Aaaaand... it's another Sahih hadith. End of story.

​Can't argue with that.
​

>>>>
After taking care of the haram canine situation on Day 9, the gang moves on to some spring cleaning . . . Muhammad style!
​WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Seven minutes of pure Islamic doctrine.

Man's best friend? Sorry mate.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Day 9, the gang learns about animal rights in Islam! 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

This is a great half hour interview with Diana West whose book, American Betrayal is the one book I have found most useful in understanding the current weakness of the West viz-a-viz Islam. If I could recommend only one volume to an enquirer wishing to understand Islam itself it would be Nabeel Qureshi's Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, but I have found Ms West's book to be as illuminating on the utter weakness of the West in understanding Islam. This book explains how we got where we are.

Absolutely indispensable for anyone trying to understand the zeitgeist. I wish everyone in Christian ministry would read it. That would be a real eye-opener for them. Alas, too busy I suspect...

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Dutch PVV or Party for Freedom. He has withstood a great deal of legal persecution and many threats to his life in the years he has been warning about the advance of Sharia. This looks to be just a brief 4 minute introductory clip to what I hope will be a precursor to a longer discussion with Dr Glazov. Mr Wilders is well worth listening to.

Yes, this is getting quite ridiculous. Fancy basing a whole gigantic religion on the infallibility of this chap? Hard to believe isn't it? Does that make us people who hate Muslims? Or are we simply people with an average level of intelligence who see a problem here?

Under Sharia the punishment for mocking Muhammad is death. But here in many Western countries we are now reaching the point where it will be considered "hate speech". So a normal response to a ridiculous situation is now hate speech? OK. Got it. But if that's the case surely people are going to be too scared to say anything aren't they? Can our government still be considered our government should that become the case?  


>>>>>>>>>>
Islamicize Me Day 8: Urine Luck!
Since the gang keeps getting sick, Giovanni heads to the zoo for a bottle of Muhammad's magic cure-all!
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net 

More Sahih Hadiths to chew on as we go through 30 days of Ramadan and 30 days of living according to Sharia.

What could possibly go wrong?
​

>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Day 7, the Halal Heroes search for Muhammad's advice on how to protect themselves from poison! 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

One source for this instruction is a Hasan hadith - so what are we supposed to think? This is a reliable source! Surely it can't be wrong...


>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Halal Heroes continue their adventure as they learn that water is clean and drinkable no matter what's floating in it! 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Part 1 is here. This episode is quite chilling too, do watch it.

The Ikhwan it is claimed control the halal certification industry which means they control all trade - without beneficence. Like the mafia. Facebook seems to have no problem at all accommodating a terrorist supporting Muslim Brotherhood member. How odd - aren't they opposed to all hate speech? We also get ideas on see how to organise undercover fund raising for jihadis  The 40 minute video just gets worse from there.

Frankly it's appalling.

Here's what Bill Warner has to say about this video:~


>>>>>>>>>>>>
I give this video Five Stars—very important.

"False Identity" – the second and most explosive of two documentary episodes on the U.S. unmasks ‘soft Jihad’ in America. In it, Arabic-speaking Israeli journalist Zvi Yehezkeli boldly concealed his identity to expose the shocking reality of Islam’s “quiet conquest” of the U.S. 

A few quotes:
“Our mission is to inculcate Islamic values in the heart of every American…This is our vision for the next 50 years: America - a place united under the banner; “There is no god but Allah.”
 
“The first Jihad is an internal Jihad, and then comes Jihad of war (sword).”
 
These documentaries validate that years of Da’wah, eventually and unavoidably lead to a point of no return in deeply damaging the foundations of our free societies as has been the case in Europe.

I have featured the wonderful Imam Tawhidi before. Here he chats with (the obviously hate-filled bigot) One Nation Senator for Queensland Pauline Hanson.

To reflect popular journalistic trends I include an appropriate photo of the lady. See the photo of her with a grumpy face boys & girls? That means she's evil and wrong (optics are everything in these days of short attention spans)! So how on earth did this nice Muslim man manage to hold his nose long enough to sit with her for an 18 minute chat? Well let's see! It turned out to be quite a nice conversation.

Topics discussed include:

• the chief Mufti of Australia & New Zealand;
  
• immigration;
  
• is Pauline Hanson a racist?;
  
• Halal certification;
  
• radicalisation;
  
• the easy life some Muslim families with multiple wives have living on the dole;
  
• the place of women;
  
• Pauline Hanson's walk into the Chamber in a Burkha and how to draw the Muslim community into the opposition against Sharia compliant Muslims.

The chat ends with the Imam agreeing to help Pauline Hanson to further freedom in Australia.

Now, given what we've been told about this woman, how on earth did all that happen?

The insights just keep coming from the most sacred Islamic texts.

​Ah the glories of Sharia!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
​On Day 5, the gang learns about Muhammad's command to dunk flies in their food! 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Bill Warner provides a half hour chat on recent developments in the struggle against Sharia in the US and Europe. I found the section on the wonderful openness of Eastern & Central Europeans to be most interesting. All the information is excellent though and a good survey of current attitudes & trends.

Education for the Common Man.

>>>>>>>>>>
​Topics include: Muslim Brotherhood, reform, the role of apologists, training camps, law enforcement, resisting Islam in Central Europe, the near enemy and the far enemy, different forms of jihad, mosque building, and Sharia.

In day 4 of their 30 day quest to live a halal lifestyle the guys discover more ways to please Allah.

As one of the comments on the video notes: it sure will be difficult to forget these points of Sharia law once these videos have been seen.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Islamicize Me Day 4: Finger Lickin' Good!
On Day 4, the gang learns about Muhammad's special method of cleaning fingers after eating!
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

The boys move into a whole new realm of dedication in their pursuit of complete obedience to Muhammad's directives. According to Sahih Muslim 597 it is necessary to: be "circumcised, shave the pubic hairs, clip the nails, pluck the armpit hairs and trim the moustache."

​Ouch.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
ISLAMICIZE ME DAY 3: WAX ON, WAX OFF
On Day 3 of "Islamicize Me," our heroes learn how to groom themselves properly for Allah! (Hint: Allah wants beards on top, but not on bottom!)
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

We continue with the next 5 minute segment of Dr Wood's series on how to live in compliance with Muhammad's life & example.

