Over the Past few days there has been a number of items about the growing threat of Islamic Terror in Great Britain..any of which, when read alone, should be quite frightening; the growing influence of Islamic Brotherhood, the fact that the burden of investigating terror suspects might cause the law enforcement system to collapse, and even the fact that Muslim Organizations may be buying influence in the British University System. The fact is THEY CAN NOT BE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY. In the aggregate, these reports may signal very rough times ahead for Britain and Europe:
by Douglas Farah
Several pieces today tie together to forma disturbing mosaic. The first two are the growing threat of radical Islam in Great Britain and the penetration of the structures of several elite universities there. The second is the new report by the NEFA Foundation on the Muslim Brotherhood structure in Belgium. The most disturbing to me is a report that Britain’s Home Secretary Jaqui Smith believes the police are being overwhelmed by the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain. “There are 2,000 individuals who are being monitored. There are 200 networks involved and 30 active plots,” she said. And she warned the menace of Islamic fanatics is mounting so fast that police will be unable to cope within a year—unless they are given new powers to lock up terror suspects for longer. At present cops can hold suspects for up to 28 days, but the Home Office wants that increased to 42 days. “We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers,” said Mrs Smith. “We have got to stay ahead.” “Because we now understand the scale of what is being plotted, the police have to step in earlier—which means they need more time to put evidence together.” If they are willing to talk about 2,000 individuals and 200 plots under observation, imagine what the real scale must be. At the same time, the Daily Telegraph today reports a new study showing that Saudi Arabia and Muslim organizations operating from there have donated 233.5 pounds (about $460 million) to eight British universities since 1995. That is almost $40 million a year. The author of the report, Anthony Glees, warned that this will lead to “the wrong sort of education by the wrong sort of people, funded by the wrong sorts of donor” because the money is used to fund study centers that are implacably hostile to the West. Could there be any connection between these two developments? And wouldn’t it be interesting to see how much money the same countries and organizations have put into U.S. universities, and other institutions of higher education in Europe. It is striking to me that, as this river of of dollars flows abroad for educational institutions, little is put into educational institutions in the Arab lands from which the money originates. This begs the question, to me, of why the outside education is so important for militant groups. If the Saudis wanted a better relationship with West and true understanding, they would teach that in their own country, with well-endowed institutions to carry the message of tolerance, understanding and acceptance to the next generation. But they don’t do that. They (and the Muslim Brotherhood groups) prefer to spend their money to influence how the next generation of scholars views Islam, and, of course, it is only a certain type of Islam that can be taught with the money these patrons of universities want taught. The result, as the NEFA report makes clear, is an infrastructure that provides the ongoing basis for the teaching of radical Sunni Islam. Belgium now has a complete MB infrastructure that most officials do not even know exists. It influences the educational process throughout the country. Britain’s main centers on Islam are controlled by the Saudis and their allies in the MB. Other countries are experiencing the same phenomenon. When the teaching spreads over time (both there and in the United States), the result will inevitably be the acceptance and inculcation of the agenda promoted by these groups. They go to universities because they understand that influencing the current generation of leadership is not a good use of resources. Setting the academic agenda for those who will influence policy and perceptions over the next 30 years is maximizing the return on investment.