Perfect storms haven’t single trigger, it’s a cascade of inter-related and independent factors.

Also read (French): Interview with Aymeric Chauprade: The European Union, best friend of the Islamization of Europe?

[In imposing the model of multiculturalism at the expense of assimilation, the European Union appears to be the best ally of Islamization. This is why it is impossible to fight the Islamization of Europe if we do not release it from the European Union.]

The writer in the interview, Aymeric Chauprade, has a crippled understanding of the reasons for the crusades, as well as falling for the meme of justified Muslim anger concerning past ‘injustices’, but he does spot the danger Islam poses to the West, that Islam wants to exact a ‘revenge’. That’s something at least.

Arab winter

 Radicalism in this section is introduced as “the new interpretive model” which for Dr. Raddatz is most immediately linked to the 1974 event when Yasser Arafat was allowed to appear, armed, at the UN. From that point, the “… jihad culture of Islam” became the “new interpretive model” in the West. It is the appearance of this new radicalism, with its anti-Semitism, “coercion”, “threatening behaviour”, relativisation of the “good”, its moral confusion and its central control by the “profiteers” of the model which anticipates Dr. Raddatz’ treatment of the “metaphysics of radicalism” and “radical evil”.

Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy: Part II, Section I

Posted on  by Baron Bodissey

Below is the first section of Part II of a four-section essay by Hans-Peter Raddatz about the EU, the Mediterranean Union, the Islamization of the West, and the deliberate engineering of the “Arab Spring” by the global elites to serve their own long-term goals. For the links to Part I, see the archive list at the bottom of this post.

This essay was originally published at Die Neue Ordnung in pdf form, and was kindly translated from the German by Rembrandt Clancy, who has also provided the reader with extensive notes.

Islamic Seasons and “Democratic” Global Policy

Part II, Section I

by Hans-Peter Raddatz

Translator’s Introduction

Dr. Raddatz uses references which may be unfamiliar to some. Therefore there are reference notes. These are of two types: translator’s notes and endnotes:

1) Translator’s Notes: An asterisk (*) following a word or concept in the text indicates the presence of a “Translator’s Note” immediately below. These provide immediate clarification for concepts or expressions which may be unfamiliar to some, or even most readers.
2) Endnotes: Numbers in square brackets following a term or a concept in the text are linked to endnotes for readers who wish more detail rooted in original sources.

In Part I of this paper, translated by JLH, Dr. Raddatz introduced the “constellation of Islamic ‘movements’“, which have been among the crucial “contributors to the seasons of Spring and Summer”. His idea was to prepare the ground for Part II which examines which of the players, including the “Jewish-Christian resistance”,… will have to reckon with a Fall and Winter phase” (cf. Seasons, Part I, Section 2). After the “Arab Spring”, the so-called “path to democracy”, there follows the “Summer of the Islamic democracy” (Seasons, Part I, Section 5), a period of consolidation, an “Islamocentric” transition which ignores “the future for non-Muslims”, and instead of democracy actually introduces dictatorship and coercion (Seasons, Part I, Section 5). These events in the Middle East together with the concurrent trend toward “dhimmitude“ in Europe point to the “coming caliphate” adumbrated by the Union for the Mediterranean(2005), “encompassing all Euro and Islam residents” (cf. Part I, Section 1).

Part II introduces the prospect of “a new dominant culture”, which consists of Western “Left-Right extremes” fused with “Islamic law” (cf. Islamic Seasons, Part I, Section 5). Underlying the transition is deratiocination (Denkschwund): “In our estimation, the root cause of this trend, which can lead to a Western cultural autumn and winter, lies in the fundamental destruction of human reason” (Islamic Seasons, Part I, Section 5Trans. JLH). Based on the “constellation of Islamic movements”, Dr. Raddatz proceeds “in Part II to the Fall and Winter phases, to the metaphysics of radicalisation”, and “radical evil” (cf. Part I, Section 2). Even though the “seasons” have their origin in propaganda, they nevertheless have a certain correspondence to political changes in the Middle East. Dr. Raddatz, however, does not render the “seasons” as precisely delineated categories; for him, they also contain significance on the level of imagery, as a cycle depicting a cultural trajectory from false promise to decline and death.

More here at The Gates of Vienna.



Finally someone with real clout speaks about what we’ve known all along.

NOTE: Special thanks to Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for the h/t and help in the translation.

kissinger interview in bild -i have been always critical of Henry Kissinger met for an interview at the Schlosshotel Grunewald.

IMAGE: In Libya, the U.S. ambassador is murdered, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, an angry mob attacked Western embassies, there were dead and hundreds injured. Do we have fear of a new war?

