Appeasement in Europe, Then and Now By Robert Spencer

It is astounding to informed onlookers that Europe would again be pursuing a policy of appeasement, after providing the world during the run-up to World War II with the most spectacular example in the history of the world of the failure of such policies. But hindsight is easy; in the 1930s, Britain and France were both war-weary and horrified by the pointless carnage of World War I. In that context, it seemed reasonable to make concessions, even ones with significant political ramifications, in order to ensure a lasting peace. Increasing sentiment in both countries that the Treaty of Versailles had been unjust to the Germans, and that those injustices needed to be redressed, compounded these sentiments.

Appeasement-minded politicians, therefore, believed that the course they were pursuing would heal the long-standing enmity between Germany and the Western democracies, and head off another world war. On September 27, 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain explained and defended the appeasement policy in an address to the British people and a speech in the House of Commons. He positioned himself as the representative of those who were deeply worried by the prospect of another world war:

First of all I must say something to those who have written to my wife or myself qin these last weeks to tell us of their gratitude for my efforts and to assure us of their prayers for my success. Most of these letters have come from women -- mothers or sisters of our own countrymen. But there are countless others besides -- from France, from Belgium, from Italy, even from Germany, and it has been heartbreaking to read of the growing anxiety they reveal and their intense relief when they thought, too soon, that the danger of war was past.

He went on, infamously: “If I felt my responsibility heavy before, to read such letters has made it seem almost overwhelming. How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. “ If a world war must break out, he suggested that it should be over something more important than the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia: “If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that. “ He told the Commons that he was being inundated with letters from people who were asking “if they were asked to go to war in order that the Sudeten Germans might not join the Reich. “ He claimed that by dismembering Czechoslovakia, he was saving it from “annihilation “ and giving it “a chance of new life as a new State, which involves the loss of territory and fortifications, but may perhaps enable her to enjoy in the future and develop a national existence under a neutrality and security comparable to that which we see in Switzerland to-day.

The parallels with the present situation are many, even though in the global jihad today Europe doesn’t face a conventional threat from a nation-state. Nevertheless, Sharia supremacists wish to transform and remake in their own image Western European societies no less thoroughly than did the Nazis. And after World War II, Vietnam and the Cold War, the West in general is just as war-weary, if not more so, than Europe was in the 1930s. Recalling the dissatisfaction in the democracies with the Versailles Treaty and the devastation it had wrought upon the German economy, many influential politicians in both Europe and the United States believe that the foreign policy posture of the United States and Britain since September 11, 2001 has been unjust to the Islamic world – and unjust to the extent that it has created resentments that would disappear if this posture were abandoned.

Add to this mix a multiculturalist ethos that exalts the presence of foreign and non-assimilated cultures within Western countries perceived as large umbrella structures for a huge variety of diverse peoples, and the stage is set for a policy of appeasement of political agenda and the ideology of Islamic supremacism. European elites today believe that by admitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants into their country and making special accommodations for Islamic culture and practices, Europe will achieve a new cultural flowering – but left unconsidered in this is the nature of political Islam, which when dominant is hardly hospitable to rival political systems or cultures.

Britain: cultural concessions and cultural collapse

Cultural appeasement has become the norm in Europe today. The old model of requiring that immigrants assimilate and adopt the customs and mores of their new country has given way to a multiculturalist model that envisions immigrants maintaining their own practices and cultural habits in their new country. In the case of Islam, since Islamic law contains a complete model for society and governance that is considered to be divinely inspired and superior to all its rivals, multiculturalism accommodation is short-sighted, and tantamount to cultural suicide. And given that Islam also is unique among the religions of the world in containing a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers, this accommodation is difficult to distinguish, either in intention or effect, from outright appeasement.

The nation in which this policy stands most vividly exposed as appeasement pure and simple is Britain. Many of its cultural accommodations border on the risible:

British schools dropped teaching about the Holocaust for fear that Muslim students would find the lessons offensive.
British officials spent thousands of pounds reorienting prison toilets so that they wouldn’t face Mecca (Islam forbids Muslims to face Mecca or turn their back to it when urinating or defecating).
The Association of Chief Police Officers in July 2008 ordered that police sniffer dogs wear “booties “ when searching inside the homes of Muslim suspects, in order to avoid offending against the Islamic principle that dogs are unclean.
The British banks Halifax and NatWest banned piggy banks to keep from offending Muslims, as Islam also considers pigs unclean. Despite the fact that piggy banks do not include any pork or pork products, Salim Mulla of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, was pleased: “This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers. “
A non-Muslim teacher disciplined two schoolchildren after they refused to participate in classroom exercises that involved reciting Islamic prayers. The mother of one of the boys commented: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far. I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer. Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful. “ Another parent remarked: “The school is wonderful but this one teacher has made a major mistake. It seems to be happening throughout society. People think they can ride roughshod over our beliefs and the way we live. “
An 18-year-old boy with Down’s syndrome and a mental age of five was charged with “racial assault “ after a playground scuffle with a Muslim schoolmate at the special needs department of Motherwell College in Lanarkshire.

