By CHERYL GATESWORTH
January 1, 2017 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - What follows is an interview of the noted authority on Islam, Robert Spencer who maintains a counter terror news website entitled JihadWatch.org as well as being the author of nearly 20 books.
Q. Given the current state of affairs vis-à-vis the Muslim population of Western Europe, what do you predict if current trend continue, will be the future of Sweden in five years?
A. You’re going to see just more of the same, a great deal more conflict, a great deal more assertiveness and aggressiveness on the part of Muslim immigrants, and ultimately civil war. If there is a sufficient number of Swedes who don’t like the way things are going, and want to stop the country’s descent towards Shari’a and chaos, if that is indeed the case, there will be conflict. But I don’t know that conflict is avoidable at this point.
Q. What do you see as the future of Sweden in ten years?
A. More of the same, unless these trends are stopped, and there’s a huge turnaround in terms of the country’s immigration policy. Then there’s going to be conflict between those who believe Islamic law ought to be the law of the land, and those who would rather live in a free society.
Q. What do you see as the future of Germany in five years?
A. It’s the same answer for every country-there’s got to be a massive change in policy and that has got to come quickly, or there’s going to be conflict and civil war. There’s going to be an increased number of people who want shari’a law, and an increase in the shari’a enclaves that are already in place in several countries in Europe. And as those enclaves grow and begin to swallow up more and more of the countries in which they’re located, they’re inevitably going to come in conflict with those who want those societies to remain free. So I don’t know if civil war can be avoided at that point.
Q. What do you see for the U.K. in five years?
A. The U.K. like Angela Merkel in Germany and the Swedish government, following the policy of massive Muslim immigration without requiring any kind of assimilation, and without making any attempt to vet the immigrants for jihadi sentiment, combining that with the appeasement of Islamic groups, you end up with the situation we have, with the increasingly aggressive Islamic organizations, and more calls for the implementation of Islamic law. That’s inevitably going to result in conflict.
Q. What countries do you see as beyond the tipping point? Or is there a chance for any of them?
A. I don’t think any of them are beyond the tipping point. As the great philosopher Yogi Berra said, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” None of them are Islamic states now, and that means that none of them need to become Islamic states. It’s possible things could be turned around in every last country in Europe.
Q. What do you think is driving European countries to import Muslims?
A. I think European leaders started out thinking they were going to be importing a workforce that would replace the shrinking and aging workforce of European natives, and that those people would not be required to assimilate, because that was per the agreement that the European Union made with the Arab League. They did not really consider the implications of what they were agreeing to, and ended up bringing in these large numbers of people who have a ready-made model of society and governance they consider superior to (that of their new country’s). Not only did they not realize the implication of not requiring assimilation, also they are globalist socialist internationalists who don’t believe in borders. They think nationalism is the source of evil in the world. That was one of the main reasons why they underestimated the implications of not requiring the immigrant community to assimilate, because they didn’t care about preserving the native culture, they didn’t care about preserving any national or cultural identity, they thought those things were evil. They had no problem with all these people bringing in an alien culture. They thought that national boundaries, ethnic distinctions, all that was evil, and that bringing in an alien culture was just what would solve Europe’s problems.
Q. The current Pope shows an amiability towards Islam that goes beyond Christian charity, and seems to be based on a willful misunderstanding of basic Islamic doctrine.
A. I think the Pope is also the same kind of person in terms of his worldview as Theresa May in Britain, Angela Merkel in Germany, the leaders of Sweden. The Pope is a Marxist internationalist. He thinks that the idea of trying to preserve a cultural identity in Europe is wrong and has to be stopped. His remarks about Islam being a religion of peace, however, and not having anything to do with terrorism, manifest a willful ignorance that is nothing short of psychotic. It is absolutely divorced from reality, and what motivates that is a mystery to me. The real problem with his doing that is really not with him, but with the followers of the Pope. They misunderstand or exaggerate the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility, and they de facto treat the Pope as if he were some kind of divine oracle. They think because he’s saying Islam is a religion of peace that therefore they have to believe it and say it as well.
Q. In the past, the Church has been accused of being too cozy with the Nazis and communists. Do you think there’s a feeling on the part of the Pope that in selecting Islam, he is putting the Church on the winning side?