Henry Kissinger: We have to recognize that the development in the Arab world toward democracy is a very slow process at first. It is impossible that political parties endorsing and propagating sharia law become democratic political parties. This is the dilemma that we have at the moment, because we should not delude ourselves.

IMAGE: Does it meant that Islam and democracy are incompatible? 

Kissinger: I did not say that. But when church and state are not separated to a certain extent, if you insist that religion and state are identical, then it is almost impossible that other opinions can flourish.

Full article here.



In other words we’re talking birds-of-a-feather here, the only difference being in nuance.

Thanks to Andy for fleshing out these inconvenient details. While everyone rushes to embrace the military for their ‘stepping up to the plate’ and delivering Egypt from the clutches of fundamentalist Islam, the shady side of the principle players on the ‘savior’s side are coming to light. Not the pretty picture as depicted by many.

Al-Sisi’s thesis further argues that Egyptians and other Arab Muslims will only judge democracy in a positive manner if it “sustains the religious base versus devaluing religion and creating instability.” Moroever, al-Sisi, as per Springborg’s analysis remains openly and harshly critical of secular governance.
Secularism, according to Sisi, “is unlikely to be favorably received by the vast majority of Middle Easterners, who are devout followers of the Islamic faith.” He condemns governments that “tend toward secular rule,” because they “disenfranchise large segments of the population who believe religion should not be excluded from government,” and because “they often send religious leaders to prison.”


Make Public Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s “Classified” 2006 U.S. Army War College Thesis

August 3rd, 2013 by Andrew Bostom |

At the beginning of this week, Sunday July, 28, 2013, Foreign Affairspublished an alarming analysis of the ideology, and political ambitions of General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the man who orchestrated Egypt’s military putsch, which deposed President Muhammad Morsi.

Written by Robert Springborg, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, long recognized for his published expertise on the Egyptian military, the essay highlighted al-Sisi’s previously unrecognized (or dismissed) near term political aspirations—such as running for Egyptian President (also suggested herehere)—and of equal significance, his political ideology.

During various interviews he granted in the immediate aftermath of Morsi’s overthrow (see hereherehere, and my own earlier blog), Springborg had forthrightly summarized al-Sisi’s core Weltanschauung as being essentially identical to that of the sacked Egyptian President, and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Morsi. Now, Springborg’s 7/28/13 Foreign Affairs essay has provided irrefragable, hard evidence of the General’s, and potential Egyptian Presidential candidate’s, Sharia supremacist ideology: al-Sisi’s own written words, recorded in his 2006 U.S. Army War College mini-thesis.

Although, as Springborg notes, innocuously entitled, “Democracy in the Middle East”, al-Sisi’s mini-thesis, “reads like a tract produced by the Muslim Brotherhood.” Indeed, within the very opening paragraph, according to Springborg,

Sisi emphasizes the centrality of religion to the politics of the region, arguing that “for democracy to be successful in the Middle East,” it must show “respect to the religious nature of the culture” and seek “public support from religious leaders [who] can help build strong support for the establishment of democratic systems.”



To my regret however, George makes no mention about sharia still in large approval by the majority of Egyptian society, including by the general leading the military coup. There can be no real (small d) democracy in Egypt, or in any society that’s fixated on sharia, because by default, it means that tolerance, a crucial backbone of the civil society is lacking.

h/t: Dennis Mitzner

Abraham Lincoln rejected the argument of his rival Stephen Douglas, who favored “popular sovereignty in the territories.” Douglas thought slavery should expand wherever a majority favored it. Lincoln understood that unless majority rule is circumscribed by the superior claims of natural rights, majority rule is merely the doctrine of “might makes right” adapted to the age of mass participation in politics. The idea that the strong have a right to unfettered rule if their strength is numerical is just the barbarism of “might makes right” prettified by initial adherence to democratic forms. Egypt’s military despotism may be less dangerous than Morsi’s because it lacks what Morsi’s had, a democratic coloration, however superficial and evanescent.

george will egypt 11.7.2013

More here.



Tyranny is tyranny. 

Looking at the Islamic fundamentalist AKP’s takeover of Turkey, I conclude that any hope for a modern Middle East to be nothing more than wishful thinking. With Islam, it could only be that way.

NOTE: The Soviets played on the ignorance of many concerning ”democratic rule”, so to the Muslims as well, it’s called process over substance.

Rubin on tunisia 31.5.2013

Note that his claiming the opposition seeks to seize power by force authorizes “regime defenders” to attack them by force. In fact, Marzouki threatened that opposition members who were trying to overthrow the government would be hung. He has threatened anyone criticizing Qatar — al-Nahda’s financier — with prison.

