of arson
– after they hung Israeli flags from their balconies. In Belgium, a woman was
35

reportedly turned away from a shop with the words: "We don't currently sell to
Jews."
In Italy, the Jewish owners of dozens of shops and other businesses in Rome
arrived to find swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans daubed on shutters and
windows. One slogan read: "Every Palestinian is like a comrade. Same enemy.
Same barricade"; another: "Jews, your end is near." Abd al-Barr al-Rawdhi, an
imam from the north eastern town of San Donà di Piave, is to be deported after
being video-recorded giving a sermon calling for the extermination of the Jews.
There has been no violence in Spain, but the country's small Jewish population
of 35,000-40,000 fears the situation is so tense that "if it continues for too long,
bad things will happen," the leader of Madrid's Jewish community, David
Hatchwell, said. The community is planning action against El Mundo after the
daily paper published a column by 83-year-old playwright Antonio Gala
questioning Jews' ability to live peacefully with others: "It's not strange they
have been so frequently expelled."
Studies suggest antisemitism may indeed be mounting. A 2012 survey by the
EU's by the Fundamental Rights agency of some 6,000 Jews in eight European
countries – between them, home to 90% of Europe's Jewish population – found
66% of respondents felt antisemitism in Europe was on the rise; 76% said
antisemitism had increased in their country over the past five years. In the 12
months after the survey, nearly half said they worried about being verbally
insulted or attacked in public because they were Jewish.
Jewish organisations that record anti-Semitic incidents say the trend is
inexorable: France's Society for the Protection of the Jewish Community says
annual totals of anti-Semitic acts in the 2000s are seven times higher than in the
1990s. French Jews are leaving for Israel in greater numbers, too, for reasons
they say include antisemitism and the electoral success of the hard-right Front
National. The Jewish Agency for Israel said 3,288 French Jews left for Israel in
2013, a 72% rise on the previous year. Between January and May this year,
2,254 left, against 580 in the same period last year.
In a study completed in February, America's Anti-Defamation League surveyed
332,000 Europeans using an index of 11 questions designed to reveal strength of
anti-Jewish stereotypes. It found that 24% of Europeans – 37% in France, 27%
in Germany, 20% in Italy – harboured some kind of anti-Jewish attitude.
So what is driving the phenomenon? Valls, the French prime minister, has
acknowledged a "new", "normalised" antisemitism that he says blends "the
Palestinian cause, jihadism, the devastation of Israel, and hatred of France and
its values".
36

Mark Gardner of the Community Security Trust, a London-based charity that
monitors antisemitism both in Britain and on the continent, also identifies a
range of factors. Successive conflicts in the Middle East he said, have served up
"a crush of trigger events" that has prevented tempers from cooling: the second
intifada in 2000, the Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, and the three Israel–Hamas
conflicts in 2009, 2012 and 2014 have "left no time for the situation to return to
normal." In such a climate, he added, three brutal anti-Semitic murders in the
past eight years – two in France, one in Belgium, and none coinciding with
Israeli military action – have served "not to shock, but to encourage the antiSemites", leaving them "seeking more blood and intimidation, not less".
In 2006, 23-year old Ilan Halimi was kidnapped, tortured and left for dead in
Paris by a group calling itself the Barbarians Gang, who subsequently admitted
targeting him "because he was a Jew, so his family would have money". Two
years ago, in May 2012, Toulouse gunman Mohamed Merah shot dead seven
people, including three children and a young rabbi outside their Jewish school.
And in May this year Mehdi Nemmouche, a Frenchman of Algerian descent
thought to have recently returned to France after a year in Syria fighting with
radical Islamists, was charged with shooting four people at the Jewish museum
in Brussels.
If the French establishment has harboured a deep vein of anti-Jewish sentiment
since long before the Dreyfus affair, the influence of radical Islam, many Jewish
community leaders say, is plainly a significant contributing factor in the
country's present-day antisemitism. But so too, said Gardner, is a
straightforward alienation that many young Muslims feel from society. "Often
it's more to do with that than with Israel. Many would as soon burn down a
police station as a synagogue. Jews are simply identified as part of the
establishment."
While he stressed it would be wrong to lay all the blame at the feet of Muslims,
Peter Ulrich, a research fellow at the centre for antisemitism research (ZfA) at
Berlin's Technical University, agreed that some of the "anti-Semitic elements"
Germany has seen at recent protests could be "a kind of rebellion of people who
are themselves excluded on the basis of racist structures."
Arfi said that in France antisemitism had become "a portmanteau for a lot of
angry people: radical Muslims, alienated youths from immigrant families, the far
right, the far left". But he also blamed "a process of normalisation, whereby
antisemitism is being made somehow acceptable". One culprit, Arfi said, is the
controversial comedian Dieudonné: "He has legitimised it. He's made acceptable
what was unacceptable."

37

A similar normalisation may be under way in Germany, according to a 2013
study by the Technical University of Berlin. In 14,000 hate-mail letters, emails
and faxes sent over 10 years to the Israeli embassy in Berlin and the Central
Council of Jews in Germany, Professor Monika Schwarz-Friesel found that 60%
were written by educated, middle-class Germans, including professors, lawyers,
priests and university and secondary school students. Most, too, were unafraid to
give their names and addresses – something she felt few Germans would have
done 20 or 30 years ago.
Almost every observer pointed to the unparalleled power of unfiltered social
media to inflame and to mobilise. A stream of shocking images and Twitter
hashtags, including #HitlerWasRight, amount, Arfi said, almost to
indoctrination. "The logical conclusion, in fact, is radicalisation: on social media
people self-select what they see, and what they see can be pure, unchecked
propaganda. They may never be confronted with opinions that are not their
own."

Today’s Historical Events
The Sleeping World is Awakening to the Danger of Islam
AN “overwhelming majority” of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic
countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night.
The European Union realising this is also a threat for the European population
we have already experienced.
In one breath, some of the writers would call themselves ''intellectuals'' and then
accuse me of being a Jew when I put tough questions to them that they could not
answer. They maintained that as an American, I just was not intelligent enough
to understand Islam. The mistake these ''intellectuals'' made is believing that I
have any intention of ''understanding'' Islam.
It has taken me since 9/11 to realize that civilized humans cannot understand
Islam. I am just overjoyed and somewhat relieved that the world is finally
waking up in time to see the rabid dog coming its way disguised as Islam.
If Bin Laden has done one good thing in his wretched life, it was to poke a stick
in the eye of the world by bringing his radical beliefs forward and urging his
followers to commit violent acts. It has taken some time for people to begin
taking a look at Muslims in their own areas, but it is happening. The French and
the English are beginning to ask themselves, ''When did this happen? When did
6 million Muslims get here and what are they planning to do?''
38

Approximately 33% of the world is Christian and 20% is Muslim, based on
figures for the year 2000. The number of Muslims is growing at an alarming
rate. Muslims immigrated to peaceful, mostly Christian countries in Europe
where they had large families that were reasonably safe from the ravages of their
own strict religious teachings. At least these Muslims were safe until the radical
element migrated from the oppressive Middle Eastern countries and began
exerting its power over the masses and started menacing the indigenous
populations that took Muslims in and welcomed them over the years. The mindcontrol of the clerics over the average Muslim is frightening and total.
This problem is most notable in the smaller European countries such as the
Netherlands and Sweden, where a backlash against Islam is growing because of
the strict Islamic laws forbidding mingling with the non-Muslim citizens of a
country. In short, Muslims do not fit in. They are not allowed to fit in. The
religious leaders lose their total control of the people if those people are allowed
to see and experience the freedom that others enjoy. This is why Islam loathes
democracy. Democracy steals the power of the Islamic leaders. It gives the
people the right to think for themselves and thinking people might start to
question their laws. Free people will question the absolute authority and power
of the Islamic leaders over every aspect of their lives from birth to often violent
death.
These days, it seems that anyone who speaks out against Islam runs the risk of
being murdered, as in the case of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh who was shot,
stabbed, and then had his throat slit by a radical Muslim in the Netherlands. Van
Gogh had made documentaries exposing the brutality directed at women under
Islam. Now, mosques and Muslim schools have been burned and the normally
peaceful Dutch are considering closing their borders at the very least and
perhaps even expelling Muslims from their country. As one Dutch citizen said
on a blog, ''This country is a free country but we can't even speak anymore
without wondering if some Muslim will murder us.'' The hate and unrest towards
the followers of Islam is growing. It is just a rumble now, but it will get louder
as the killing and bombing continues across Europe.
A recent report on Fox News showed the hostility growing between the Swedes
and their Muslim population. There are Muslim areas where firefighters and
emergency personnel will not enter without a police escort because they will be
attacked. Firefighters attempting to put out a fire in a mosque were stoned. The
anger between these two forces in Sweden is growing and the most liberal
country in Europe is contemplating the same action as the Netherlands. It seems
Muslims feel their neighbourhoods are not a part of Sweden anymore but theirs,
to do with as they see fit. The Swedish government does not see it that way. In
those pockets of Islamic rule, poverty is common, unemployment is high, and
39

the clerics foment hate and point fingers of blame on the evil West for Muslims'
lot in life.
In France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe, Islamic clerics
openly troll the streets seeking restless young men to indoctrinate and send out
to kill for Islam. They weed out the weaklings by having them view videos of
the actual torture and beheadings of human beings complete with the screams of
pain and all blood and gore of a nightmare. They watch Islamic ''snuff films.''
This is what will be expected of them as ''warriors'' of Allah.Here in the United
States we have a different set of problems. America is just too large for Islam to
overpower by reproduction. It has also been impossible to isolate its followers
from the American population and American Muslims are far less likely to
follow the path of death and destruction. Here, they take a different tact.
Radical Islam is rampant in the prisons, converting the worst of the worst so that
when they leave prison they are unleashed on society as pre-programmed,
radical Islamic killing machines. On the outside they appear as average
Americans which allow them to move about the country unencumbered and
overlooked. These killing machines wait for their orders to kill and terrorize,
cared for and protected by the radical Islamic element within our own borders.
Muslims live in the past where they had their glory days of conquest and power.
They often refer to the Crusades, which ended around 1300, as if they happened
last year. I am constantly reminded of Wounded Knee and American slavery.
Wounded Knee took place in 1890 and slavery ended in the 1860s.
Muslim writers love to point out the Spanish Inquisition, which was an overreaction to the conquests of Islam in Spain and was just as much political as
religious. The Inquisition officially ended in 1834. What they fail to mention is
that it was not only Muslims that were persecuted, but Jews and Protestants as
well. Muslims always see themselves as the only victims of injustice in the
world. Muslims also fail to mention that the Pope tried to intervene and stop the
Inquisition but was unable to exert his power on the political machine.
The Catholics look at this period in our history with shame, not pride. Belief in
God or Jesus cannot be forced on someone; it must come from the heart. Forced
conversion is not done out of love, but fear. Islam can control one's body, but it
cannot control one's thoughts. Converts that are forced will not stay with Islam.
They will leave it at the first opportunity.
This is knowledge that has escaped the Islamics. As they condemn the Spanish
Inquisition, Islam is doing the same right now in countries such as Sudan. What
Muslims are doing in Sudan is far worse than the Spanish Inquisition.
40

Humanitarian groups estimate that since 1983, an estimated 2 million people
have died from war and related famine in Sudan at the hands of the Islamic
leaders. Anyone refusing to denounce Jesus and accept Islam is executed. Rape
is used as a weapon. It seems that all modern-day Islam needs is a coliseum with
some lions. Trapped in the past, Muslims call the coalition forces ''crusaders.''
Since the attack on 9/11 here in the United States, the enemy has been exposed.
The havens of safety in Afghanistan and Iraq have been taken from the Islamics.
In its fury, Islam has made many mistakes. The attacks in Spain and in Bali and
murders in the Netherlands and elsewhere have made the world realize that
Islam is not just the enemy of America, but the enemy of the entire free world.
Some people were foolishly saying that America deserved to be attacked but
when death came to their shores, they were taken aback. They had welcomed
Muslims with open arms and this is how they are repaid for their kindness?
Some countries are instituting laws that make our Patriot Act pale in
comparison. Threatening tapes released by Bin Laden have had the opposite
effect.
Instead of cowering, the world is beginning to look Islam in the eye and say,
emphatically and collectively: ''NO! This will not be allowed.'' If it was a final
crusade that Islam wanted, they have it.

Anti-Islamism in Europe Today
Progressive Europe is waking up to the costs of “tolerance” from their
welcoming attitude towards Muslim refugees.
Cologne was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to New Year’s sex attacks
carried out by migrants. You probably didn’t hear that similar attacks were
carried out in Düsseldorf, Dortmund, and Bielefeld.
Nearly half of Germans now want Angela Merkel out of office. Hardly a
favourable turn of events for one who was just crowned Time Magazine’s
person of the year.
Via the Associated Press:
Protesters rallied against Islam and immigration in several European cities
Saturday, sometimes clashing with police or counter-demonstrators amid
growing tensions over the massive influx of asylum-seekers to the
continent.

41

However, a familiar face showed up on some of the protesters’ signs. Donald
Trump’s suggestion about temporarily banning Muslim immigrants in the
United States seems to have found favour in Europe as well.
Riot police clashed with demonstrators in Amsterdam as supporters of the
anti-Islam group PEGIDA tried to hold their first protest meeting in the
Dutch capital. Only about 200 PEGIDA supporters were present,
outnumbered by police and left-wing demonstrators who shouted,
“Refugees are welcome, fascists are not!”
Dutch riot police detained several people as officers on horseback
intervened to separate the two groups of demonstrators. It was not
immediately clear how many people were detained.
In Germany, up to 8,000 people took part in a PEGIDA rally in Dresden,
according to the independent group Durchgezaehlt, which monitors
attendance figures. Up to 3,500 people took part in a counterdemonstration on the other side of the Elbe River that divides the city, it
said.
No incidents were reported at the event.
In the northern French city of Calais, police dispersed a rowdy antimigrant protest with tear gas after clashes with protesters and detained
several far-right demonstrators.
Around 150 militants from the anti-Islam, anti-immigration group
PEDIGA gathered Saturday chanting slogans like: “We must not let
Calais die!”
Calais has been a focal point for migrants who want to slip into Britain via
the Channel Tunnel. Several thousand have been living there in slums for
months.
PEGIDA, whose German acronym stands for ‘Patriotic Europeans against
the Islamization of the West,’ has become a magnet for far-right and antiimmigrant sentiment since it was founded in Dresden two years ago. After
a drop in attendance last spring, the group saw a rise in support from
people angered by the unprecedented influx into Europe of refugees from
Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
Smaller PEGIDA-style protests were also taking place in France, Britain,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Estonia.

42

As the article stated, no incidents were reported at these events. The same can’t
be said for the women of Cologne, Düsseldorf, Dortmund and Bielefeld.
In Dresden (Germany) Protesters rallied against Islam and immigration in
several European cities Saturday, sometimes clashing with police or counterdemonstrators amid growing tensions over the massive influx of asylumseekers to the continent.
Riot police clashed with demonstrators in Amsterdam as supporters of the antiIslam group PEGIDA tried to hold their first protest meeting in the Dutch
capital. Only about 200 PEGIDA supporters were present, outnumbered by
police and left-wing demonstrators who shouted, "Refugees are welcome,
fascists are not!"
Dutch riot police detained several people as officers on horseback intervened
to separate the two groups of demonstrators. It was not immediately clear how
many people were detained.
In Germany, up to 8,000 people took part in a PEGIDA rally in Dresden,
according to the independent group Durchgezaehlt, which monitors attendance
figures. Up to 3,500 people took part in a counter-demonstration on the other
side of the Elbe River that divides the city, it said.
No incidents were reported at the event.
In the northern French city of Calais, police dispersed a rowdy anti-migrant
protest with tear gas after clashes with protesters and detained several far-right
demonstrators.
Around 150 militants from the anti-Islam, anti-immigration group PEDIGA
gathered Saturday chanting slogans like: "We must not let Calais die!"
Calais has been a focal point for migrants who want to slip into Britain via the
Channel Tunnel. Several thousand have been living there in slums for months.
PEGIDA, whose German acronym stands for 'Patriotic Europeans against the
Islamization of the West,' has become a magnet for far-right and antiimmigrant sentiment since it was founded in Dresden two years ago. After a
drop in attendance last spring, the group saw a rise in support from people
angered by the unprecedented influx into Europe of refugees from Africa, Asia
and the Middle East.
Aside from its nationalist and anti-Islam stance, the group has also sided
strongly with Russia. Several Russian flags were flown at Saturday's rally in
43

Dresden, along with banners including "Peace with Russia" and "Stop war
against Syria."
Smaller PEGIDA-style protests were also taking place in France, Britain,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Estonia.

Problem of Muslim Immigration Rise of Islamism in Europe
Apart from the loss of political power that will inevitably result over time from
the sweeping demographic reconfiguration of the American social landscape,
undoubtedly the greatest immediate threat to the wellbeing of the American
Jewish community and its interests stems from large-scale immigration from the
Muslim world.
The events of September 11 that have forever altered the nature of ordinary life
in America, and have shattered the happy illusion of American invulnerability,
make the current immigration policy supported by many Jewish organizations
appear not merely as the height of irresponsibility, but as irrationally, almost
criminally self-destructive.
The special problem of large-scale Muslim immigration to the United States
derives primarily from the worldwide ascent of Islamism (often referred to as
"fundamentalism" and increasingly "Jihadism"), a totalitarian political ideology
with strong theocratic and fascistic elements that is proving enormously
compelling to millions of Muslims across the globe. It is without a doubt the
most powerful ideological force in the Islamic world, including among Muslims
in the United States.
Islamism is profoundly hostile to pluralism, religious tolerance, democracy,
secular civil society, Jews, Zionism, Israel, and to the United States, "the Great
Satan." It is a movement that festers and spreads in the impoverished conditions
within corrupt regimes, often in response to the venality, inhumanity, and
tyranny of local "secular" regimes.
It expresses itself through violent populist agitation, intolerant religiosity,
irrational atavistic values, misogyny, large-scale terrorism, resentment toward
and hatred of everything perceived as "foreign," and pie-in-the-sky theology.
Certainly contemporary Islamism is, in part, a religious response to what many
Muslims regard as the "catastrophe" of the founding of Israel. Going back
further in time and viewing the movement more broadly, it is a deep-seated
cultural reaction to Islam's socio-political, technological, and military defeat at
the hands of the West.
44

That defeat has been manifested in a variety of ways, but chiefly in the Islamic
world's past conquest by Western and Russian colonialism and its loss of the
race to modernity and prosperity. It has been left behind historically,
underdeveloped and relatively powerless, while the West has developed mass
democratic industrial, technocratic consumer societies. In short, Islamism is
perhaps the most important and urgent example in the contemporary world of
the politics of cultural despair.
But while it has particular roots in the Arab Middle East (Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood being one of the first incarnations), the Islamist movement has
spread to the far ends of the vast Islamic patrimony.
Thus the movement expresses itself not only in the suicide bombers of the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, or the Lebanese Hezbollah that targets
Israelis, but also in the ideology of the Muslim insurgents in Southern Thailand,
Indonesia, and the Philippines.
The movement holds absolute power in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Iran (if
with decreasing enthusiasm among the young), and is gaining steadily in
Pakistan (whose intervention in Afghanistan is turning on itself, transforming
Pakistan into an extension of Afghanistan).
As a result of the strings attached to Saudi economic aid to impoverished
Bangladesh, that nation born in blood with the aspiration to form a secular
society, is becoming increasingly Islamist in orientation. The movement also
poses a direct danger to the newly independent Central Asian republics of the
former Soviet Union, has profited from the war in Chechnya, and has growing
influence in Malaysia.
It has represented a chronic historic threat to the Egyptian regime, and is in an
almost inconceivably brutal contest for power in Algeria. While the Islamist
movement is carefully monitored within "conservative" Saudi Arabia, which
brooks no political opposition to the regime or potentially subversive religiosity,
the Saudis, with untold oil wealth, are the major financial backers of this
movement worldwide.
It is not merely Osama bin Laden who uses his inheritance of $350 million to
promote global fundamentalism, including the terrorism associated with it: it is
the Saudi regime itself. And all the while Saudi Arabia presents itself as a
"moderate" regime and historic friend of the United States.
The great danger Islamism poses to the United States in particular, its savage
hatred of America and American values, are impossible to overstate. Islamism is
a monster capable of the most despicable and atrocious acts of violence against
45

its perceived enemies. This reality has now been experienced and witnessed
directly by the American people in the horrific events of September 11: the
destruction of the World Trade Centre, the attack on the Pentagon, and a failed
attempt to blow up the White House, with a death toll topping 6,000.
These crimes of mass murder, most probably the work of Islamist terrorists
operating with state support in Islamist Afghanistan, is the worst single act of
terrorism on American soil in the history of the United States. It is also one of
the greatest single assaults on innocent human life in modern world history
carried out in the name of religion.
The tragic enormity beggars the imagination. Recently, the anti-Islamist
Pakistani émigré newspaper Pakistan Today featured on its cover a group of
Islamists, their faces covered, aiming rocket-propelled grenades and carrying a
sign that read "America, we are coming." They have come; they are here among
us. And there is no reason to believe these enormities are the last we will
witness, even in the near future.
Also deeply troubling is the fact that the Islamist movement finds critical
support in the United States through a series of organizations such as the
American Muslim Alliance, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Council on
America-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the
American Muslim Council. These groups front as anti-discrimination
organizations supposedly concerned principally with protecting the rights and
sensitivities of Muslims and Muslim immigrants.
Their main agenda, however, is to exert ideological control over the American
Muslim community and to prevent its acculturation and assimilation. (It should
be pointed out that while the plurality of American Muslims hail from the
subcontinent - India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh - the leadership of these
organizations tends to be Middle Eastern, often Palestinian or fellow travellers
involved in the Palestinian struggle against Israel.)
These organizations function as advocates, recruiters, fundraisers, and lobbyists
on behalf of Islamist causes abroad, in recent times especially on behalf of their
ilk in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Balkans, Central Asia, and in the ceaseless
struggle to destroy Israel. It is their extremism that creates the very negative
stereotypes of Muslims they decry and accuse others of foisting upon them.
Their venom in response to outside queries and criticism, continual raising of
the red herring of Islamophobia, orchestration of fatwas by foreign mullahs
against independent Muslim thinkers (the case of the scholar Khalid Durán is a
recent example), and their militant international agenda stereotype Muslims as
violent, intolerant, and repressive.
46