Many Muslims have spoken about their intention to impose, as soon as they are able to do so, Islamic law, Sharia, upon the non-Muslim populations of Western countries. They are doing so today by portraying accommodation of Islamic law as a matter of “civil rights “ and multiculturalist “diversity. “ This effort got a tremendous shot in the arm in Britain in July 2008, when the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said in an address at the London Muslim Centre that “it is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by law other than English law. “ Including Islamic law? Yes: “There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. “

At first glance there was nothing remarkable in this. The Lord Chief Justice was calling simply for the voluntary application of Sharia in private arbitration, and emphasized that the decisions of such arbitration would be subject to British law: “So far as the law is concerned, “ he explained, “those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts. “ As such, “it must be recognised however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales. “

What’s more, he decisively rejected the idea that the notorious Sharia penalties of stoning for adultery and amputation for theft would be implemented in Britain: “There can be no question of such sanctions being applied to or by any Muslim who lives within this jurisdiction. “

But if he hedged his statement about the use of Sharia for private arbitration so carefully, why were the Lord Chief Justice’s remarks a victory for the stealth jihad? The answer to this lies in the nature of Sharia itself. In Islamic law, private matters are not so easy to separate from public ones. If a woman is judged in a private Sharia court to be guilty of adultery, the Sharia penalty is stoning. The Lord Chief Justice spoke coolly of not allowing such punishments, but once the principle that Sharia can be applied in Britain is accepted, calls to increase its scope will begin immediately. The next step will be challenges to the principle he stated that whenever British law and Sharia come into conflict, Sharia must give way. And given the prevailing multiculturalist relativism, soon enough that principle will give way also.

In his address Lord Phillips praised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who famously said in February 2008 that it was “inevitable “ that Sharia would come to Britain. “An approach to law which simply said – there’s one law for everybody - I think that’s a bit of a danger, “ said the Archbishop. He had apparently forgotten, if he ever knew, that the idea of “one law for everybody “ was one of the great achievements of Judeo-Christian civilization, and was rooted in the idea of the dignity of all human beings as created in the image of God. Once a society discards the principle of “one law for everybody, “ it lays the groundwork for protected and privileged classes, and ends up inevitably with a tyranny in which some groups are denied basic rights.

Lord Phillips and Archbishop Williams appear to be unaware that if Muslims ever came to power in Britain, they themselves would enforce one law for everybody -- a law that would reduce both of them to a second-class status of institutionalized discrimination.
They will, before too long, to find that those they have been so earnest to accommodate are not mollified at all by their actions, but have come up with new lists of demands. As there is always more Sharia to accommodate, at a certain point they will have to draw the line – or else consent without a struggle to their conquest and Islamization.

The inevitable outcome of this appeasement policy came in August 2008, when Muslim town council leaders at the Tower Hamlets Council in east London issued edicts banning all councilors, Muslim and non-Muslim, from eating during meetings before sunset during Ramadan. One non-Muslim Councillor, Stephanie Eaton, protested: “Our community consists of a huge number of different religions, all of which should be valued, and no one religion should be accorded more status or influence than others. “

She was, of course, right about that, but she and all British non-Muslims should have known that the Tower Hamlets Council food ban was an inevitable result of the accommodation of Muslim practices in Britain. Given the political and supremacist character of traditional Islam, it was only a matter of time before calls for special accommodation of Muslim practices would lead to the next step: demands that non-Muslims behave in accordance with Muslim sensibilities.

Step by step, Sharia is coming to Britain, and still very few Britons have noticed, or decided to resist. The mainstream parties are completely AWOL on this issue, leaving the field to race separatists who cloud the issue by bringing in questions of ethnicity that are actually quite distinct from the question of whether or not Britain will acquiesce to being subjugated under Islamic law. This led to the unfortunate fact that three years after the July 7, 2005, jihad terror attacks in London, the jihad in Britain was stronger than ever – and it has gained much of its strength from proceeding not by means of more terrorist attacks, but by means of a stealth jihad of taking advantage of the Britons’ anxiety to accommodate Muslims – and of course, the same stealth jihad is advancing also on the European Continent and, to a lesser extent, in America as well.