Unlike other Arab countries, however, the moderate democratic opposition is well-organized and has not been intimidated. Not yet, anyway.

On March 31, 2013, Marzouki’s own party — the National Council of the Congress for the Republic — appointed the president’s chief of staff Imed Daimi as secretary-general. He was soon forced to resign, however, when it was pointed out that it was strange to have a “center-left” and “secular” party led by a man with a long record of having been an Islamist militant. He was also a featured speaker for the Turkish Islamist front group, Union of Good, which has connections with terrorist groups.

Whatever Daimi’s current views, the idea that the president’s party and one of the governing coalition’s two “liberal” members would have been headed by an Islamist fellow traveler stirred up strong objections.

Like the Communists historically, Islamist groups have been adept at creating front groups, fellow travelers, and massive disinformation campaigns (see the creation of the “Islamophobia” theme in the West).

Meanwhile, the main Salafist group in Tunisia — Ansar al-Sharia, which has periodically engaged in low-level violence – has now threatened to launch a war of terrorism against the ruling party, which it says is only pretending to be Islamist.

More here.



Andy parses the data and spells it out for us once again.

The League of Nations tried the ”democracy project” in the Middle East during the mandate period that started just after WWI, most noticeably with the San Remo Conference. It’s clear that what remains from that period is the only true democratic representational government, Israel. You can’t import true (small d) democracy into the Muslim world, it has, and will in the future, consistently reject it due to it being in conflict with Islamic sharia. The ”democracy project” was doomed for failure.

NOTE: Also worth noting is that Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Sudan was absent from the polling data, as well as the US Muslim response concerning approval for sharia law. Just what were they scared od documenting, something that would dash the carefully manicured meme of US Muslim liberalism and tolerance?

Read also: Beware of Sugar Coated Sharia! (ICLA)

The practice of sugar coating sharia seems to be very fashionable activity in early 21st century society.  There appears to be no shortage of Muslims and non-Muslims alike who claim that sharia is not this or that and that those who say otherwise are somehow ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’.

sharia in action

Sharia Über Alles

Andrew G. Bostom

Despite a number of (deliberately?) mitigating biases, both methodological and interpretative, the latest Pew Research Forum report, “The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society,” released April 30, 2013, confirms the broad appeal of the totalitarian Sharia, Islam’s religio-political “law,” across Islamdom.

The data were pooled from surveys conducted between 2008 and 2012, representing, as touted by Pew, “a total of 39 countries and territories on three continents: Africa, Asia and Europe.” Collectively, the surveys included “more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims.” Pew did acknowledge this important caveat about Muslim populations not surveyed because, “political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.” Notably excluded countries were Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and Iran — all Islamic states, governed by the Sharia, Saudi Arabia and the Sudan under Sunni Islam, the third, Iran, being the world’s largest Shiite Muslim state.

Responses to four related questions on the Sharia, comprise the surveys’ salient — and pathognomonic — findings. The questions were, “Do you favor or oppose making sharia law, or Islamic law, the official law of the land in our country?”, and these three internally validating (and equally edifying) queries, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: punishments like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery?”, “Do you favor or oppose the following: the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion?” Summary data from the nations with the five largest Muslim populations (as per 2010) surveyed, Indonesia (204 million), Pakistan (178 million), Bengladesh (149 million), Egypt (80 million), and Nigeria (76 million), revealed:

• 72% of Indonesian Muslims, 84% of Pakistani Muslims, 82% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 74% of Egyptian Muslims, and 71% of Nigerian Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies. The population-weighted average from these 5 countries was 77% supportive. (Composite regional data confirmed these individual country trends — 84% of South Asian Muslims, 77% of Southeast Asian Muslims, 74% of Middle Eastern/North African Muslims, and 64% of Sub-Saharan African Muslims favored application of the Sharia as official state law.)

• 37% of Indonesian Muslims, 85% of Pakistani Muslims, 50% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 70% of Egyptian Muslims, and 45% of Nigerian Muslims favored Sharia-based mandatory (“hadd“) punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”

• 42% of Indonesian Muslims, 86% of Pakistani Muslims, 54% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 80% of Egyptian Muslims, and 37% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery

• 16% of Indonesian Muslims, 75% of Pakistani Muslims, 43% of Bengladeshi Muslims, 88% of Egyptian Muslims, and 29% of Nigerian Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

Furthermore, the Pew survey results confirm the abject failure of the U.S. midwifed Iraqi and Afghan “democracies” to fulfill the utopian aspirations of the much ballyhooed “(BernardLewis doctrine.” Instead, the negative prognostications, epitomized by my colleague Diana West’s evocative description “Making the world safe for Sharia,” have been realized. Specifically, the Pew data indicated:

• 91% of Iraqi Muslims and 99% of Afghan Muslims supported making Sharia the official state law of their respective societies

• 55% of Iraqi Muslims and 81% of Afghan Muslims favored Sharia-based hadd punishments “like whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery”

• 57% of Iraqi Muslims and 84% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of stoning for adultery

• 42% of Iraqi Muslims and 79% of Afghan Muslims favored the Sharia-based hadd punishment of execution for “apostasy”

Religious piety, as evidenced by frequency of prayer and “Following the Prophet’s Example,” increased support for Sharia, which was unaffected by age, gender, or educational level.