That Jewish groups should remain stout defenders of an uncritical immigration
and visa policy that allows for the open-ended entry of Muslim fundamentalists
to the United States and then provides government agencies no means of
keeping track of them is self-defeating to the point of being suicidal. (It should
be pointed out that many of the suspects recently arrested in association with the
attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon entered the United States
from Saudi Arabia with legal visas.)
It must also be pointed out, regrettably, that to date, few American Muslims
have come forward to challenge the self-proclaimed leadership role of these
organizations, and there is thus no way to ascertain how representative these
groups genuinely are. It must be admitted it is not easy to oppose them in the
tight and often repressive world of immigrant communities, where economic
survival is often achieved at the cost of political conformity, but change is
beginning, although the new forces are at present no more than embryonic.
Still, anti-Islamist Muslims are increasingly seeking and finding each other (the
web is proving an excellent meeting place) and anti-Islamist organizations of
Muslim independents and freethinkers are just beginning to spring up. But theirs
is a long road, and they have only begun their work. It is also to be hoped that
sometime in the future, the more pluralistic and spiritually open Muslim Sufi
religious community, represented in hundreds of mosques across the United
States, will find the courage to break openly with the current self-appointed
leadership in the Muslim community.
At the risk of being labelled the fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread, it
must also be acknowledged that classic Islam itself, the traditional faith - and not
the hideous political ideologies derived from it - is itself not unproblematic in its
attitudes towards Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims.
The religious education of traditional, non-Islamist Muslims - literalism in
Koranic exegesis, theological straightjackets imposed on scriptural
interpretation, the study of text without context, and the virtual absence of
intellectual self-critique - is filled with anti-Jewish teaching as well as a
theology of contempt for the followers of other faiths.
It is the case that fellow monotheists have been historically accorded at least
official second-class status (an advance over the treatment accorded others, such
as Hindus, Buddhists, or Baha’is, for example). But this condition is far
removed from anything resembling authentic mutual respect and recognition of
the equality of religious claims or commensurate spiritual authenticity.
Powerful strains of religious triumphalism and religious super-cessionism are
central tenets of Islam. Such dangerous spiritual arrogance has been abandoned
47

by many Christian denominations, largely as a product of Vatican II and years of
interfaith dialogue and soul-searching encounter. Christian believers, from
Roman Catholics to members of such liberal Protestant denominations as the
Congregationalists and the United Church of Christ, have for example, adopted
the view that God's covenantal relationship with the Jewish people remains
unbroken and that the advent of Christianity neither erased nor cancelled it. (In
the United States, the Southern Baptist Convention forms a sad exception to this
changed perspective, as do the traditional attitudes of several Orthodox Christian
national churches.)
No parallel spiritual generosity exists in Islam. While Muslims are prepared to
offer the passing genuflection to Jesus or prominent figures in the Hebrew bible,
the tone is one of enormous condescension. Muslim friends reared in traditional
Islam in such countries as Pakistan and Bangladesh tell me it is impossible for a
Muslim who remains in the mainstream of his religious background not to be an
anti-Semite.
On a more hopeful note, it is not impossible that Islam itself, as well as its
attitude toward Judaism, will undergo a profound change in America. In the
United States, many religions have become more open, tolerant, and pluralistic but the process will take time, it will be hampered by the continuing pull of
homeland politics and culture, and it will require the emancipation of the
Muslim community from its traditional leadership.
At this point, the kind of radical reformation required with regard to Koranic
interpretation makes any advocate of such a change an apostate, a marked man.
Similarly, any advocate of Islam's spiritual equality with Christianity and
Judaism, as opposed to superiority, would be seen as a heretic whose blood
should be shed.
In the wake of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon bombings, there have been
countless exhortations from public figures ranging from President Bush to
religious leaders, political figures, and police officials not to scapegoat all
American Muslims and to protect them from reprisals. Of course such
exhortations are timely and necessary. But far more questionable have been the
continual references by politicians, clergy, and the self-proclaimed "people of
good will" to "our common religious heritage," and the repetition, ad nauseum,
of the mantra that "true Islam" does not practice or preach violence and hatred.
As any one even vaguely acquainted with the Koran knows, numerous Surah’s
preach hatred and violence and call for ruthless war against unbelievers in the
name of Allah. This is not a distortion of Islam; this is the language of its most
sacred text. And it is but a short step from classic Islamic supremacism and
super-cessionism to hatred, a short step from the belief that one's own faith
48

possesses absolute truth to the readiness to inflict violence, even death, on those
who chose to stand outside it.
For American Muslims, this should be a time of profound soul-searching, a time
to re-evaluate the fundamentals of the faith in light of where they have tragically
led the faithful. But one sees scant sign this is taking place. To the contrary, we
are continually reassured by Muslim Jihadist supporters (who recently have
cleverly toned down their strident websites) that Islam is a religion of peace and
told by (mostly) well-meaning and ill-informed Christian partners in dialogue
with Islam that we must not confuse Islamism with Islam.
Authentic believers in and practitioners of inter-religious dialogue must now
come forward and with rare courage and painstaking honesty call for a radical
reformation of Islam's moral vision of the "other," while Muslims, religious
leaders, and ordinary folk alike, must confront the spiritual arrogance that
deforms their faith and begets violence.
The Jewish community's role in confronting the rise of Islam in America is (at
least) fivefold. We must (1) seek to expose the real nature of our Islamist
enemies, (2) attempt to support the emerging free thinkers within the Muslim
community, and (3) work assiduously against Islamist political agendas, even as
we seek (4) to reduce prejudice against Muslim immigrants. But, again, (5) we
should be seeking reductions in the number of immigrants from Islamist
societies given their enormous antipathy to Israel, Jews, America, and the West
in general.
And we should be especially vigilant in opposing the admission of those
Islamists seeking asylum from political repression in countries where secularist
governments in such places as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, etc. are
struggling against attempts to overthrow them by Islamist religious fanatics. It is
nothing less than monstrous that the planners of the first bombing of the World
Trade Centre and the would-be perpetrators of other terrorist acts often entered
this country with refugee status.
Does all this mean we should turn our backs on our longstanding commitment in
favour of generous legal immigration or become pessimistic about America's
ability to socialize the fresh crop of newcomers into acceptance of American
norms and values? Does this mean that we favour one ethnic/racial
configuration of American citizenry over another? The answer to both is a
resounding no. What it does mean, however, is that our support needs to be
more qualified, more nuanced, and that we should recognize that immigration
that is unprecedented in its scale and unceasing intensity is neither good for
immigrants nor good for the United States.
49

The experience of the immigrant under present circumstances is often disastrous
and American social cohesion and notions of economic justice are seriously
challenged. We should bring the numbers down to more manageable levels, do
far more to integrate immigrants into mainstream American life, and inculcate
the values of American civil society in immigrant communities. As Jews we also
have special concerns regarding the rising Muslim presence, particularly the
ascent of Islamism, and we should be unashamed in pursuing our interests.

Islam in Belgium and the danger for Belgian Natives
The main waves of immigrants from Muslim countries began in the early 1960s
when migration agreements were signed with Morocco and Turkey and then at
the end of the 1960s with Algeria and Tunisia. In contrast with the Netherlands,
Belgium had no relations with the Muslim world during the colonial period. In
1974 Belgium imposed strict conditions on the entry of foreign labor but
remained one of the most liberal countries in Europe for family reunion policy.
Reliable demographic data on Belgian Muslims are difficult to find. The
government no longer conducts a national census, and even when it existed, no
questions were asked about religious affiliation.)
The number of Muslims in Belgium is estimated to be between 320,000 to
450,0002-about 4% percent of the total population of the country. As in the other
countries of the EU the Muslim population in Belgium is very young. Almost 35
percent of the Turks and Moroccans, the largest Muslim groups in the country,
are below 18 years old, compared with 18 percent of the native Belgians. As a
result of the age and spatial distribution, very high proportions of the youth in
certain areas are Muslim. One quarter of Brusselians under 20 years are of
‘Muslim origin’, and in 2002 in the region of Brussels the most popular names
given to babies were Mohammed and Sarah.
Statistical data from 2003 showed a heavy concentration of Moroccans
(125,000) and Turks (70,000) with smaller numbers from Algeria (8,500),
Tunisia (4,000), Bosnia-Herzegovina, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Syria and Egypt.
According to Marechal, 113,842 people from the ‘Muslim countries’ had
acquired Belgium citizenship between 1985 and 1997.
Between 2003 and 2007, estimates show that these populations have almost
doubled.
In 2007, sociologist Jan Hertogen published statistics indicating that Moroccans
(264,974) had replaced Italians (262,120) as the largest immigrant group in
Belgium as of January 1, 2004. Turks are in third place with 159,336 people.
50

Hertogen’s methodology has been criticized by the Belgian Centre for Equal
Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, headed by Jozef De Witte, for being
too simplistic, leading to distorted results.
According to a study brought by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and
Opposition to Racism, on January 1st, 2005 there were 279,180 Italians and
242,802 Moroccans. The Centre agrees with Hertogen’s claim that Moroccans
will eventually be the largest immigrant group.
The Muslim population is most concentrated in Brussels (20% of the total
population) with most other Muslims living in the industrial areas of the Frenchspeaking south. The Brussels conurbation is home for more than 50 percent of
the Moroccans. They can be also found in Antwerp, Liege, Hainaut, in the
region of Charleroi and in Limburg. Half of the Turks have settled in Flanders,
especially Antwerp, Ghent and Limburg. They live also in certain districts of
Brussels (ex. Schaerbeek, Saint-Josse) and in the Walloon area of Belgium in
the region of Hainaut and Liege (Bousetta 2003:8).

Labour Market
Although there are no statistics for Muslim employment levels, according to the
OECD, the foreign-born have unemployment rates more than twice that of
indigenous Belgians.
Systemic discrimination arose as the primary concern of Belgian Muslims
during a 2005 dialogue hosted by US Ambassador to Belgium Tom Korologos
and Ambassador Claude Mission, the Director General of the Royal Institute for
International Relations. Scholars and activists alike reported cases where
Muslims with law degrees remained unemployed for years and job and
apartment applications were rejected based on Muslim names.
Employment discrimination affects primarily the North African communities
(including both immigrant and first-generation). Muslims of Turkish and other
national origins appear to be far less frequently the targets of such prejudice,
indicating that discrimination may be more ethnic than religious.

Housing
ALARM (Action pour le logement accessible aux réfugiés à Molenbeek) ran a
survey on housing showing substantial bias against asylum seekers in searching
for housing. 40% of North Africans reported being victims of housing
discrimination.

51

Education
The OECD collects data on education from various statistical agencies within
the country, the majority of which comes from census data from the year 2000.
The OECD classifies educational achievement using the International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED): ISCED 0/1/2: Less than upper secondary;
ISCED 3/4: Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary; ISCED 5A:
“Academic” tertiary; ISCED 5B: “Vocational” tertiary; ISCED 6: Advanced
research programs. 0-2 are considered low, 3-4 as medium, and 5 and above are
considered high. This data is not reported by religion, but does have country of
origin as reported by the respondent. It is thus possible to construct an
approximate picture of the educational achievement of the population in the
country with ancestry from predominately Muslim countries. One significant
problem is that some countries, such as India and Nigeria, have large Muslim
populations but the immigrant population cannot be readily classified as
predominately Muslim or non-Muslim. As such, the educational data is split by
predominately Muslim origin, predominately non-Muslim origin, and a separate
category for those whom classification would not seem justified. Proportions are
for all reported data, individuals with no reported ancestry or education are
excluded.
Educational Achievement using the International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED)
High Medium Low
Muslim 12 % 23% 65%
Non-Muslim 23% 30% 47%
Indeterminate 43% 31% 26%

State and Church
Although there is religious freedom in Belgium, the state formally recognizes
seven religions; Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Anglicanism,
Islam, and Orthodox Christianity. Secular humanist groups serve as a seventh
recognized “religion” and their organizing body, the Central Council of NonReligious Philosophical Communities of Belgium, receives funds and benefits
similar to those of the six other recognized religions.
Recognized religions provide teachers at government expense for religious
instruction in schools. The state pays the salaries, retirement, for clergy and
subsidizes the construction and renovation of church buildings. Positions of
clerics are allocated by royal decree, but there are no training requirements.
Although there are exceptions, in general the state has tried to ensure that new
52

imams come from the Belgian population. In Flanders, foreign clergy are
required to take part in the Inburgeringstrajet, a state integration curriculum.
Subsidies are received at the federal, regional and municipal levels. The
ecclesiastical administrations of recognized religions have legal rights and
obligations, and the municipality in which they are located must pay any debts
that they incur. According to an independent academic review, government at all
levels spent $523 million (23 billion Belgian francs) on subsidies for recognized
religions in 2000 (3.5 percent of this funds went to Muslims). For many years
Muslims did not receive their share of these funds because there was no
representative institution to negotiate with the state. In part due to this problem,
Belgium facilitated the creation of an Islamic organization intended to represent
the needs and interests of the Muslim population in Belgium. In 2001, the
Muslim Executive Council applied for the first time for subsidies and in 2002,
the government recognized 75 mosques and began paying salaries to imams
assigned to these mosques (Religious Freedom Report 2002). However,
conflicts between the Muslim Executive and the state have led to problems
distributing the money for mosques and imams (US State Dept., 2004).
Although Islam became a state-recognized religion in 1974, Muslim institutions
have gone largely unfunded by the state because of such conflicts.
Since 2004, there have been a series of shifts in Muslim relations with the state.
There was an overhaul of leadership in the Muslim Executive Council, largely at
the urging of government officials who were suspicious of radical tendencies of
the Council’s former leaders. The government pledged that once a new Council
and Executive were formed, funding to clergy and teachers would begin (Dept.
of State, 2006).
In January 2005, the administration of the Flemish region mandated that
mosques would be required to meet certain conditions for public funding.
Outside of rituals conducted in the Arabic language, Dutch should be used, there
must be tolerance for women and homosexuals and no preaching of extremist
ideas. This applies only to Islam.
In the fall of the same year, two important infrastructural reforms occurred: first,
decrees were issued by the Flemish regional parliament (September) and the
Walloon regional government (October) elucidated the process for recognition
of mosques and local religious communities. The Flemish decree clarified this
process for all recognized religions (U.S. Dept. of State, 2004). The second
change came in the form of an overhaul of the Muslim Executive (Controversy
surrounding this election is described in the Muslim Organization section
below).

53

In November 2006, the Belgian government announced plans to open an Imam
school by the close of the 2006-2007 academic year. The Muslim Executive
Council was a driving force behind the conception of the mosque; the Council
has requested that a mufti preside at the school to interpret and implement
Sharia (Islamic law). The mufti would also be capable of issuing fatwas
(religious rulings), but will not be granted this right because this would conflict
with Belgium’s judicial system. A similar school already exists in France. The
Imam school would be subsidized by the state.
The school’s formulation came at a time when disagreements between the
Muslim Executive Council and the government posed a significant obstacle to
the allocation of state funding to Muslim schools and religious organizations.
Experts on religious organizations and the state have pointed to “a lack of
transparency and fairness” in regard to state subsidies of religious groups. Due
to discontent related to the allocation of state resources, the government, as of
November 2006, was contemplating a reorganization of subsidies for religious
groups.
As of November 2006, the government was also considering legislation to
control the foreign financing of mosques in Belgium to reduce “outside
ideological influence” of Belgium’s Muslim institutions. Over the summer of
2007, the Muslim community’s institutional relationship with the state
experience was significantly improved. On June 24, 2007, Belgian officials
announced their plans to officially recognize 43 mosques in French-speaking
Wallonia, and promised that other regions were to follow (including Dutchspeaking Flanders in the North, and the bilingual Brussels region). Mosque
recognition by the state was one of the most significant barriers standing
between mosques and state subsidies. Of the 43 Wallonian mosques, 26 are
Turkish. This recognition is an important step toward the provision to Muslim
religious leaders of monthly wages and housing costs by the government.
Officials anticipated that eight additional mosques in Flanders were to be
recognized by the end of the year. Interior Minister of the Wallon region,
Philippe Courard, expressed disappointment that such recognition and the
funding that will follow had taken 33 years for the state to grant.
In March 2007, the French-speaking regional government began funding a
program organized by the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve on Imam
and Islamic Formation. This program is a response to the interests of the
Executive Board and by the public authorities. The Executive Board has long
been advocating for a new academic institute of global scope since 2006. The
public authorities want to make attendance at the institute mandatory, and aim
for curricular stress on the subject of pluralism and democracy.

54

Muslims in Politics
Since 2003, Belgium has seen four election cycles, two federal cycles in 2003
(May 18) and 2007 (June10), and two municipal and provincial elections in
2004 (June 13) and 2006 (October 8). Information on the prominence and
success of Muslim candidates is available for the two federal elections.
After the elections of 2003, six Muslims served in the national parliament;
Fauzaya Talhaoui, Dalila Douifi, Nahima Lanjri, Fatma Pehlivan, Meryem
Kacar and Talbia Belhouari. As of 2003 Said El Khadraoui serves in the
European Parliament.
Two Islamist parties ran in the Brussels constituency in the May 2003 elections,
NOOR and the PCP (Parti Citoyenneté et Prospérité) (Stephen Roth Institute).
The PCP obtained over 8,000 votes which gave the party a good chance of
winning a seat in the next regional elections. The party suffered, however, after
its founder, Jean-François Bastin, (alias Abdullah Abu Abdulaziz), resigned as
Party leader. Bastin claimed that his resignation was unrelated to the accusation
of the involvement of his son (Muhammed el Amin Bastin) in the terrorist
attacks in Turkey in November 2003. 15 A third Party, Resist, was a coalition of
the leftist Maoist PTB/PVDA and the Arab European League; they won 10,059
votes in the May 2003 election (Stephen Roth Institute) and were relatively
unsuccessful.
The 2007 federal elections revealed the growing political representation of
Turkish Muslims in Belgium. Out of the 160,000 Turks living in Belgium,
120,000 have Belgian citizenship. Nearly 90,000 of them voted in the Belgian
2007. There were 36 Turkish candidates on the 2007 ballot; nine ran for
Parliamentary seats while the rest were candidates for the federal council. A
majority of these candidates were women, and younger candidates dominated
the list.
The 2007 election was also boycotted by some Muslims, although this time
there was no connection to the Muslim Council. Prior to the June 10 national
election, an anonymous twelve-page document entitled, “Participer aux
elections” began circulating online and among the Arab Muslim community in
Brussels. The document, supposedly from Salafi authors, called for a boycott on
the 2007 elections since “only Allah has the authority to make absolute laws”
and claimed “every Muslim who takes part in the elections is unfaithful.” The
document was supposedly based off a British fatwa from an earlier UK election.

55

Brussels
After the October 2006 elections in Brussels, one-fifth (21.8%) of the elected
municipal councillors were of non-European origin and of this group the
majority were Muslim. They were mostly Socialist candidates, reflecting the
overwhelmingly Socialist orientation of non-European immigrants. The Socialist
Party has significant non-European representation in several boroughs of
Brussels, including Sint-Joost-ten-Node where 19 of the borough’s 27
councillors are non-European and 11 of the Socialist Party’s representatives are
non-European.
From 2000 to 2006, the percentage of Brussels voters who were either
foreigners of naturalized Belgians has risen from 32% to 50%. In Antwerp, onethird of the Socialist councillors and one-third of the so-called ChristianDemocrat councillors are Muslim; in Gent, that figure is one-quarter; in
Vilvoorde (Flemish suburb of Brussels), the figure in one-half. 18

Muslim Organizations
Although Islam has been recognized since 1974, the Muslim community has had
no formal representation with the state until 1998, due to a lack of agreement
between various ethnic and sectarian groups in the society on a common
leadership. Discord between the Moroccan and Turkish communities is
especially prominent. The state’s desire to avoid having any ‘fundamentalists’ in
the assembly made the situation even more complicated. The Islamic Centre of
Brussels, financed by Saudi Arabia, used to play the role of interlocutor to the
state.
The Muslim Council and the Executive Committee of the Muslim Council were
the representative and mediating bodies of the Muslim community until early
2008, when it was dissolved after years of unresolved controversy. Elections of
the Council were first held in 1998 and council members appointed an executive
board which was soon contested by the government. Government intervention
threatened the legitimacy of the Executive Board in 1999 and in 2003. 19 This
committee was to be selected in a mostly democratic fashion to represent the
ethnic and religious breakdown of Muslims in Belgium. However, the state
screened candidates for ideological extremism, thereby seriously eroding the
legitimacy of the council (Cesari, 2004). Candidates were also required to speak
fluently the language of the region they were representing.
Controversy surrounded the October 2, 2005 Muslim Council elections, in
which seventeen members were elected to its Executive Council and a Turkishborn Muslim became chairman. New parliamentary legislation required that
56

candidates for the Muslim Executive undergo security screening; an Antwerpian
imam was excluded from consideration for membership in the Executive
Council on account of this security check. Tensions also arose during the
transfer of power from the old executive to the new. The outgoing executives
refused to surrender their headquarters to the new leadership. State officials
searched the premises and brought charges of embezzlement against two former
executive chairpersons. Thought the Muslim executive has been working more
closely with the government, internal tensions within the Muslim Executive
Council have hindered its ability to approach the government with coherent
demands.
On July 25, 2003, the King of Belgium recognized the executive body of
Belgian’s Muslim Council, putting an end to four years of controversy over the
1998 executive body. Over 45,000 Belgian Muslims out of 70,000 enfranchised
voters participated in the 2003 election. Sixty-eight members were elected to the
Council that in turn elected 17 members to the Executive.
Government intervention and distinctive responses by the Muslim Council and
the Turkish community have made the Muslim Council a polarizing issue.
According to Mohammad Boulif, then Chairman of the executive committee, the
Justice Minister excluded half of the council’s 2003 elected members under the
“pretext of close links with ‘Islamists’.” This intervention has lead the
leadership of the Executive Board to call for boycotts, while Turks are becoming
increasingly involved in the electoral process.
Although there were protests from the existing executive body and almost all of
the Muslim organizations, the Minister of Justice Laurette Onkelinx decided to
organize new elections for the general assembly on March 13, 2005. This would
require the appointment of a new Executive Board, which would be subject to
vetting by the State Security. In response to the Justice Minister’s decision and
to recently passed legislation that gave legal validity to security checks on
candidates, members of the Executive Board called for a boycott. The March 20,
2005 election for Muslim Council seats saw a relatively low turnout of only
45,000 registered voters.
Several mosques in Brussels and the Arab European League, which represents a
large ethnic North African Arab constituency, actively promoted the boycott.
Turkish Muslim experienced a landslide victory, winning 40 of the 68 Council
seats. Moroccans won only 20 seats, despite the fact that the majority of
Muslims in Belgium are of Moroccan heritage. Six seats went to candidates
from other countries, and two Belgian converts won the remaining two seats
(US Dept. of State 2005).