Did you know that the prophet dressed a little um, idiosyncratically at times? Certainly not like Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, but in other ways, quite peculiarly.

Here is the disturbing bit. In Sahih al-Bukhari (which is considered second in authority only to the Qur'an in Sunni Islam) #2442 the prophet said "The revelation does not come to me when I am in the garment of any woman except Aisha."

See, disturbing.


>>>>>>>>>>
​On Day 2, our heroes learn to dress like their prophet. But did Muhammad dress the way we think? Find out in the ongoing adventures of "Islamicize Me"! 

WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Meanwhile, on a more serious note, two scholars of Islam - one an ex-Muslim - discuss the gaping holes in the account of the person of Muhammad. Among other points, the mi'raj; the hijrah; the organisation of the Qur'an; Medinan & Meccan revelations; Muhammad's lack of offspring; his death and the the ensuing rightly guided prophets are covered.

They discover that there is a huge problem in the lack of historical evidence written down concerning Muhammad anywhere near his own lifetime.

Given the importance of Muhammad, how can that possibly be? Doesn't this represent a huge problem - especially when compared with the primary texts of Christianity?

Al Fadi & Dr Jay Smith discuss this troubling feature inside 20 minutes. 


>>>>>>>>>>>
​In March of 2018 Al Fadi invited Dr Jay Smith to his studio to record with him a number of videos on the historical problems concerning Islam's beginnings, and other areas of historical interest.

In this series, they are discussing the problems with what we know concerning Islam's emergence onto the world stage. They begin this first episode by assessing the classical account of Muhammad’s life, his time in Mecca, his movement to Medina, and his reception of the Qur’an between 610 – 632 AD

It is this account that we are taught in our schools and universities, and the only account that Muslims are told to believe. Yet, few people have bothered to critique or question it...until now.

Rarely are we told that everything we possess on Muhammad's life and saying do not come from anyone who was living at that time (i.e. eyewitness account) but was only written down between 200 – 240 years after the fact, by people who never knew him, nor even lived in the same country he lived.

What's odd is that no one seems to be troubled by this fact. If we as Christians were forced to depend on the same historical authority for our Lord Jesus Christ, on such late material for who Jesus was, what he did, and what he said (i.e. the Sira, the Hadith and the Tafsir of Jesus), we would have nothing written down about him until the 3rd century. How would we ever support his historicity, or argue for his authenticity?

Al Fadi and Jay will continue to unpack these historical oddities in further episodes for your viewing pleasure.
These same episodes can also be watched on Al Fadi's CIRA YouTube site at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5zG...
Similar episodes are being uploaded on Dr Smith's 'Jay Show' site here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClEB...
Please support these three sites by subscribing to them © Pfander Centre for Apologetics, 2018

I had an interesting chat with a friend today who seemed aghast at my suggestion that the majority of the "innocent civilians" mercilessly gunned down by the brutal Israeli troops this week were nothing of the kind. As an after thought a cynic might think the attacks on this border were being coordinated with the attacks by Iran on the Golan Heights for greater affect and international pressure to come to bear on Israel mightn't they? 

Concerning the photo above Jihad Watch points out: "The one on the right is  Ahmed Adel Mousa Al-Shaer, who was 16 years old. Yes, at least one of the “children” killed yesterday was a member of a terror group…". 

Well for my friend and for others like him, I offer the following article from the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Let's hope it clears some things up.

​
>>>>>>>>>>
Hamas Official: Majority of Palestinians Killed in Violent Protests are Our Men

​Hamas official Salah Bardawil may have destroyed the narrative that Israel is indiscriminately killing non-violent protesters at the Gaza border. The vast majority of Palestinians killed, Bardawil told a Palestinian interviewer, were Hamas fighters.

"In the last rounds of confrontations, if 62 people were martyred, 50 of them were Hamas," Bardawil said in a televised interview on Wednesday.

"I am giving you an official figure," he added, according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

A day earlier, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) also claimed that the IDF killed three terrorists from its military wing in Khan Younis.

Before Bardawil's interview, Hamas issued a memorial to 10 of its dead fighters.

Israeli officials previously estimated that at least 24 of those Palestinians killed were part of Hamas or PIJ. That includes eight members of an armed cell of Hamas operatives trying to infiltrate Israel who were killed during Monday's clashes at the border.

Both Hamas and PIJ published photos eulogizing some of the dead terrorists as martyrs.

While some cast the latest clashes as a reaction to the U.S. Embassy opening in Jerusalem, they follow weeks of violent protests at Israel's border with Gaza. From late March through the end of April, the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center found that 80 percent of the Palestinians killed were terrorist operatives or affiliates.

Most were tied to Hamas, but 10 of the terrorists killed during that time period were Fatah members.

Earlier this week, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar acknowledged that the Gaza demonstrations were "not peaceful resistance" and Hamas's efforts at the border are "bolstered by a military force and by security agencies."

"This is a clear terminological deception [i.e. "peaceful resistance"]. When you are in possession of weapons that were able to withstand the occupation in the wars of 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2014... This is not peaceful resistance... so when we talk about 'peaceful resistance,' we are deceiving the public," Al-Zahhar said in a May 13 interview with Al-Jazeera and reported by MEMRI.

Several killed Hamas members were sons of prominent Hamas officials, including deputy labor minister Musa al-Sambak. Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh's son and two of his nephews were also wounded in the clashes, according to a Meir Amit analysis.

By organizing and promoting the riots, Hamas officials literally sacrificed their own children's lives and safety for a propaganda victory.

​This type of behavior is consistent with Hamas' strategy of sabotaging its own people's livelihood to prioritize its fight against Israel.

Based on its everyday application and the incredibly severe punishment for not obeying it, this teaching has still got to be one of the weirdest things you can imagine.

But you don't want to go to Hell do you? So in just 5 minutes, Dr Wood and friends make sure you know all about the truth.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Join our heroes as they begin their journey into Islam by asking a mystical backpack about Muhammad's most important rule! (Hint: It's about peeing properly!)
​
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net
To visit Vocab's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/vocabmalone
To visit Jon's channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ok...
PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=3615911
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Acts17
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
MINDS: https://www.minds.com/Acts17Apologetics

Just as an old work of fiction posed the question: What would Jesus do? (and what would my life look like if I copied him?) David Wood and friends endeavour to answer this question as it is applied to the person of Muhammad as revealed in Islam's source texts. Below is their 5 minute intro to the upcoming series of videos. 