The Pew report fails to elaborate on these strong associations, offering no explanation about why increased compliance with prayer and pious conformity with the behavior of Islam’s prophet Muhammad might result in broad Muslim approval for mutilating thieves, stoning adulterers to death, or executing those who simply exercise freedom of conscience and forsake Islam. Yet the Pew investigators readily proffer these mollifying comments, insisting the predilection for Sharia “varies widely,” noting “many favor democracy over authoritarian rule,” and even concluding,

Overall, Muslims broadly support the idea of religious freedom. Among Muslims who say people of different religions are very free to practice their faith, three-quarters or more in each country say this is a good thing.

First, even the Pew data on Muslim support for “killing” apostates do not reflect sentiments for the less draconian punishments for apostasy: imprisonment with beatings (for women under Shiite law, timed to each of the prayer sessions, i.e., 5 times per day) until “recantation”; dissolution of marriage and both parental and property rights. These adjunct non-lethal “punishments” — often applied to “private” apostates who do not manifest their apostasy in public — would likely have registered far more “popular” appeal. Also, both “religious freedom” and “freedom” — (“hurriyya“; discussed below) in Islamdom bear no resemblance to Western conceptions of these ideals, as this ranking of Christian persecution — dominated by countries from sub-Saharan Africa (where 94% affirmed to Pew “it is good that others are very free to practice their faith” ) and the Middle East/North Africa (where 85% affirmed to Pew “it is good that others are very free to practice their faith”) — makes plain.

Read more:



Hah! Springers!

Even the dullest blades get sharpened once in a while.

Arab winter

Why not the Arab millennium or the Arab trillion years. Like the guy who keeps predicting the world will end, it’s safest to set your dates as far as possible. And 10-25 years later, no one will remember what Friedman predicted let alone that he even existed.

Thomas Friedman Finally Admits the Arab Spring is a Disaster

April 10, 2013 By 

But don’t worry, the term “admits” is a bit strong. It’s more like the weatherman who predicted there wouldn’t be a flood for a month straight clinging to an antenna on the roof of his house and trying to find reasons why he was right all along even while the sharks are circling his chimney.

The standard fallback position for Tahrir’s international cheerleaders is to argue that we were expecting positive results too quickly.

The term “Arab Spring” has to be retired. There is nothing springlike going on,” Friedman says. “It’s best we now speak of the “Arab Decade” or the “Arab Quarter Century”


When your predictions don’t succeed, just postpone them as far as possible. The people who promised us a positive transformation are now promising us a Thirty Years War.

Naturally it wouldn’t be a Tom Friedman column without another of his tedious attempts to ‘brand’ the disaster in a way that sounds meaningful with a facile term. Clash Within a Civilization is what he has to offer this time around.

“Some will say: “I told you so. You never should have hoped for this Arab Spring,” Friedman writes. This sentence alone contains metric tons of dishonesty.

More here.  H/T: Fjordman



Democracy was never the answer, a constitutional republic, founded by an already ‘civil society’…

Such a civil society organizing a representational government founded upon the concept of individual unalienable rights, proven free market principles that safeguards property rights, and a profound, fundamental belief in limited government, is the answer.

NOTE: That Arab states lack the civil society, is reason enough to already have serious doubt on the whole ”Arab-Spring” experiment.

The assumption of the argument was that the tyranny that a people were living under was unnatural while the outcome of a democratic election would be natural. And yet, if a people have been warped for a thousand years by not living under a democracy, how could they be expected to choose a form of government that would not be warped? Was there any reason to expect that such efforts at democracy would not lead to tyranny?


Classifying ideologies as democratic or undemocratic has blinded us to their content and gives our enemies an easy way to take power while leaving the champions of democracy voiceless. Too many Republicans were flailing after the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in Egypt; unable to articulate a reason why the United States should not support a democratically elected government.

Democracy Is Not the Answer

March 15, 2013 By 

To understand how we got to the point that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support a government run by people who have been at war with us for almost a century is a policy that most foreign policy experts endorse, it helps to take a brief trip back in time.