57

Young Turks were the most successful candidates and five of the new Council
members were women. Hacer Duzgun was especially successful, winning 3,640
votes compared to 307 votes won by the leading Moroccan candidate from
Brussels (home to the largest Muslim community in Belgium). She is now Vice
President of the Executive Council with Kissi Benjelloun, a French-Moroccan.
The Executive Council’s successive presidents have been Dr. Didier-Yacine
Beyens, Nordin Maloujahmoun, Mohamed Boulif (Moroccan) and Coskun
Beyazgül.
The EMB – l’Executif des Musulmans de Belgique – was responsible for
administrative managing of the Muslim worship in Belgium and was intended to
play the role of a mediator between the state and Muslim communities. The
establishment of a Muslim Executive was modelled after the French
government’s approach. Its responsibilities ranged from providing religious
education at schools and educational training for imams to appointment of
Muslims chaplaincies in hospitals and prisons. The EMB has been receiving
state subsidies since 2001. In 2002 the State supported the organization with
420,000 Euros, while the Catholic Church was given 350 million Euros.
On February 23, 2008, the Justice Ministry confirmed that the Muslim
Executive would be dissolved. Financial problems and complaints that the
Muslim Executive did not adequately represent the diversity of the Muslim
population in Belgium were cited as explanations for the decision.
With the formation of the EMB, The Islamic Cultural Centre of Belgium, which
had been de facto representative of Muslims in Belgium, lost its formerly central
role. Its board of trustees is chaired by the ambassador of Saudi Arabia and it is
attached to the Grand Mosque of Brussels. The land for the Centre was handed
over to King Faisal in 1967 as a gift in exchange for donations he has made. The
centre was built with the financial support of the Muslim World League.
The Arab European League aims to defend the civil rights of Arabs in Europe
and has attracted a following of thousands of jobless, frustrated young
immigrants since its creation in Antwerp in 2000.The leader Dyab Abou Jahjah,
a charismatic debater with MA in international politics and fluency in 4
languages, is often portrayed by the media as Belgium’s Malcolm X. Along with
a leftist party, the organization established the party ‘Resist’ to run in the
elections in 2003, but was relatively unsuccessful. However, Abou Jahjah has
already announced the creation of a new political party, Muslim Democratic
Party. The AEL now has growing branches in France and the Netherlands. In
June 2002, the Centre d’Egalité des Chances et Lutte contre le Racisme
(CECLR) filed a complaint against Abou Jahjah for holding a pro-Palestine
58

demonstration after which anti-Semitic vandalism occurred (Stephen Roth
Institute).
Similar to the AEL is the MJM (Mouvement des Jeunes Musulmans) which also
established a political party. The Parti de la Citoyennete et de la Prosperite did
surprisingly well in the local elections in Brussels in May 2003, winning more
than 8,000 votes and making it a potential contender for seats.
Other Muslim organizations include: the ASBL Himaya; Federation of
European Muslim Youth and Student Organizations (FEMYSO); Communaute
des Etudiants Musulmans de Gand (MSCG); Executif des Musulmans de
Belgiqueligue Arab Europeenne; Parti Citoyennete Prosperite (PCP); Jardin des
Jeune; Vigilance Musulmane; and the Centre Al-Boukhari.

Islamic Education
Public school students under 17 have the option of participating in either nondenominational ethics classes or classes for religious instruction (of the state’s
recognized religions). For older students, these classes are voluntary. The
Muslim community has the right to provide teachers at government expense for
religious instruction. Since at least 1975, some students have been able to
receive instruction in Islam.
Since 1998, public school teachers are appointed by the state after
recommendation of the Muslim
Executive Council. The curriculum as well is developed by the MEC and then
subject to approval by the state. Religious communities have the right to
establish private schools that can receive state funding. Due to conflicts with the
state since its inception in 1998, the MEC has been unable to channel state
funding toward Islamic schooling; state subsidies for Islamic education and the
training of imams fall far behind educational subsidies for Belgium’s other
recognized religions.
In the fall of 2007, the first Islamic School in Belgium opened its doors.
Situated in Molenbeek, the Avicenna Islamic school is a private institution that
receives no subsidies; it is yet to be recognized by the state, meaning the
school’s diplomas have no official value and graduating students must first pass
a test by the public examination board to receive an officially-recognized
certificate. The school is theoretically open to Muslim and non-Muslim boys and
girls and the enrolment fee is 1,800 euros.
According to De Standaard, the Islamic Platform League is the “driving force”
behind the school. In its press release concerning the school’s opening, the
59

League stated that in no way did it intend for the Avicenna School to be a
“ghetto school.” Its mission is as follows: “to prepare the students for taking an
active place in society, and it intends to insure equal opportunities for
emancipation for all students.”
Some outsiders see the school as a refuge for female students who wish to wear
a headscarf. Johan Leman, of the Brussels Foyer integration Centre described
the school’s affiliated mosque as “Islamist…it employs a conservative
interpretation of the Koran, and adopts rigid stances as far as matters of faith are
concerned.” Leman suggests that the mosque’s leaders, though very
conservative, are concerned with practicing Islam within the limits of
democracy, adding that they are certainly not militant.
One parent interviewed by the internet news service Mediascrape about his
decision to send his child to the Avicenna Islamic School cited his primary
concern as being the poor quality of public schools in the neighbourhood.
Immigration
In general, Belgium’s approach toward immigration has been fairly liberal as
reflected in findings by an October 2007 poll released by the EU rating Belgium
third among twenty-five EU countries in helping immigrants settle in. The poll
considered factors such as employment rights, anti-racism laws, and
opportunities for permanent residence and family reunification.
Belgium also stands out for a February 2004 decision by Parliament to grant
foreigners living in Belgium the right to vote in local elections, legislation that
was expected to enfranchise an estimated 120,000 foreigners. The most recent
significant body of immigration legislation, which further liberalized the right to
Belgian citizenship, came in force in 2000. Under this law, all those born in
Belgium, having at least one Belgian parent, or residing in the country for at
least seven years, may become citizens. This can be done by registering in the
community. Those in the country for over three years must fulfil language and
cultural requirements to qualify for citizenship.
The past decade has seen a sharp decrease in the number of asylum applications
and an increase in the rate of approval for asylum. From 2000 to 2007, the
number of applicants has dropped from 42,691 to 11,115. Between 2006 and
2007, the number of applications dropped by almost 500, yet the number of
asylum applicants approved increased over this period. The increase in
acceptances in 2007 can be attributed in part to resolution of backlog from the
previous year. Most asylum seekers come from Chechnya (20%), Rwanda, Iraq,
Kosovo, and Congo. There has been a significant decrease in the number of
60

asylum applicants from Congo since 2007, due largely to a campaign by the
Congolese government to discourage emigration.
Approximately 21,000 Congolese live legally in Belgium.
Since 2007, immigration policy and policy discourse has become more reserved
and concerned with economic issues. In October 2007, Christian Democrats and
Liberals, groups normally in opposition, agreed on a tough approach to
immigration, asylum, and economic migration. Under their agreement, migrants
from outside the EU will be able to fill jobs only if there are not enough EU
candidates. They also proposed the tightening of income, language, and time
requirements as immigration criteria.
The business community in Belgium has become a vocal advocate of opening
the Belgian labour market to illegal immigrants. Citing figures of job vacancies
that double those of available workers, small businesses in particular have
advocated granting legal employment rights to illegal immigrants who have
integrated into Belgian society.30
A study by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism
prepared by the Universities of Antwerp and Leuven (2006) found that stricter
immigration laws had left immigrant women from Turkey and Morocco
distinctly disadvantaged and vulnerable to abuse by their partners. Compared to
other immigrant groups from the former Eastern bloc and South-East Asia,
Turkish and Moroccan women were the most likely to be marriage immigrants.
The study found that female marriage immigrants who arrived in Belgium in
2000 were the most socio-economically disadvantaged: only one-third were
employed three years later compared to higher rates of Asians and Eastern
Europeans and a rate of 90% for immigrants from the Mediterranean region. The
stricter immigration law makes especially women extra vulnerable to abuse by
their partner. The Migration Policy Institute has a comprehensive overview of
Belgian immigration policy available on their website.

Security and Anti-Terrorism
Belgium’s new law on anti-terrorism took effect in December 2003 to
immediate concern from lawyers and civil rights groups. The primary concern
was the vague definition of terrorism, which was also commented on by the UN
Human Rights Committee (Human Rights Without Frontiers, 2004).
It was not until October 2005 that the prosecutors first used the 2003 law to try
the case of the “Asparagus 18,” the code name for the network of militants
discovered over the course of a series of arrests in Belgium following the March
11, 2004 Madrid bombings.
61

Confronting Sharia laws in Belgium
After members of the newly established Islam Party vowed to implement
Islamic Sharia law in Belgium, Members of Parliament introduced a bill that
would limit the power of Muslim extremists who win elected office at the local
or national levels and isolate themselves from the political mainstream.
Addressing the Belgian Parliament on February 28, Alain Destexhe, an MP with
the Reformist Movement [Mouvement Réformateur], the largest Frenchspeaking classical liberal party in Belgium, and Philippe Pivin, a liberal MP who
is also the deputy mayor of Koekelberg, a suburb of Brussels, said it is
imperative to curb the power of elected Muslims whose beliefs are inconsistent
with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights ruled in February 2003
that Islamic Sharia law is “incompatible with the fundamental principles of
democracy.” The court said that a legal system based on Sharia law “would
diverge from the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly with
regard to the rules on the status of women, and its intervention in all spheres of
private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
The legislative proposal, which is currently open for signatures by other
Members of the Belgian Parliament, argues that ultra-conservative Muslims who
are elected to public office are unsuitable to run local governments or
community bodies and should be impeached.
Destexhe said that as Muslim politicians in Belgium are creating isolated
communities and parallel societies, the measure is necessary. He said: “The
people of the Islam Party refuse to shake hands with women. They do not want
to mix with others in public transport and other communal places. They
advocate getting married and wearing a veil at 12 years old, based on Islamic
law.”
Destexhe continued: “Members of the Islam Party have refused to shake hands
with Françoise Schepmans, the mayor of Molenbeek [a primarily Muslim
neighbourhood in Brussels]. I feel that some people do not understand how
similar this is to the behaviour of the extreme right, and how they are creating
their own isolated community.”
Philip Claeys, a Member of the European Parliament for Flanders with the
Vlaams Belang, a Flemish nationalist party that is opposed to multiculturalism
and further Muslim immigration, said: “It is very worrying to see what is
62

happening. We see people with an Islamic background forming their own
political party and demanding the introduction of Sharia law and an Islamic state
in Belgium. Until now Muslim people mainly supported Socialist parties and
other leftist parties. But now they feel confident enough to establish their own
party.”
Claeys said he believes it is a “big problem” when people who move to Belgium
do not respect the separation of Mosque and State, or the equality of men and
women and the rule of law. He said: “We should put a stop to this mass
immigration of people coming from outside Europe, mainly Islamic countries, of
people who cannot and will not adapt to our way of living in Western Europe.”
The parliamentary initiative is in response to Lhoucine Aït Jeddig and Redouane
Ahrouch, both from the fledgling Islam Party, who in October 2012 won seats in
two heavily Islamized municipalities of Brussels, Molenbeek-Saint-Jean and
Anderlecht, respectively.
During a post-election press conference in Brussels on October 25, the two
councillor, who were officially sworn in on December 3, said they regard their
election as key to the assertion of the Muslim community in Belgium.
Ahrouch said: “We are elected Islamists but above all we are Muslims. Islam is
compatible with the laws of the Belgian people. As elected Muslims, we
embrace the Koran and the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed. We believe
Islam is a universal religion. Our presence on the town council will give us the
opportunity to express ourselves,” said Ahrouch, who refuses to shake hands or
make eye contact with females in public.
The Islam Party, which plans to field candidates in European-level elections in
2014, campaigned on three core issues: ensuring that halal [religiously
permissible] meals are served in public school cafeterias, securing the official
recognition of Muslim religious holidays, and pushing for a law that would
legalize the wearing of Islamic headscarves in public spaces.
Ahrouch previously founded a political party called “Noor: Le Parti Islamique,”
which promotes a 40-point program based on Sharia law. These points include,
among other items: 7) abolishing interest payments [riba] in the Belgian banking
sector; 10) redesigning the Belgian judiciary to comply with Islamic law; 11)
restoring capital punishment; 12) prohibiting alcohol and cigarettes; 15)
promoting teenage marriage; 16) segregating males and females in public
spaces; 20) outlaw gambling and the lottery; and 39) creating an official Islamic
alms fund [Zakat].
63

Ahrouch says that his ultimate goal — creating an Islamic state in Belgium
based on Islamic Sharia law — has not changed.
Speaking to a reporter from Radio Télévision Belge Francophone (RTBF), the
public broadcasting service of the French-speaking part of Belgium, Ahrouch
said: “The agenda is still the same, but our approach is different now. I think we
have to sensitize people, make them understand the advantages to having
Islamic people and Islamic laws. And then it will be completely natural to have
Islamic laws and we will become an Islamic state.”
The reporter interjected: “An Islamic State in Belgium?” Ahrouch replied: “In
Belgium, of course! I am for the Sharia. Islamic law, I am for it. It is a long-term
struggle that will take decades or a century, but the movement has been
launched.”
Recognizing the danger posed by Islamic extremists, Belgian Foreign Minister
Didier Reynders recently called for enhanced monitoring of the sermons that
Muslim imams are preaching. “Instead of building a moderate Islam in our
country,” he said, “we are seeing imams and other preachers who adhere to
more fundamentalist or Salafist views, or who support radical movements.”
Reynders proposed linking the awarding of subsidies for Islam in Belgium to
improved oversight on what is being preached in mosques. He also called on the
government to enhance its supervision of the training of imams, who are
believed to number around 300. Mosques that have been officially recognized in
Belgium receive state subsidies, but if Reynders has his way, radical imams
could, in future, lose their subsidies.
“We do not judge their religious content,” he said. “But when their sermons
contain public calls for violence or human rights violations, there is no reason
why we should let them grow.”
The rise of the Islam Party comes amid a burgeoning Muslim population in the
Belgian capital. Muslims now make up one-quarter of the population of
Brussels, according to a book recently published by the Catholic University of
Leuven, the top Dutch-language university in Belgium.
In real terms, the number of Muslims in Brussels — where half of the number of
Muslims in Belgium currently live — has reached 300,000, which means that
the self-styled “Capital of Europe” is now the most Islamic city in Europe.

64

In practical terms, Islam mobilizes more people in Brussels than do the Roman
Catholic Church, political parties or even trade unions, according to “The Iris
and the Crescent,” a book that is the product of more than a year of field
research.
The book’s author, the sociologist Felice Dassetto, predicts that by 2030,
Muslims will make up the majority of the population of Brussels. In Belgium as
a whole, Muslims now comprise roughly 6% of the total population, one of the
highest rates in Europe. This number is expected to rise to more than 10% by
2020.
The growth of the Muslim population has been accompanied by an increase in
violent crime, which has made Brussels one of the most dangerous cities in
Europe, according to an exposé produced by the ZDF German television in
April 2012.
Much of the crime is being attributed to shiftless Muslim youth, especially in the
Anderlecht and Molenbeek districts, where “the police have lost control.”
In Molenbeek, where an estimated 25% of the population is Muslim, the
growing insecurity has forced multinational companies to leave the
municipality. In June 2011, for example, the American advertising agency
BBDO abandoned Molenbeek after citing over 150 assaults on its staff by local
youth.
In an open letter addressed to the then-mayor Philippe Moureaux, BBDO
reported that each one of its employees had been the victim of crimes in
Molenbeek. The letter states: “Youngsters who forcibly rob our bags.
Youngsters who smash car windows. Youngsters who verbally corner us so that
we become paralyzed with fear. Young people who are not afraid to even point a
gun at one of our male colleagues.” BBDO criticized Moureaux, a Socialist, for
inaction due to his multicultural notions of political correctness.
In November 2012, the Belgian Interior Ministry reported that gang rapes in the
country had reached epidemic levels. It reported an average of five new cases of
rapes each week involving two or more offenders, in addition to an average of
57 rapes per week involving single violators.
The rise in Muslim immigration has also contributed to an increase in antiSemitism. Fully one-half of the Muslim students in Brussels are anti-Semitic,
according to a 426-page study entitled, “Jong in Brussel” [Young in Brussels],
produced by the Youth Research Platform.
65

In an interview with the Belgian newspaper De Morgen, Mark Elchardus, one of
the authors of the report, said: “What is alarming is that you can describe half of
the Muslim students as anti-Semitic, which is very high. What is worse is that
those anti-Jewish feelings have nothing to do with a low educational level or
social disadvantage, which is the case with racist Belgians. The anti-Semitism is
theologically inspired and there is a direct link between being Muslim and
having anti-Semitic feelings.”
Elchardus’s linking Islam and anti-Semitism earned him a lawsuit filed by
Vigilance Musulmane [Muslim Vigilance], a Muslim activist group. Vigilance
Musulmane said Elchardus’s comments violated Belgium’s anti-discrimination
law of 2007, which forbids discrimination on the basis of “religious
convictions.” They also said his statements violated Article 444 of the Belgian
penal code because they appeared in a newspaper and therefore were repeated
extensively in print.

Islam in France:
the French way of Life is in Danger
American visitors to Paris or other major French cities often are amazed when
they see how the multi-ethnic way of life there resembles that in the United
States.
Some see this as positive: in a Newsweek cover story, John Leland and Marcus
Mabry assert that a "new creative energy -- in terms of art and music -- is
bursting out of the multi-ethnic suburbs" of France.1 Others are more
pessimistic, pointing to La Haine (Hate), a movie about immigrant or minority
teenagers in Marseilles that tells a story of street violence and confrontation with
the police that brings the 1992 Los Angeles riots to mind.
But multi-ethnicity in France goes beyond that in the United States, for it
includes a religious dimension in addition to racial and ethnic differences. If the
most important minorities in the United States (the black and Hispanic) are
overwhelmingly Christian, French minority groups are largely Muslim.
American minority groups share many basic values with the rest of the country;
in contrast, French minority groups tend to have alien values, to think of
themselves as a new nation, and even to have hopes of superseding the present
Judeo-Christian nation of France.

66

Will France remain French?
Nor is this Muslim aspiration a pipedream. Jean-Claude Chesnais, one of
France's leading demographers at the National Institute for the Study of
Demographics (Ined), is very blunt:
Migration trends are to intensify over the coming thirty years... . All developed
countries will be affected, including East Asia and the former communist
countries. There will be an overall mingling of cultures and civilisations that
may lead, as far as France is concerned, to the emergence of a predominantly
African population and to rapid Islamization."
Today, France's immigrant population amounts to 15 percent of the total
population, with lower figures for the Muslim community: hardly a tidal wave.
It is also true that France remains an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic country,
with a Catholic baptism rate of 84 percent in 1990. In addition, France is one of
the oldest, if not the oldest, nation-states in Europe, and it can claim one of the
world's great and most attractive cultures; these attributes have helped it absorb
and thoroughly assimilate large numbers of immigrants during the past century
or so, including Belgians and Germans, Italians and Spaniards, Poles and
Portuguese, Jews from Eastern Europe and North Africa, Armenians, and West
Indian blacks, plus Asians from Indochina, China, and India. Why should not
the same pattern prevail throughout the twenty-first century as well?
Still, the prospect of the French's converting “en masse” to Islam and France's
turning into an Afro-Mediterranean country is not to be dismissed. Mass
conversion and ethnic transition are not rare in history. The Roman Empire, one
the world's most formidable and enduring polities, was transformed in the halfmillennium between the first century B.C.E. and the fourth century C.E., as
ethnic Romans were replaced by neo-Romans of many ethnic or racial stocks
and various parlances, from proto-Berber North Africans and Arabs to Slavs and
Germans, not to speak of Greeks and Hellenized easterners. Simultaneously,
while Christianity abruptly replaced the sophisticated pagan culture of Rome.
To assess the chances of the French's converting “en masse” to Islam and
France's turning into an Afro-Mediterranean country is not to be dismissed.
To assess the chances of France's Islamification over the coming thirty to fifty
years, we look at four factors: the high demographic rates of French Muslims,
their aloofness from mainstream society, their increasing religious assertiveness,
and the growing appeal of Islam to non-Muslims.

67

I. Demographic Disparity
As in the United States, there are no accurate population figures on religious
affiliation in France, for French law prohibits a census along religious lines in
almost all circumstances, even of foreigners.3 Polls and surveys do exist but
vary widely in scope, methodology, and results.
The Ministry of Interior and Ined routinely speak of a Muslim population in
France of 3 million. Sheikh Abbas, head of the Great Mosque in Paris, in 1987
spoke of twice as many -- 6 million.4 Journalists usually adopt an estimate
somewhere in the middle: for example, Philippe Bernard of Le Monde uses the
figure of 3 to 4 million.5 The Catholic Church, a reliable source of information
on religious trends in France, also estimates 4 million.6 A French-Arab journal
published in Paris provides the following breakdown: 3.1 million Muslims of
North African origin, 400,000 from the Middle East, 300,000 from Africa,
50,000 Asians, 50,000 converts of ethnic French origin, and 300,000 illegal
immigrants from unknown countries. This brings the total to 4.2 million. One
can state with reasonable certainty that the Muslim population of France
numbers over 3 million (about 5 percent of the total French population) and
quite probably over 4 million (6.6 percent).
Perhaps more important than exact numbers is the spectacular rate of growth
since World War II. Muslims in France in 1945 numbered some 100,000 souls;
fifty years later, the population has increased by thirty or forty times. It
continues to grow at a rapid clip, through further immigration (illegal but until
now poorly suppressed), natural increase (immigrant Muslim families retain a
comparatively high birth-rate), or conversion (either as the result of
intermarriage or out of a personal religious quest).
If birth-rate figures cannot be precisely computed, enough data exists to make
educated estimates. Algerian women in France in 1981 had a fertility rate of 4.4
births per woman; in 1990, it had declined to 3.5 births. (Comparable figures for
Moroccan women in France are 5.8 and 3.5; for Tunisian women, 5.1 and 4.2.)
While declining, the birth-rate of immigrant Muslims remains three to four times
higher than that of non-Muslim French, which is estimated at 1.3 percent. There
is no specific reason to believe that the Muslim rate will eventually parallel the
non-Muslim one. It is noteworthy that while in 1981 Tunisian women in France
had a slightly lower birth-rate than their counterparts in Tunisia (5.1 against
5.2), nine years later it had grown higher (4.2 against 3.4). The reasons for this
growth are not clear, but they could include the higher welfare payments in
France or the relative ease of family planning, including the choice for a large
family, in democratic France compared to semi-authoritarian Tunisia.