It should be very illuminating.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's the prologue to our 30-day "Islamicize Me" series! Join our heroes Giovanni, Jamal, and Dennis as they spend 30 days living according to the teachings of Muhammad, and fighting the evil forces of Islamophobia!

To visit Vocab's channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/vocabmalone
To visit Jon's channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ok...

Raymond Ibrahim writes the following article on the brutality of the Islamic wars of religious conquest (Jihad) of Egypt and other lands at that time.

Baffling isn't it that the Rightly Guided Caliphs did not understand that "Christians worship the same god" and, as "people of the book" should be given special honour. This is what we are assured by our good faith dialogue partners these days in the West. So how did these formidable servants of Allah manage to so badly misunderstand Islam? They were men who actually knew Muhammad - how could this have happened? It's like the first Christian Apostles spending years with Jesus and then running around slaughtering people as soon as he died. No, no - that just doesn't make sense.

I mean, if anyone understood Islam... it would be those guys.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Islam’s Erasure of Christianity
A recent article titled “Passages from the Bible discovered behind Qur’an manuscript” is a reminder that for centuries Islam has been literally and figuratively erasing Christianity.

The report tells of how an eighth century Koran was found to be written over a Christian book, possibly the Bible: “French scholar Dr Eléonore Cellard … noticed that, appearing faintly behind the Arabic script, were Coptic letters. She contacted Christie’s [an auction house], and they managed to identify the Coptic text as coming from the Old Testament’s Book of Deuteronomy—part of the Torah and the Christian Old Testament.”

What this means, and how Western scholars understand it, are two different things:  “This is a very important discovery for the history of the Qur’an and early Islam,” said Cellard.  “We have here a witness of cultural interactions between different religious communities.”   Christie’s specialist Romain Pingannaud concurs: “It shows the contact between communities in the first centuries of Islam.”

What is euphemistically referred to as “cultural interactions between different religious communities” and “the contact between communities in the first centuries of Islam” is a reference to the near cultural annihilation of Coptic Christian civilization by Islam on the former’s own homeland.  The closest the report gets to this simple fact is by saying:

   Christie’s… believes that the manuscript is likely to have been produced in Egypt, which was home to the Coptic community, at the time of the Arab conquest. It said that the fragments “resonate with the historical reality of religious communities in the Near East and as such are an invaluable survival from the earliest centuries of Islam.”

For an accurate glimpse of this “historical reality,” one need only turn to John of Nikiu, a Coptic bishop and eyewitness of the seventh century Muslim invasion of his Egyptian homeland.  He recounts atrocity after atrocity perpetrated by the Muslims against the indigenous Christians, simply because the Muslim invaders deemed “the servants of Christ as enemies of Allah.”  His chronicle is so riddled with bloodshed that John simply concludes, “But let us now say no more, for it is impossible to describe the horrors the Muslims committed…”

Once the conquest was over, the “rightly guided caliphs”—Muhammad’s relatives and companions—forced the “milk camels [Egypt’s Christian population] to yield more milk” by squeezing them dry of their wealth and resources, write the Arab chroniclers.  Apocalyptic scenes permeate contemporary accounts concerning these times of wholesale extortion followed by starvation: “the dead were cast out into the streets and market-places, like fish which the water throws up on the land, because they found none to bury them; and some of the people devoured human flesh” from starvation, writes the chronicler Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa (d.987).

In short, and to quote nineteen century historian Alfred Butler, “that they [Egyptian Christians] abhorred the religion of Islam is proved by every page of their history.”

The Islamic takeover and financial bleeding of Egypt (documented in my new book, Sword and Scimitar) was always accompanied by a war on Egypt’s Christian heritage and nearly snuffed it out (as it did in other formerly Christian lands, from North Africa to Anatolia).[1] In the eleventh century, Fatimid caliph Hakim bi-amr Allah ordered the destruction of 30,000 churches, including Christendom’s most sacred church, that of the Sepulchre in Jerusalem.  Saladin, who overthrew the Fatimids, ordered mud smeared on Egypt’s churches, and their crosses broken off.  Then came nearly three centuries under the Mamluks, who were even more repressive than their predecessors.  Under their reign, Coptic ceased to be a living language, as the punishment for speaking it included the severing of one’s tongue.

Such is the “cultural interactions between different religious communities” that the scholars are fascinated over.
Erasing a Coptic language Bible and supplanting it with the Arabic Koran is a reminder of Islam’s enforced erasure of all Christian vestiges in Christianity’s ancient heartlands.   The more entrenched Islam became in Egypt, the more Coptic culture—from its language to its churches—slowly disappeared, or was rendered invisible through a number of edicts (commonly known as the Conditions of Omar).

Even the already circulating Christian coins that the caliphate appropriated had their crosses effaced so as not to resemble crosses.   Islam’s erasure of Christianity in its own homelands continues to this day, including in its war on churches, and in even more subtle ways—such as literally erasing Christianity from the history books.

Yet Christie’s specialist Romain Pingannaud’s claims that the recent eighth century Koran find is “quite extraordinary…  It’s fascinating, particularly because it’s the only example where you have an Arabic text on top of a non-Arabic text. And what’s even more fascinating is it is on top of passages from the Old Testament.”  The report elaborates by saying that such books (palimpsests) are “extremely rare … with only a handful having been previously recorded, none of which were copied above a Christian text.”

Erasing Christian books of their scriptures and supplanting them with the Arabic Koran was actually par for the course.  Dario Fernandez-Morera writes that one celebrated Muslim cleric held “that the sacred books of the defeated Christians must be burned to make them ‘disappear’—unless one can erase their content completely so one can then sell the blank pages to make a profit.  But if one cannot sell these erased pages, they must be burned” (The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, 41).
​
Happily, and as this recent discovery of a Christian text under the Arabic Koran suggests, sooner or later, everything will be uncovered—including the eyes of Western people to Islam’s past and present.
————————–
[1] As Alfred Butler explained “[T]he burdens of the Christians grew heavier in proportion as their numbers lessened [that is, the more Christians converted to Islam, the more the burdens on the remaining few grew]. The wonder, therefore, is not that so many Copts yielded to the current which bore them with sweeping force over to Islam, but that so great a multitude of Christians stood firmly against the stream, nor have all the storms of thirteen centuries moved their faith from the rock of its foundation.”

