Fjordman: The Eurabia Code, Section 3

IN MARCH 2006, the two-day plenary session of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, held in Brussels approved a resolution which "condemned the offence" caused by the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad as well "as the violence which their publication provoked." These MEPs and national MPs from the EU and Arab countries also urged governments to "ensure respect for religious beliefs and to encourage the values of tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism."

During the parliamentary assembly, Egyptian parliament speaker Ahmed Sorour insisted that the cartoons published in Denmark and other recent events showed the existence of a "cultural deficit." Jordanian MP Hashem al-Qaisi also condemned the cartoons, claiming that it is not sufficient to deplore the cartoons as these things might occur again in another country.

This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. “Certainly ‘Islamic terrorism’ is something we will not use … we talk about ‘terrorists who abusively invoke Islam’,” an EU official said.
And European Parliament president Josep Borrell referred to the Mediterranean as "a concentrate of all the problems facing humanity." He said that after one year presiding over the assembly he "still did not fully understand the complexities of the Mediterranean." Following the cartoons affair, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had travelled to the Middle East and made joint statements with Islamic leaders that "freedom of the press entails responsibility and discretion and should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions." Solana said that he had discussed means to ensure that "religious symbols can be protected." He held talks with Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al Azhar University, the highest seat of learning in Sunni Islam, and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.

Solana also met with the leader of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu.

Islam Conflict

Conflict in the streets of Eurabia...

Following their discussion, Solana "expressed our sincere regret that religious feelings have been hurt", and vowed "to reach out… to make sure that people's hearts and minds are not hurt again."

Only a few years earlier, Mr. Solana, then Secretary General of NATO, in a speech stated that "the root cause of conflicts in Europe and beyond can be traced directly to the absence of democracy and openness. The absence of the pressure valve of democratic discourse can lead these societies to explode into violence." The irony that he himself is now trying to curtail the democratic discourse in Europe through the promotion of Islamic censorship apparently did not occur to him.

Meanwhile, the tentacles of the vast, inflated EU bureaucracy insinuate themselves into regulations on every conceivable subject. Some of the examples of the bureaucracy are ridiculous; some are funny. But it is the sinister side to the European bureaucracy:

1. The promotion of an official, "EU federal ideology" advocating Multiculturalism;
2. The denunciation as "xenophobes" of all those who want to preserve their democracy at the nation state level; and
3.Calling those who would limit Third World immigration "racists."

A report from the EU's racism watchdog said that more must be done to combat racism and "Islamophobia." One method of accomplishing this is the promotion of a lexicon which shuns purportedly offensive and culturally insensitive terms. This lexicon would set down guidelines for EU officials and politicians prohibiting what they may say. "Certainly 'Islamic terrorism' is something we will not use ... we talk about 'terrorists who abusively invoke Islam'," an EU official said.

Early in 2006, the EU's human rights commissioner Alvaro Gil-Robles's criticized a plan to revamp Christianity as a school subject in elementary schools in Denmark. Gil-Robles said doing so went against European values. "Religion as a school subject should be a general course that attempts to give students insight into the three monotheistic religions," he said. The "three monotheistic religions" means Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

As I see it, there are several possible ways of dealing with the issue of education about religion.

1. Teach the traditional religions within a particular country, which in Europe means Christianity and Judaism.
2. Teach all the major world religions.
3. Leave religion out of the curriculum.

What the European Union does, however, is to treat Islam as a traditional, European religion on par with Christianity and Judaism. This is a crucial component of Eurabian thinking and practice. Notice how EU authorities in this case directly interfered to force a once-independent nation state to include more teachings of Islam in its school curriculum in order to instill their children with a proper dose of Eurabian indoctrination.

Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.
Notice also that they didn't ask for more teaching of Buddhism or Hinduism. Only Islam is being pushed.

In another case, the European Commission rebuffed a call by the Polish president for an EU-wide debate on reinstating the death penalty. "The death penalty is not compatible with European values," a Commission spokesman said. Again, the issue here is not your opinion regarding the death penalty. The real issue is that the metasticizing EU has already defined for you what constitutes "European values." Thus, major issues are simply beyond public debate. This innocent-sounding phrase "European values" cloaks a federal, Eurabian ideology enforced across the entire European Union without regard to the popular will.

Perhaps the most shameful and embarrassing aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical and independent European media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. Aided by a pre-existing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, European media have been willing to demonize the United States and Israel while remaining largely silent on the topic Eurabia.

In May 2006, a big conference was held in Vienna involving media figures (journalists) from all over Europe, who met with partners from the Arab world as a part of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

European officials responded publicly with "regret" to Israel's ambassador to Austria Dan Ashbel's decision to boycott the conference on racism in the media because of concern in Jerusalem that anti-Semitism was getting short shrift at the meeting. Speaking for the conference—entitled "Racism, Xenophobia and the Media: Towards Respect and Understanding of all Religions and Cultures"—an official claimed that anti-Semitism was not taken off the agenda. This official countered that the meeting was "primarily a dialogue between the media representatives of all the Euro-Med partners on the problems that beset their profession. These include xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia [my emphasis]."