68

In all, the 1992 fertility rate in France was 1.8 births per woman, a figure
slightly above those of Germany (1.3), Italy (1.3), and Spain (1.2) but well
beneath that of the United States (2.1). France's demographic advantage over
other European Union countries is due largely to its larger percentage of
Muslims and their higher birth-rate.
Extrapolating from these numbers, the low Muslim-population scenario (low
immigration, diminishing birth-rate, few conversions) results in a 50 percent
increase over twenty years; between 4.5 and 6 million Muslims in France by the
year 2016, out of 60 million French, or 7 to 10 percent of the total population.
The high-number scenario (rampant immigration, higher birth-rate for Muslims
than for non-Muslims, and a higher share of young people in the Muslim
population than among non-Muslims) points to a 100 percent or even a 200
percent increase: 6 to 12 million Muslims by 2016, or 10 to 20 percent of the
total population. Then there is the super high scenario, in which a rapidly
expanding, young, and assertive Muslim community simply outpaces a
declining, aging, and unsure non-Muslim community.
According to the interior ministry, two thirds of Muslims in France live in major
urban areas: 38 percent in the Ile-de-France (Paris and its region), 13 percent in
the Provence-Côte d'Azur (Marseilles and Nice, as well as the Riviera), 10
percent in Rhône-Alpes (Lyons and Grenoble), and 5 percent in Nord-Pas-deCalais (around Lille). To get the full measure of Islam's impact on French
society, those figures must be translated into numbers and then related to the
size of the local population: 1.37 million Muslims in Ile-de-France out of a total
population of 11 million (10 percent); 471,000 Muslims in Provence-Côte
d'Azur out of 4.3 million (11 percent); 363,000 in Rhône-Alpes out of 5.3
million (6.8 percent); and 181,000 in Nord-Pas-de-Calais out of 3.9 million (5
percent). The Muslim presence is much greater in key areas than the overall
figures would suggest. Many cities or neighbourhoods in France have turned
into all-Muslim territories.
The birth-rate of Muslims being three to four times higher than that of nonMuslims, the proportion of children, teenagers, and young adults in urban
France is not 5-11 percent but a very impressive 33 percent or so.

II. Outside the Mainstream
Are Muslims in France subject to racism or discrimination? In a 1996 CSA poll,
56 percent of foreigners living on French soil and 61 percent of naturalized
French citizens deemed racism "a threat." Indigenous French citizens do not
share this concern: only 27 percent of them mentioned racism as a major threat;
they found unemployment, poverty, and AIDS far more worrisome (74, 53, and
69

50 percent, respectively). Despite this difference of view, a wide consensus
exists that North African Muslims are the main victims of racist behaviour: over
two-thirds of all French citizens agree about that.
The picture is not all negative. A 1995 Louis Harris poll for Valeurs Actuelles
shows an astounding 71 percent of all Muslims living in France, foreigners and
citizens alike, feel "welcomed" by the French. Many French Muslims are middle
class or even upper class. A growing Muslim presence is felt in the liberal and
learned professions, particularly medicine (Dalil Boubakeur, head of the Great
Mosque in Paris, is a respected physician). Some Muslims have made their way
well into France's ruling elite, the Grands Corps de l'Etat and the Conseil d'Etat.
Djamal Larfaoui, an Algerian-born French Muslim, was sous-prefet (local
governor) of Nanterre, a vibrant and densely populated city in the Paris area,
until his sudden death in December 1996; he was granted a state funeral. Others
are senior executives in major corporations, such as Yazid Sabegh, chairman of
the high-technology Campagnie des Signaux, or Lofti Belhacine, founder of the
leisure and vacation company Aquarius and the airline company Air Liberté.
This upper crust of French Islam mixes freely with non-Muslims and does not
stick to its own neighbourhoods. Indeed, no case of housing discrimination
against upper- or middle-class Muslims has ever been reported.
Many working-class Muslims also follow this pattern and mingle with nonMuslims; that was particularly the case with immigrants who came in the 1950s
and 1960s. Arriving as single men, they frequently intermarried with nonMuslim women, French-born or immigrant, and were quite easily absorbed into
mainstream society. Isabelle Adjani, the famed actress, is the daughter of an
immigrant Algerian Muslim father and an immigrant German Catholic mother.
Ali Magoudi, a well-known psychoanalyst, was born to an immigrant Algerian
Muslim father and an immigrant Polish Catholic mother.
But a very high proportion of French Muslims are in the underclass, that
segment of the population that relies not so much on education and work as on
welfare and predatory activities. Most members of this underclass tend to be
Muslims who arrived in France as whole families, including Harkis and post1974 immigrants. Their condition is not that different from the underclass of
blacks and Hispanics in the United States, though there is one striking
geographic difference: the American underclass concentrates in the inner cities,
while the French is found in the new and dull public-housing neighbourhoods
that mushroomed at the cities' peripheries. Suburb and suburbanite have
precisely the opposite meaning in France from what they have in North
America.
According to Lucienne Bui-Trong, the officer in charge of the Towns and
Suburbs Department at the Renseignements généraux (general intelligence) of
70

the French police, no less than one thousand Muslim neighbourhoods are under
monitoring throughout France, which means that the National Police keeps more
personnel there to prevent public disorder. Violence and crime are rampant in
those areas. Seven hundred Muslim neighbourhoods are listed as "violent"; four
hundred are listed as "very violent," meaning not just that organized crime and
firearms are present but that residents have a systematic strategy to keep the
police out. The Ile-de-France has 226 violent neighbourhoods, Provence-Côte
d'Azur has 89, Rhône-Alpes 62, and Rhône-Pas-de-Calais 61.15.
Unemployment is rife in these suburbs, with 470,000 registered unemployed
adults in 1993, or roughly one third of the total adult manpower.16 Violence
ranges from theft and looting of cars (58 percent of all offenses) and street
fighting to assault on teachers and civil servants (10 percent). Perhaps most
distressing are the high numbers of assaults or rebellions against the police (19
percent).17 Periodic outbursts of large-scale unrest or rioting sometimes occur.
The first major riots occurred at Vaulx-en-Velin, a Lyons suburb, in 1990; since
then, further riots have taken place in the Paris suburbs. In addition, riots have
even taken place at the seaside or mountain resort sites where suburbanite
youngsters are sometimes placed for government-sponsored vacations.
As the notion of a government-sponsored vacation suggests, French suburbs
have hardly been neglected by the authorities. Since the riot there in 1990,
Vaulx-en-Velin has benefited from a $50 million program financed by the
central government since 1990: each of the town's 45,000 inhabitants has had
$1,000 spent on him for parks, sport facilities, underground parking lots, public
libraries, and kindergartens. The money even goes for museums, including
France's most modern planetarium and a Permanent Exhibition Centre for
Minorities. At the national level, $3 billion has been earmarked in French fiscal
year 1995 for "urban policies" (a euphemism for ghetto rehabilitation).
And yet, the government has little to show for its expenditures: crime and unrest
are both sharply on the rise at Vaulx-en-Velin and everywhere else. The basic
assumption underlying this welfare policy -- that unrest is the result of poverty
and a shabby urban environment -- would seem to be proven wrong.
In fact, as many sociologists -- including Muslim ones -- acknowledge, an
almost symbiotic relationship exists in the ghettoes between the underclass way
of life and ethnic/religious separatism. Conservative Muslims see the ghettoes as
a way to benefit from immigrating to France without having to assimilate into
French society. Some level of violence has the advantage of ensuring separation
from the outside world and can be used as a bargaining tool with the authorities
to get more de facto autonomy -- meaning that Muslim enclaves are ruled only
by Muslims according to Islamic law and mores -- as well as to obtain more
funding. It also serves as a social control tool against liberal-minded Muslim
71

individuals, for conservative Muslim leaders can easier exert pressure on liberalminded Muslims -- for instance to compel females to don the veil -- within the
context of the ghettos' violence.

III. Increasing Religious Assertiveness
Just how Islamic are French Muslims, how religious and how orthodox? The
breakdown of Muslim religious practice according to gender, age, ethnicity, and
geographic origin is worth noting. Muslim men are less religious than Muslim
women (26 percent of whom pray at least five times a year), in large part due to
very low attendance among the main male group, French-born young males of
Algerian origin (under 6 percent). Turks -- many really Kurds from Southeast
Anatolia -- are quite religious (36 percent), followed by Moroccans (27 percent).
Nowadays, one thousand mosques are said to operate in France, almost all of
them built or organized during the past thirty years. Eight of them, including the
Great Mosque in Paris, are "cathedral mosques," large monumental buildings
with a capacity of more than a thousand worshippers. A further hundred
mosques are quite large structures, with a capacity of several hundred
worshippers. The rest are small, accommodating from thirty to one hundred
worshippers -- not entire buildings, but simple rooms at factories or in the
basement of public housing units.
Though the demand for mosques is growing, attendance is not high: Ined reports
that just 23 percent of Muslims in France join public prayer at least five times a
year. Still, this is slightly higher than Catholic attendance at seasonal high
services (Christmas, Easter, All Saints Day), which is 20 percent. But is regular
mosque attendance the true hallmark of Islamic religious practice? Perhaps more
significant is that some exceptional holidays, such 'Id al-Adha (Feast of the
Sacrifice), draw thousands of worshippers not just into the mosques but outside
as well.
In principle, public funding is not available for mosque building because of the
1905 Law of Separation of Churches and State, according to which the French
Republic "neither recognizes nor funds" any religious organization. Various
ways have been devised, however, to circumvent these laws, to the point that
any Islamic congregation with a sound building project can count on extensive
public help, either in cash or credit. Most mosque projects include not just the
house of worship but also baths, clinics, and bookshops. The demand for Islamic
schools is also growing: according to the 1995 Louis Harris poll, 76 percent of
all Muslims in France would like to send their children not to secular schools but
to Islamic schools run under the benign supervision of the state and with its
financial help, the same arrangement that Catholic and Jewish schools have.21
72

The same applies to ritually acceptable (hallal) food: the government has no
choice but to extend to Muslims the same slaughtering and processing privileges
customarily granted to Jews. As for Ramadan observance, also on the increase,
the government takes it into account in the case of Muslim civil servants.
Several facts point to a gradual shift among French Muslims toward increased
identification with religion and a more rigorous practice of the faith. Women
and teenage girls are wearing the Islamic veil, even in public schools. Immigrant
groups with a secular agenda, like Arezki Dahmani's France Plus (a group
concerned with civil liberties and civic rights for North African immigrants,
aiming at organizing the North African vote to support the conservative parties),
associate with Islamists to retain their constituency. Mosques or other
institutions run by mystical brotherhoods (tariqat) from distant Egypt, Turkey, or
Pakistan tend to take over "immigrant mosques" run by North African imams
closely associated with their home governments.
There is no central religious organization of Islam in France; each local
congregation is registered as a separate entity under the 1901 law on non-profit
organizations. Several attempts have been made in recent years to place
Muslims under the authority of a national Islamic federation, modelled
somewhat on the Jewish Consistoire. All these efforts failed, in part because
they sought to absorb French Muslims in mainstream French society. The
French government hopes to exert more control over French Islam through an
established Islamic "church," while Muslim groups tend to see this as a way for
Islam to be recognized as an autonomous group within the French body politic.
Fundamentalist leaders state this aim unabashedly, moderate leaders do so in a
more subtle and astute way; all claim full adherence to orthodox Islamic laws
and teachings regarding relations with non-Muslim powers.
In this context, it is worth quoting Dalil Boubakeur, the French-born and
thoroughly Gallicised head of the Great Mosque and the driving force behind the
Representative Council of French Muslims (CRMF). In January 1995, he
presented a Platform for Islamic Worship in France (Charte du culte musulman
en France) to Minister of the Interior Charles Pasqua, a document (and its
elaborate commentary, also by Boubakeur) subsequently accepted as a FrenchIslamic manifesto of sorts. Article 32 asserts:
The Muslims of France, in close association with other believers, intend to
develop a concept of secularism that establishes harmonious relations
between the religions and the state.
Now, this is not secularism as the French have understood it since 1905 -- the
complete separation of church and state -- but a situation reminiscent of the
Ottoman Empire under the Tanzimat regime, in which all religions enjoy public
73

recognition and varying degrees of autonomy within the state. The word
"concord" refers to the old Catholic practice of concordats, full-fledged bilateral
treaties between the Vatican and sovereign powers delineating the powers and
privileges of the church and state. Boubakeur seems to be saying that the French
Republic should write a treaty with Islam regarding the Muslim community in
France.
Boubakeur makes clear in his commentary that "according to the Shari'a
[Islamic sacred law], a non-Muslim country is not to be seen any more as Dar alHarb [house of war] but rather as Dar al-'Ahd [house of covenant]"; and "the
Platform is an expression of such a covenant." Fully aware of the legal or
constitutional difficulties implied in such a statute of covenant, the platform
refers to a de facto revision of the 1905 law of separation: "Islam did not emerge
as one of the major faiths of France before the second half of the twentieth
century, long after the 1905 law. ... Muslims look forward to a friendly
interpretation of the law ... enabling them to join harmoniously into the French
society and the French state."

IV. Islam's Appeal to Non-Muslims
Some fifty thousand French Muslims are said to be converts of non-Muslim
origin. Their numbers include well-known intellectuals and artists, including
Maurice Bejart, the world-famous choreographer who has settled for a lowprofile brand of Sufism; and Roger Garaudy, a former communist philosopher
who is leader of the Spain-based International Islamic Centre. Quite a few
converts have achieved positions of leadership within Islamic circles: DanielYoussouf Leclerc, the leader of the strictly orthodox Sunni Group Integrite and
the only European-born member of the World Islamic League's High Council;
Ali-Didier Bourg, the founder of the Islamic University in Paris (a part-time
seminary rather than a university but still very influential); and Jacques-Yacoub
Roty, who was rumoured in the early 1990s to be the next head of the Great
Mosque.
Formal conversion is only the most visible manifestation of a much wider move
toward Islam. For one, Islam (unlike Judaism or Catholicism) does not insist on
conversion in a mixed marriage but makes do with the children's being raised as
Muslims. And they are; a rather significant and growing proportion of Muslim
children in France were born of non-Muslim mothers or even of non-Muslim
fathers.
Secondly, interest in Islam has become politically correct in France,
notwithstanding a very real concern about fundamentalist Islam. In part, this
reflects a taste for the religiously exotic that has been apparent in European and
74

American culture for well over a century. But today it fits into a new paradigm:
intellectuals, academics, even priests are not supposed to see Islam as something
worthy and alien but as part of a common heritage. In great measure, Islam has
become a second Judaism in France: another non-Christian faith and culture
with intimate relevance for the Christian world.
This new approach gains in importance by virtue of its surprising endorsement
by the Catholic Church. As Alain Besançon, a leading Catholic intellectual, has
noted, "It is syncretism in the guise of ecumenism." To posit the Qur'an as a
sacred book "rooted in Biblical Revelation," as do many contemporary Catholic
authors or preachers, or even as a late "Biblical book" runs not just against
Catholic theology (which knows only of the canonical Bible) but aligns the
church with the Islamic theological notion according to which Qur'anic
revelation includes all previous revelations. As Besancon puts it, the Christian
ministry is gradually shifting to a crypto-Islamic ministry: "De propaganda fide
islamica." In contrast, it bears noting, Muslims are not in the least reciprocating,
not retreating from their own indictment of the Torah and the Injil (Christian
Revelation) as adulterated or falsified versions of God's word.
Why has the church succumbed to such syncretistic trends? Besançon draws a
telling parallel with an earlier infatuation, that with Marxism. Christianity may
be so weak in contemporary France (and probably throughout much of Europe)
that it must to look to other religions, either the apocalyptic church of
Revolution or para-biblical Islam, to rejuvenate and survive. Indeed, the
Catholic Church is far weaker in France today than it was in the heyday of
communism in the years after World War II.
Observant Catholics (Catholiques pratiquants), a quarter of the French
population in 1950, well-entrenched, and highly visible, have dwindled into a
remnant (less than 5 percent in 1995). Moreover, the substance of Catholic
observance has been so modified that to be fully observant today equals the
lukewarm religiosity of yesteryear. Observant Catholics once would go to
church on Sunday to attend services in Latin, send their children to Catholic
schools or Catholic youth organizations, vote for Catholic parties, support
Catholic unions. They insisted on strict sexual behaviour and severely opposed
divorce. Their families would be two to three times larger than the national
average. Almost none of this is found today: church-going is marginal, services
are in French, Catholic schools hardly differ from others, Catholic political
parties or unions have been secularized, Catholic sexual mores are like everyone
else's, large families are rare, and divorce is rampant.
The decline of the Catholic clergy is even more dramatic: from 200,000 priests,
monks, and nuns in the 1950s, many of them young, to less than 100,000 today,
most of them over sixty-five. Clerical scarcity has in turn led to a growing
75

involvement of less educated laymen in the ministry, plus heavy recourse to
foreign clerics, especially from the Third World. Black African priests can be
seen today throughout the country, even in rural areas of France; a black Zairian
priest held mass for President Jacques Chirac in mid-1996. Female religious
communities are, if anything, even more foreign: a substantial number of French
nuns under thirty are of African or Asian origin.
A declining church seems to take comfort in the assertiveness of other faiths.
French Catholics have over the years sought inspiration not just from Islam but
from a wide range of non-Catholic religions: the study of Judaism, both Biblical
and post-Biblical, is encouraged, as well as the imitation of Jewish ritual;
Protestant revivalism has been cloned into the church as "Pentecostal,"
"charismatic," or Renouveau ("Renewal") Catholicism; monasteries are
remodelled after their Hindu or Buddhist equivalents; yoga and Oriental
meditation are frequently fusioned with Christian prayer and other spiritual
exercises. But Islam as a role model is growing, for it offers the best and closest
example of a "living religion": a religion that appears quite close to Christianity
in some terminology, that serves the masses and the elites alike, and whose
adherents really believe in God and His law.
That said, a growing number of Catholic leaders have expressed concern and
dismay about the rise of Islam in France and the church's pro-Islamic tendency.
Archbishop Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris, the chief Catholic authority of France,
has publicly opposed the establishment of a state-supported central Islamic
organization:
It is not the job of the French government to set up a French-flavoured Islam.
One should not mistake the twentieth century for the Age of Louis XIV or
Napoleon, when worship could be regulated by decree. There is no other
alternative but to enforce the law of the Republic in a wise and gentle way, and
to wait for some thirty years or two generations, until Muslims with French
citizenship will regard themselves and be regarded as French people of the
Islamic faith.
Archbishop Lustiger -- himself a converted Jew -- evidently takes seriously the
potential dangers involved in the combination of growing Muslim
demographics, growing Islamic assertiveness and declining Catholic morale. His
strategy to check Islam's growth is apparently a strict enforcement of laicity, the
separation of church and state, while rebuilding Catholicism from within; for
example, he has despaired of the standard Catholic seminaries and set up
parallel, more conservative training colleges for the clergy.
As Besançon points out, "Muslims already outnumber observant Catholics" in
France,28 and this trend seems likely to continue. Why should the average
76

French of Catholic origin not forsake a dying African-ministered religion for an
expanding, living religion that is anyway described as Christianity's younger
sister?

Other Factors
Other factors may also come into play. We note two briefly: the sharp decline in
the French nation-state and the growing power of Muslim voters.
Decline in the French nation-state. It was one thing for France to absorb large
numbers of Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Poles, Jews, Armenians, and
Asians29 into a highly centralized, well-managed, and fully sovereign state,
with a unified school system, a strong police, and compulsory military service
for all male youth, as was the case until the 1960s. It is another thing altogether
to absorb yet larger numbers of Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and black Africans into a
much weaker state, with many powers devolved to the local authorities, a less
powerful police, a dismembered school system, no draft, and the prospect of
merging into the European Union.
Corsica, the birthplace of Emperor Napoleon and of untold numbers of French
soldiers and civil servants, once a peaceful island département off the Riviera,
has over the past twenty years gradually slid into anarchy, terrorism, and then
into separatism, all without eliciting a credible response from the national
government. This precedent cannot be lost on Muslim activists.
At the same time, sovereign attributes -- money issuance, border control, and
much else -- are being transferred from the French state to the European Union:
radical French Muslims may wonder why they should come to terms with the
national government in Paris rather than the supranational authority in Brussels.
The Muslim vote. The routine process of French politics may accelerate
Islamization. Almost 50 percent of Muslims living in France today are French
citizens and eventually nearly all of them will become French citizens. France
has an extremely generous naturalization policy, one that permits all legal
residents to apply for citizenship after five years in France and every child born
on French soil to apply for citizenship, even if his parents are in the country
illegally. (In this, it is very like the United States and very unlike Germany,
which rarely bestows full citizenship to resident foreigners, even those born in
Germany.)
In the longer term, as Muslims become citizens, their vote will be as crucial in
many elections as the observant Catholic vote used to be; to win it may mean
having to woo it, notably by allowing for further immigration and the
consolidation of Islam in French society. Along these lines, one might also
77

wonder whether Jacques Chirac's pronouncements in late 1996 strongly
favouring an independent Palestinian state and the lifting of the embargo against
Iraq were not intended to garner the Muslim vote in France.

Conclusion
In sum, a growing proportion of non-Muslim French find the prospect of
Islamization less shocking than would have their more patriotic-minded
forefathers. On the other hand, the scope of the immigration and Islamization
process may bring about a backlash. According to a December 1995 survey
carried out by CSA and published in La Vie, a liberal Catholic weekly, 70
percent of the French are "afraid of religious fundamentalism" and a further 66
percent think that "fundamentalism is more prevalent in some religions than in
others." As even La Vie's editors had to recognize, perhaps reluctantly, the issue
here is not fundamentalism as such but Islam, both fundamentalist and
moderate: "The French do believe today in a specific political-religious threat.
And Islam, quite probably, is what first comes to their minds."30 Concern about
Islamization is an important element in the rise of Jean-Marie Le Pen's far-Right
party, the National Front, but is much broader in scope and has compelled the
mainstream parties to echo portions of Le Pen's program (he calls for the
deportation of all aliens, they call for a tightening of the very liberal immigration
or naturalization laws).
Every community has the right to uphold and protect its way of life, so long as
minorities' rights are protected as well. Not so long ago, this consideration
applied primarily to colonial areas threatened by the industrial West. Arguably,
it applies to Western industrial nations as well, should they be threatened by
mass immigration. In the case at hand, the main point is not whether mosques
may be built or if halal food may be distributed; but whether polygamy is to be
tolerated and the police to operate in Muslim neighbourhoods. In other words,
Islam ought to adapt to the traditional French way of life, with its emphasis on
individual freedom and secularism, rather than the reverse.
The current debate about immigration in America is much more about ethnicity
and language than about religion. Still, many lessons may be drawn from the
case of France.