France: supine authorities, assertive minorities

French authorities have also been reluctant to antagonize their growing and restive Muslim minority. The multiculturalism that has utterly taken over among the Western intelligentsia has made it difficult for them to take action against Muslim jihadist doctrines even when they threaten the stability of secular society. According to Michel Zaoui of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF), “The previous leftist government didn’t do anything to discourage anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propositions by militant Islamic preachers, in part because their philosophy was to show sympathy to the ‘damned’ and poor. Now, the rightist government would like to act but is afraid of antagonizing Muslims. “

Indeed, when the popular French writer Michel Houellebecq called Islam “the stupidest religion “ and “a dangerous religion right from the start, “ he was hauled into court on charges of inciting racial hatred — though, of course, Muslims are of all races. The rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, who is generally regarded as supportive of the French secular regime, cried: “Islam has been reviled, attacked with hateful words. My community has been humiliated. “

Houellebecq faced a 70,000-euro fine and eighteen months in prison, but he was ultimately cleared of the charges. The late Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, author of a rhetorical attack on Islam entitled The Rage and the Pride, faced unsuccessful attempts by French Muslims to get the book banned. The guardians of “tolerable “ speech had better luck against Sixties screen siren Brigitte Bardot, who has been convicted five times in her native France for “inciting racial hatred “ – in every case for remarks considered denigrating to Muslims. In June 2008, a court fined the 73-year-old Bardot 15,000 euros (around $23,000) as punishment for writing that the Islamic community in France was “destroying our country and imposing its acts. “ The court apparently didn’t consider the possibility that imposing Islamic law was precisely what many Muslims in France had in mind.

Though the charges against Houllebecq and Fallaci didn’t stick, these trials set a dangerous precedent. While one can say anything one desires about Christianity without facing criminal charges, Islam is regarded as a protected minority religion—and perhaps, covertly, as being too volatile to criticize without risk of violence.

Meanwhile, Islam is on the march in France, as has been seen with the electoral success early in the decade of the Union of French Islamic Organizations (UOIF), which represents most of the 1,500 mosques in France. The UOIF is linked both with the Saudi Wahhabis and the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. At the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, the Brotherhood recruited several thousand Egyptians to fight in Iraq in the name of jihad. In France the UOIF is a voice of Islamic reaction — at its conventions (which have been attended by upwards of 100,000 people) it sponsors workshops with titles like “Liberated Women, De-Natured Women. “ UOIF secretary-general Fouad Alaoui, after negotiations with the government on the status of Muslims in France, announced that he rejected a “definition of secularism that seals off religion in the private sphere. “ UOIF President Thami Breze declared his support for a “modification of secularism, in order to respect certain specificities of Islam. “ Just as Czechoslovakia’s borders had to modified in 1938 to appease Hitler, so would French secularism have to be modified in the twenty-first century to appease the social and political imperatives of Muslims in France.

In the face of this the French government created an Islamic Council that would ease the integration of Muslims into French society as a whole. This initially backfired, when in April 2003, the UOIF won 19 of 58 seats on the Council, compared to only 15 for the group favored by the government, the moderate Mosque of Paris. Also, some twenty percent of French mosques refused to have anything at all to do with the Council, which was formed with the express purpose of creating an “official Islam for France. “

Why would the French government want to create an “official Islam for France “? Perhaps it is because the French government recognizes Islam as a looming threat to France’s identity and sovereignty. Journalist Christopher Caldwell noted in 2003:

. . . practically all of France’s 1,200 mosques are funded by foreign governments. Of the country’s 230 major imams, none is French. In fact, imams are often chosen by foreign governments for loyalty to their ideological priorities. These priorities are decidedly not those of France. One imam in Roubaix met Lille mayor Martine Aubry on the edge of the Muslim-majority neighborhood where he preaches, declaring it Islamic territory into which Mme. Aubry — the most important minister of labor in modern French history, the early favorite to win France’s presidential elections in 2007, and the daughter of former prime minister Jacques Delors — had no authority to venture. “

And according to Antoine Sfeir of Paris’s Middle East Studies Center, “For a long time the UOIF has been trying to infiltrate the cogs of state and assume control of the Muslim community by marginalising secular Muslims. “