In the last century, our big three wars, the two we fought and the one we didn’t, were against enemies who were seen as being distinguished by a lack of democracy, with the Kaiser, the Fuhrer and the Commissar embodying the antithesis of the American system.

The Democratic Party, which stood at the helm during both hot wars, was able to link its brand to the wars by defining them as struggles for democracy. The process of de-nationalizing war from a conflict between nations and ethnic groups was only partly realized in WW1, but was largely achieved in WW2, and made post-war reconstruction and alliance easier. National and ethnic grudges were replaced by ideological platforms. If the trouble was a lack of democracy, then all we needed to do was defeat the tyrant’s armies, inject democracy and stand back.

Democracy also made it easier to turn liberals against the Soviet Union. The liberals who had believed in a war for democracy in Europe had difficulty tossing it aside after the war was over. And that emphasis on democracy helped make a national defense coalition between conservatives and liberals possible.

This strategy was effective enough against existing totalitarian systems, but suffered from a major weakness because it could not account for a totalitarian ideology taking power through the ballot box.

The assumption that because the Nazis and the Communists rejected open elections that they could not win open elections was wrong. Democracy of that kind is populism and totalitarian movements can be quite popular. The Nazis did fairly well in the 1932 elections and the radical left gobbled up much of the Russian First Duma. The modern Russian Communist Party is the second largest party in the Duma today.

Democratic elections do not necessarily lead to democratic outcomes, but the linkage of democracy to progress made that hard to see. The assumption that democracy is progressive and leads to more progress had been adopted even by many conservatives. That fixed notion of history led to total disaster in the Arab Spring.

Cold War America knew better than to endorse universal democracy. Open elections everywhere would have given the Soviet Union more allies than the United States. The left attacked Eisenhower and Kennedy as hypocrites, but both men were correct in understanding that there was no virtue in overthrowing an authoritarian government only to replace it with an even more authoritarian government; whether through violence or the ballot box.

More here.



And it’s been all down hill from there after.


The Secret Document That Set Obama’s Middle East Policy

By Barry Rubin

barry-rubin2“We have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.… America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.” –President Barack Obama, Cairo, June 2009.

“The United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise….Resistance is the only solution. [Today the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance.” –Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badri, Cairo, September 2010.

What did the president know and when did he know it? That’s a question made classical by the Watergate scandal. Now it is possible to trace precisely what Obama knew and when he knew it. And it proves that the installment of power of the Muslim Brotherhood was a conscious and deliberate strategy of the Obama Administration developed before the “Arab Spring” began.

In February 2011 the New York Times ran an extremely complementary article on President Obama  by Mark Landler, who some observers say is the biggest apologist for Obama on the newspaper. That’s quite an achievement.  Landler praised Obama for having tremendous foresight, in effect, predicting the “Arab Spring.” According to Landler,

“President Obama ordered his advisers last August [2010] to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday.”

Which advisors? The then counter-terrorism advisor and now designated CIA chief, John Brennan? National Security Council senior staffer Samantha Power?  If it was done by Obama’s own staff, rather than State and Defense, it’s likely that these people or at least one of them was the key author.

So should U.S. policy help allies avoid such sweeping change by standing firm or by helping them make adjustments? No, explained the report, it should get on the side of history and wield a broom to do the sweeping. The article continued:

“Mr. Obama’s order, known as a Presidential Study Directive, identified likely flashpoints, most notably Egypt, and solicited proposals for how the administration could push for political change in countries with autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States, [emphasis added] these officials said.

Anyone who says that the United States did not have a lot of influence in these crises doesn’t know what they are talking about. Of course, the U.S. government didn’t control the outcome, its leverage was limited. But there’s a big difference between telling the Egyptian army to stay in control, dump Mubarak, and make a mild transition—and we, the United States, will back you—or telling them that Washington wanted the generals to stand aside, let Mubarak be overthrown, and have a thoroughgoing regime change, a fundamental transformation, to coin a phrase.

So the Obama Administration did not stand beside friendly regimes or help to manage a limited transition with more democracy and reforms. No, it actively pushed to bring down at least four governments—Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen.

It did not push for the overthrow of two anti-American regimes—Iran and Syria—but on the contrary was still striving for good relations with those two dictatorships. Equally, it did not push for the fall of radical anti-American governments in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. No, it only pushed for the fall of “valuable allies.” There was no increase in support for dissidents in Iran despite, as we will see in a moment, internal administration predictions of unrest there, too. As for Syria, strong administration support for the dictatorship there continued for months until it was clear that the regime was in serious trouble. It seems reasonable to say that the paper did not predict the Syrian civil war.