Appendix: Muslim Immigration to France
Most Muslims living in France are either North African immigrants or their
offspring. Their presence in France results directly from French colonial rule
over the three Maghreb countries (Algeria from 1830 to 1962, Tunisia 18811956, and Morocco 1912-1956).
78

Although a few Muslim subjects immigrated to France even before 1914,
substantial numbers came only with the Great War. Three hundred thousand
North Africans were drafted, two-thirds as soldiers in various units of colonial
troops (Chasseurs indigènes, Infanterie de Marine, Tirailleurs Sénégalais,
Tirailleurs Algériens, Tirailleurs Marocains, Spahis) and one-third as workers in
the armament industry. Many were killed or died of disease, others were forcibly
sent home after 1918, but more than eighty thousand stayed in France. Their
presence won symbolic recognition in 1920, when parliament passed a law
funding a Great Mosque in Paris (a law that, incidentally, directly contradicted
the 1905 law prohibiting public funding for religious organizations).
In 1936, the Socialist-led government of Léon Blum lifted all limitations to
travel and residence for North African Muslims, leading to an influx of
immigrants from there. World War II repeated the Great War's pattern,
especially after the Allied powers took North Africa in 1942; some one hundred
thousand Muslims were drafted into the Free French Army in Italy, many of
whom ended up in France. Right after the war, Algerian Muslims arrived to take
industrial jobs. In 1962, when Algeria, the oldest and the largest territory of
French North Africa, achieved independence, France had a Muslim population
of 400,000.
In less than ten years that number doubled. First came the Harkis, or the
Français-Musulmans of Algeria, 250,000 draftees in a Muslim auxiliary force
who served in the colonial war against the Algerian National Liberation Front
(FLN) from 1954 to 1962. Most of those unfortunate loyalists were simply left
behind in 1962, a deliberate and dreadful decision that meant torture and death
for them at the hand of the winners. Some 20,000, however, were transferred to
France, along with their families: almost overnight, French Islam acquired a new
community of 75,000 souls. Housed in distant rural villages, secluded both from
the mainstream Muslim immigrants and the French but legally deemed to be
full-range French citizens, the Harkis doubled their numbers by the end of the
decade.
Secondly, some former FLN fighters, either Berber-speakers from the Kabyles
or disenchanted members of the new elite, were also allowed to settle in France
as (most ironically) "repatriated citizens." In 1967 alone, no less than 127,000
Algerian Muslims came to France to stay permanently. Clearcut provisions of
citizenship and travel were not defined until 1968.
Thirdly, in 1962-1974, with government approval and under government
supervision, a booming French industry hired half a million migrant workers
(travailleurs immigrés), chiefly from Algeria and Morocco but also from
Tunisia. Almost to a man, they stayed in France. French corporations saw this
economic immigration as a tool to keep industrial wages low; the French
79

government used it as a bargaining chip in relations with the North African
states, particularly oil-rich Algeria. More emigrants to France brought them two
advantages: less pressure in an already depressed employment market and a
sustained flow of remittances in hard currency.
By 1973, the total North African population of France in all probability had
exceeded one million. When Valery Giscard d'Estaing became president of the
republic in May 1974, right after the Yom Kippur War and the oil shock, he was
quite concerned about this number. He earnestly tried to reverse the trend, first
by formally putting an end to the economic immigration policy, then by
initiating a policy to repatriate (or "re-emigrate") the migrant workers from
North Africa. He failed miserably in both efforts, however, for the utter
ideological incorrectness of these policies, in terms of both domestic politics and
foreign policy, required so many qualifications that the entire scheme was
rendered unworkable. For instance, the measures of July 3, 1974, were
articulated in such a way as to infringe neither on human rights nor family
rights: however unwelcome they were, migrants actually received new subsidies
for housing, welfare, and education. They also won permission to bring in their
relatives -- even polygamous wives.
The efforts of Giscard d'Estaing brought about another dramatic increase in
Muslim population, so that by 1981, when François Mitterrand became
president, some 2 million North African Muslims lived in France. For the most
part, they were either French citizens themselves or the parents of French
citizens. In retrospect, French Islam reached a critical mass at this time,
becoming a permanent element of French national life.
The Muslim numbers continued to grow during Mitterrand's presidency, 19811995. Some attempts were made to curb illegal immigration more effectively,
but by then the Socialists and Conservatives feared that too much posturing on
this issue would further fuel the rise of the far Right, namely Jean-Marie Le
Pen's National Front. Immigration from Morocco and Tunisia stabilized or
dropped, as citizens of these countries increasingly went to other European
countries (especially Spain, Italy, and Belgium). In contrast, immigration from
Algeria to France increased with the economic and political difficulties of that
country. Immigration, legal and not, from other Muslim countries also increased,
particularly from the former Senegal, Mali, the Comoros, Turkey, Iran, and
Pakistan. Natural increase was more important than immigration, however, for
"reunited" families now outnumbered single males.

80

Europe: Suicided by Belgian Jihads
In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The
district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart
of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively
replaced Belgian law.
One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, was able to live
peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him.
Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French
authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal.
Police did not ask him anything about the jihadist networks with which he
worked. Officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people
who hid him were not indicted.
Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing
Muslims. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among
Muslims in Europe.
Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could
understand their “grievances,” they placed pressure on Israel. When Europeans
were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please
the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists.
The March 22 jihadist attacks in Brussels were predictable. What is surprising is
that they did not take place sooner. What is also surprising is that more people
were not killed. It seems that the authors of the attacks had larger projects in
mind; they wanted to attack a nuclear power plant. Others may succeed in doing
just that.
In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The
district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart
of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively
replaced Belgian law. Almost all the women wear veils or burqas; those who do
not take risks. Drug trafficking and radical mosques are everyplace. The police
stay outside and intervene only in cases of extreme emergency, using militarylike commando operations. Other areas of Belgium, such as Schaerbeek and
Anderlecht have the same status as Molenbeek.
The Belgian authorities have allowed the situation to deteriorate. The situation
in the country now is virtually equivalent to a surrender.

81

They seemed to hope that wilful blindness and accepting the unacceptable
would permit the country to be spared. It did not.
The attack on Belgium’s Jewish Museum on May 24, 2014 should have served
as a warning. It did not. That “only” Jews were the target led the Belgian
government to underestimate the threat. The jihadi who wanted to kill
passengers on train from Amsterdam to Paris, on August 21, 2015, prepared his
attack in Brussels. That three American heroes neutralized him before he could
start shooting again led the Belgian government to think the danger was not
large.
The Jihads who struck Paris on November 13, 2015 had also organized their
attacks from Molenbeek, but the blood was not spilled in Belgium. Belgian
authorities perhaps assumed that Belgium would be spared. They spoke of
“imminent danger” for a day or so, but never increased security.
One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most
wanted terrorist criminal, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four
months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he
was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he
was treated as a petty criminal, not a jihadi terrorist. Police did not ask him
anything concerning the jihadist networks with which he worked. Because he
was hurt during police operations, officers who interrogated him were ordered to
be gentle. The people who agreed to hide him for so long were not considered
suspects and were not indicted.

The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later
Despite the worst attacks on Belgium soil since World War II, Belgian
authorities do not seem ready to change their behaviour.
After the attacks, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel denounced “violent
and cowardly acts” and stressed his “determination,” without saying what he
intended to do. He did not speak of the necessity of changing the Belgian laws to
make them more effective. He did not mention any enemy. He never used words
such as “jihad” or “radical Islam.”
He behaved and talked as most of his European counterparts did. French Prime
Minister Manuel Valls used more courageous words and said many times he is
fighting “radical jihad” and “Islamism.” The French parliament passed laws
allowing what is still impossible in Belgium: police searches at night. But
France stands alone, and effectively the situation in France is no better than in
82

Belgium. Islamist enclaves exists in many suburbs. Whole cities are controlled
by thugs and radical imams: cities such as Roubaix, Trappes, Aubervilliers and
Sevran in the northeast of Paris.
Islamist enclaves also exist in other European countries: Spain, the Netherlands,
Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden.
European leaders have been making choices. After World War II, they decided
Europe would be a region of the world where war would be banished and all
problems solved through diplomacy and appeasement. They gradually
abandoned financing defence and security activities. Instead, they built welfare
states. They thought that taking care of people from cradle to grave would
suppress anger and conflicts. They denied the existence of totalitarian dangers
and the necessity of showing strength. To this day, their statements indicate that
European leaders think both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire fell thanks to
the benevolence of Mikhail Gorbachev, not thanks to the determination of
Ronald Reagan. To this day, they seem to think that Islam is essentially a
religion of peace (between their own rangs) and that the Jihads belong to a tiny,
marginal sect.
Decades ago, Europe’s leaders adopted a general policy of “openness” to the
Islamic world in general, and the Arab world in particular. They decided to
welcome migrants from the Muslim world by hundreds of thousands but without
asking them to integrate. They made cultural relativism and multiculturalism
their guiding principles. They acted as if Islam could mingle in the Western
world harmoniously and without difficulty. Europe’s leaders disseminated the
idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims and had to pay for its sins.
They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in
Europe.
When in the Muslim world Jihads started to kill, Europe’s leaders wanted to
believe that the attacks would take place in the Muslim world only. They
thought that by not interfering with what European Jihads were planning, they
would not risk jihadi attacks on European soil.
When Jews were attacked, Europe’s leaders decided that the problem was not
jihad, but Israel. They stressed the need not to “export Middle East conflict in
Europe.” Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe
could understand their “grievances,” they placed increasing pressure on Israel.
They also increased their financial and political support for the “Palestinian
cause.”

83

When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done
their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists. They
still do not know how to react.
Many of them now say privately what they will never say in public: it is
probably too late.
There are six to eight million Muslims in France, and more than thirty million in
Western Europe. Hundreds of Jihads are trained and ready to act — anytime,
anyplace. European intelligence services know that they want to make “dirty
bombs.” Surveys show that tens of thousands of Muslims living in Europe
approve of Jihad attacks in Europe. Millions of Muslims living in Europe keep
silent, behave as if they see nothing and hear nothing, and protest only when
they think they have to defend Islam.
European political leaders know that every decision they make may provoke
reactions among the Muslims living in Europe. Muslim votes matter. Riots
occur easily. In France, Belgium, other European countries, Islamists are present
in the army and police forces. In the meantime, Islamist organizations recruit
and Islamic lobbies gain ground.
European governments are now hostages. The European media are also
hostages.
In most European countries, “Islamophobia” is considered a crime — and any
criticism of Islam may be considered “Islamophobia.” People trying to warn
Europe, such as the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, despite an apparently biased judge
and forged documents against him, are now on trial.
Books on radical Islam are still published but surrounded by silence. Books
praising the glory of Islam are in every bookstore. When Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia
was published in Europe, she was denounced and received hundreds of death
threats. Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept, published in the U.S., was not even
available in Europe. Ten years later, the situation is worse.
Political movements expressing anger and concerns are rising. All are
demonized by political power holders and the media. They have almost no
chance of gaining more influence.
Populations are gnawed by fear, frustration and impotence. They are looking for
answers, but cannot find them. A few hours after the attacks on Brussels, a man
on Belgian television said that Europe is on the verge of suicide.
84

Europe looks like a dying civilization. European governments created a situation
that can only lead to more attacks, more massacres, and maybe unspeakable
disasters. Europe’s leaders continue to react with speeches and a few police
operations.
If some European governments decided to restore their abolished borders, it
could take years, and most European leaders would probably disagree with such
a policy. Meanwhile, millions more “migrants” will enter Europe, and among
them many more Jihads. In spite of the mayhem created in Germany by
“migrants” who arrived in 2015, Angela Merkel said she would not change her
decisions. No Western European government dared to disagree with her, except
Viktor Orbán in Hungary, a lone voice of dissent.
In Brussels, as in Paris earlier, people gathered where the attacks took place.
They brought candles and flowers to mourn the victims. They sang sentimental
songs. They cried. There were no shouts of revolt against jihad. Members of the
Belgian government called on the Belgian people to avoid reactions of violence,
and declared that Muslims are the main victims of terrorism.
In Europe’s near future, more people will bring candles, flowers and songs to
mourn victims. Another two or three Jihadists will be arrested. But nothing will
be done as such.

We must fight the Islam with its cruel political ideology
In the aftermath of the attacks in Belgium it's easy to focus on the granular
aspects. Where are the attackers from? How did they chose their targets and why
now?
But with 26 countries having experienced Islamic terrorism since January we
need to begin to look at what is common to these attacks. In Australia the
political debate and focus of resources has been on economic isolation or
political disenfranchisement of young Muslims.
In Europe the focus is upon the cultural exclusion of Muslims and the
development of ghettos with very little opportunity to break through the social
class structures. Questions are being raised about the failures of Muslim
migration and why more isn't being done to forcibly assimilate Muslims,
including through efforts to ban the burka.
Belgium has been particularly susceptible, with the highest per capita portion of
foreign fighters and an estimated 120 who have returned alongside those who
are supporters. That the recently captured last remaining perpetrator of the Paris
85

attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to evade capture for four months while
presumably living throughout this period in the same suburb in which he was
captured last week is indicative of the challenge.
While there appears to be some commonality in what motivates terrorism across
Western countries, this tends to falter when you consider Islamic nations with
home grown terrorists such as Indonesia, Pakistan and Lebanon. In these
countries there is no cultural or economic isolation, yet the threat of terrorism is
just as great.
The common denominator that ties terrorism from all of these countries together
is a political Islamism that aspires to a society that is shaped by a particular
interpretation of Allah's will.
In Belgium the Sharia4Belgium movement has been blamed for being at the
forefront of this effort to change society.
In Australia we are reluctant to talk about a religion as being political. This is a
particularly Western secular view built upon an evolving history of the
separation of the Christian church from the state.
The roots of Christianity are found in a religion persecuted by the state. In Islam
we have a religion that became a state and quickly transformed into an empire.
For some believers there is a yearning for the return of this period, when Islam
shaped every aspect of life and in return Allah rewarded them.
This is the common thread connecting Islamist terrorists around the world, a
belief in the need to revive the Islam of the 7th and 8th centuries. That by doing
so there will be a return to Allah's favour.
The focus upon 7th century successes shape how Salafist clerics interpret the
scriptures, inspire wealthy believers to donate funds and offer a sense of purpose
for young men to fight.
It also changes the limits of these conflicts. Islamic State in the Middle East is
pursuing nuclear and chemical weapons because their Salafist ideology reduces
the value of human life to a binary division between believers and non-believers.
It has made suicide attacks a real and present danger because martyrdom is
something to be sought out.
Understanding the challenge as a transnational ideological movement rather than
focusing on each individual terrorist event can help us better respond to the
threat.
86

For Australia this means committing more resources to battling the ideology
globally. Jordan has had success in reducing the support for extremist Islamic
groups through community led initiatives.
Iraq is using satire and popular television shows to ridicule their
views. Australia's military response to the rise of Islamic State was a critical
element in stopping its expansion. But now is the time to refocus the effort by
attacking the ideology that provides a moral justification for terrorism.

Anti-Islam moods grow in Europe
In most cases, contemporary German Muslims are sometimes the second, more
often the first generation of Turks. They have done their best, sometimes
defiantly, to distance themselves from the social and cultural traditions of their
new motherland. Expert Vladislav Belov from the Institute of Europe is
speaking:
“Islam in Germany is mostly professed by migrants, so the attitude to
Islam usually means the attitude to migrants who have a different religion.
This attitude is based on how the newcomers treat local culture and
everyday life. If Muslim communities show disrespect for local ways,
animosity will be on the rise. However, animosity as a mass phenomenon
is unlikely.”
Europeans’ main complaints about Muslims are not associated with Islam itself.
The first complaint is about welfares because many migrants do not want to
work. The second one is about disregard for local traditions and culture, which
is to do with social, rather than religious, friction.
In response, Muslims accuse Europeans of discrimination in employment. In
addition, Muslims believe that if they respect the law they have the right to
profess their ancestors’ religion and perform all required rituals.
The root of the conflict is in the fact that the participants in it have lost interest
in peaceful co-existence. Neither want any more compromises. European
Muslims do not want a compromise because their new motherland permits them
to live and behave as their ancestors always did. The local population does not
want a compromise because, in their opinion, all common sense in the conflict
of the two civilizations has been lost. This gave leading European politicians
grounds for saying that the idea of multiculturalism has failed. Expert in Islamic
studies, Professor Leonid Siukiainen from the Higher School of Economics is
speaking:
87

“In my opinion, there is little ground for speaking about the failure of
multiculturalism because this policy has actually never been carried out in
earnest. On the other hand, I would not only dwell on Islamophobia. We should
think about involving Muslims into the European cultural and social space. After
all, they are guests in Europe. Any guest visiting other people’s home should
pay attention to the hosts’ ways and habits.”
All this is certainly true but the roots of Islamophobia are most definitely in
local people’s minds. At the end of the day, fear of those who profess a different
religion is a fear to lose one’s own identity. European churches are rapidly
becoming empty. The European community is rapidly losing spiritual ties with
its history which nourishes it. The platform on which Christian Europe was built
is being sapped and Muslims are just filling the gaps. So Europeans should only
blame themselves.

Extreme Right Wing Groups taking Root in Europe
Right-wing extremist groups are mobilising in many parts of Europe. In the
Nordic countries, the upswing in Sweden and Finland is particularly worrisome
for the extreme left-wing.
A strange thing is happening within the Bundesliga, the German soccer league
that has some of the highest average stadium attendance in the world: Far-right
hooligans affiliated to various clubs are putting their differences aside to unite
against Islamic fundamentalists.
Sunday saw the biggest gathering yet, when, outside Cologne Cathedral,
between 2,000 and 4,000 people turned up to preach hate against Salafists attack
police. What’s startling about this is that the previous gathering in Dortmund
only drew 400 people. Forty-four police officers were injured, a riot van was
overturned, pro-Nazi slogans were shouted, and a loaded hand gun and machetes
were confiscated from the crowd. Though a counter-protest of 500 was held
peacefully nearby, one policeman told Die Welt newspaper that the police were
now facing an unprecedented level of political extremism within soccer
hooliganism.
Currently known as Hooligans Against Salafists (or HoGeSa for short) and
organized over Facebook (as of writing, at least two of their accounts have been
active for a couple of days, already gathering around 2,000 likes each), these
groups are indicative of the general growth of far-right extremism not just within
football, but inside Germany as a whole.
HoGeSa is a frightening group because they have the power to unite old rivals
against a common enemy. At the moment, this is Islamic extremism—the
88

number of Salafist groups in Germany is small but growing, and German
domestic intelligence chief Hans-Georg Maassen expressed concern Saturday
that such groups may be inspiring German residents to travel to Syria and Iraq to
fight alongside the Islamic State.
But what happens if the target of the mob's ire shifts? One slogan boasts that
HoGeSa brings together “sworn enemies from various [soccer] clubs,” which by
my estimation is about 17. It would constitute "a new phenomenon,” police
union chairman Arnold Plickert said, “if previously warring hooligans develop a
common structure."
In the context of the last few years, it seems at first a strange thing for German
soccer to be associated with. The league system has been rightly and repeatedly
praised for getting many things right: ticket pricing, safe standing areas within
stadiums, anti-tika taka tactics (try saying that one while drunk), and Shinji
Kagawa. Let us not forget, this is the soccer hipster league of choice.
Borussia Dortmund is particularly relevant here; the team is both the poster-boys
of cool Bundesliga and one of its most prominent links to extremism. HoGeSa
are partly organized by Dortmund fan and neo-Nazi Siegfried Borchardt, who
set up hooligan coalition Borussenfront in the 1980s. Although officially banned
from the Westfalenstadion stadium, the group has been active again since 2006
and is known to recruit younger fans after matches. During Dortmund’s run to
the Champions League final last year, two of their right-wing fans were attacked
in Donetsk after reportedly shouting “Sieg Heil!” and pissing on a statue of
Lenin.
This dichotomy extends far beyond Borussia Dortmund. As a nation, Germany
has been riding the crest of a PR wave for some time now. In 2013, it was voted
the world's favourite country. The national team went on to win this year’s
World Cup, without its best player. The country is both economically powerful
and socially mobile. Twenty percent of its population was born abroad. It
basically runs Europe. But internally, the past few years have seen Germany
undergo a shift towards right-wing disillusion. With inequality continuing to
widen, the German Economic Institute this year argued that the country had the
largest wealth gap in the whole of Europe. With an open immigration policy and
increased poverty comes far-right extremists: nationalists who blame their
situation on people who are almost certainly in a worse position than
themselves.
Unsurprisingly, tensions surrounding Islam in Germany are being fed by events
abroad. A couple of weeks back, roughly 1,300 police officers were deployed in
Hamburg after a peaceful Kurdish protest against the Islamic State’s attacks on
the Kobani border was disrupted by Islamic State supporters. Daniel Abdin,
89

imam of Hamburg’s Al-Nour Mosque, described the city as “Hamburgistan.”
The same week, a reported 100 people fought in Celle, Lower Saxony, over
similar differences.
It’s a perfectly terrible storm. Germany’s support of Kurds in northern Iraq
causes tension between Kurds and certain radical Islamic groups in major
German cities, and this tension is then manipulated by extreme right-wingers
who cite it as evidence of the country's Islamification. Without the presence of
the far-right groups, it's doubtful whether or not things would have blown up to
this extent—Germany is home to at least 4 million Muslims, a quarter of whom
are Kurds, and only 5,500 of whom are Salafists.
But insidious far-right organizations like the National Democratic Party know
how to infiltrate other causes to draw in supporters—be it soccer, anti-corporate
movements, or even Christmas markets. German soccer is just another carrier of
the movement, an artificial insemination designed to provide Nazi Skinheads
with borrowed legitimacy.

Extreme-Right is quiet in Norway
Researchers at FFI do not consider Norway to be afflicted with much
violence from the extreme right.
“In Norway, right extremists had a militant period in the 1889s. There
were several violent episodes,” says Ravndal.
“But both before and after Anders Behring Breivik and his terror attack
on 22 July nearly three years ago there has been little right extremist
violence in Norway. We see this in comparison with other countries.”

Greater Extreme-Right in Finland
Research conducted at the Police University College in Finland shows a
mounting willingness for extreme right groups to resort to violence
Ravndal thinks the Finnish researchers’ sources are credible on this
count
“Large amounts of data from the Finnish police have been analysed. For
years they have maintained a comprehensive registration system for this
type of crime.

90

Well-grounded in Finland
Neo-Nazi groups mobilise intensely in Sweden. The prime source of
information about right extremists comes from the antiracist
organisation Expo.
“It’s worth noting that Expo is an interest group,” stresses
Ravndal.
Jacob Ravndal studies extreme right violence and terror in Europe and Russia.
“Expo can thus be giving a political slant on reality. But the organisation
is known for being reliable.”
They report a clear rise in racist propaganda and demonstrations in the
past few years.
“This is happening after Sweden, just like Norway, experienced a
decline after the 1990s.”
Ravndal says in particular that the organisation Svenska
motståndsrörelsen [Swedish Resistance Movement] has been mobilising
a great deal lately.
“In recent years militant right extremists in Sweden have been involved
in several killings of foreigners and political activists whose views run
counter theirs.

Combining sources
Researchers on right-wing extremism use several types of sources. One
of these is serious incidents registered by the police.
But they also make use of less official sources of data, such as lists
compiled on political activists by Expo and other interest groups.
By combining various sources, researchers aim to expose patterns in
violence and activity which otherwise might not be so easily seen.

Difference in monitors
Ravndal thinks right-wing extremism is a demanding field of research.
One challenge involves the disparate ways that different countries in
Europe register activities.
91

Although none of the larger extreme right groups or websites overtly call for
violence, their potential for inciting violence is hard to assess, according to
researchers. Above, Arne Tumyr, the former head of a group in Norway called
“Stopp islamiseringen av Norge” [Stop the Islamisation of Norway],
demonstrates behind a ring of police in Oslo in 2009.
“In Great Britain thousands of episodes of hate crimes are registered
annually. But such things as racist graffiti or epithets uttered on the street
can be registered in the same category as violent attacks. Other countries
report much less, and in some cases nothing at all.”
Hate crime is a general term for crimes carried out against people on the grounds
of their sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, ethnic origin, disabilities or
similar types of status.