Very typical.

Having observed this sort of thing happening on a regular basis all over the West I am quite used to the pattern of behaviour portrayed in this video. Someone raises perfectly rational concerns over extremist literature put out by Sharia supremacists and asks a reasonable question of a Muslim political candidate. Something along the lines of: "Are you happy to state that you have no sympathy for this anti-freedom agenda?" - that sort of thing.

The person questioned immediately seems to take great offence, accusing the questioner of racism, intolerance, bigotry & of course "Islamophobia" ("White Supremacist" is becoming more fashionable these days too, even if the questioner is not white). And that simple question is never directly answered.

OK, I know we're dealing with politicians here and sure, not giving a straight answer is their bread & butter, but come on: "do you refute and oppose the goals of this designated terrorist organisation?" should not really be that difficult to conjure up an off-the-cuff answer for should it? 

But it regularly seems to be the case that it IS too difficult to answer and not only that, merely asking the question - which is based upon court approved documentation & verified by top security sources as I noted here - means that public accusations of racism, pulling the wings off butterflies and being mean to kittens inevitably pour forth. Furthermore as the man being questioned was once Vice President of the Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood linked group, the question is extremely fair.

However even more disturbingly, this irrational response is given a pass by all too many people because - feelings! Never mind the careful wording of the question or the substantial reasons for clarifying the issue, we seem more concerned about offended feelings. Again.

Here is the link to the Buzzfeed article mentioned below. Hey, wait a minute! I just noticed that any mention of the Muslim Brotherhood Memorandum is labelled a "conspiracy theory" by the (apparently Muslim) author, so I guess we're all wasting our time even looking into this. I mean everyone knows that once something is called a conspiracy theory no intelligent person would give it the time of day right? Darn. Well I guess we can ignore that then...

However there is a video on that Buzzfeed page of the Republican candidate's offending talk which the article is responding to. Have a look at that 7 minute clip too and decide for yourself if he is being bigoted. You will find plenty of evidence, even here on IslamAndKiwis, that he is being pretty reasonable & accurate.

But no, bigots that we are, we've got that all wrong - he is simply a hateful white supremacist. Interesting too that the highly educated Dr. Abdul El-Sayed has no problem publicly telling Mr Colbeck in the 6 minute video below that, "you may not hate Muslims but I'll tell you what Muslims definitely hate you".

But that's not hate speech eh? The best reason I can come up with for it not being hate speech - somebody please give me a better one - is that Dr El-Sayed belongs to a minority and therefore cannot be guilty of either racism or hate speech because he is oppressed. He's an oppressed high-earning, politically active and influential epidemiologist. Don't laugh, I think he actually believes it.

This very useful article is via the wonderful Pamela Geller. Do pardon the emotive headline, but as I say, this response is so common that one would almost think all Muslim politicians get formal training in deflection. Best to detect the pattern and file it away for future reference. You will see it again, be prepared.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michigan: First-ever Muslim candidate for Governor comes unhinged over question about Sharia (VIDEO)

Source: First-ever Muslim candidate for Governor comes unhinged over question about Sharia
By LEO HOHMANN

Michigan’s first-ever Muslim candidate for governor, Dr. Abdul al-Sayed, took a shot at fellow gubernatorial candidate Patrick Colbeck on Thursday that some Republicans are saying was below the belt.

Colbeck, speaking at a candidate’s forum in East Lansing, expressed his concerns about Sharia law and the extremist Muslim Brotherhood’s tactic of civilization jihad. Colbeck took exception with an article he says was planted by Sayed supporters in the left-of-center website Buzzfeed,  which painted Colbeck as a fringe extremist using “unfounded conspiracy theories” against Sayed.

Rather than address Colbeck’s concerns, Sayed called Colbeck a racist Islamophobe whom Muslims “definitely hate.”

Sayed, 33, the former public-health director for the city of Detroit, was on stage Thursday at the Michigan Press Association with several other Democrat and Republican candidates for governor running in the Aug. 7 primary.

Sayed refused to answer a question from the moderator about the Islamic legal system known as Sharia, other than to say that, if elected, he would uphold the constitutions of the U.S. and State of Michigan.
…
“This is one of those areas that got me ticked off in regard to the fairness of the media,” Colbeck told the audience Thursday. “They pitched this comment around my concern about the Muslim Brotherhood as a concern about Muslims in general. I love Muslims. It’s not an issue. The issue is about terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.”

After he berated Colbeck as a racist, and lectured the other Republicans on the panel for not condemning Colbeck as a racist and white supremacist, the normally cool-headed Sayed became visibly angry and showed he is not above expressing some hatred of his own.

   “What frustrates me more is not that you have blatant racism on the part of certain people, but what frustrates me more is in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, is not when bad people speak out but when good people fail to speak out, and what I have not heard is the Republicans on this panel, decisively and swiftly call out this kind of Islamophobia, this kind of racism, in the context that they are wanting to represent the state that has the highest per-capita number of Muslim Americans in the country. Now you may not hate Muslims, but I’ll tell you, Muslims definitely hate you!”

​Dick Manasseri, spokesman for Secure Michigan, one of the groups that has concerns about the incremental advancement of Sharia in Michigan’s Muslim enclaves, including female genital mutilation, honor violence and polygamy, said he was surprised to see Sayed come unhinged in response to a calmly-communicated concern by Colbeck.

“Dr. Abdul definitely lost his cool,” Manasseri said. “I think what we saw was an outburst. Abdul was not cool. Patrick is purposely trying to not make this his only issue, but when it comes up he’s not afraid to address it and Dr. Abdul showed he just can’t handle it. All he has in his bag of tricks is the canned response that everyone who asks about Sharia is a racist and an Islamophobe.”

Since Islam is not a race, and some of the most populous Muslim countries such as Syria and Bosnia are filled by Caucasians, the charge of racism is disingenuous at best, nonsensical at worst, Manasseri said.

Predictably there has been significant disapproval of President Trump's decision to take America out of the JCPOA - the nuclear deal that Western powers formed with Iran. Political opponents and the bulk of the news media (but I repeat myself) have scolded the President for this precipitous action.