Writer Bruce Bawer thinks that many Europeans recognize that "multiculturalism" is leading their societies to disaster. But they've heard all their lives from officially approved authorities that any concern about multiculturalism and its consequences is tantamount to racism:

Eurasian Linkage

Eurasian Linkage

"There's a widespread resignation to the fact that multiculturalists control the media, academy, state agencies, and so on. They know very well that if you want to get ahead in European society, you don't take on multicultural orthodoxy. The political establishment seems solidly planted, unmovable, unchangeable. There may be a widespread rage, in short, but it's largely an impotent rage. Europeans today have been bred to be passive, to leave things to their leaders, whose wisdom they've been taught all their lives to take for granted. To shake off a lifetime of this kind of indoctrination is not easy."

According to Bat Ye'or, fear of awakening opposition to EU policy toward the Arab Mediterranean countries led to the repression of all discussion of the economic problems and difficulties of integration caused by massive immigration. Any criticism of Muslim immigration is basically brushed off as being "just like the Jews were talked about in Nazi Germany," a ridiculous but effective statement.

Bat Ye'or agrees with Bawer's analysis "concerning the totalitarian web cohesion of 'teachers, professors, the media, politicians, government agency workers, talking heads on TV, the representatives of state-funded "independent" organizations like SOS Racism' to indoctrinate the politically correct. This perfectly expresses the political directives given by the European Commission to coordinate and control in all EU member-states the political, intellectual, religious, media, teaching and publishing apparatus since the 1970s so as to harmonize with its Mediterranean strategy based on multiculturalism."

Professional harassment, boycott and defamation punish those who dare to openly challenge the Politically Correct discourse. According to Bat Ye'or, this has led to the development of a type of "resistance press" as if Europe were under the "occupation" of its own elected governments. This free press on the Internet and in blogs has brought some changes, including the rejection of the European Constitution in 2005. Despite overwhelming support for the Constitution by the governments in France and the Netherlands and a massive media campaign by political leaders in both countries, voters rejected it. Blogs played a significant part in achieving this.

Only a few months later, EU authorities lined up together with authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and the Chinese Communist Party in favor of "more international control with" (read: censorship of) the Internet.

According to Richard North of the EU Referendum blog, "The most dangerous form of propaganda is that which does not appear to be propaganda. And it is that form at which the BBC [the British Broadcasting Corporation] excels. Perhaps the biggest sin of all is that of omission. By simply not informing us of key issues, they go by default, unchallenged until it is too late to do anything about them."

Vladimir Bukovsky is a former Soviet dissident, author and human rights activist who spent a total of twelve years in Soviet prisons. Now living in England, he warns against some of the same anti-democratic impulses in the West, especially in the EU, which he views as an heir to the Soviet Union. In 2002, he joined in on protests against the BBC's compulsory TV licence. "The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech—publicising views they don't necessarily agree with." He has blasted the BBC for their "bias and propaganda," especially in stories related to the EU or the Middle East.

Conservative MP, Michael Gove and political commentator Mark Dooley also complain about lopsided coverage: "Take, for example, the BBC's coverage of the late Yasser Arafat. In one profile broadcast in 2002, he was lauded as an "icon" and a "hero," but no mention was made of his terror squads, corruption, or his brutal suppression of dissident Palestinians. Similarly, when Israel assassinated the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in 2004, one BBC reporter described him as "polite, charming and witty, a deeply religious man."

Yasser Arafat Waves

PLO Leader Yasser Arafat

This despite the fact that under Yassin's guidance, Hamas murdered hundreds."

Polish writer Nina Witoszek, now living in Norway, warns that people who have lived under Communist regimes are struck by a strange feeling of dejá vu in Western Europe:

"Before formulating a sentence, you put on a censorship autopilot which asks: Who am I insulting now? Am I too pro-Israeli, or maybe anti-Feminist, or - God forbid—anti-Islamic? Am I "progressive" enough? Soon we shall all write in a decaffeinated language: We shall obediently repeat all the benign mantras such as "dialogue," "pluralism," "reconciliation" and "equality." Norway has never been a totalitarian country, but many people now feel the taste of oppression and of being muzzled. I know many wise Norwegians—and even more wise foreigners—who no longer have the energy to waste time on contributing to a castrated, paranoid democracy. We prefer safety above freedom. This is the first step towards a voluntary bondage."

She quotes follow writer from Poland Czeslaw Milosz, who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980 for books such as The Captive Mind, where he explained the seductiveness of totalitarian ideology.

One essay by Milosz is titled "Ketman." "Ketman" or "kitman" is an Islamic term brought to Milosz's attention by Arthur Gobineau's book Religions and Philosophies of Central Asia. He had noticed that the dissidents in Persia, long accustomed to tyranny, had evolved a style of their own. The need for survival often involved more than just keeping your mouth shut, but of actively lying in every way necessary. This strategy of dissimulation and deceit, which is especially pronounced by Shia Muslims but also used by Sunnis, is primarily used to deceive non-Muslims, but can also be used against other Muslims under duress.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them.
According to Milosz, a very similar strategy was used in Communist countries. Similar to Islam, those practicing dissimulation felt a sense of superiority towards those who were stupid enough to state their real opinions openly. In Communist societies, dissimulation was just as much a technique of adaptation to an authoritarian regime as a conscious, theatrical form of art that became increasingly refined.