Is low unemployment Norway’s secret?
Ravndal and his colleagues at FFI have also looked into the issue of why there is
so much right-wing extremist violence in Sweden and Finland, and Russia in
particular, and why this isn’t seen so much in Norway.
“We plan to implement fieldwork in which we interview researchers,
activists and counter-activists. The research will mainly be done in the
Nordic countries and Russia, but eventually it will also include more
countries in Western Europe, such as Germany, Italy and France.”
They will try to determine for instance whether there are connections between
the variations of violence levels in the different countries and structural factors
such as unemployment rates, net immigration and the effect of economic
recession and depression.

Some strange mixes in Europe
Ravndal plans to carry out studies of militant groups which have mushroomed in
Europe: Autonome Nationalisten in Germany, CasaPound in Italy and
Génération Identitaire in France.
These three groups have mobilised thousands of activists on the internet and
hundreds in the streets. Many young people are fascinated by their rhetoric,
which often mixes a cocktail of elements from the political right and left,
according to Ravndal.

92

“Some of these groups are engaged in housing squatting. Some have the Marxist
revolutionary Che Guevara as an ideal, while simultaneously being open
fascists.”

Explosive in Bulgaria and Poland
Lars Erik Berntzen, who studies counter-jihadism at European University
Institute in Florence, says that some organisations and websites he has
researched are striving to establish a positive image and identity. Many for
instance proclaim support for the rights of women and homosexuals, express
concerns about democracy and tout their backing of Christian values and
culture.
Contra-jihadist groups received scads of attention after the terrorist attacks in
Norway on 22 July 2011, because Anders Behring Breivik2 had contact with
them. These groups maintain a strong focus on Islam and Muslims and the need
to resist jihadists.
Lars Erik Berntzen3 informs of an explosive growth in anti-Islamic groups in
Poland and Bulgaria.

The English Defence League is the largest of such groups.
Norway has seen groups organised under the banner of “halting the
Islamisation” of the country, but these have splintered into factions.
Bulgaria and Poland, however, have had an explosive growth of such groups,
according to Berntzen.

2

Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian extremist who killed 77 people in a bomb and gun
rampage in 2011, lives in conditions that would seem luxurious by American incarceration
standards: a three-room suite with windows that includes a treadmill, a fridge, a television
with DVD player and even a Sony PlayStation. But, a Norwegian court found that the
government had violated his human rights, concluding that his long-term solitary confinement
posed a threat to his mental health. Mr. Breivik has virtually no contact with other inmates
and is subjected to frequent strip searches and searches of his cell. At a trial in March, he
argued that his isolation amounted to torture.

3

Lars Erik Berntzen is a PhD researcher in the Department of Social and Political Science at
the European University Institute.

93

Hard assess violent potential
Not all contra-jihadist groups promote violent or anti-democratic solutions. But
Berntzen says a lot of individual persons openly advocate violence, including on
their websites.
None of the larger groups or websites currently trumpet violence. So this makes
their potential for involvement in violence hard to gauge.
A study made in the UK in 2012 showed that slightly more than 70 percent of
the members of the English Defence League consider violence inevitable. Some
38 percent felt that violence against extremists is legitimate. Only five percent
said they would personally be willing to engage is violence.

Less organised violence
FFI researcher Jacob Ravndal4 thinks that the organised form of right-wing
extreme violence and terror have clearly seen a decline in Europe since WWII.
“But when it comes to unorganised group violence linked to subcultural
networks, the level is stable. However, we certainly need to be aware that
there can be a lot going on beneath the radar here.”

Extreme-Right Groups in Europe
The Rise of Far-Right parties across Europe
Since the global banking crisis in 2007, commentators across the political
spectrum have confidently predicted not only the imminent collapse of the euro,
but sooner or later an unavoidable implosion of the European Union itself. None
of this has come to pass. But the European project, launched after the
devastation of the second world war, faces the most serious threat in its history.
That threat was chillingly prefigured this week by the launch of a pan-European
alliance of far-right parties, led by the French National Front and the Dutch

4

Mr. Jacob Aasland Ravndal is a doctoral candidate with FFIs Terrorism Research Group. He
studies right-wing terrorism and militancy in Western Europe after World War II. Previously
he has conducted research on strategic cybersecurity, the protection of civilians in UN
peacekeeping, and intelligence analysis in international peace operations. Ravndal holds an
M.Phil in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of Oslo

94

Freedom party headed by Geert Wilders, vowing to slay "the monster in
Brussels".
Of course, the growth in support for far-right, anti-European, anti-immigrant
parties has been fed by the worst world recession since at least the 1930s – mass
unemployment and falling living standards, made worse by the self-defeating
austerity obsession of European leaders. Parties that skulked in the shadows,
playing down their sympathies with fascism and Nazism are re-emerging,
having given themselves a PR facelift. Marine Le Pen, leader of the French NF,
plays down the anti-Semitic record of her party. The Dutch far-right leader has
ploughed a slightly different furrow, mobilising fear and hostility not against
Jews but Muslim immigrants. Like Le Pen, Wilders focuses on the alleged
cosmopolitan threat to national identity from the European Union. It is a chorus
echoed in other countries by the Danish People's party, the Finns party and the
Flemish Vlaams Belang, among others.
For now, the French and Dutch populists are carefully keeping their distance
from openly neo-Nazi parties such as Golden Dawn, whose paramilitary
Sturmabteilung has terrorised refugees and immigrants in Greece, and the
swaggering Hungarian Jobbik, which targets the Roma minority.
According to some pollsters, the far right might win as many as a third of
European parliament seats in elections next May. That would still leave the
centre parties – Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Liberals – with
many more members. But for the European parliament to form a credible
majority, all of these parties might well be forced much closer together than is
good for democracy.
Such a situation would be unsettlingly reminiscent of 1936, when the centre and
the left – notably in France – temporarily halted the swing to fascism but formed
an unprincipled and ineffective coalition. Its collapse on the eve of the second
world war accelerated the advent of Phillippe Petain's Nazi-collaborating
regime. History does not normally repeat itself in an automatic fashion, but it
would be foolish to take the risk.
More worrying than the growth of the far right are the temporising gestures to
the racists and anti-immigrants now coming from mainstream Conservative and
even Liberal Democrat politicians and from some of the new "Blue Labour"
ideologues. The warning from the likes of David Blunkett that hostility to Roma
immigrants might lead to a popular "explosion" is reminiscent of Enoch Powell's
rhetoric.
An antidote to the far right requires that the European left articulates and
pursues a comprehensive alternative to economic stagnation, an ever-widening
95

income and wealth gap and the degradation of our social standards, civil
liberties and democratic rights. But that alternative has to be fought for at
European as well as national and local levels, and will require more, not less,
European integration.
Time is running out, not only for the European Social Democrats, but also for
the wider socialist left and the greens, to show they can create a counterbalance
to the rightward drift of the centre. Without that, the new far-right alliance may
only have to hold together and wait for its hour to strike.

Norway
Party: Progress Party
Leader: Siv Jensen
Key issues: Immigration, free market, law and order
Seats in parliament: 41/169
The Progress Party, which accused attacker Anders Behring Breivik once
supported, won 22.9% of the vote in the 2009 election, the best result in the
party's 38-year history. The second-largest party in parliament since 2005, it has
historically been shunned by other parties. But in recent years, its growing
popularity has moved the opposition Conservative Party to say it would consider
working with the Progress Party in a coalition government.

On the Fringe
Vigrid
Founded in 1988, the group — described by anti-fascist organization Searchlight
as a "Nazi psycho sect" — uses ancient Norse and puts its members through
paintball training. In 2009, the group registered as a political party and
participated in the parliamentary election, but received only 0.007% of the vote.
BootsBoys
Neo-Nazi group founded in 1987. In 2002, two members of the group were
convicted of the murder of 15-year-old Benjamin Hermansen, the son of a black
Ghanaian father and white Norwegian mother. The stabbing of Hermansen in
Oslo, regarded as Norway's first race-related murder, triggered mass protests in
the capital.
96

Britain
Party: British National Party
Leader: Nick Griffin
Key issues: Immigration, Islam, Euroskepticism
Seats in parliament: 0/1,436
After making some modest gains over the past decade, the party's support has
slumped of late. It received just 1.9% of the vote in the 2010 general election,
despite fielding more than 300 candidates and attempts to distance itself from
allegations of racism. Still, in 2009, the party entered the European Parliament
for the first time, with two seats.

On the Fringe
English Defence League
Founded in 2009, the group, which protests the perceived spread of Islamic
extremism in the U.K., is estimated to have 300-500 active members.

Netherlands
Party: Freedom Party
Leader: Geert Wilders
Key issues: Anti-establishment, Islam, law enforcement
Seats in Parliament: 24/150
Geert Wilders single-handedly founded the Freedom Party in 2005. Despite its
youth and the flamboyance of its leader — Wilders declared earlier this year that
juvenile offenders should be relegated to a "village for scum" — the party has
achieved overwhelming popularity. In March 2011, polls showed the party with
17.6% approval, second only to the Liberal Party, which governs in a minority
coalition with the Christian Democrats.

On the Fringe
Nederlandse Volks-Unie (Dutch People's Union)
97

The neo-Nazi group, founded in 1971, argues for the rehabilitation of convicted
World War II criminals and often appears in S.S. costume at demonstrations.
The group has fielded candidates in local and national elections in recent years,
but has yet to secure a seat.
Netherlands National Youth
The one-year-old group aims to establish a white Netherlands and banish
immigrants.

Italy
Party: Lega Nord (Northern League)
Leader: Umberto Bossi
Key issues: Immigration, devolution
Seats in parliament: 85/945
The Northern League won 12.7% of the national vote in Italy's 2010 election.
The League has long been a controversial and sometimes troublesome partner in
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's governing coalition. In 1994, the League
abandoned the partnership after less than a year in power, collapsing
Berlusconi's government and driving him from office in 1995 — it took until
2001 for him to make it back into the president's seat. The party holds
governorships in Piedmont and the Veneto region, and nine seats in the
European Parliament.

On the Fringe
Movimento Sociale-Fiamma Tricolore (Tricolor Flame)
The neo-fascist political party, founded in 1995, got 0.79% of the vote in Italy's
2009 parliamentary election.
Veneto Fronte Skinheads
One of many skinhead organizations in Italy, the group, founded in 1986, is
based in the Veneto region, reportedly the centre of the country's neo-Nazi
activity.

98

Germany
Party: Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (National Democratic
Party of Germany)
Leader: Udo Voigt
Key issues: Capitalism, globalization, Islam
Seats in parliament: 0/622
While Germany's oldest nationalist party has no seats in the Bundestag, the
German parliament, it does hold seats in two of the country's sixteen states. In
2003, the German government attempted to ban the NPD, but the country's
Supreme Court blocked the initiative after it was revealed that the party
members whose actions formed the bulk of the government's case were in fact
agents of the German intelligence services.

On the Fringe
Autonome Nationalisten
The young neo-Nazi group, founded in 2003, emphasizes violence and its
members typically wear all-black. The group gain notoriety in May 2008, when
an Autonome Nationalisten mob attacked a group of far-left protestors and
police, lighting cars on fire and severely injuring dozens. Germany's Interior
Minister at the time said the event heralded a "new quality" of far-right violence.

France
Party: Front National (National Front)
Leader: Marine Le Pen
Key issues: Protectionism, immigration
Seats in parliament: 0/577
Led by the daughter of its controversial former head Jean-Marie Le Pen, the
party won 11% of the vote in the local elections in March 2011. Since the
younger Le Pen took the reins in January, the Front National's popularity has
surged, with opinion polls suggesting Le Pen could win the first round of next
year's presidential election. It also holds three seats in the European Parliament.
99

On the Fringe
Nomad 88
The violent neo-Nazi group — which, like all neo-Nazi groups in France, is
banned — came to public attention in 2008 when three of its members went on a
shooting spree to "purge" the suburbs of immigrants. The perpetrators, who did
not claim any victims, were sentenced to prison in 2010, along with nine other
Nomad 88 members, for offenses ranging from arms possession to membership
in a violent gang.
Bloc Identitaire
Founded in 2003, this nationalist political group promotes French heritage and
opposes inter-racial marriage. In 2006, the group was accused of distributing
pork-laden "identity soups" to homeless people in Nice, Paris, and other
European capitals with the express purpose of excluding Jews and Muslims.

Belgium
Party: Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest)
Leader: Tom Van Grieken
Key issues: Flemish independence, multiculturalism, traditional values
Seats in Parliament: 15/150
The party won 12% of the vote in Flanders as recently as 2007, but support has
waned recently with the emergence of the more moderate New Flemish
Alliance. In the June 2010 elections, Party Vlaams Belang won 7.8% of the
Flemish vote.
On the Fringe
Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw (Blood, Soil, Honour and Loyalty)
In 2006, 17 members of this neo-Nazi outfit, founded two years previously,
were charged with planning terror attacks on the National Bank and plotting an
army-led coup to create a fascist Flemish state. Their trial is set for December.
That same year, student and BBET follower Hans van Themsche went on a
racially motivated shooting spree in Antwerp, killing two.

100

Denmark
Party: Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party)
Leader: Pia Kjaersgaard
Key issues: Immigration, Euroskepticism, traditional values
Seats in Parliament: 25/179
With a leader who is often voted Denmark's most powerful woman, the party
secured 13.8% of the vote in the 2007 parliamentary election, making it the
third-largest party in Denmark.
On the Fringe
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
Founded in 1991, the group is an officially registered neo-Nazi political party
with roots in the Danish Nazi party. In April 2010, its leader Jonni Hansen was
found not guilty on charges of spreading racist propaganda.

Finland
Party: True Finns
Leader: Timo Soini
Key issues: E.U. and euro bail-outs, immigration
Seats in Parliament: 39/200
The True Finns emerged from obscurity to capture 19% of the votes in the April
2011 election, finishing just behind the conservative National Coalition Party
and the Social Democrats. When the two top parties came to form the current
six-party coalition government, the True Finns were excluded.
On the Fringe
National Socialist Workers' Party
Founded in the run-up to the April 2011 election, the anti-immigration, neo-Nazi
group — which claims a few dozen activist members — made a failed attempt
to formally register as a party.
101

Sweden
Party: Sweden Democrats
Leader: Jimmie Akesson
Key issues: Immigration, crime, Islam
Seats in Parliament: 20/349
With 5.7% of the votes in the 2010 elections, the Sweden Democrats won seats
in parliament for the first time. The party was once more extreme, but in 2001
shed its Nazi trappings — including uniforms and swastikas — to gain
mainstream appeal.
Party: Svenskarnas parti (Party of Swedes)
Leader: Daniel Höglund
Key issues: Immigration, crime, multiculturalism
Seats in Parliament: 0/349
In 2010, the party won 2.8% of the vote in the Grastorp municipal election,
giving the party its only seat in Sweden. Höglund, who formerly led the
Nationalsocialistisk front — or Aryan Brotherhood — took up the
councillorship, only to be disqualified because of illegitimate residential status.
On the Fringe
The Swedish Resistance Movement
According to Searchlight, the group, founded in 1996, attracts Sweden's "most
violent and pro-terrorist Nazis." Several men associated with the group have
been jailed for violence in recent years, including Hampus Hellekant, who
served time for the murder of union official Bjorn Soderberg in 1999.

Hungary
Party: Jobbik
Leader: Gabor Vona
Key issues: Roma minority
102

Seats in Parliament: 47/386
Gained entry into parliament for the first time in April 2010, after securing
16.71% of the vote in general elections. The party also secured three seats in the
last European Parliament elections.
On the Fringe
Magyar Garda (Hungarian Guard ) The banned paramilitary group was cofounded in 2007 by Jobbik leader Vona. At the Hungarian Guard's inaugural
ceremony, during which members were sworn in wearing Nazi uniforms, Vona
explained that the group had been set up "in order to carry out the real change of
regime and to rescue Hungarians.

Austria
Party: Freedom Party
Leader: Heinz-Christian Strache
Key issues: Euroskepticism, immigration, cultural identity
Seats in parliament: 34/245
The Freedom Party joined Austria's coalition government in 2000 and has
become a powerful force in the country. In the 2010 state elections, the party
garnered 25.77% of the vote, coming in second to the Social Democratic Party
and doubling its seats in parliament. By March 2011, the Freedom Party had an
approval rating of 29%, putting it neck-and-neck with the country's two other
major parties. Its photogenic young leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, notoriously
called women in burqas "female ninjas" in 2008 and has promised to cut off
funds for "bankrupt E.U. countries" if he is elected chancellor.
Party: Alliance for the Future of Austria
Leader: Josef Bucher
Key issues: free markets, privatization, Atlanticism
Seats in parliament: 21/245
The economically liberal Alliance focuses less on hot-button cultural issues than
does the Freedom Party, and is more moderate regarding immigration and the
E.U. In the 2010 elections, the party claimed only 1.3% of the vote.
103

On the Fringe
Volkstreue Ausserparlamentarische Opposition Founded in 1986, the party was
banned by the Austrian government in the 1990s. Its former leader, Gottfried
Kuessel, was arrested in April 2011 for allegedly running a pro-Nazi website
and is awaiting trial.

Sharia Courts inside Great Britain
At least 85 Islamic sharia courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed not
long ago. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted.
The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family
disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgments which can
be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.
Sharia, or Muslim religious law, has been highly controversial in the UK.
Interpretations of Sharia are associated in other countries with harsh penalties
unknown in the UK; campaigners and politicians worry that Muslim women are
discriminated against when family disputes are resolved under Sharia.
UKIP says that: "The law of the land must apply to us all. We oppose any other
system of law"; its leader has referred to "80 practising Sharia courts around the
United Kingdom".
While there are undoubtedly lots of different councils and tribunals dealing with
Sharia principles, they aren't courts of law.
Most are Sharia 'councils' set up to make decisions on purely religious matters,
although there are some bodies that mix Sharia principles with legally binding
arbitration. But none can overrule the regular courts.
Sharia Councils
Getting married for the purposes of your religion doesn't necessarily mean you
are married in the eyes of the state. Equally, the paperwork required for a civil
divorce needn't be recognised by your religion. For this reason, many Sharia
councils exist to issue Islamic divorce certificates, and give advice on other
aspects of religious law. They're often attached to mosques. One piece of
research from the University of Reading has identified 30 major councils, and
some smaller ones, providing these services.
Family law and Sharia
Other services related to family issues might be offered by a Sharia
council. Family mediation is one example. Some campaigners worry about using
mediation by religious bodies to work out agreements about children and
finances after a marriage breaks down. In 2014 Baroness Cox, a member of the
104

House of Lords, tried to introduce a law to ensure that women aren't
disadvantaged in mediation by religious bodies, and make clear that they aren't a
court.
But, formally, this is already the case. While feuding couples have to at
least consider mediation before going to court it doesn't override family law. A
court has to sign off on any agreement made after divorce for it to be legally
binding, and won't do so if the judge thinks it's unfair.
In 2013, the High Court was asked by an Orthodox Jewish couple to accept the
ruling of a Jewish religious court on post-divorce family arrangements. The
judge said that while the agreement would carry weight, it would be nonbinding—neither party could get around English law by agreeing to abide by the
decision of another tribunal.
Rather than open the door to "Sharia divorces", as some newspapers reported,
the judgment confirmed that agreements made in a religious form are ultimately
subject to English law.
Sharia arbitration bodies
The way Sharia might become legally enforceable is where a Sharia
organisation is used for arbitration. This means taking a commercial or personal
dispute to a neutral forum and agreeing to be bound by what it decides.
It's up to the people having the dispute who they agree to be the arbiter, and they
can even choose to apply rules other than English law to the affair—so long as
there is no conflict between the two.
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal is an example of this approach. It appoints one
qualified lawyer and one expert in Islamic law to each case. In this way, it tries
to ensure that the decision reached is in line with both secular and religious law.
So if both parties agree, arbitral tribunals can decide certain issues by applying
religious principles. This doesn't make them courts as such. Their legal authority
comes from being voluntarily chosen as a decision-maker, and they can't make
any decisions that are contrary to national law.
How many of these Sharia organisations exist?
From the research that's been done to date, it's not clear how many exist or how
many different types there are. An estimate of "85 at least" was given in a 2009
report by the think tank Civitas. It was repeated in an interview in the
Telegraph with Baroness Cox in April 2014.
The UKIP leader Nigel Farage mentioned a figure of 80 on the BBC Radio 4
Today programme in January 2015. UKIP told us that he got his number from
the Telegraph article. But the Civitas estimate includes online forums and admits
that the actual number is "indeterminate".
105

So far as we are aware, there are no definitive studies.
Law versus reality
The coalition government had said that the courts have the powers they need to
protect people from coercion and unequal treatment. But campaigners like
Baroness Cox reply that whatever about the strict legal position, "the power of
Sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities".
Academics tend to be more relaxed, saying that "fears that councils are forming
a parallel legal system appear to be unfounded". A new book by a Dutch
researcher is reportedly more critical about how women in particular are treated.
Researchers also stress that we need more information to work out how
important Sharia councils are on the ground, and the experiences of people using
them. Similarly, the government now says that "there is evidence of a problem,
but we have an inadequate understanding of all the issues involved". It has
commissioned a review into whether Sharia is being "misused or applied in a
way which is incompatible with the law", to report in 2016.