But the problems with this agreement are many. It did not address Iran's work on building missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. Tangentially, it should also be noted that the President's stated concerns about an Iranian nuclear attack on an American city does not require an ICBM, all it requires is a warhead in the hold of a smallish vessel parked in any harbour.

​Furthermore there has been no significant pressure brought to bear on Iran to curb its huge international terrorism work, including its funding of Hezbullah & Hamas or its ballistic missile programme. These concerns were going to be addressed at a "later date". Whenever that date might be it will only be closer to Iran's goal of attaining nuclear weapons status, which will only make them less amenable to reason.

For their part the obviously peace-loving and utterly misunderstood Iranian leadership has chanted "Death to America" in their Parliament where dozens of "hardliners" also burnt an American flag. Obviously this has been taken out of context and is most assuredly a mistranslation. I'm sure we can find some helpful Farsi specialists who will confirm that these people were shouting "We want peace" and that the "flag" was actually an old Potato Crisp packet. Watch the New York Times & BBC for such confirmation in days to come.

Meanwhile the chip packet burners are apparently being further mistranslated:~

Khamenei described Trump's speech Tuesday announcing his decision as having "over 10 lies," without elaborating on them. He also said Trump's remarks threatened both Iran's people and its theocratic government. ... [President] Rouhani made a point of stressing that Iran, at any time, could resume its nuclear program. "If necessary, we can begin our industrial enrichment without any limitations," the Iranian leader said. ... Many Iranians are worried about what Trump's decision could mean for their country.

Of course maybe some of them may be worried. But there has been a huge & ongoing groundswell of Iranian public opinion for removal of the Mullahs these last few years. I read last year that mosques in Iran are having to be locked during the day to avoid vandalism. Isn't that strangely Islamophobic? Fancy the bulk of Iranians actually blaming the Religion of Peace for all their problems! Boy, they really misunderstand Islam don't they?

​Meanwhile back in the real world Jihad Watch reports that a huge amount of actual Iranians - including those people who actually have to live in Iran, the ones who took the the streets over the last few years crying for the end of the theocracy and the right of women not to wear a hijab, those shot, imprisoned, tortured and "disappeared" for their bravery - are praising President Trump for his long overdue stand. In fact many Iranians are overjoyed by Trump's decision.

But what do they know right?
We've got the Washington Post, AP and Stuff telling us what's really happening.

To further demonstrate Iran's total commitment to peace they launched a rocket attack of peace on Israel's Golan Heights from within Syria. Hot Air notes:~

          Israel has been expecting an attack from Iran’s military presence in Syria ... The lack of “proportionality” [in Israel's response] sends its own message. Israel isn’t interested in proportionality when it comes to attacks on their country. They see it rightly as an act of war, and they also rightly see that war doesn’t require “proportionality.” It requires a forceful enough response to end the war as soon as possible. The only way to deal with an aggressor is to bloody him up enough to take the aggression out of him. ... Israel apparently took care to target only the Iranian installations in Syria, avoiding Russian bases altogether and only attacking Syrian air defenses that attempted to intervene. Iran started the fighting, and if they don’t like the results, they can solve the situation by “restraining” themselves from firing rockets into Israel.
...
And guess who agrees with that? The government of Bahrain, for one [commented]:
    "As long as Iran has breached the status quo in the region and has [launched] its troops and missiles, any state in the region, including Israel, is entitled to defend itself by destroying the sources of danger."

Why the Zionist spies are everywhere!

Meanwhile according to the Washington Free Beacon John Bolton the new White House Security Adviser - and an excellent bloke to have in that job I am relieved to say - stated on Tuesday:~
         that Iran repeatedly violated the 2015 nuclear deal ... Bolton said one example was Iran's production of heavy water that repeatedly exceeded the limits of permitted under the 2015 agreement.

NSC spokesman Robert Palladino said
    "Iran has also regularly pushed the boundaries of the deal, for example failing to meet expectations on its operation of advanced centrifuges, as the president highlighted in his speech on October 13, 2017, ... Iran's leaders also stated that they would not allow inspections of military facilities, a position that is clearly inconsistent with Iran's JCPOA obligation to implement the Additional Protocol. 

A group of American Senators also noted how Iran has failed in other areas:~

• Operating more advanced nuclear centrifuges than are permitted by the agreement and maintaining more advanced centrifuges than required for its permitted nuclear enrichment activities.
• German intelligence agencies reported in 2015 and 2016 that despite the JCPOA prohibitions, Iran has continued illicit attempts to buy nuclear and missile technology outside of JCPOA-approved channels.
• Iran has refused to grant international inspections of nuclear research and military facilities.

Bolton stated:~
          "this deal was fundamentally flawed, as the president said, ... It does not do what it purports to do. It does not prevent Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons. It allows Iran to continue technologies like uranium enrichment, reprocessing of plutonium. It allows them—even if they're in compliance with the deal—to increase their research and development on the sophistication of their nuclear capabilities. And it simply has an utterly inadequate treatment of the military dimension of Iran's aspirations."
...
The Free Beacon article continues:~
       Iran was secretly maintaining an archive of all its nuclear weapons research at the same time it is continuing to build long-range missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. "Contrary to basic arms control agreement practice, there was never a baseline declaration," Bolton said. "In fact, Iran has consistently denied it ever had a military program. That's enshrined in Security Council Resolution 2231. And as we've seen from the data that we've collected before, that Israel discussed last week, this is a flat lie."
...
           "So recognizing that Iran has used the course of the negotiations, the lengthy period leading up to the deal to increase the capability and sophistication both of its nuclear weapons program and its ballistic missile program, and has continued to do so since the deal in 2015, the only sure way to get on the path of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities is to get out of the deal," he said. 
...
[Senator] Cotton praised the president's action.
    "The Iran nuclear deal, terribly flawed from the beginning, at best only delayed Iran from getting the bomb while handing over hundreds of billions in sanctions relief, money that Iran uses to support terrorism and build long-range missiles..." 

​If Shi'a Iran are known to be getting close to a deliverable nuclear warhead there will inevitably be a response from its Sunni neighbours, never mind Israel and America.That will be very, very bad for the whole region and the world.

​For the sake of everyone Iran needs to have the regime change that so many of its own people are desperate for. Unlike the appalling efforts of the West during the "Arab Spring" where we did nothing but assist the Islamists, we need to get involved here in any way we can to help the Persians achieve real freedom from Sharia.
​

Get the dog off the field. It's ruining the game.