It is frightening to hear people who have grown up in former Communist countries say that they see this same totalitarian impulse at work in Western Europe now. According to them, we in the West are at least as brainwashed by Multiculturalism and Political Correctness as they ever were with Communism. It is frightening because I believe they are right. Have we witnessed the fall of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe only to see an Iron Veil descend on Western Europe? An Iron Veil of EU bureaucracy and Eurabian treachery, of Political Correctness, Multicultural media censorship and the ever-present threat of Muslim violence and terrorism that is gradually extinguishing free speech. The momentum of bureaucratic treachery is accelerating.

Native Europeans and indeed some non-Muslim immigrants are quietly leaving in growing numbers, gradually turning the continent into a net exporter of refugees rather than an importer of them. When large parts of Europe are being overrun by barbarians—actively aided and abetted by our own trusted leaders—and when people are banned from opposing this onslaught, is Western Europe still a meaningful part of the Free World? Have the countries of Eastern Europe gone from one "Evil Empire" to another? Are they—and we—back in the EUSSR?

Vaclav Klaus, the conservative President of the Czech Republic, has complained that: "Every time I try to remove some piece of Soviet-era regulation, I am told that whatever it is I am trying to scrap is a requirement of the European Commission."

In an interview with Paul Belien of the Brussels Journal in February 2006, Vladimir Bukovksy warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. Mr Bukovsky called the EU a "monster" that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fully-fledged totalitarian state.

"The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people "Europeans", whatever that means. According to Communist doctrine as well as to many forms of Socialist thinking, the state, the national state, is supposed to wither away. In Russia, however, the opposite happened. Instead of withering away the Soviet state became a very powerful state, but the nationalities were obliterated. But when the time of the Soviet collapse came these suppressed feelings of national identity came bouncing back and they nearly destroyed the country. It was so frightening."

Timothy Garton Ash is considered a leading expert on Europe's future. Bruce Bawer views Garton Ash as typical of Europe's political élite. Ash mistrusts national patriotism but adores the EU. He writes about the need for a factitious European patriotism ("flags, symbols, a European anthem we can sing") to encourage "emotional identification with European institutions." And just why does Europe need the EU? Garton Ash's answer: "To prevent our falling back into the bad old ways of war and European barbarism." Among his suggestions is that Europe encourage "the formation of an Arab Union." He makes no mention of Arab democracy. Imagining "Europe in 2025 at its possible best," he pictures it as a "partnership" with Arab countries and Russia that would extend "from Marrakesh, via Cairo, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and Tbilisi, all the way to Vladivostok."

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.
The European Commission proposed the controversial idea of a singing event in all member states to celebrate the European Union's 50th "birthday," the 50th anniversary of the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was lobbying for big-style birthday celebrations to "highlight the benefits that European integration has brought to its citizens." Diplomats said the idea had sparked feelings of disgust among new, formerly Communist member states such as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which were reminded of "Stalinist times" when people were forced by the state to sing. Brussels also intended to spend around €300,000 on the appointment of 50 citizen "ambassadors," dubbed the "Faces of Europe," who are supposed to "tell their story" throughout the year on what the EU means to them in their daily life. Germany will go ahead with its own idea to let thousands of its bakeries bake 50 sorts of cakes with recipes from all 25 member states.

Commissioner Wallstrom in 2005 argued that politicians who resisted pooling national sovereignty risked a return to Nazi horrors of the 1930s and 1940s. Her fellow commissioners also issued a joint declaration, stating that EU citizens should pay tribute to the dead of the Second World War by voting Yes to the EU Constitution. The commissioners gave the EU sole credit for ending the Cold War, making no mention of the role of NATO or the United States.

Is the EU an instrument to end wars? In October 2006, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the French Action Police trade union, warned of a civil war in France created by Muslim immigrants: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

These Muslim immigrants were allowed in by the very same European elites who now want European citizens to celebrate their work through cakes and songs. While civil society is disintegrating in Western Europe due to Islamic pressures, EU authorities are working to increase Muslim immigration, while congratulating themselves for bringing peace to the continent. What peace? Where?

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years' War, the last major religious war in Europe, and helped lay the foundations for modern nation states. Before nation states, we thus had a pattern of borderless religious wars and civil wars. This is what we have returned to, full circle, only this time a borderless Jihad is triggering civil wars in Europe. While the EU may help prevent wars between nation states with old grudges, such as Germany and France, it may also actively cause other kinds of wars. It accomplishes this by increasing Multicultural tensions and a dangerous sense of estrangement between citizens and those who are supposed to be their leaders.


Brainless. Dead spirits. False piety.

Wars have existed for thousands of years before the advent of the modern nation state. It is far more likely that weakening nation states will end our democratic system, a system which is closely tied to the existence of sovereign nation states, than that it will end wars.