Sarkozy: strong and weak

Mme. Aubry, of course, was not elected President of France in 2007. Nicolas Sarkozy was – a man who had appeared to be anything but an appeaser after the UOIF’s electoral victory, when he was Interior Minister. At that time Sarkozy warned Islamic extremists: “We want to say very simply: imams who propagate views that run counter to French values will be expelled. “ He simultaneously affirmed that Muslims had a place in France: “It is precisely because we recognize the right of Islam to sit at the table of the republic that we will not accept any deviation....Any prayer leader whose views run contrary to the values of the republic will be expelled. “

And Sharia? “Islamic law will not apply anywhere, because it is not the law of the French republic. “

In March 2007, shortly before he was elected President, Sarkozy affirmed French cultural integrity when asked about Islamic polygamy, which is widely practiced in France:

Question: What do you think of polygamy?

Answer: I respect all cultures throughout the world, but so that it is quite clear: if I am elected President of the Republic, I will not accept women being treated as inferior to men. The French Republic holds these values: respect for women, equality between men and women. Nobody has the right to hold a prisoner, even within his own family. I say it clearly, that polygamy is prohibited in the territory of the French Republic. I will fight against female genital mutilation and those who do not wish to understand that the values of the French Republic include freedom for women, the dignity of women, respect for women -- they do not have any reason to be in France. If our laws are not respected and if one does not wish to understand our values, if one does not wish to learn French, then one does not have any reason to be on French territory.

For statements of this kind, Sarkozy was widely vilified among Muslims in France. And when he was elected President, young Muslim men in Paris rioted, smashing store windows and fighting with police in protest against his victory. Yet for all his fearsome reputation, Sarkozy also favored policies that opened the door to the appeasement of Muslims in France, and ultimately to the advancement of an Islamic supremacist agenda that would, in accordance with traditional Islamic law, relegate non-Muslims and women to inferior status.

Nor was this a reaction to Muslim anger at his being elected President: in the wake of the November 2005 Islamic riots that convulsed France, Sarkozy, then Interior Minister, spoke out in favor of “positive discrimination “ that would give preferential treatment to Muslims applying for jobs. While he explained that this would correct the discrimination that he said Muslims suffered from in France, he did not consider the possibility that this preferential treatment would only reinforce the deeply ingrained attitudes among Muslims that the believers were the “best of peoples “ (Qur’an 3:110) while unbelievers were the “vilest of created beings “ (Qur’an 98:6). This may not have been outright appeasement, but it was certainly as short-sighted as analyses by appeasers are generally.

When Sarkozy became President of France, he pressed forward with plans for a “Union for the Mediterranean, “ which would, he declared, do nothing less than “change the world. “ This association of European and North African majority-Muslim countries would give North African Muslims an unprecedented voice in the internal policies of Europe, and would endow their immigrant countrymen in Europe with power and influence beyond their numbers. Sarkozy, for his part, defended the project in terms that recalled Chamberlain speaking about his arrangements for the demise of Czechoslovakia. “Failure, “ said Sarkozy in April 2008, “would mean taking a terrible responsibility towards our children and all future generations. “

Fitna and free speech: A missed opportunity

And in March 2008, when Dutch politician Geert Wilders issued his film Fitna, which was critical of the way in which Muslims have used the Qur’an to justify violent acts, Sarkozy sided with Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who criticized Wilders. After Balkenende stated that he was in “total disagreement “ with Wilders and warned that the film could lead to violent Muslim protests, Sarkozy said that he supported Balkenende, and, according to a spokesman, was “highly aware of the question of Islam’s place in European societies, and French society in particular. “ Balkenende also tried to mollify Muslims by publicly disavowing the connection between Islam and violence: “We reject this interpretation, “ he declared. “The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. “

But was Wilders really responsible for the connection of Islam with violence? The answer can be found in the film itself. The main part of Fitna features a series of quotations from the Qur’an, followed by scenes of violent acts committed by Muslims.
For example, the first verse of the Qur’an presented in Fitna is 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies. “ Wilders follows this with heart-rending scenes from September 11 and the 2004 Madrid train bombings, as we hear two women, among the many victims, calling for help on those days. The women are indeed terrified, but what does this have to do with Qur’an 8:60? An Islamic preacher – not Wilders or any other non-Muslim -- soon appears in the film to answer this question, stating in terms that clearly recall that verse of the Qur’an: “Annihilate the infidels and the polytheists, your (Allah’s) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one. “

In short, the film was simply accurate – and Balkenende, Sarkozy and other European heads of state should have defended it. It was extremely unfortunate that they did not, and did not even seem to understand the full dimensions of the problem. For the release of the film became the pretext for an energetic effort by international Islamic organizations to restrict free speech in the West, particularly regarding Islam. At a time when Muslims around the world are committing acts of violence and justifying them by reference to Islamic teachings, this would restrict Western officials and media analysts from discussing the Islamic supremacist threat precisely at the moment when they were directly confronted by it.