Want more evidence about the internal administration document? Here’s another article from the time which explains:

“The White House had been debating the likelihood of a domino effect since youth-driven revolts had toppled President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, even though the American intelligence community and Israel’s intelligence services had estimated that the risk to President Mubarak was low — less than 20 percent, some officials said.

“According to senior officials who participated in Mr. Obama’s policy debates, the president took a different view. He made the point early on, a senior official said, that `this was a trend’ that could spread to other authoritarian governments in the region, including in Iran. By the end of the 18-day uprising, by a White House count, there were 38 meetings with the president about Egypt. Mr. Obama said that this was a chance to create an alternative to “the Al Qaeda narrative” of Western interference.”

More here.





Interview: What Went Wrong With Bernard Lewis?

March 12th, 2013 by Andrew Bostom |

I spent an hour with my colleague, the prolific author Robert Spencer, discussing Bernard Lewis, nonagenarian doyen of Islamic Studies.  The entire interview, conducted as a segment for Robert’s outstanding weekly series ofJihad Watch programs on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network,  is embedded above. Please read the summary assessment of my concerns before watching the interview. A more detailed analysis of Lewis’s analytic pitfalls can be read here.

Accrued over a distinguished career of more than six decades of serious scholarship, Bernard Lewis clearly possesses an enormous fund of knowledge regarding certain aspects of  classical Islamic civilization, as well as valuable insights on the early evolution of modern Turkey from the dismantled Ottoman Empire. A gifted linguist, non-fiction prose writer, and teacher, Lewis shares his understanding of Muslim societies in both written and oral presentations, with singular economy, eloquence, and wit. Now 96 years old and still active, these are extraordinary attributes for which Lewis richly deserves the accolades lavished upon him.

I began expressing my concerns with the less salutary aspects of Lewis’ scholarship in a lengthy reviewessay (for Frontpage) on Bat Ye’or’s seminal book Eurabia—The Euro-Arab Axis,  published December 31, 2004. Over the intervening years—in the wake of profound US policy failures vis a vis Islamdom at that time, and subsequently, till now—this disquietude has increased considerably. As I demonstrate in my recent book,  Sharia Versus Freedom, Lewis’s legacy of intellectual and moral confusion has greatly hindered the ability of sincere American policymakers to think clearly about Islam’s living imperial legacy, driven by unreformed and unrepentant mainstream Islamic doctrine. Ongoing highly selective and celebratory presentations of Lewis’s under­standings—(see this for example) —are pathognomonic of the dangerous influence Lewis continues to wield over his uncritical acolytes and supporters.

In Sharia Versus FreedomI review Lewis’s troubling intellectual legacy regarding four critical subject areas: the institution of jihad, the chronic impact of the Sharia on non-Muslims vanquished by jihad, sacralized Islamic Jew-hatred, and perhaps most importantly, his inexplicable 180-degree reversal on the notion of “Islamic democracy.” Lewis’ rather bowdlerized analyses are compared to the actual doctrinal formulations of Muslim legists, triumphal Muslim chroniclers celebrating the implementation of these doctrines,  and independent Western assessments by Islamologists (several of whom worked with Lewis, directly, as academic colleagues; discussed at length here) which refute his sanitized claims.

More here.



It’s not a question of what the West (US) does, it’s the fact that it exists, that drives the Middle East players to do either ”this or that”.

Golden quote:

 ….the damaging effect of the West upon the East had nothing to do with what the West did. It was an inevitable effect of what the West was, and no amount of sidestepping or backtracking could mitigate the consequences. The West, Kedourie asserted, “cannot help being what it is. By the very fact of its existence, it was a destabilizing force for the Middle East.” And he employed a different allegory: “Someone who has influenza is not really responsible for the fact that someone else catches his disease.” The West could not be blamed for being what it is: the carrier of an aggressive virus that ravages all traditions.

The NIC of time

Posted by Martin Kramer in Sandbox on December 11, 2012

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) has just published its fifth long-term prognostication, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds. This is an officially sponsored guessing game, but much of what government does has long lead times, so long-term projections need to be made by somebody.

By their nature, these hedged predictions say as much about present politics as future probabilities. One prediction (p. 71) is particularly striking, touching as it does on the drivers of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world:

Although al-Qa’ida and others have focused on the United States [as] a clear enemy, the appeal of the United States as the “great enemy” is declining. The impending withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and decreases in US forces in Afghanistan help to reduce the extent to which terrorists can draw on the United States as a lightning rod for anger. Soon, US support for Israel could be the last remaining major focus of Muslim anger.