When asked whether the member countries of the EU joined the union voluntarily, and whether the resulting integration reflects the democratic will of Europeans, Vladimir Bukovksy replied, "No, they did not. Look at Denmark which voted against the Maastricht Treaty twice. Look at Ireland [which voted against the Nice treaty]. Look at many other countries, they are under enormous pressure. It is almost blackmail. It is a trick for idiots. The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted. Then they have to stop voting. Why stop? Let us continue voting. The European Union is what Americans would call a shotgun marriage."

In 1992, Bukovksy had unprecedented access to Politburo and other Soviet secret documents, as described in his book, Judgement in Moscow. In January 1989, during a meeting between Soviet leader Gorbachev, former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, American banker Rockefeller and former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Giscard d'Estaing supposedly stated: "Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that."

This was in the 1980s, when most of the media still dismissed as scaremongering any talk of a political union that would subdue the nation states. Fifteen years later, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing became the chief drafter of the truly awful EU Constitution, an impenetrable brick of a book, hundreds of pages long, and lacking any of the checks and balances so crucial to the American Constitution. Giscard has argued that the rejection of the Constitution in the French and Dutch referenda in 2005 "was a mistake which will have to be corrected" and insisted that "In the end, the text will be adopted."

Giscard has also said that "it was a mistake to use the referendum process" because "it is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." Does it instill confidence among the citizens of Europe that we are supposed to be under the authority of a "Constitution" that is too complex for most non-bureaucrats to understand? According to Spain's justice minister Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar "you don't need to read the European constitution to know that it is good."

Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Belgian Prime Minister, said that "We know that nine out of ten people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes."

Journalist Nidra Poller, however, is more skeptical. Commenting on the debate prior to the EU Constitution referendum in France, she noted a submissive attitude among EU leaders towards Muslim demands: "The Euro-Mediterranean 'Dialogue' is a masterpiece of abject surrender." The European Union functions as an intermediate stage of an ominous project that calls for a meltdown of traditional European culture, to be replaced by a new, Eurabian cocktail. And she asks: "When subversive appeasement hides behind the veil of 'Dialogue,' what unspeakable ambitions might be dissembled by the noble word 'Constitution'?"


Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (born 11 June 1975) is a Norwegian far-right anti-Islamic blogger. Jensen wrote anonymously as Fjordman starting in 2005, until he disclosed his identity in 2011. He has been active in the counterjihad movement, which argues that multiculturalism, particularly Muslim immigration, poses a threat to Western civilization.

Ordering Pizza In America

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT you had mastered the quaint old Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, along comes a spider...

Big Brother welcomes you, and look, it wasn't the Republicans, after all. It was YOU sleeping or fooling around like a spoiled brat on watch duty, all along. But pay me no mind, I'm nothing. In a nation where the splendid words of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan are ignored or mocked, there's no claim of special consideration for the words of warning I bring to the table.

But if you like your nationalized health care, you'll like your nationalized pizza, too. Then you might be able to fit into those nationalized motor cars that are coming our way. But all is not lost; we can then celebrate the Ayatollah's Iran getting White House support for nuclear power while we note that at the same BAT time and on the same BAT channel that very same White House denies Americans the right of continued nuclear power.

What a country! After all, snookering the law of inertia, a government in motion tends to remain in motion, unless something more powerful gets in its way.

Speaking of Bat Ye'or, here she is in her own words:

Bat Yeor with Pamela Geller

Bat Yeor with Pamela Geller

I belong to no group, no community apparatus. My only contribution is my work. But I believe that my work has opened an enormous field for reflection, not only for the Jewish world but for the Christian world as well that has suffered much more than the Jews from dhimmitude. I have described the process of Islamization of the Christian communities and of certain Christian countries through demography, immigration, enslavement, forced conversions, but also through genocide such as that which is being perpetrated against the Christians of Sudan. But beyond all that, I am Jewish. My identity is Judaism. Just as, when I was young I was subversive, didn't feel Jewish and would have perhaps fallen in with communism, since I was opposed to that Jewish bourgeoisie that I couldn't identify with—the country of Egypt was in total poverty and I did not accept the chasm between the populations...

The Demographics Of Extinction

YouTube: please specify correct url

WATCH THIS AND NEVER THINK about your own nuanced heritage in quite the same way. These noble numbers are frightening, especially when readers of this blog know those numbers replacing them. It certainly appears that we are NOT leaving the world a better place than we found it, not at the pace or the direction we're presently navigating. Weep sweet Europe, for your foul leadership has marked you for extinction. History is a cruel reminder of where we have gone wrong in steering this ship of dynasty. Weep, sweet Europe, weep.

Then wipe your tears dry, finally find courage, and firmly stand up with honest resolve against the spiraling weakness growing within your soul. Gird thyself for the future that is already a part of your past. Gird yourself today for a quick glance at tomorrow's thankless task. Open a book, and realize that only YOU can prevent these demographic forest fires and the inevitablle calamities that will follow...

Funny Summer

Funny Summer

Europe, oh how the mighty have fallen...