The demand for legal protection from criticism is a central focus of the world’s most powerful Islamic organization, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is comprised of fifty-seven governments of Muslim-majority states (including the reified “State of Palestine “). The OIC in 2008 declared its intention to craft a “legal instrument “ to fight against the threat to Islam they perceived “from political cartoonists and bigots. “ “Islamophobia, “ declared OIC Secretary General Ekmelledin Ihsanoglu, “cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement. “ This is a careful euphemism calling for restrictions on freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, made this point explicit: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits. “

The OIC stepped up its international campaign against free speech Fitna appeared. The organization condemned the film in “the strongest terms, “ claiming that Wilders’ movie was “a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims “ intended only to “provoke unrest and intolerance. “

The attempt to compel Western states to ban insults to Islam is quickly picking up speed: by June 2008 Ihsanoglu was ready to declare victory in clearly supremacist terms: Muslims had dictated to the West the “red lines that should not be crossed, “ and the West was complying. He said that OIC initiatives against “Islamophobia “ had resulted in “convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam. “ He added: “In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film ‘Fitna’, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked. “

The success of this campaign bodes ill for the ability of those states to defend themselves against the global jihad in all its forms – since Islamic supremacists and their allies routinely characterize all investigation of the Islamic roots of the jihadist agenda as “hate speech. “ Sarkozy’s unwillingness or inability to see what was at stake – a malady he shared with virtually all European leaders -- boded ill for Europe’s future as a home of free people. As does its Chamberlainesque appeasement policy toward Islamic supremacism.

The Islamization of Europe

Will tourists in Paris in the year 2108 take a moment to visit the “mosque of Notre Dame” and the “Eiffel Minaret?” Through massive immigration and official dhimmitude from European leaders, Muslims are accomplishing today what they failed to do at the time of the Crusaders: conquer Europe. How quickly is Europe being Islamized? So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-filled career to be disingenuous about Islamic radicalism and terrorism, forthrightly told the German newspaper Die Welt: “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century.”

Or maybe sooner: if demographic trends continue, France, Holland, and other Western European nations could have Muslim majorities by mid-century. Meanwhile, these growing Muslim minorities are increasingly assertive and disruptive. Consider some recent indicators from other European nations:

Sweden’s third-largest city, Malmo has become a Middle East outpost in Scandinavia. A quarter of the city’s population is now Muslim, and that number is rapidly growing. Nor are the Muslims of Malmo inclined to be peaceful and tolerant. Even the police are afraid: “If we park our car it will be damaged — so we have to go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other vehicle,” reported a police officer in Malmo. Meanwhile, Swedish ambulance drivers will not enter some areas of Malmo unless police accompany them.” In April 2007, large-scale riots broke out in Malmo, with Muslims battling police and firemen, pelting them with stones and eggs.
The Nordgårdsskolen in Aarhus, Denmark, has become the first Dane-free school. The students now come entirely from Denmark’s fastest-growing constituency: Muslim immigrants.
Also in Denmark, the Qur’an is now required reading for all upper-secondary school students. There should be nothing wrong with requiring student to read the Qur’an, but given the current ascendancy of political correctness on the Continent, it is unlikely that critical perspectives will be included.
The Netherlands now recognized polygamous Muslim marriages, although as of August 2008 polygamy is still against the law in the Netherlands – if the polygamous marriage takes place outside the Netherlands, Dutch officials will accord it legal recognition.

What Europe has long sown it is now reaping. In her book Eurabia, Bat Ye’or, the pioneering historian of dhimmitude, chronicles how this has come to pass. Europe, she explains, began thirty years ago to travel down a path of appeasement, accommodation, and cultural abdication in pursuit of shortsighted political and economic benefits. She observes that today “Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a ‘civilization of dhimmitude,’ i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.”

If Western Europe does become Islamized, as demographic trends suggest, before too long America will be facing a world that is drastically different and more forbidding than today.