When I watched Westerns as a kid the baddies always wore black hats and the goodies always wore white. It's a pity real life isn't so easy to sort out.

I've mentioned some problems with the White Helmets previously (here and here) but here is a more complete picture from Jihad Watch. Spend some time going through the sources below the fold. Very interesting.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who are the White Helmets?
May 9, 2018 6:38 am By Henrik Raeder Clausen

When the “White Helmets” tried to recruit Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame as a propaganda agent, the attempt not only failed, it backfired.

Fans of classical rock music certainly know about Pink Floyd and their lead singer Roger Waters. So does the organization ”White Helmets,” which twice attempted to recruit Roger Waters to support its mission. Recently, they asked Roger Waters for permission to go on stage at his concert in Barcelona and promote their efforts. The musician did not respond to any of the two recruitment attempts, but instead chose to comment on them on stage himself. Roger Waters said:
               There was some fellow, he may well be very well meaning, a very lovely chap, his name is ‘Pascal’, something around that. And he wanted to come on stage and make a speech about Douma, East Ghouta, where he believes was a chemical attack on the people of Douma by Bashar Assad. Hang on, let me finish.

And he is one voice. I personally think he is entirely wrong. I believe the organization whom he purports to represent and whom he supports, White Helmets, is a fake organization that exists only to create propaganda for jihadis and terrorists. That’s my belief. We have opposing beliefs.

If we were to listen to this guy, and if we were to listen to the propaganda of the White Helmets and others, we would be encouraged to encourage our governments to start dropping bombs on people in Syria. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions for us as human beings.

What we should do is go and persuade our governments not to go and drop bombs on people. And certainly not until we have done all the research that is necessary so that we have a clear idea of what is really going on. Because we live in the world where propaganda seems to be more important than the reality of what is really going on,

So I would encourage Pascal to wait until the evidence is in before he leaps to any conclusions.

Waters is venomously anti-Israel and has never shown any awareness of the jihad threat. But if the White Helmets are too much even for him, that should give even their most fervent supporters pause. Another leftist who doesn’t understand the jihad threat, American journalist Max Blumenthal, manager of the Greyzone Project, was given the two emails that Roger Waters had received concerning the White Helmets, and agreed with Waters. In additional comments, Waters encourages other celebrities, who previously voiced their support for the White Helmets, to reconsider their support of the group:
           ”I don’t blame them for having bought in to it. On the face of it, it felt plausible that the White Helmets were just good people doing good things. But now we know they’re trying to encourage the West to drop bombs and missiles illegally in Syria,” the famous singer said.

Waters also said to Greyzone Project that Syria Campaign (which does public relations for the White Helmets) is ”a malign organization funded by people who hope to gain from the ouster of Bashar Assad because once he’s gone, it will be open season for the stealing of the assets of a failed state.”

Who are the ”White Helmets”?
The White Helmets, frequently described as a group of “volunteers,” has been tracked in detail by the independent British journalist Vanessa Beeley. According to her records, the White Helmets were founded by the British ”Security contractor” (some say “mercenary”) James le Mesurier in March 2013 in Turkey, with a seed funding of $300,000 from England, United States and Japan. Since then, the organization has received at least $123 million of foreign aid from a variety of countries and governments.

The White Helmets were created at a time where it was becoming known that the majority of Syrian rebels were in fact jihad warriors, fighting to replace the secular Syrian republic with Sharia and a Caliphate. According to independent journalist Vanessa Beeley, it was Le Mesurier’s “‘realization that humanitarian aid was more effective at maintaining war than an army” that spurred his creation of the organization.

In other words, this is a partisan propaganda effort in the Syrian war. And Le Mesurier was right: this has been quite effective.

The White Helmets operate exclusively in areas controlled by the Islamist rebels, never in areas under control of the Syrian government. There is no reason to assume that they can do this without approval from the Islamist rebels. Considering the frequently observed co-location of White Helmets offices and other facilities with offices of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and other jihad organizations, one can safely assume that the White Helmets have a willful and direct cooperation with the jihadis. Thus how can one reasonably assume that their funding is not also funneled to the jihadis?

Do the White Helmets deserve an Oscar?
Independent journalists such as Beeley, Eva Bartlett, Pearson Sharp, Robert Fisk and Blumenthal are reporting in detail about the actual activities of the White Helmets. They travel at their own risk and expense to Aleppo, Ghouta and other war-torn areas in order to talk to people on the ground to collect direct impressions of the situation there.

These independent voices systematically state that the White Helmets work with jihadis and terrorists, but are not undertaking any honest and systematic effort to aid civilians wounded during the battles. The supposedly ”impartial volunteers” provide help only to jihad warriors and themselves, leaving civilians behind in the ruins. As Eva Bartlett put it: “They are White Helmets by day and terrorists by night.”

But this gets worse: The White Helmets are more systematic at filming their supposedly heroic efforts than at providing them impartially. There are many examples of how the same children are being “rescued” over and over by different helpers in addition to false photos of “wounded.”

The most recent example of staging is from the supposed chemical attack in Douma. Here, according to the White Helmets’ own video, we are expected to believe that a cylinder of chlorine gas broke through an iron-reinforced concrete roof without damaging the glassware below. The cylinder then levitated across the room to lie down gently on wooden double bed. The cylinder, still sealed, showed no sign of impact damage from the roof, but did somehow manage to scratch the staircase leading up to the apartment. Neither the cylinder nor its content had caused any harm to the chickens held downstairs, not to mention the supposed victims in the basement of the building.

One particularly embarrassing example was the so-called “Mannequin challenge,” a video showing a dusty man lying quietly among some rubble, rescue workers standing in frozen positions above him. On cue, the “victim” starts screaming from pain, and the workers jump into action, rushing the man elsewhere. Since this was obviously an event staged for filming, the White Helmets had to issue an apology for “error of judgment” over releasing it. But even though staged, this video proved one thing conclusively: the White Helmets are both willing and able to stage realistic-looking staged events of rescue actions. This casts doubt over every video released by them.

Given these talents, it should be obvious to give the White Helmets an Academy Award. And that actually did take place: In 2017, the White Helmets won the category Documentary (Short Subject).  This 40-minute “documentary” conveniently ignores the presence of Islamist rebels in the Syrian war, not to mention their massive atrocities against Syrian civilians.