It’s a peculiar assessment. After all, when al-Qa’ida attacked the United States on 9/11, there were no US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks undoubtedly did resonate in the Muslim world, and that couldn’t have been the result of an American boots-on-the-ground presence in the region. So what drove anti-Americanism back then? Is there a suggestion here that US support for Israel was already the “major focus”? What about American support for authoritarian regimes? We are told again and again how deeply Muslims have resented such support, and they could resent it even more in 2030, should the oil-saturated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf last that long.

More here.



There is no concept of the civil society within these Muslim states whatsoever, let alone the concept of defending someone else’s right to hold contrary views and values and fairly compete within the marketplace of ideas. The ”Arab Spring” was always doomed from the start.

Why Islamists Always Win “Fair” Elections

December 14th, 2012 – 4:21 pm

barry-rubin2I must quote extensively from a MEMRI analysis of the Egyptian referendum on the new constitution because it shows so vividly how politics work in the Arabic-speaking world today, especially when voting is involved.

First, the analysis presents the pro-constitution camp that is the Islamists. They coordinate their efforts and launched:

“A massive joint campaign aimed at persuading the public to endorse the constitution. This campaign includes holding conferences and symposia across Egypt; training thousands of Muslim Brotherhood activists to promote the constitution, some of whom are even going door to door, according to reports; and also recruiting mosque preachers and satellite channels in the efforts to persuade the public. Especially prominent in this campaign are the attempts to appeal to the average citizen and to impress upon him the economic and social advantages of supporting the constitution.”

Now, what about the opposition to the Islamists, those who might be called moderates?

“In contrast to the unified pro-constitution camp, the opposition organizations that oppose the constitution, headed by the National Salvation Front, have been inconsistent and uncertain, especially in deciding whether to boycott the referendum altogether or to merely urge the citizens to vote against the constitution. Only on December 12, three days before the start of the referendum, did the National Salvation Front officially declare that it would participate in the referendum (on certain conditions) and vote `no.’ The oppositionists’ efforts to persuade the public mainly took the form of online campaigns on social networks, as well as flyers and pamphlets distributed in the streets.”

In other words, it is no contest. One might add that in Tunisia, Syria, and other countries (including non-Arab Turkey) as well as Egypt most of the time, moderates are not united or disciplined. They are also  more poorly funded and more naïve about how to operate politically than the Islamists. The Islamists, or at least some of them (and that’s all that’s necessary) are prepared to use intimidation and violence; the moderates not. And that’s all in addition to having the advantage of appealing to a very powerful, deep-seated religious belief held by the majority. Even though there are unIslamist and even anti-Islamist interpretations of Islam they are not clearly and systematically articulated to counter the Islamist version.

More here.



 And the West looked on.

But this time, unlike 2011, it is the regime that enjoys the support of the armed forces and Western governments, being buttressed also with almost $10 billion in aid. “The people” aren’t going to bring down this regime and the new rulers are going to implement their interpretation of “God’s law.” That is the new meaning of democracy in Egypt.  Barry Rubin

Paralysed by political correctness, the West looks on as Egypt and Syria follow Iran into Islamofascism

By Peter Mullen

Why be content with just one Iran when you can have two? Egypt shows every sign of developing quickly into another Islamofascist regime. Egyptian judges have gone on strike because President Morsi has ascribed to himself something resembling absolute power, more control than even the hated and deposed “Western puppet” Mubarak ever had. Naturally, he is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted Salafists who look to the establishment of an Islamic republic resembling that of the Ayatollahs in Iran.

Oh dear, it wasn’t meant to turn out like this at all! When the Egyptian uprising began almost two years ago, it was cheered on by enthusiastic Western governments and an even more avid Western mass media who saw a brilliant democratic future for Egypt led by all those bright young people orchestrating peaceful revolution on their mobile phones. There were voices here and there – and I am not too shy to mention that this blog was among them – which spoilt the party by predicting the eventual takeover by the Islamists.

Why stop at two Irans when you can have three? Syria – where the idealistic “activists” were also lauded to the skies by the West – is heading the same way. Some of these idealists are now resorting to suicide bombs and torture in their campaign to be rid of Assad. The jihadists in Jabbat al-Nusra threaten to take over the Syrian uprising. One of the secular revolutionaries was quoted in Idlib over the weekend as saying: “We are not fighting Assad to go from living in an autocratic to a religious prison.” Another warned, “The next war after this will be between us and the Islamists.”

More here.




Absent of the West’s enlightenment which produced the concept of the civil society, and the Islamic world’s insistence of the collective over the individual, the ”Arab Spring” could never be counted on to produce anything resembling pluralistic democracy. The so called ”democracy” of the former Soviet Union and Iran is the closest model to what’s transpiring in the ME.