Neville Chamberlain, In Search of Peace, 1939, p. 393; and Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, London, HMSO, 1938, vol. 339, 12th vol. of session 1937-1938, pp. 361-369, 373.

Laura Clark, “Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims, “ Daily Mail, April 2, 2007.
Jamie Pyatt, “Jail loos turned from East, “ The Sun, January 31, 2007.
Stuart MacDonald, “Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees, “ Times of London, July 6, 2008.
“Piggy banks ‘offend UK Muslims,’ “ AAP, October 24, 2005.
Nick Britten, “Schoolboys disciplined for ‘refusing to pray to Allah,’ “ Telegraph, July 5, 2008.
Natasha Courtenay-Smith, “How can my son be racist, asks mother of Down’s boy charged after playground spat with Asian girl, “ Daily Mail, April 17, 2008.
Frances Gibb, “Case dismissed: Lord Chief Justice lays down law on Sharia, “ Times of London, July 4, 2008.
Christopher Hope and James Kirkup, “Muslims in Britain should be able to live under sharia, says top judge, “ Daily Mail, July 4, 2008.
Hope and Kirkup, “Muslims in Britain should be able to live under sharia, says top judge. “
Gibb, “Case dismissed. “
Hope and Kirkup, “Muslims in Britain should be able to live under sharia, says top judge. “
“Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable, “ BBC News, February 7, 2008.
“Muslim council chiefs ban ALL members from ‘tea and sandwiches’ in meetings which take place during Ramadan, “ Evening Standard, August 28, 2008.
Eva Cahen, “Report Records ‘Explosion’ of Anti-Semitic Violence in France, CNSNews.com, March 28, 2003.
Elizabeth Bryant, “Fallaci goes on trial for anti-Muslim book, “ United Press International, October 9, 2002.
Bardot Fined Over Racial Hatred, “ BBC News, June 3, 2008.
“The Many Faces of Islam, “ Time Europe, December 16, 2002.
“Egyptian volunteers line up to fight in Iraq, “ Agence France-Press, April 8, 2003.
Christopher Caldwell, “Allah Mode: France’s Islam problem, “ Weekly Standard, July 15, 2002.
Christopher Caldwell, “Allah Mode Part 2, “ Weekly Standard, July 6, 2002.
Kim Housego, “France May Expel Islamic Extremists, “ Associated Press, April 16, 2003.
Elaine Sciolino, “French Threaten Expulsions After Islam Radical Victory, “ New York Times, April 16, 2003.
Caldwell, “Allah Mode. “
Hugh Schofield, “France’s Islamic heartland, “ BBCNews, April 18, 2003.
Kim Housego, “France May Expel Islamic Extremists, “ Associated Press, April 16, 2003.
Sciolino, “French Threaten Expulsions. “
“Question : Qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la polygamie?, “ HYPERLINK "http://www.sarkozy.fr" www.sarkozy.fr, March 26, 2007. Translated by Robert Spencer.
“Youths in France continue to riot over Sarkozy victory, “ Reuters, May 8, 2007.
“Sarkozy call to help minorities, “ BBC News, December 29, 2005.
“Mideast conflict must not hinder Med Union-Sarkozy, “ Reuters, April 30, 2008.
“Sarkozy voices ‘support’ for Dutch PM in anti-Islam film row, “ Expatica, March 6, 2008.
“Muslims condemn Dutch lawmaker’s film, “ CNN, March 28, 2008.
Rukmini Callimachi, “Defame Islam, Get Sued?, “ Associated Press, March 14, 2008.
Rukmini Callimachi, “Defame Islam, Get Sued?, “ Associated Press, March 14, 2008.
“Muslims condemn Dutch lawmaker’s film, “ CNN, March 28, 2008.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, “Speech of Secretary General at the thirty-fifth session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, “ June 18, 2008.
“Europa wird am Ende des Jahrhunderts islamisch sein,” Die Welt, July 28, 2004.
Steve Harrigan, “Swedes Reach Muslim Breaking Point,” Fox News, November 26, 2004.
Bodil Brandoné, “Upplopp med bränder och stenkastning,” Sydvenskan.se, April 14, 2007.
“100 percent immigrants at Danish school,” DR Nyheder, September 9, 2004.
“Islam part of core curriculum in Danish schools,” DR Nyheder, September 13, 2004.
“Netherlands Recognizes Polygamous Muslim Marriages,” NIS News, August 12, 2008.
Bat Ye’or, “How Europe Became Eurabia,” FrontPageMagazine.com, July 27, 2004.