Quranic background for the White Helmets
However, White Helmets leader Khaled Khateeb was denied entry into the United States to collect the award since the Department of Homeland Security had unspecified concerns about his connections. Instead, he had the following message for the event:
     We’re so grateful this film has highlighted our work to the world. Our organization is guided by a verse in the Koran, ‘To save one life is to save all of humanity.’ We have saved more than 82,000 Syrian lives. I’ll invite anyone here who hears me to work on the side of life to stop the bloodshed in Syria and around the world.

The figure 82,000 is unsubstantiated and undocumented. More interesting, of course, is the implicit reference to the oft-quoted Quran verse 5:32. Which in full reads as follows:
   On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

The Quran-literate Khaled Khateeb will certainly be aware of the relevant context in verse 5:33:
        The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

“Mischief through the land” would be opposition to Islamic law, Sharia. This speaks volumes.

What should we do?
The logical first step to the problems with the ”White Helmets” is to stop funding them. Their close cooperation with jihad organizations such as Jabat al-Nusra, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and Nour Al Din Zinki in itself constitutes sufficient reason to stop funding them. Latest: The US government just stopped funding the White Helmets.

Further, it would be appropriate to request that the White Helmets document in detail how they spent the lavish funding they already received.

Finally, all material published by the group should be considered suspect, and undergo critical scrutiny before being used as justifications for government action. Just like any other source.

Sources:

Raymond Ibrahim's latest article. Hatred in the Qur'an? Damn you to hell for suggesting it!

A great scholar of Islam & its history, a man of Egyptian Coptic Christian descent and a native Arabic speaker. He offers this evaluation of the latest, um, misleading statements to come from our very good faith partners in dialogue at Al Azhar. I also now stand corrected in my belief that Egypt was predominantly Shafi'i - it is Hanafi.


>>>>>>>>>>
“Go to Hell!” Egypt Responds to French Call to Revise Koran
Recently I explained how, by Muslims’ own (inadvertent) logic, various Koran verses stand to be banned on the basis that they defame and incite violence against non-Muslims. Two days later, the French newspaper Le Monde published a letter signed by some 300 French public figures across the party lines including former president Nicolas Sarkozy.  In it, they “ask that the verses of the Qur’an calling for the killing and punishment of Jews, Christians and unbelievers be obsoleted by theological authorities.”

Titled “Manifesto against the new anti-Semitism,” the signed letter focuses especially on the rise of Muslim violence against France’s Jewish minority: “French Jews are 25 times more likely to be attacked than their fellow Muslims. 10% of the Jewish citizens of Ile-de-France—that is to say about 50,000 people—were recently forced to move because they were no longer safe in some cities and because their children do not could attend the school of the Republic more. This is a low-noise ethnic cleansing…”

Of course, the notion that Muslims will willingly strike out certain verses from the Koran because they upset or threaten infidels is a nonstarter.  From a Muslim perspective, because the Koran is Allah’s word, it cannot be tampered with or altered in anyway (if Sarkozy et al made these claims in certain Muslim countries they would either be incarcerated on blasphemy charges or killed outright).

But while more forthright Muslims base their rejection of the French call on this simple fact, those more skilled in “dialoguing” with the West follow a different strategy.

Enter Al Azhar.  Located in Cairo and attached to the government of Egypt, it is the Muslim world’s most prestigious “university” (that is, madrasa) and regularly hosts—and engages in “dialogue” with—the likes of Barrack Obama and Pope Francis.

Responding to the French letter, the deputy chief of Al Azhar, Dr. ‘Abbas Shuman, said that “The call from 300 French persons to freeze verses in the Noble Koran, which they claim urges the killing of non-Muslims, is unjustifiable and unacceptable.”

And if that wasn’t clear enough, he exclaimed, “No to freezing one letter from the Koran—and those calling for it can go to hell!”

As usual, however, whereas entities such as the Islamic State proudly embrace the fact that the Koran does call for enmity and violence directed against non-Muslims, Al Azhar went into apologetic mode.

​“For we have no verses,” insisted Shuman, “that command the killing of others, unless they commit one of the crimes that do earn the death penalty, such as murder, or raising weapons against us.  Nor are we responsible for those [e.g., ISIS] who do not correctly understand the verses, who take them at face value without referring to the tafasir [exegeses] of the ulema.”

Perhaps he had forgotten about Koran 9:29: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e., embrace sharia law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya [extortion money] with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued.” All authoritative exegeses see this verse as enshrining Islam’s “messianic” mission of subjugating infidels by force.

Not only is Allah’s command here rather straightforward in meaning, but for a millennium Muslims executed it—and conquered some three-quarters of the original Western world in the process (as recounted in my new book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West).

It is only now, when Muslims are militarily/economically weaker than and vulnerable to the Western world that claims that such verses don’t really mean what they plainly say have become popular among Muslims, especially those involved in “dialogue” with the West.

I have in my possession an authoritative Arabic manual titled Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by Dr. Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil.  After providing several proofs, he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”  In other words, Koran 9:29, as it is.

As for Al Azhar’s reliance on the ulema and their exegeses, the book contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” as defined by the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam—or in this case, jihad—is articulated:

• According to the Hanafis—the madhhab (school) Egypt follows—jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue —a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it.”
• According to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel [non-Muslim] in order that Allah’s word reigns supreme.”
• According to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels.”
• And according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.”

Needless to say, fighting infidels in the name of Islam leads to killing infidels—untold millions over the centuries—in the name of Islam, which is precisely what Al Azhar denies.

During his dissembling, Al Azhar’s Shuman went so far as to insist that “Those [French] who think that there are [Koran] verses calling for their killing are unaware that those are really verses of peace.  All verses that call for fighting are done in the context of self-defense … and this is a principle that even those calling for the freezing of Koran verses do not dispute.  For all religions confirm the right to self-defense.”

Here again is another falsehood; while the Koran does have defensive verses, it has even more offensive verses.  The great Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) explained the differences between Jews and Christians on the one hand, and Muslims on the other, centuries ago:
            In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force … The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Even so, despite the clear words of the Koran and hadith, and the clear words of the ulema and their tafasir—to say nothing of the continuum of violence committed against infidels at the hands of Muslims across centuries and continents—Al Azhar, like all apologists, still insists that it’s all a misunderstanding.  Or, as Shuman reiterated in closing:  “So let them [the French signatories] understand the book of Allah correctly.  But if they rely on their own, mistaken understandings, then let them go—with their understandings and requests—to hell!”