With alarming alacrity, young America and sister Canada nip at your heels, and eagerly try to mimic your footsteps. This must not happen. May God help us all. And may God bless Brigitte Gabriel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Walid Phares, Raymond Ibraham, Ali Sina, Geert Wilders, Brigette Bardot, Jamie Glosz, David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Mark Levin, Micahel Savage, Bosch Fawstin, Tom Tancredo, Frank Wolf, Sue Myrick, and all the thousands, even millions of those grander spirits who have each agreed upon one matter in which I also concur:


And please, let's turn back this invasion, these demographics of extinction...

Thwarting Islamic Slavers

white slave

MUSLIM APOLOGISTS never discuss, or even mention, the fact that slavery has always been accepted in Islam, and therefore it remains perfectly licit, as long as the canonical texts are neither changed, nor received differently. They never mention, never allude to, the vast Arab slave trade. They do not apologize for it; why should they—there is nothing to apologize or feel guilty about, according to the tenets of Islam. The mortality rate for the black Africans taken by the Arabs was extraordinarily high. Why were the boys castrated far from the final market? Very high death rates. Specialist knowledge lowered mortality and reduced costs—on routes utilized by slave traders.

In "The Hideous Trade: Economic Aspects of the "Manufacture" and Sale of Eunuchs," Paideuma, Mitteilungen zur Kulturkunde, Vol. .45, pp. 137-160, Weisbaden, 1999, J. Hogendorn analyzes the economics of the trade in black eunuchs by African slavers. It made economic sense to castrate boys, between the ages of 4 and 10, because they seemed to survive the operation, and the long march, more easily. Furthermore, while the Maliki school of jurisprudence that prevailed in North Africa did not allow for the "mutiliation" of slaves, the local Arabs exhibited no qualms if such "mutilation" (i.e. castration) were to be performed elsewhere, and for them simply to be the buyers of the boys who had been gelded out of sight.

Hogendorn adduces evidence, supported by the observations of others, that the mortality rate was 90%, so that for every 1000 black Africans subjected to castration by the Arab traders, only 100 would make it to the Muslim slave markets, in Constantinopole, Cairo, Baghdad, Beirut, Riyadh, Jeddah, Mecca, Medina, and even Smyrna. Anyone wishing to research the vast Arab trade in black eunuchs should start with Hogendorn. Needless to say, neither Muslims, nor Muslim apologists, have anything to say about this enormous trade—try finding a word about it in all of John Esposito's dozen or so books, and you will come up empty.

The Arab slave trade was much mentioned by the Western press during the 19th century—Tippoo Tib, for example, was a notorious figure, who occurs in Stanley's reports on the Congo. There were many less-known Arab slavers as well. But this is a subject that needs to be investigated, perhaps most appropriately by those who are looking for under-investigated areas of world history.

Yet another fail to recognize the Arab slave trade, though the slave-trader Tippu was a major figure, for example, in Livingstone's reports from Central Africa. new book, based on the story of Thomas Pellow, an Englishman who was one of those captured, "converted" to Islam, and then managed to return to England, has just appeared on this very subject—"White Gold," by Giles Milton (Hodder and Stoughton). Here is the brief review by Philippa Nuttall, in the Times Literary Supplement (Nov. 26, 2004, p.33):

"The horrors of the black slave trade are well documented, but few people are aware that Europeans were also sold to work as slaves for the sultans of North Africa and their entourages. Giles Milton’s reading of unpublished journals and letters led him to uncover the amazing and shocking tale of Thomas Pellow. Stolen from his uncle's ship in 1715 at the age of eleven, Pellow was not to return home to the Cornish village of Penryn until twenty-three years later.

Between 1609 and 1616, some 466 English trading ships were seized and their crews forced into slavery. The corsairs of Barbary also launched hit and run raids around the coast of England. By the end of 1625, the mayor of Plymouth believed that at least a thousand of his townspeople had been kidnapped. The men were most often put to work from dawn to dusk, toiling away under the blistering heat on the Moroccan sultan Mulay Ismail's new palace, the largest construction project in history.

The sultan was not satisfied with forcing the slaves to work for him. He wished them to share in his religious beliefs, and frequently tried to convert them to Islam through torture. The women prisoners were forvcibly converted and sent to the harem. A particularly widespread form of torture was bastinadoing, whereby the victim is hung upside down so that his neck and shoulders rest on the ground. His ankles are then bound and he is whipped forty or fifty times on the soles of his feet. Pellow initially put up a strong fight. But after one particularly fearsome bastinado, he renounced God in favour of Muhammad. His intelligence and strength had already caused the sultan to single him out as a potential palace retainer; his conversion eased his appointment as guardian of the imperial harem.

As time passed, though never losing the desire to return to his homeland, Pellow began to have more in common with his captors than with his countrymen. He became fluent in Arabic, was made to take a wife " with whom he had a daughter " and was regularly sent into battle. He even took part in slave-gathering expeditions across the Dark Continent. After several failed attempts, he managed to flee his captors and returned to Devon.

The British government and its European neighbours proved singularly unable to coordinate and sustain an effort to free the slaves. It was not until 1816 that Britain finally declared all-out war on the trade and sent a fleet, captained by a distant relative of Pellow, to Algiers. The victory of Sir Edward Pellow's fleet led to the release of 1,642 slaves in Algiers alone, and persuaded the rulers of Tunis, Tripoli and various Moroccan cities that the era of the white slave was over.