NOTE: Also worth mulling over is the fact that the Muslims know where the Christian enlightenment led, individualism, personal freedom, the right to voice one’s own opinion and the freedom to choose ones own lifestyle. That alone is enough to dash the hopes of ever influencing change within Islam, Muslims see the past and reject it for their future.

H/T: Fjordman

Spring Time for Sharia in Araby

A review of PJM columnist Andrew C. McCarthy’s timely and essential Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.


September 17, 2012 – 12:00 am

The release of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy’s brilliant, evocatively written jeremiad, could not be more timely.

As Americans solemnly commemorated the 11th anniversary of the cataclysmic acts of jihad terrorism on September 11, 2001, jihadists in Egypt and Libya were besieging our government buildings in these Muslim countries, eventually murdering U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. officials.

By Friday, September 14, 2012, violent masses of Muslims were rioting in Israel, Gaza, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Kashmir, and beyond, using a very questionable American film, which purportedly insulted Islam’s prophet Muhammad, as an alleged pretext.

McCarthy’s remarkably compendious analyses make plain that these dangerous phenomena illustrate, graphically, the corrosive impact of the delusive misconceptions about Islam promoted by U.S. policymakers. This profound bipartisan U.S. failure of imagination — and resultant failed policies — abetted the Orwellian-named “Arab Spring” uprisings for “democracy,” in reality a mass, popular Muslim movement rooted in Islam’s timeless jihad imperative to impose its totalitarian quintessence, the Sharia, or “Islamic law.”

Marshalling his full armamentarium of prosecutorial skills, McCarthy makes his arguments with meticulous documentation, thoughtfulness, and trenchant wit. What follows are five of the most salient points McCarthy establishes, irrefragably, for the edification of all readers of this indispensable primer — policymakers, media pundits of various ilks, and, most importantly, concerned U.S. citizens.

(I) Hurriyya Versus Freedom: There is a yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom — the latter being “hurriyya” in Arabic. Hurriyya is, as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240), the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,”  expressed it, “perfect slavery.” And this conception is not merely confined to the Sufis’ perhaps metaphorical understanding of the relationship between Allah the “master” and his human “slaves.” Following Islamic law slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya “freedom.” This earlier, more concrete characterization of hurriyya’s metaphysical meaning, whose essence Ibn Arabi reiterated, was pronounced by the Sufi scholar al-Qushayri (d. 1072/74).

Let it be known to you that the real meaning of freedom lies in the perfection of slavery. If the slavery of a human being in relation to God is a true one, his freedom is relieved from the yoke of changes. Anyone who imagines that it may be granted to a human being to give up his slavery for a moment and disregard the commands and prohibitions of the religious law while possessing discretion and responsibility, has divested himself of Islam. God said to his Prophet: “Worship until certainty comes to you.” (Koran 15:99). As agreed upon by the [Koranic] commentators, “certainty” here means the end (of life).

More here.



As I have said it would be from the very git go.

The Al Qaeda-Muslim Brotherhood Coalition

Posted by P. David Hornik

Not long ago the Arab Spring was seen as a harbinger of democracy. It turns out that, instead, it’s creating breeding grounds for international terror—and safe havens for al-Qaeda itself.

That is not just a polemical opinion but the somber assessment of the director-general of Britain’s MI5 internal security agency, Jonathan Evans. The Telegraph reports that Evans, in a rare lecture this week in London, warned that

Today parts of the Arab world have once more become a permissive environment for al-Qaeda.

This is the completion of a cycle—al-Qaeda first moved to Afghanistan in the 1990s due to pressure in their Arab countries of origin. They moved on to Pakistan after the fall of the Taliban.

And now some are heading home to the Arab world again…

Evans specifically said that British jihadis, who have been training for years at al-Qaeda strongholds in Yemen and Somalia, “are known to be receiving training in the likes of Libya and Egypt”—supposed beneficiaries of what some saw as a wave of Facebook-driven liberalization.

The MI5 chief also confirmed that al-Qaeda is now active in Syria, and “warned against suggestions that al-Qaeda’s threat has ‘evaporated’ following the death of Osama bin Laden and significant victories in Pakistan.” He noted that Britain, for its part, has “experienced a credible terrorist attack plot about once a year since 9/11.”

Evans didn’t say in what part of Egypt the jihadis are training. Israel, though, has been aware that—particularly since the winds of “spring” toppled Egypt’s pro-Western Mubarak regime—the presence of al-Qaeda and other global-jihad elements has been rapidly growing at least in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.

Read the rest here.