London (East London)
In a terraced house in East London, just a stone’s throw from the glittering
stadiums of the Olympic Park, a handful of people wait in a small reception
room. A young Asian woman and her mother hitch their scarves over their heads
while a Somali couple stare at the floor.
This is Leyton Islamic Sharia Council, the oldest and most active such council in
the country where scholars hear about 50 cases a month, most of them marital
disputes. Nine out of 10 cases are brought by women because, in an Islamic
marriage, it is far easier for a man to divorce; the only way for a woman is
through one of these Sharia councils. No one knows how many there are in
Britain today, in mosques and in houses – one report estimates at least 85.
Although they cannot enforce their judgments, these councils control the lives of
many Muslim women who may only have had a religious marriage. Even if they
had a civil marriage too, some feel the need for a Sharia divorce as a way of
moving on with their lives and finding a sense of resolution.
A sign outside one of the rooms says “Arbitration”. Inside it looks like a court, a
wall lined with religious books and a raised dais for the judge. The tension in
here crackles as a couple, who do not want to be identified, argue in front of
Leyton’s most senior Islamic scholar, Dr Suhaib Hasan, an elderly man with a
white beard wearing long robes.
They have been coming here for a year now. The woman accuses her husband of
refusing to work, ignoring the children and verbally abusing her, all of which he
106

vehemently denies. When he is ordered to leave for a moment, she breaks down
in tears. “I hate him, he has ruined my life,” she cries. “I cannot bear to even
look at him.”
Dr Hasan’s face is impassive as he tells her to give her husband one more month
to try and reconcile, with the help of Allah. The woman sobs as she begs him to
grant the divorce as she only had a religious marriage and her fate is in the
council’s hands.
“We are not just here to issue divorces, we want to mediate first,” Dr Hasan
explains. “We try to save marriages so when people come to us we try to
reconcile them.”
But this pressure from Sharia councils and the community they serve is causing
suffering – Islamic rulings are not always in the interests of women and can run
counter to British law.
There are more worrying cases involving domestic violence and children. In
Leeds, I met Sonia, an attractive woman in her thirties in a mini-dress and ankle
boots. She was granted a civil divorce due to her husband’s extreme violence
towards her and their children. He was only allowed indirect access to the
children by the courts. But when she went to Leyton for a Sharia divorce, she
was told she would have to give up her children to him.
Sharia courts are not allowed to intervene in matters involving child custody, but
Leyton’s website features Sharia rulings on children. One Islamic school of
thought decrees a father can take custody of a boy at the age of seven and a girl
as young as nine. “I could not bear the thought of such a violent person having
my children,” Sonia told me. “What was even more shocking was when I
explained to Leyton why he shouldn’t have access to the children. Their reaction
was – well you can’t go against what Islam says.”
Sonia stood her ground and eventually got Leyton to drop their demand. When
asked about Sonia’s case, Leyton said with children if a marriage ends, the
question of access to both parents is crucial. Safety is paramount and any UK
court order must be followed.
Leyton say they do not advise abused women to return to their husbands, but
given what we had heard, we sent an undercover reporter to consult Dr Hasan
with a story about an abusive husband.
The Government says domestic violence is a crime that should be reported to the
police. The Islamic scholar’s reaction to her account of being hit and whether
she should inform the police was to ask her if she was actually being beaten
107

severely – to the extent of having bruises on her body. “The police, that is a
very, very last resort,” he said. “If he becomes so aggressive starts hitting and
punching you, of course you have to report it to the police.”
Dr Hasan advised her that telling the police would be the final blow as she
would have to go to a refuge – which was a very bad option. He also referred
our undercover reporter to his wife, a counsellor at Leyton. She too advised
against involving the police saying the family was a better option. Both of them
suggested she should ask if the violence was due to her own actions and she
should strive to be a good wife in every way: cooking, cleaning and looking
after her appearance.
When we asked Leyton council about what we filmed secretly they said with
domestic violence it may be essential to involve the police and other authorities
but that can be a step with irrevocable consequences.
I showed our secret footage to Nazir Afzal, the Chief Crown prosecutor for the
North West, a Muslim who has taken the lead in tackling honour-based domestic
violence. “I’m disappointed but not surprised,” he said. “Most of them [Sharia
councils] are absolutely fine but there are some – clearly like this one – who are
putting women at risk. And doing so for ridiculous reasons, namely that they are
somehow responsible for the abuse they are suffering.”
In Bristol, Cara, a Muslim convert told me she had met her husband at university
and he had persuaded her to only have a Sharia marriage. He ended up abusing
her emotionally, controlling her by taking all of her earnings and her student
loans. When he brought prostitutes back to their home, Cara ran away to a
refuge. She contacted Leyton Sharia council for a divorce but they told her she
would have to go to them with her husband for arbitration.
“I was shocked,” says Cara. “Surely they can see that women who have been
through this cannot be forced to meet up with someone who is abusing them.”
Sharia councils in other parts of Britain have also meddled in legal issues that
should be matters for the UK courts. In Dewsbury, west Yorkshire, an old pub,
once the White Hart Inn, is now a Sharia council. Ayesha, a thin and hauntedlooking woman in traditional dress and a headscarf told me her husband, who hit
her even when she was pregnant, had been imprisoned for his violent behaviour.
She and her children had injunctions against him, and yet when she went to
Dewsbury Sharia Council for a divorce, they still wanted the couple to meet for
mediation.
“I said, I can’t do that as he isn’t even allowed near my house because I’m
frightened and can’t face him,” says Ayesha, “but they didn’t take any notice.”
108

Eventually, when a barrister specialising in family law became involved,
Dewsbury agreed to see Ayesha without her husband – but she still had to face
five men alone without legal representation. It took her two years to get a
divorce; meanwhile, her husband had already moved to Pakistan and married
again.
Dewsbury council said they could not comment on individual cases but they are
aware of the standing and gravity of UK court orders and would never advise
clients to breach them. They can arrange separate meetings on different days to
avoid this.
Across the country where there are large Muslim communities, there are now
Sharia councils. Some seem to discriminate against women in different ways.
Women are required to produce two male witnesses, and it costs a woman at
least £400 to get an Islamic divorce while a man can pay nothing. Under Sharia
law, a woman must hand over all of her dowry before a divorce can be granted.
Sharia marriage is not recognised under UK law, so women are not
automatically entitled to half the house or financial assets when it comes to a
divorce.
The previous government gave up on its attempt to investigate Sharia councils
when they could not get proper access to them. This government’s view is that
Sharia law is not law in England and Wales and existing legislation already
deals with issues about Sharia councils raised by campaigners. If decisions made
by these councils conflicts with national law, then national law will always
prevail.
The women I spoke to believe that it is not the Islamic code that is at fault but
the way Sharia councils interpret it, and they want them investigated and held
accountable.
Sonia, Cara and Ayesha eventually freed themselves from their unhappy
marriages – but they believe that many other women in Britain are being
condemned by Sharia councils to miserable lives.
Islamic Law to be enshrined in British Laws
Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first
time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up “Sharia compliant” wills.
Under guidance produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be
able to compose Islamic wills that refuse women an equal share of inheritances
and discount non-believers entirely, the Sunday Telegraph reported.
109

The recommendations can also prevent illegitimate children, as well as those
who have been adopted, from being included in an inheritance.
Nicholas Fluck, president of The Law Society told the newspaper that the
document, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, would promote “good
practice” in applying Islamic principles in the British legal system.
But some lawyers have described the recommendations as “astonishing” and
campaigners have warned that the move marks a step towards a “parallel legal
system” for Britain’s Muslim communities.
Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer leading a Parliamentary campaign to protect
women from discrimination authorised on the basis of religion, including from
unofficial Sharia courts in Britain, told the Sunday Telegraph it was a “deeply
disturbing” development.
And she pledged to raise the issue with ministers. “This violates everything that
we stand for,” she said.
“It would make the Suffragettes turn in their graves.”
The guidelines were quietly published this month and distributed to lawyers in
England and Wales to “assist solicitors who have been instructed to prepare a
valid will, which follows Sharia succession rules” while remaining valid under
British law.
In one section it is stated: “The male heirs in most cases receive double the
amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not
inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognised.
“Similarly, a divorced spouse is no longer a Sharia heir, as the entitlement
depends on a valid Muslim marriage existing at the date of death.”
And in another section it suggests amending clauses which define the terms
“children” or “issue” to ensure that illegitimate or adopted offspring are
excluded from the inheritance.
The guidelines also suggest that many Muslim clients may wish to have a
declaration of faith at the start of their will, which can be worded appropriately
with help from the local mosque.
Currently, Sharia rules are not formally recognised or included in British laws.
But a network of Sharia courts has emerged to deal with disputes among Muslim
families in Islamic communities.
110

A few are officially recognised tribunals, operating under the Arbitration Act,
but many more unofficial Sharia courts are in operation.
Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, told
the Sunday Telegraph: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal
establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rightscompliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture.
"British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than
any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society
seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”
The new guidelines are one example of the practice notes that the Law Society
issues for the use and benefit of its members.
These documents represent the Law Society's view of good practice in a
particular area. Lawyers are not required to follow them, but doing so makes it
easier for them to account to oversight bodies for their actions.

Capital punishment under the Sharia
“Take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and
law. Thus does He command you, so that you may learn wisdom.”
Qur'an 6:151
But even though the death penalty is allowed, forgiveness is preferable.
Forgiveness, together with peace, is a predominant Qur'anic theme.
Muslims believe that capital punishment is a most severe sentence but one that
may be commanded by a court for crimes of suitable severity. While there may
be more profound punishment at the hands of Allah, there is also room for an
earthly punishment.
Methods of execution in Islamic countries vary and can include beheading,
firing squad, hanging and stoning. In some countries public executions are
carried out to heighten the element of deterrence.
Each case is regarded individually and with extreme care and the court is fully
able to impose more lenient sentences as and when they see fit.
Islamic countries that practise a very strict Sharia law are associated with the
use of capital punishment as retribution for the largest variety of crimes.
At the other end of the spectrum are countries such as Albania and Bosnia,
which still retain the death penalty as part of their penal system, but are
abolitionist in practice.
111

In Islamic law, the death penalty is appropriate for two groups of crime:


Intentional murder: In these cases the victim's family is given the option
as to whether or not to insist on a punishment of this severity

Fasad fil-ardh ('spreading mischief in the land'): Islam permits the death
penalty for anyone who threatens to undermine authority or destabilise the
state
What constitutes the crime of 'spreading mischief in the land' is open to
interpretation, but the following crimes are usually included:







Treason/apostasy (when one leaves the faith and turns against it)
Terrorism
Piracy of any kind
Rape
Adultery
Homosexual activity

Whilst Islam remains firmly retentionist, there is a small but growing
abolitionist Islamic view. Their argument is as follows:
 The Ulamas (those who are learned in Islamic Law, constitution and
theology) do not always agree on the interpretation or authenticity of the
sacred texts. Neither do they agree on the social context in which these
texts should be applied.
 Sharia law is often used by repressive powers that attack women and the
poor.
There are incidences of these states summarily executing those who are accused
whilst denying them access to a lawyer. These acts are totally contradictory to
the concept of Islamic justice.
In Geneva, on 28th April 2005, there was a call for a moratorium on corporal
punishment, stoning and death penalty. This was, however, rejected by the Legal
Research Commission of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the world's leading
Islamic learning centre.

112

The Death Sentence for Unbelievers
Which side should we believe? The moderate or the radicals?
With such mixed messages coming from the Quran, it is not surprising to find
both groups endlessly arguing about whether Islam is peaceful or violent, and on
whether a particular verse is tied to a specific context or meant to be eternal. It is
logically impossible for both sides to be right, therefore the most reliable way to
find the truth is to examine how Muhammad himself put the scriptures into
action.

Mohammad’s Prophecy Stages
Mohammad's prophecy, which started at year 610 CE by proclaiming his first
revelation of the Quran and ended by his death in 632 CE, had passed roughly
through three main stages:
 The first, between (610-622 CE) was in Mecca the city where he was born
and ended by his migration to the city Medina.
 The second, between (620-630 CE), when he gained more followers and
established the first Islamic state. During this period, he had several wars
with the Meccans that ended in 630 CE by defeating them and Muslims
conquering Mecca.
 The third, from 630 CE till his death in 632 CE was mainly about him
gaining more control over the Arab peninsula.
The traditional order of the Quran chapters, as we know, is not chronological
order. Identifying these stages becomes much clearer by reading it in the order
of the proclaimed revelations.
During the first stage, Islam had no political dimension. It was purely a peaceful
invitation to the Arab tribes of Mecca to renounce their religion and worship
Allah - the one and only God. The Quran prohibited any form of violence
against Islam's opponents. As a result of Meccans persecution of Muslims over
more than a decade, Muhammad and most of his followers migrated to Medina.
By reading the Quran chapters of that period, and even some of the early ones
after the migration, we will not find any verse endorsing violence. The peaceful
verses above and many more used by the apologists are basically coming from
that period.
Shortly after the migration, this position has changed. Muhammad organized
several raids as a form of proactive self-defence/retaliation against the Meccans.
113

Muslim scholars believe that the verses 22:39-40 to be the first passage of the
Quran allowing Muslims to fight:
“Permission to fight is (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers),
who are fought against, because they (believers) have been wronged, and
surely, Allah is Able to give them victory. (39) Those who have been
expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is
Allah."
These verses and many others of that stage like 2:190, 2:194, 22:39, 8:61 are
used by the moderates to support their claim that fighting Non-Muslims was
only for self-defence and is limited in time.

Final position towards non-Muslims (unbelievers)
So far, moderates sound convincing. However, once we bring to the picture the
years following the conquest of Mecca, we can’t find anymore the support for
neither the “self-defence” nor the “limited in time” parts of the claim. On the
contrary, we can clearly see the offensive and open ended nature of the conflict
as defined, practiced by Muhammad and even as described in his prophecies
related to Muslim military victories to come after his death. The following
verses from Chapter 9 which chronologically is the chapter before the last of the
Quran and that came after Mecca conquest along with the hadiths below from
Sahih Bukhari outline with no ambiguity the final position of Islam toward NonMuslims:
Chapter 9 verse 5“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters
wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare
for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the
poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (5)”
This verse came in the context of abolishing the peace treaty that Muhammad
had with the Arab polytheists. They were given four months to either leave the
Arab peninsula, convert to Islam or being killed. This deadline according to the
mainstream Muslim scholars was not only applicable to polytheists who showed
aggression or assisted Muslim enemies, it applied to even the ones who had not
shown any hostility. The only privilege they got based on verse 9:4 was to be
given more time till the expiration of their treaties. Others would be killed
immediately once the sacred months are gone. Abu Bakr and Umar
Muhammad’s closest friends and his immediate successors have strictly
imposed these rules on the polytheists from the countries they conquered and for
centuries to follow it was kept enforced.
114

Chapter 9 verse 29
“Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor
forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
(Muhammad SAW) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth
(i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until
they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves
subdued”
This verse declares an offensive, unconditional and open ended war against
Christians and Jews until they either convert or they submit to a second degree
status. The verse was literally applied to all Christians and Jews in the lands
invaded by the Islamic state starting with Muhammad and ending with the
Ottoman empire. That’s why Christians and Jews have survived the Islamic
conquests, only because they submitted to a set of discriminative laws to avoid
being killed (Details on these laws will come in the next article). Only by the
middle of the 19th century that these laws started to slowly fade as a result of
Western pressure. Since then, Islamists from Muslim Brotherhood to ISIL all are
trying to revive them since their absence violates the Islamic law.
Sahih Bukhari, Book of Belief Hadith 18:
Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight
against the people until they testify that none has the right to be
worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Messenger (‫)ﷺ‬, and
offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they
perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for
Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."
Sahih Bukhari, Book of Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihad) Hadith 41:
“On the day of the Conquest (of Mecca) the Prophet (‫ )ﷺ‬said, "There is no
emigration after the Conquest but Jihad and intentions. When you are
called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately."

Expelling Christians and Jews from the Arab Peninsula
After there were no longer polytheists in the lands controlled by Muhammad as
they were either killed or converted, on his deathbed, Muhammad declared new
measures concerning the Arab Christians and Jews despite their compliance to
the Islamic law. He decided that he would not allow a religion other than Islam

115

in the peninsula. Here are his own words according to Sahih Bukhari the most
authentic source of hadith, Book of Jihad and Expeditions, Hadith 75.
“It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of
Allah (‫ )ﷺ‬say:
“I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will
not leave any but Muslim.”
Again, there is nothing here about self-defence, it is an open-ended ethnic
cleansing. As Muhammad did not survive his illness, Umar - the second Caliph eventually expelled the Jews and Christians from the Arab peninsula to honour
his will. That explains why specifically Saudi Arabia does not allow the practice
of Christianity and Judaism while other Muslim countries generally do.

Islamic Conquest after death of Muhammad
After Muhammad’s death, Muslims took the holy war he started to the next
level. After they won the war against the apostates in the Arab peninsula, it was
time for Muhammad’s immediate successors Abu Bakr and Umar to declare a
global war to bring the Islamic rule to the rest of the world. In less than a
decade, they were able to conquer most of the Middle East and in few decades
later Islamic state became one of the largest empires. The purpose of these
conquests was obviously neither self-defence nor was limited in time. It lasted
for several hundreds of years and nothing really stopped them except military
defeats. These conquests actually reflect the solid belief that the prophet of
Islam had successfully seeded in his successors’ hearts through his teachings.
With every advancement, they were inspired by his hadiths predicting the
military victories they will achieve after him. Here are few examples according
to the six books of hadith:
Sahih Muslim, Book 54, Hadith 50
“You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you
would attack Persia and He would make you to conquer it. Then you
would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you
would attack the Dajjal (The false Messiah of end of time) and Allah will
enable you to conquer him”
Sahih Muslim, Book 33, Hadith 248
“This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the
Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is
established.”
116

Sunan Al Nasa’i, Book 25, Hadith 91
“There are two groups of my Ummah whom Allah will free from the Fire:
The group that invades India, and the group that will be with 'Isa bin
Maryam, peace be upon him"
Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, Hadith 139
"The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the
stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a
Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Back to our 21st century, even if moderate Muslims are the majority, even if
they are sincere about their desire for peace, tolerance and inclusiveness, how
relevant is this? From all the above, it is clear that what they are presenting is no
more than an obsolete subset of Islam’s teachings. A version that only existed
for the first twelve years of Muhammad’s prophecy. As long as Muslims keep
the belief that the Quran is the verbatim word of God, that Muhammad is the
best of creatures and the eternal role model, it is guaranteed that some
percentage of the 1.5 billion Muslims will get the full picture of Islam. A group
that, even if small as claimed, is still big enough to spread fear and terror
everywhere it is present. The war is not against a lunatic group who hijacked the
religion of peace, it is against the extreme intolerance and violence coming
directly from the Quran and Hadith and Muhammad's actions. Islamists did
nothing but taking them seriously as mandated.

Muslim Sharia support around the world
Sharia law is gaining ground across the world. An overwhelming majority of
Muslims support the implementation of Islamic law in Muslim countries, in nonMuslim countries- in any country where they live.
The mainstream media wants us to believe that Muslims are well integrated, and
only jihadists go around terrorizing people and subjugating them to Sharia law,
like the new report of a jihadist group in Libya which now hopes to take over the
town of Derna and enforce Sharia. “We also declare our hostility towards the
enemies of Allah and His prophet — Jews, Christians and Taghouts.”
(“Taghouts” are apparently non-Sharia compliant state institutions.)
While groups like this one and the Sharia-based Taliban are viewed as
dangerous and militant, in varying degrees, Sharia law is the norm in nations
like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan.

117

Many other Islamic nations implement at least part of Sharia law in their
governments, and more are following suit.
This past fall, Brunei became the first East Asian State to fully adopt Sharia law
and begin following a Saudi Arabia-style penal code. Ankit Panda of The
Diplomat writes, “… some commentators have suggested that such strict Sharia
law may be in conflict with Malay culture, and Brunei’s peaceful nature. Brunei,
officially known as the Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace, might find itself
hard-pressed to retain that moniker with its foray into such a draconian legal
system.” Funny how implementing the laws of the “Religion of Peace” onto the
“Abode of Peace” is not very peaceful!
The adherents of this supposed “Religion of Peace” have declared their full
support of Sharia on a global scale. A Pew study done in 2013, asked Muslims
from 23 countries across Southeastern Europe, Asia, North Africa and the
Middle East, their views on Sharia. The study found that “in 17 of the 23
countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the
revealed word of Allah.” The top four in this group were Pakistan, where 81%
believe this, Jordan which tied with Pakistan, and Egypt and the Palestinian
territories, each with 75%.
Yet nearly all the Muslims surveyed either believe that it is the revealed word of
G-d, or was developed by men but based on the word of G-d. There really is not
much distinction between the two. Either way, they believe it is inspired by
Allah. Looking at the complete numbers this way, the percent of Sharia
supporters in the very same countries are 89% in Pakistan, 99% in Jordan, 95%
in Egypt and 91% in the Palestinian territories.
In Afghanistan where Western countries have fought hard against the Taliban,
which “inflicts” its strict Sharia rules onto the “poor, non-extremist” Muslim
population, it turns out that 94% of Muslims there support Sharia law after all.
But who wants to make Sharia the official law of their country? According
to the survey results, the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Southeast Asia
(like Malaysia at 86%), South Asia (Afghanistan 99% and Pakistan 84%), the
Middle East and North Africa (the highest being Iraq at 91% and the Palestinian
territories at 89%), and Sub-Saharan Africa (with the biggest supporter being the
Muslims of Niger.)
So what’s the big deal over Sharia law anyway? Shouldn’t every religion
have the right to follow its own laws? Well, not exactly. Not when the laws of
the religion conflict dramatically with the laws of the land.
118

In the case of Sharia, the laws are incompatible with Western society, which is
largely based on a common Judeo-Christian culture. Other religions besides
Judaism and Christianity often share a similar moral foundation, making it easier
for their adherents to assimilate. Islam, however, fails miserably. Most Muslims
who integrate well into our Western culture are secular, but fundamentalism is a
growing trend and is more of a normality among Muslims than among other
religious groups. This explains why the global support for Sharia among
Muslims is so high.

Islam though extremely dangerous has entered Europe
The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found “widespread anti-immigration
sentiment”, but warned Europe’s Muslim population will treble in the next 17
years.
It reported “a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and
Muslim communities”, with most people wanting less interaction with the
Muslim world.
An MP warned it showed that political leaders in Britain who preach the
benefits of unlimited immigration were dangerously out of touch with the
public.
The study, whose authors include the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord
Carey, was commissioned for leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in
Davos, Switzerland.
It reports “a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their
cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim
nations”.
And it concludes:
“An overwhelming majority of the surveyed populations in Europe
believe greater interaction between Islam and the West is a threat.”
Backbench Tory MP David Davies told the Sunday Express some time: “I am
not surprised by these findings. People are fed up with multiculturalism and
being told they have to give up their way of life.
“Most people in Britain expect anyone who comes here to be willing to
learn our language and fit in with us.”
Mr Davies, who serves on the Commons Home Affairs Committee, added:
119

“People do get annoyed when they see millions spent on translating
documents and legal aid being given to people fighting for the right to
wear a head-to-toe covering at school.
“A lot of people are very uncomfortable with the changes being caused by
immigration and politicians have been too slow to wake up to that.”
The report says people have little enthusiasm for greater understanding with
Islam and attempts to improve relations have been “disappointing”.
And with the EU Muslim population expected to reach 15 per cent by 2025 it
predicts:
“Any deterioration on the international front will be felt most severely in
Europe.”
But leading Muslim academic Haleh Afshar, of York University, blamed media
“hysteria” for the findings. She said:
“There is an absence of trust towards Muslims, but to my mind that is
very much driven by an uninformed media.”
“To blame immigration is much harder because the current influx of
immigrants from eastern Europe are by-and-large not Muslim. The
danger is that when people are fearful of people born and bred in this
country it is likely that discrimination may follow.”

Will Islam become the religion of Europe?
During his recent two-day state visit to Italy, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi declared that "Islam should become the religion of the whole of
Europe." He also said that Europe's conversion would become a fait accompli
"when Turkey becomes a member of the European Union."
Europeans mostly dismissed Gaddafi's proselytizing as "Islamic propaganda,"
and as a "non-solicited provocation lacking seriousness."
Meanwhile, however, Muslim immigration to Europe continues apace, with
record numbers of new arrivals daily in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and
across Scandinavia. In Britain, Holland and Spain, the rate of Muslim
immigration is accelerating at an especially rapid clip, and in a shorter amount
of time than in other European countries.