Of course, the enslavement of blacks and whites was justified by the Muslim raiders because both the black Africans, and all the Europeans who were kidnapped over many centuries, both belonged to the Bilad al-kufr and were, in fact, Infidels. J. Willis, like Hogedorn a student of the Arab slave trade, notes in “Jihad and the Ideology of Enslavement,” in Slaves and Slavery in Muslim Africa, pp. 16-26, the attitude of the Arab slavers:

“As the opposition of Islam to kufr erupted from every corner of malice and mistrust, the lands of the enslavable barbarian became the favorite hunting ground for the “people of reason and faith” [that is, Muslims], the parallels between slave and infidel began to fuse in the heat of jihad. Hence whether by capture or sale, it was as slave and not citizen that the kafir was destined to enter the Muslim domain. And since the condition of captives flowed from the status of their territories, the choice between freedom and servility came to rests on a single proof: the religion of a land is the religion of its amir (ruler); if he be Muslim, the land is a land of Islam (dar al-Islam); if he be pagan, the land is a land of unbelief (dar al-kufr).

Appended to this principle was the kindred notion that the religion of a land is the religion of its majority; if it be Muslim the land is a land of Islam; if it be pagan, the land is a land of kufr, and its inhabitants can be reckoned within the categories of enslavement underl Muslim law. Again, as slavery became a simile for infidelity, so too did freedom remain the signal feature of Islam. And further:

“ all the legal texts: "make jihad against the infidels, kill their men, make captive their women and children, seize their wealth .”

Thus, encumbrance was no sanctuary from the servile condition; with the elimination of the men, the net of enslavement slipped over the remnants of the kafir camp, round the women and children who became spoil in the path of Allah. The deiolgoy of enslavement in Islam then, becomes that ideology which seeks to repair the losses of jihad. Women and children are the diya [the compensation, fixed by custom and law], the jizya, the reparation and plunder for lives pledged in jihad. Hence again, spoil [ghanima] becomes a kind of compensation

There is much more in Willis, and in Hogedorn. These texts will appear in the forthcoming “The Legacy of Jihad” - a much-needed anthology of scholarship on Jihad and Dhimmitude, edited by Dr. Andrew Bostom.

Iut from this short note, on both the vast Arab trade in the enslavement of black Africans (and if the mortality rate for the eunuchs was 90%, then the numbers of Africans actually murdered even before they arrived at the Muslim slave markets of Mecca, Medinah, Cairo, Baghdad, Constantinopole, Jeddah, and so on, then given the millions and millions who were enslaved over many centuries until the Europeans, especially the British, managed to end the trade, was far greater than the number of victims of the Middle Passage, or Atlantic Slave Trade.

If we add to that the million victims of the white slave trade, discussed in the review of Giles Milton's “White Gold” which focuses on the life of Thomas Pellow, one can see that those who make claims as occurred during the U.N.'s almost continuous session of taqiyya by the likes of Seyyid Hossein Nasr and, even more scandalously because of all her talk about “freedom of thought” and "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" having their origins in Islam, an Orwellianism that beggars belief—one Azizah al-Hibri, a fulltime defender of Islam who cloaks her apologetics in an ostentatious pretense of somehow “fighting for women's rights” within an Islamic context (she needs to be raked over the rhetorical coals by some real "fighter? such as Azam Kamguian).

Perhaps a Kamguian-Al-Hibri debate can be arranged at the next meeting of the American Association of Law Schools, which is where, in the firt place, some years ago, someone on the Hiring Committee of the T. D. Williams School of Law must have urged her hiring, in the mistaken belief that the best person to teach students about Islamic law, of course, would be a plausible Muslim (it is more akin to hiring a KGB agent to give a course on the Soviet Union, given the impossibility for Muslims to let Infidels know the full truth about Muslim tenets or Muslim history: the Faith must be defended at all costs (taqiyya, kitman are the doctrines that religiously-sanction dissimulation "lying" to protect that faith).

And when Azizah al-Hibri maintained at the U.N.'s "Islamophobia Day" that Islam was always "peaceful? and "unaggressive," aside from the fact of conquest explaining the entire history of the spread of Islam "with the single exception of the East Indies, where Dawa seems to have done the main work" there is, in the sanitized version of Al-Hibri's history, the great omission before the resumption of aggression in modern times, especially whenever the wherewithal was available, as it is now.

And that great omission consists in passing over in silence the black African slave trade by Arab Muslim slavers, supplying all the slave markets of the Muslim world, especially with young boys, usually between 4 and 14, gelded for their Muslim masters. And she forgets the hundreds of years, in which Arabs raided up and down the coasts of Europe, as far even as Ireland and in one recorded case, Iceland, looting, raiding villages, and taking back as slaves nearly one million white Europeans, of whom Thomas Pellow was one.