A. That’s an excellent point. The Catholic Church is built to survive, that’s its primary goal, to just keep going. So whatever regime comes in to whatever country, it makes an accommodation with that regime such that it can survive. The days of martyrs standing up to an unjust government, as in the Christians of the Roman Empire, those days are over. I think it’s very likely that the Pope is realizing that Europe is going to become Islamized, and consequently he better get with the program. One of the rules for dhimmis, the subjugated Christians under the rule of Islamic law, is that they must not speak ill of Islam, so it’s possible that he’s preparing the ground for that, realizing he’s going to be a dhimmi pope in an Islamic Europe, and so he’d better start acting as if he is one.
Q. What role do you think “moderate Muslims” will play in Islam, for better or for worse?
A Moderates Muslims have been a null set in Islam. There are certainly moderate Muslims, and by that I mean Muslims who will never wage jihad, Muslims who will never kill anyone or even write something in defense of Islam, or try to fool infidels into thinking Islam is a religion of peace: all those are kinds of jihad, jihad of the pen, jihad of the tongue. They just want to live their lives, have a job, take care of their families like anyone else. At the same time, we have not seen in all these years since 9/11 any moderate Muslims have any significant influence over the Islamic world. There are moderate Muslims who are very famous in the United States, who get featured on television frequently, and I think they probably do more harm than good, because they give uninformed people the impression that most Muslims are moderate, decent folks like this guy they see on TV, and that is a shame. But they do not have any significant following among their fellow Muslims, and that’s very telling, and that’s because the jihadis do have the teachings of Islam on their side. Most Muslims know this, so they’re not going to stand up against them. I’ve tracked at my website [JihadWatch.org] rallies such as Muslims Against Isis. These are usually attended by 25 people, fifty people, a hundred people. They’re very minor events. Whereas when Muslims were demonstrating in Chechnya against cartoons of Muhammad they had 800,000 Muslims there. When they were demonstrating against cartoons of Muhammad in other counties, it was the same situation, tens of thousands of Muslims there. But we’ve never seen this from moderate Muslims protesting Muslims committing violence in the name of Islam. That is the clearest indication that moderate Muslims are no help. They exist, and I’m glad that they exist. But they are not going to do anything about their violent co-religion.
Were you surprised when Nigel Farage would not join with you and Pamela Geller, vis a vis the refusal of Theresa May to permit you into the U.K?
A. Yeah, you know, I didn’t actually want to approach him, but some people who are friends persuaded me to go up to him when we were both speaking at a conference. I asked him if he would put in a word in regard to the banning of Pamela Geller and me from Britain, and he got all nervous, and essentially the answer was no. Since then, he has, quite recently, when President Trump retweeted some entirely accurate videos of Muslims behaving violently, he condemned Trump for doing so. So I think it’s clear that Nigel Farage, although he did good work in the past with Brexit, has now decided to become an Establishment British politician, as if we needed another, and has betrayed the principles that made him prominent in the first place.
Q. Do you and Pamela Geller have any tours planned in the US or abroad?
A. Pamela Geller spoke last night in Toronto. She and I don’t have anything jointly planned right now, though something may materialize in the future. I am speaking in Florida in January, at a Greek Orthodox Church conference about Muslim persecution of Christians.
Q. Do you have working relationship with Geert Wilders?
A. I admire Geert Wilders a great deal. We don’t work together on any regular basis, but we have spoken together at various conferences in the past, of course at the notorious Muhammad art exhibit and cartoon contest that Pamela Geller and I sponsored in Garland, Texas, that was attacked by jihadis. Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker.
Q. What is your feeling about the success of your book? Are you surprised by (any) feedback?
A. It got a wonderful review from Andrew McCarthy of National Review in the New Criterion magazine. Other than that, it’s been mostly pretty quiet. I think this is the kind of book that, because it directly challenges the Islamic victimhood propaganda that is so prevalent nowadays, that the Islamic groups, rather than engage in their usual denunciations, are just hoping it won’t be noticed, and they’re keeping quiet about it.
Q. During the Cold War, we’d have called it a “conspiracy of silence.”
A That’s it. There you go.
ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of seventeen books, including theNew York Times bestsellersThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) andThe Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies). Coming in November 2017 is Confessions of an Islamophobe (Bombardier Books). Dr. Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He has discussed jihad, Islam, and terrorism at a workshop sponsored by the U.S. State Department and the German Foreign Ministry. He is a consultant with the Center for Security Policy.