120

"Gaddafi needs to show respect. Don't come to Italy and tell Italians and
Europeans to convert to Islam," said Rocco Buttiglione, president of the proVatican party Union of Christian Democrats, in an interview with the left-wing
daily La Repubblica.
"What would happen if a European head of state went to Libya or another
Islamic country and invited everyone to convert to Christianity?" asked the daily
Il Messaggero.
"Europe is Christian" declared the right wing daily, La Padania, in a front-page
headline.
"To speak of the European continent converting to Islam makes no sense,
because it is the people alone who decide consciously to be Christian, Muslim or
to follow other religions," said Archbishop Robert Sarah, the secretary of the
Vatican's Congregation for Evangelization.
But Gaddafi's vision of an Islamified Europe is closer to becoming a reality than
many Europeans are willing to admit. According to the Pew Research Centre,
Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe, where the number of
Muslims has tripled over the past 30 years. Most demographers forecast a
similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades.
At least three long-term trends are converging to create a fertile ground for the
rise of Islam in Europe:
For starters, today's Europe is spiritually beset by a morally relativistic postmodern worldview that encourages indifference to religion, especially of the
Judeo-Christian variety. Religious apathy, induced by secular humanism, has
emerged as the defining characteristic of contemporary European society; has
created a huge spiritual vacuum that Islam is eager, willing and determined to
fill.
At the same time, Europe's near-wholesale rejection of the Judeo-Christian
worldview is fuelling a demographic time bomb, planted by Europeans who see
no meaning to human life beyond the present, and who do not believe in the
future enough to want to pass it on to the next generation. This is reflected by
the fact that birth rates among native Europeans are far below replacement levels
in most European countries. By contrast, Muslim immigrants in Europe are
procreating at a breakneck pace, with birth rates that in many cases are double or
triple those of native European populations.

121

The exact number of Muslims in Europe is difficult to calculate, largely because
the official census data collected by many European countries does not track
population trends according to ethnicity or religion.
But the Berlin-based Zentralinstitut Islam-Archiv, the oldest Islamic
organization in Germany, estimates that 54 million Muslims were living in
Europe in 2007, including 16 million in the European Union. According to a US
Air Force study conducted by Major Leon Perkowski in 2006, the EU's Muslim
population could actually be as high as 23 million if estimates on illegal
immigration are included.
In any case, most surveys agree that Muslims currently constitute around five
percent of the EU's total population (compared to around one percent in the
United States). On a country-by-country basis, Muslim residents currently
represent about eight percent of the population in France, six percent in Holland,
four percent in Belgium and Germany, and three percent in Britain.
Although these numbers may seem relatively insignificant at first glance,
Muslim immigrants are clustering in large European cities, many of which are
being transformed beyond recognition by their Muslim inhabitants.
In Amsterdam, Brussels and Marseilles, for example, between 20 and 25 percent
of the population is now estimated to be Muslim, according to official municipal
statistics and a variety of unofficial calculations. In Birmingham, Cologne,
Copenhagen, Leicester, London, Paris, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Strasbourg and
The Hague, the Muslim population is now estimated to be between 10 and 20
percent. In Antwerp, Berlin, Hamburg and Vienna, the Muslim population is
estimated to be between 5 and 10 percent.
Analyst Ömer Taşpınar, writing for the Washington, DC-based Brookings
Institution, estimates that the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher
than the non-Muslim one, and that Europe's Muslim population currently is
growing by more than one million each year. If current trends continue, the
Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim
population will shrink by 3.5 percent. According to the Migration Policy
Institute, which is also based in Washington, at least 20 percent of Europe's total
population will be Muslim by 2050 (this figure would jump to well over 50
percent if Turkey joins the EU.)
Muslims are already transforming European society in ways unimaginable only
a few years ago. In Britain, for example, the government recently acquiesced to
adopting Islamic law, with Sharia courts given full powers to rule on Muslim
civil cases. In Holland, Mohamed, or other variations of the name, has become
the most popular name for baby boys in the four biggest cities in the country. In
122

Switzerland, voters recently agreed to ban the construction of minarets, the
tower-like structures on mosques, which are becoming an increasingly
prominent feature of the European landscape.
In Spain, the Muslim population has increased ten-fold in just 20 years. As
recently as 1990, there were only 100,000 Muslims there; now there are more
than 1 million. Until the 1980s, Spain was a net exporter of labour, and there
was very little Muslim labour immigration to the country. Instead, Spain was a
transit country for Maghrebian [North African] immigrants on their way to
France and other European countries with significant and well-established
Muslim communities. But during the mid-1990s, Spain's traditional role as a
transit country became that of a host country for Muslim immigrants, especially
from Morocco.
Immigration, however, is only one reason for the steady rise in Spain's Muslim
population. Muslim fertility rates are more than double those of an aging native
Spanish population. Spain currently has a birth rate of around 1.3, far below the
replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple. At the current rate, the number of
native Spaniards will be cut in half in two generations, while the Muslim
population in Spain will quadruple.
In Germany, the debate over Muslim immigration is being fuelled by a new
book titled "Germany Does Away With Itself." The book, written by Thilo
Sarrazin, a prominent German banker and a former government official, has
triggered a public discussion over how to fix Germany's broken immigration
system, which has done little or nothing to integrate the country's Muslim
population.
In his book, Sarrazin criticizes Islam as a source of violence, and blames
Muslim immigrants for refusing to integrate. "No other religion in Europe is so
demanding and no other migration group depends so much on the social welfare
state and is so much connected to criminality," he writes.
Sarrazin, who is long-time member of the centre-left Social Democrats,
predictably has infuriated the uppity guardians of German political correctness.
They have asked German President Christian Wulff to dismiss Sarrazin from the
board of the German central bank, the Bundesbank.
But in a sign that change may be afoot in Germany, the centre-left newspaper
Süddeutsche Zeitung agreed that Sarrazin has "addressed a problem that will
remain long after the waves of outrage have subsided: the enormous integration
deficit of the Muslim minority in Germany, or at least of disturbingly large parts
of it."
123

Princeton University's Bernard Lewis once told the German newspaper Die Welt
that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century." At the time, European
political elites expressed outrage at the prediction. But if current trends persist,
Lewis (and Gaddafi) may yet be proven right.

The Western World “en masse” against Islam, a must
Now I want to talk about what is happening in Germany and the resistance that
is starting to rise in Europe against Islam. People are starting to speak out
against the Islamic invasion but they are facing opposition from the government.
The reason the media lost interest is that they found out who was behind it.
CAIR, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, always tries to portray everything in
a way the supports their idea of islamophobia, as they did in this case. The
problem is that the person who was arrested for starting the fire was not only a
devout Muslim, he was an attendee of that particular mosque.
This is not the first time something like this happened. In February there was a
Muslim man found guilty of murdering someone and they tried to portray it as
islamophobia. They later we found it was not. In 2014 a Muslim was found
guilty of killing his wife after first blaming the murder on islamophobia.
The facts on the burning of the mosque in Houston make us wonder if this
wasn’t done purposely to make a claim of persecution of Muslims. After the
attack in San Bernardino there was a mosque set on fire. Are the officials
looking into to this as possibly being something similar? Is the media ever going
to cover the real truth on things like this?
I believe that the story on the Houston mosque died out because it didn’t fit the
narrative the media wanted to present. Had the one who set the fire been a white
man, or had he been a right-wing Republican, we know that they would have run
the story until they couldn’t squeeze any more out of it. Once they found out it
was a Muslim the story was buried.
Let’s move to the Middle East. Something happened last Friday that is of great
concern. The Saudi government executed 47 terrorists, most of whom were
affiliated with Al Qaida, but one of them was the top Shi’ite cleric in Saudi
Arabia, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr. This created an international incident between
Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran had warned the Saudis that if the executed Sheikh
Nimr al-Nimr there would be dire consequences.
To understand why this created such an incident we have to understand the
relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran is the largest Shi’ite country in
the world and Saudi Arabia is Sunni and the place where Islam started. The
conflict between the Shi’ite and the Sunni Muslims goes back to the death of
Muhammad. It has to do with who is the true successor of Muhammad. The
124

Shi’ite Muslims reject the first three caliphs that came after Muhammad. They
only recognize the 4th caliph because they believe that the caliph must be a direct
descendant or a blood relative of Muhammad. The Sunni Muslims recognize the
first three caliphs.
This difference has caused great strife since the beginning of Islam. It continues
to this day and it is a major part of why Saudi Arabia and Iran don’t like each
other.
They agree on the essentials of Islam but their differences come down to two or
three areas. One difference is their views of eschatology (doctrines of the end
times). The Shi’ites believe that the Islamic messiah (Mahdi) is going to come
out of Iran. In 1979, when Khomeini came into power, they thought he was
going to be the Mahdi until he died in 1989. Today they believe the Mahdi is in
a well in Iran. The Sunnis believe that the Mahdi will come out of Sunni Islam.
There is also a power conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is about power,
oil, and money.
I believe there is also a psychological divide. People often ask why there is this
divide within the house of Islam. I believe it is part of the Lord’s hand to keep
Islam divide. Can you imagine what it would be like if the house of Islam was
unified at all times?
There are those who say that if Iran gets the nuclear bomb, they will not only
use it against Israel and America, they would also go after Saudi Arabia. I
believe that the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia would agree with the Iranians
because they see the royal family as corrupted.
One blessing that could come from this conflict between the Saudis and the
Iranians is that it may mean more peace toward Israel for a time. If they are
fighting between themselves they won’t have as much time to focus on Israel.
There is another incident that happened in Colorado. Almost 200 Muslims
walked off their job at a meat packing plant over prayer. The plant was allowing
them to have their prayer time, but they could only have three leave the
processing line at a time. They couldn’t allow more people to take their break at
one time because it would shut down the line. Eleven Muslims said they wanted
to take their break at the same time.
When the Muslims walked off the job they were fired. They broke company
policy. The company was providing for their religious expressions but they
wanted more. I say kudos to the company for not backing down.
In Europe, 200 Subway restaurants have submitted to Shariah Law and have
removed all of their ham and bacon sandwiches from their menu. All of their
meat is now halal compliant. This will come to America if we don’t wake up.
We can already see it happening in places like Dearborn, MI.
125

One of the things that concerns us about the flood of Muslims through the
resettlement program is that they are not going to assimilate into our culture. As
they grow in number they well demand more and more accommodation to their
Sharia Law.
There are Somali Muslims in Michigan who are on welfare demanding that the
food banks have a halal section. Remember, they are living off our dime, and
they think they have the right to make demands like this. We saw something
similar in Europe when the Muslims were refusing to accept the food being
offered them because it came from Christians and was not Islamically certified.
I believe we live in an age of stupidity and willful ignorance. Political
Correctness is not only going to bring the death of Europe and America, it will
bring the death of the whole Western civilization. It has already brought the
death of common sense.
Let’s look at the flip side of this. Do you thing that Islamic nations are as
accommodating of Western ways and Christian values? You know they would
not because they already do not.
We must demand assimilation into our culture by those we allow in or we will
lose our nation. This is happening in Europe, and it is the message I have been
trying to get out in America.
Back in 2010 some of the European leaders admitted to the problem. Angela
Merkel, the German Chancellor, said that multiculturalism and utterly failed.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister of England, Sarcozy of France followed
suit. This is three major European leaders that admitted that allowing other
cultures to come into their countries without assimilating is a failure. It does not
work, and it destroys your own nation. Something keeps them from really
standing up for this even though they know that it doesn’t work.
I don’t know what Merkel is trying to do with this, but it seems like she is trying
to destroy German culture for the sake of Muslims. The German people are
pushing back against her agenda.
Shahram has a personal friend who has been charged with a crime for standing
up and speaking out against this. Her name is Heidi Mund, and she is a Christian
activist who is standing up against the influx of Muslim “refugees.”
The people of Germany are saying they believe this will result in a civil war. It
will be a war for the survival of the German culture and Western civilization in
Germany. They are saying that they have been invaded. We have to ask why
these European leaders have sold out. Are they receiving money or something
else for their complicity.
Heidi Mund was an atheist when she was in East Germany under communist
rule. After the wall fell she became a Christian. Heidi became well known a
couple of years ago because of an event at a church. They had an interfaith
126

concert. There was an imam that was invited to pray. He started to do the
Muslim call to prayer in Arabic exalting Allah. She felt led of God to stand up
an rebuke what was happening and saying that Allah is not the true God. She
was kicked out of the event. Some of the newspapers got a hold of her story and
dubbed her the “brave German woman.”
Heidi has been standing up against the Islamization of Germany. She was in
Shahram’s church last year and asked “Where are the men?” There are a few
women in Germany who are standing up, but the men are sadly lacking. The
churches are also refusing to stand up. A lot of the German evangelical churches
have turned their back on Heidi saying that she is too radical.
Heidi is a Street evangelist. She sets up a table and tries to reach people,
especially Muslims. She has a tremendous heart for bringing Muslims for Christ.
On German Unity Day, she called for a prayer chain around Germany to
represent a spiritual wall, which, by God’s authority, would withstand the
powers of darkness. She has caused quite a stir, and now requires a police escort
wherever she goes.
Heidi has, because of the prayer chain, been charged by the local DA of
agitation against a people. She was accused after making prayer suggestions.
Can you imagine being charged of a crime because you called for prayer for a
specific subject? That is what we are facing today.
We need to realize that the United Nations Resolution 16/18 is behind this kind
of thing. It is a resolution not to denigrate another’s religion, more specifically
Islam. We know that it is for the protection of Islam because it is not used when
Christianity is denigrated.
European countries are integrating this resolution into their legal system. This is
relatively new. I moved out of the United Kingdom back in 2008, and at that
time we could do some things we can’t do here. For example we could go into
the British schools and teach out of the Bible. We used to speak at assemblies in
the British public schools.
Now they are going against Heidi’s prayer. They have charged her with a crime
for simply recommending a prayer.
A similar thing happened to a street preacher in Ireland and he was taken to
court. Fortunately the verdict came back not guilty.
The sad thing is that those who stand against the evils of Islam are being
persecuted. Heidi has a heart for Muslims. Like those of us at Fortress of Faith,
she wanted to see Muslims get saved (???). We don’t condemn the people, the
Muslims, but we do resist the system of Islam.
Heidi is being charged with a crime for her prayer. This is something she said.
She did not incite any violence against Muslims. She did not call upon anyone to
127

take up arms. She simply asked God to protect Germany from a false religion. If
you didn’t hear of these things it would almost be impossible to believe that they
could happen.
We know that Germany has welcomed in hundreds of thousands of Muslim
refugees. We know that the majority of the refugees are young men. We know
that there has been a sharp increase in violent attacks, especially against women.
We also know that they are bringing in illness, and other problems. The worst
part is the islamization of Germany. These things are indisputable facts.
Heidi has been living this. She was part of a group of citizens called “Pegida
Rhein Main,” which is similar to Act for America here. It is a grass roots
movement with hundreds of thousands of people throughout Germany who are
concerned about what is happening in their nation. They want to preserve their
Western values and way of life and stop the islamization of their country.
This group is very patriotic and wants to protect the sovereignty of Germany and
somehow the media and the liberal elite think it is crazy to do so. They are now
calling Pegida “Nazis.” This is always what the left does when someone opposes
their ideas. Germans are very sensitive about this because they are still living
down what happened under Hitler. Heil Hitler!
Heidi and her Husband actually tried to start a chapter of Pegida in their
community. Because of this her husband was fired from his job and they lost
their income. They are about to lose their home in Germany. There are police
patrols around her all the time because of threats against her.
On German Unity Day Heidi called for a human prayer chain around Germany.
In an article in a German newspaper she is called a radical Christian and said she
called for an act of rebellion and opposition. Can you believe that calling for a
prayer chain in Germany is now an act of rebellion and opposition? Here is her
suggested prayer:
“We pray for the real refugees, that they should again have hope for life,
that our God will comfort them,…. (and) against the massive immigration
of 90% young Muslim men, who should not be building their own
homeland here and that they should not rape our girls and women; that
they should be sent with the word of God – the Bible – back into their
own home countries, there where they belong,… (We pray) against
sickness and disease which the immigrants have brought with them,…We
ask God for angels to stand on Germany’s borders as well as on the
borders of Europe.”
Because of this prayer she has been charged with agitation against the people.
She is charged with a crime for calling for prayer for Germany and for its
protection and against the islamization of her country. We have prayed for these
same things here in America. In Shahram’s church they have prayed that God
128

would break the curse of Islam over America. Heidi is facing criminal
prosecution for this. I believe it is in our future if we don’t stand up against it
before it is too late.
I don’t believe the intent of the German government is to put Heidi in jail, I
believe it is to make her life miserable fighting this charge. I think the real
purpose for what is going on is to intimidate those who would stand up and
speak the truth about Islam. It is part of law fare in which Muslims use our own
laws against us. I think it is coming to America because it is part of Islam’s
game plan to take over the world.
It is sad that those who are trying to defend the German culture and protect it
from foreigners who are not coming to assimilate, but to force their culture upon
the German people, are being persecuted by the very government they are trying
to save. It is like what is happening here in America. If you are a
constitutionalist, if you are a patriot, if you stand for freedom you are being
called a terrorist by the liberals.
We need to understand that the strategy of the left is to call names and
intimidate the opposition to shut them up. They don’t argue facts they just call
names and try to intimidate.
We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to be called all kinds of dirty and
offensive names for standing for truth. We can expect this from the left wing
media and politicians, but are we ready for it coming from others who profess to
be Christians?
This is already happening. Those of us who are not excited about the influx of
Muslim refugees are being portrayed as unloving, etc. Remember that the
Attorney General, after the San Bernardino attack, was more concerned with
someone saying something offensive about Islam and Muslims than she was
about the fact that Muslims are attacking and killing Americans. She said they
would prosecute anti-Muslim rhetoric that edges toward violence. Who defines
that? Could not what we say at Fortress of Faith be considered anti-Muslim
rhetoric? We speak out against the ideology of Islam. Although, when pressed,
she backed off her statement, we know what is in her heart by what she said.
We know that the UN Resolution 16/18 I mentioned earlier is already in the
State Department policy. One Homeland Security employee was silenced by the
Civil Rights Division for monitoring the social media accounts of Muslims in
America because it would be seen as offending Muslims. They are more
concerned about offending Muslims that they are about Muslims killing
Americans.

129

As an Atheist I condemn the Abrahamic religions
including the Islam
I have officially now stopped caring whatever the hell people say and write on
Facebook about me since I became an atheist since 2010 ending. I damn Islam
settled in our Western countries as well, and mostly. The most gruesome,
violent, sadistic, xenophobic, discriminatory religion is the Islam, while they call
themselves the “Religion of Peace (Salaam), how dare they.”. The recent attacks
in Paris 2015) and recently the attacks in Zaventem and Brussels have removed
the last bit of pity I feel toward Muslims and Sufism I liked to attend previous
century. Why do we only see Islamic terrorism? Why don't we see Christians
blowing themselves up in the HQ of the freedom from religion foundation? Why
don't we see Atheists beheading Christians? Why is it only Islamic terrorism that
we see in this twenty-first century? People must realise there is not a problem
with extremism, there is a immense problem with worshipping a paedophile
Prophet (piss be upon him). I am sick and tired of this religion as of all religions,
I am sick and tired of Western countries having to deal with this bullshit, we do
welcome them in our first world countries and all they do is blow themselves up
in the name of a stupid psychopathic sky daddy and claim Sharia Law to be
imposed and above the governments that welcomed them in open arms from
misery. Throughout my life and I am 77, I have always defended moderate
Muslims (which I am now doubting their existence) and told people to not
generalise the whole Muslim population, but this is absolutely enough, this
religion is ruining our Western way of life, either "normal" Muslims stand up
against these psychopaths and try to stop them, or they can get the fuck out of
non-Muslim countries. I am so sorry for any liberal accepting Muslims out there,
I really am, but I have to vent out this rage. Sadly, Islam is not compatible with
the twenty-first century, like it or not. We must expulse the Islam from our
Western countries and quickly. If I am beheaded after all this, you will know
where to look to find the murderers in the name of Allah, man’s brainwork.

130

About the Moderator and Historical Researcher
Personal honour means, for
example, we judge others – of
whatever culture and of whatever
perceived ethnicity – solely on the
basis of our personal knowledge of
them, and not according to some
abstract criteria, political or
otherwise. That is, there is no
prejudice concerning them – no prejudgement of them – and no
assumptions made about them, as
there is no reliance upon the
opinions or the judgements of
others, for honour, our Reichsfolk
ethos, demands that we form our
own judgement based on personal
knowledge and on the use of the
faculty of reason. That is, we give
individuals the benefit of the doubt
unless or until their actions lead us
to judge them in a critical way. This
is the human, the fair, the civilized
thing to do.

Contents
Foreword
Belgium in war-time
King Leopold III and World War II
Luxembourg in war-time
The Battle of Bulge
The Netherlands in war-time
France in war-time
French resistance: Gisele Guillemot remembers
Treaty of Versailles
Leagues of Nations France and Great Britain
The Fall of France
131

2
8
13
13
14
17
25
26
27
29
30

Adolf Hitler and the Jehovah’s Witness
Anti-Semitism rise across Europe in worse times since Nazism
Today’s historical events: The sleeping world is awakening to the
danger of Islam
Anti-Islamism in Europe today
Problem of Muslim Immigration Rise of Islamism in Europe
Islam in Belgium and the danger for Belgian Natives
Labour Market (Housing/Education)
State and Church
Muslims in Politics
Muslim Organizations
Islamic Education
Immigration
Security and Anti-Terrorism
Confronting Sharia laws in Belgium
Islam in France: the French way of Life is in Danger
Will France remain French?
I. Demographic disparity
II. Outside the Mainstream
III. Increasing religious assertiveness
IV. Islam’s appeal to non-Muslims
Other factors and Conclusion
Appendix: Muslim immigration to France
Europe: Suicided by Belgian Jihads
The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later
We must fight the Islam with its cruel political ideology
Anti-Islam moods grow in Europe
Extreme Right Wing Groups taking root in Europe
Extreme-Right is quiet in Norway
Greater Extreme-Right in Finland and well-grounded- Combining
sources
Difference in monitors
Is low unemployment Norway’s secret?
Some strange mixes in Europe
Explosive in Bulgaria and Poland
The English Defence League is the largest of such groups
Extreme-Right Groups in Europe (list)
Sharia Courts inside Great Britain
London (East London)
Islamic Law to be enshrined in British Laws
Capital punishment under the Sharia
The Death Sentence for Unbelievers
Expelling Christians and Jews from the Arab Peninsula
132

32
34
38
41
44
50
51
52
55
56
59
60
61
62
66
67
68
69
72
74
77
78
81
82
85
87
88
90
90
91
92
92
93
93
94
104
106
109
111
113
115

Islamic Conquest after death of Muhammad
Muslim Sharia support around the world
Islam though extremely dangerous has entered Europe
Will Islam become the religion of Europe?
The Western World “en masse” against Islam, a must
As an Atheist I condemn the Abrahamic religions including the Islam
About the Moderator and Historical Researcher and Contents

© May 2016 – Skull Press EBooks, Ghent, Belgium
(Non-commercial – Free download)

133

116
117
119
120
124
130
131

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close