The scholarly work of Hogedorn deals soberly with the atrocity of "the hideous trade" in eunuchs, while J. Willis relates the African slave trade to the Islamic doctrines concerning Jihad fa sibil Allah (Jihad in the way of Allah) and the rightness of enslaving the kaffir, whose enslavement is the correct way for kaffirs, Infidels, to atone for their being Infidels in the first place.

Ihe more you learn about Islam, the more detail you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, and instead of confusion, the mind comes to rest, as the Infidel Samuel Johnson once said, on the stability of truth. And the next time the assorted and fungible Al-Hibris and Nasrs of this world tell you that it was "the Crusades? or, in al-Hibri's case, "colonialism? which caused the Muslim world to become more aggressive out of its need to defend itself, raise the little matter of the trade in eunuchs, and how many blacks have been sent, over how many centuries, to stock the slave trade of the Muslim world.

And then mention Thomas Pellow, and the million Europeans kidnapped (and how many others were murdered in Muslim raids up and down the coasts of the Mediterranean, all the way to the North Sea), and their villages raided " hundreds of years before colonialism " which, except for Algeria, touched the Arab Muslim world only glancingly, and for a very short period.

The more you learn about Islam, the more detailed knowledge you acquire, the less confused you become about the spectacle you see all about you, here and there throughout the world. That confusion, which some in Washington and certainly many in the chanceries of Europe, still feel because they do not pay attention to history, and fail to recognize the immutable nature of Islam, which makes that 1400 years of history completely relevant today. Eventually, as that famous Infidel Samuel Johnson (who would not have lasted a minute under Islam) once said, the mind can only repose on the stability of truth.

That stability of truth is attained when we heed the evidence presented not only by our senses (what the news offers by way of Muslim attacks world-wide on non-Muslims, or the content of khutbas, or textbooks, or the rhetoric of the terrorist groups, or the taqiyya/kitman offered by the assorted Tariq Ramadans/Azizah al Hibris and their non-Muslim fellow apologists (Esposito, Sells, more than half the membership, and all of the officers, of Mesa Nostra), but by the articulate analyses from "defectors? or ex-Muslims" Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina come to mind.

And then there are the scholars who, because they were independent of universities, carried on their work unafraid, such as that pioneering historian of dhimmitude, Bat Ye’or. Those who continue, despite the mounting evidence, and despite the kind of scholarship that, for example, is used in this brief note (J. Hogedorn, J. Willis, Giles Milton) which can no longer be hidden from view, and will, in larger and larger amounts, be made available to the world of real scholarship and to the general public (neither of which seems too impressed, anymore, or too likely, any more, to be taken in by the Esposito-Sells-Ernst view of Islam, now seen as the offerings of carney barkers down on their luck).

Those who have been creating, and flogging, sanitized Qur’ans, those who have been playing the stuck record of Saidian thuggery and invective and the clichés about "colonialism” and, bien entendu, "post-colonial discourse,” are seeing their audience get up, virtually en masse, and leave the room.

Those who have tried to play various rhetorical cards such as the "creation of the Other by the West" (of course, Islam itself rests entirely on the need for "the Other" since it divides the world uncompromisingly between Believer and Infidel, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb) or the latest bait and switch called "islamophobia,” which is an attempt to create a name for a non-existent condition that is, baseless prejudice against Islam—using it to prevent intelligent critical scrutiny of the tenets of Islam, and of the history of Muslim treatment of non-Muslims wherever they have been subjugated, are losing ground and they know it.

Each day in the Sudan, or in Pakistan, or in Iraq, or in Egypt, brings fresh news of attacks on non-Muslims. Each day brings fresh news of attempts by Muslims in the West to make demands on the Infidels among whom they live, and whose societies they are intent on bending to their will, and their desires. Each day brings news of fresh attempts at intimidation, ranging from "religious hate laws” that are transparent attempts to keep non-Muslims from saying anything critical about Islam, to lawsuits to silence critics (as in Australia), to murder (as with Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh). Each day's news makes it that much harder for the Espositos and the Al-Hibris and the Tariq Ramadans to continue their work of apologetics and, where they are Muslim, taqiyya and kitman.

And each day brings closer the unearthing and the publication of more and more scholarship. Whether it is about the historic treatment of Zoroastrians (Mary Boyce), or about the Arab Muslim slave trade (Hogedorn, Willis, Giles Milton, and hundreds of others), whether it is the scholarship that has recently been reprinted for wide audiences (Schacht, Margoliouth, Sir William Muir), or new work on dhimmitude (the four volumes of Bat Ye’or, including the latest, "Eurabia” or Vahakh Dadrian on the Armenian genocide), or the forgotten articles of great Islamists found, assembled, and readied for publication (from Arthur Jeffery and Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, to Armand Abel, Georges Vajda, Bousquet,), or the growing body of scholarship by Indian historians on the fate of Hindus and Hindu civilization under Muslim rule (scholarship which must include not only K. S Lal and Sita Ram Goel, and Koenraad Elst, but also the work of V. S. Naipaul as a student of the "wounded civilization?), and there is much more.

It must be difficult to be an apologist for Islam, and wake up each morning, wondering what the news will bring, and how you will manage to explain it away this time. And it must be frightening to consult the catalogues of books that are about to be published, to see what is about to come out on Islam. Gone are the days of "Constructing Palestinian Identity” or other books focussing on the Arab jihad against Israel. Indeed, ten years ago, you could get away without using the word "jihad” and five years ago, you could still get away without doing much more than dismissing it with some reference to the "Greater Jihad” of mastering your own self. Two years ago, you could get away with not mentioning the condition of the dhimmi, or if you had to, mentioning laconically that Christians and Jews were offered favored treatment as "Protected Peoples” et cetera, and leave it at that.

Why, even a half-year ago, the worst you could expect would be whatever Bernard Lewis was offering, and he was, a year ago, the nemesis of Esposito. But too many people have seen what is wrong with Bernard Lewis as well " not least because his failure to see the full horror of Islam, even as he warns (more privately than publicly) about the threat of Europe's islamization, a reflection not of stupidity but, very likely, of the desire to maintain his position with fan clubs in Amman and Istanbul, and his own forays into policy, with his support for the Oslo Accords, and his seeming belief that Iraq was a suitable place to enter into the folly and misallocation of resources that this "Light Unto the Muslim Nations” project has become, draining men, material, money, morale, and attention from the much larger problem, the world-wide and endless problem of Islam and the Jihad.

And the scholarship produced, or unearthed, and the day's daily Jihad-and-Dhimmitude news, makes it harder and harder for the apologists to continue. They may save their livelihoods (though Georgetown really, for its own sake, and own reputation, ought to sever the connection with Esposito)—That's what tenure will do—but Mesa Nostra is unlikely to have the power, or command the respect, or above all be able to attract the government money, that it once did, and still hopes it can manage to inveigle from an increasingly skeptical, not to say hostile, public and government.

But, to go back to Muslim Slavery, Black and White—think of those young black eunuchs, for every thousand gelded, only one hundred survived the long march to the Muslim slave markets. And think of Thomas Pellow, and the million other Christian Europeans kidnapped (and how many others killed during Muslim raids) over more than 500 years of aggression, by sea, of Muslims against Western Christendom and against the Kaffir, who as a Kaffir, merited enslavement.

And the same texts remain, and are received in the same way, by the vast majority of Muslims. And there seems to be no way to change them, no one and no group, with the authority to do so, or the ability to get Muslims to accept those changes, whether in details of the sira, or in the assignment of different hadith to the categories of “strong” and "weak” hadith, or to the most difficult text to touch—the Quran itself.

And that is the problem. And there is no solution.

Wake Up Little Darlings, Wake Up

Wake up little darlings, wake up! Here's an excellent article written by Bruce Bawer, author of the essential While Europe Slept. Published by City Journal, "An Anatomy of Surrender" is a comprehensive detail of the ongoing voluntary submission of the West to Islamist attitudes and laws which over time will effectively destroy us.


ISLAM DIVIDES the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West.

Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

The Western media are in the driver’s seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that we’re the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europe’s Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the Dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyn’s views on Islam, the killer insisted, were “dangerous.”

Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchester’s top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shock—and the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of “gay death” slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of “other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism” and complained that focusing on the issue was “part of demonizing Muslims.”

Nn June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This “stunning whitewash of radical Islam,” as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, “helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses” in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentary’s subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacks—and that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.

Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoons—published in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Gogh’s murder—were answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam.

Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he “knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for ‘restraint’ was simple fear.” Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norway’s leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)

Last year brought another cartoon crisis—this time over Swedish artist Lars Vilks’s drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps “Vilks should have known better” because of the Jyllands-Posten incident—as if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldn’t be taken “too seriously” and noted approvingly that Sweden’s prime minister, unlike Denmark’s, invited the ambassadors “in for a chat.”

The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “If you’re wondering why you haven’t been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, it’s because there haven’t been any.” Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned them—and when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters’ Muslim identity (few cited the cries of “Allahu akbar,” for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.

When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombing—even though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. US muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Today’s American Muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britain—yet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.

After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an “anti-Muslim backlash”—thus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists’ real acts of violence to non-Muslims’ imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Ye’or and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11.

Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliott’s affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful.

Though it emerged in passing that Shata didn’t speak English, refused to shake women’s hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. “Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmother’s voice”; “Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . ‘She entered my heart,‘ said the imam.” Elliott’s saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as “right-wing” and insisted that Shata was “very moderate.”

So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are “moderate” (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesn’t have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are “Islamophobes.”

The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but today’s movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s "Little Mosque on the Prairie" and CW’s "Aliens in America." Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that there’s no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.

Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Fox’s popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversy’s overwhelming impact on Denmark, “not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue.” Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.

In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisis but Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. “We were happy,” she told an interviewer, “that they didn’t try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.”

Then there’s the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves “respect.” Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. London’s Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was “space constraints,” but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallery’s Muslim neighbors.

Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of London’s White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though “very few people have explicitly admitted” it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who has—and his reluctance isn’t about multicultural sensitivity. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art,” he told the Times of London, “is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to “realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

The Times described Armstrong’s hagiography of Mohammed as “a good place to start” learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito "Want to understand Islam? Start here."

There's lots more to this essay. We encourage you to read it all.