Pinched straight from Gates of Vienna.

I'm sure if there was anything - anything at all - to be concerned about the government, Police & media would tell us straight away. Right?

​I mean the Netherlands is not like France where they're preparing for civil war within the next 10 years and denying there is even a problem with Muslim integration is it? Right? And it's not like Britain where Muslim grooming and rape gangs have been operating almost with complete impunity due to the complicity of Police and government employees either eh? And it's certainly not like the well over 50 Swedish no-go zones that the authorities steadfastly denied existed (until it became impossible to keep up the facade) either!

No, no - I'm sure this time it's different. Very, very different.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing to Worry About, Folks
Our Dutch correspondent H. Numan sends this report on last week’s unfortunate knife attack in the Hague by a mentally challenged man. Needless to say, the incident had nothing to do with Islam.
​

Friday was Liberation Day in The Netherlands. The Dutch celebrated their liberation from German occupation in World War Two. A “disturbed” man thought it would be a good idea to celebrate it by slashing throats. Nothing to worry about, folks. He’s not a jihadi, but merely a disturbed person. From Syria. Where he fought for ISIS. Who’s here on refugee status. No idea about the injuries of the victims, as no media thought to write about them. None. Not important — the disturbed man is the Real Victim©; the victims provoked him (by being alive and non-mohammedan). The police had to shoot and taser (in which order they did that I don’t know) this friendly man before they could subdue him.

No reason to inquire if this guy was somewhat overzealous preaching the da’wa. Mayor Krikke already knows he is simply a disturbed person. Why? Apparently he tossed his own furniture out of his house in February. Sane people don’t do that; therefore he must be disturbed. What else can you conclude? You must be a virulent islamophobe if you think this guy is practicing his religion.

Amsterdam is the capital of The Netherlands, but The Hague is the seat of government. Methinks a knife attack in the seat of government is pretty serious. So does the mayor, as she ordered the Rijksrecherche (sort of police to police the police) to immediately investigate the fact that the police had shot this man. Wounded, admittedly. But nevertheless they used their weapons! We can’t have that, can we? What about the “disturbed” man? Yes, she ordered an investigation of him as well. A psychiatric investigation. And she ordered a committee to look into his mental state.

As you can see, the situation is completely under control. Nothing to worry about.

Or perhaps we should worry? What I read on other than mainstream or government-approved media (in Holland that is the same) is that this gentlemen was fully under control of himself. He knew what he was doing, that being the slicing of throats of infidels. Nope, nothing to worry. Because it’s not mainstream media, therefore it must be fake news. Can’t be anything else.

Some other news you don’t have to worry about. The province of Frisia wants to make it compulsory for primary schoolchildren to visit mosques. Of course mohammedans came up with this brilliant idea, but the provincial government kind of likes it too. All in the name of community cohesion, understanding other cultures and whatnot. What I strangely miss is a compulsory visit of mohammedan children to churches and synagogues. But then, mohammedans take their religion — of peace — a lot more seriously than Christians and Jews. Because those religions explicitly forbid entering heathen temples as well. It’s just that nobody seems to care anymore.

The Dutch ministry of defense, officially, likes community cohesion too. Participating in an iftar meal is professional, they say. Which means if you do not want to participate, you’re not professional. We don’t want unprofessionals in our organization. Out you go, or that least no promotion ever. As you probably can understand, the Islamsterdam municipal police leads the way here.

What you will not hear a peep about is the rate mohammedans procreate in The Netherlands. In 1973 there were about 25,000 mohammedans in the country. Mainly guest laborers who were allowed to stay. Soon after that they were allowed to ship in their families. Then they got full DUAL citizenship and now they have their own mohammedan political parties. And how many adherents of the religion of peace in 2018? About 2 million now. Probably more. Which is quite a lot for a country with 17 million. That’s more than 10% of the population.

I stress DUAL because by law Dutch citizens are not allowed to have dual nationalities. Supposing that I were able to obtain Thai citizenship, I would have to make a choice: Either become Thai, and hand in my Dutch passport (which will automatically be revoked anyway), or keep my Dutch nationality and forgo Thai citizenship. This does not apply to people where their country of origin does not allow them to change nationality. Which are mainly mohammedan countries. Now we have a chair(wo)man of parliament, several mayors and high officials of state with dual nationality. The mayor of Rotterdam said in an interview he felt himself to be a Salafist.

The media went into overdrive to defuse that statement. It was an expression; he never meant that literally. That sort of thing. So, nothing to worry about. The fact that he considers every mohammedan a Salafist is just a figure of speech. Nothing to worry about, folks. Islam is the religion of peace. That the word means ‘submission’? Oh, you must be disturbed. Very disturbed!

There is nothing to worry about. Everything is just fine. You can read it in the news or hear it from our politicians.
— H. Numan

Below is a video I thought you might like about the current, and growing, stifling of free thought & enquiry in the West. The video cites Satoshi Kanazawa from the London School of Economics and explores why it seems that independent enquiry & original contributions to science are most often products of the West and not the East.

I still recall - around the time of 911 actually, maybe that was the beginning of the end - when Americans were chortling over the PC mentality in many European countries. Today they are as trussed up and bewildered as anyone else. Mr Kanazawa holds that “the cultural insanity of political correctness ... is the true enemy that we must fight.” Well, that's the FIRST enemy we have to fight. Then we must move on to what I think is the greatest genuine external threat: Islam (you will note I hope that I do not say Muslims).

Mr Kanazawa argues that it is not easy for scientific revolutions, which come about by challenging the established paradigms, to occur in non-Western settings. The author of the video states that social revolutions also are not easily performed in non-Western contexts. One objection to this might be the Communist revolution in China and other spots in the Orient. However based on my reading and my (limited) personal contact with the Orient, I might say that the Communist revolution could be held up as an example of a struggle against the status quo, however the end result is not much different than that which it sought to replace.

Back when I visited the old city in Shanghai I noticed the Guardian Lions about the place. Under the paw of the male was an orb representing imperial authority over the world. It's interesting that in Chinese Buddhist culture the Lion was depicted as the protector of Dharma, that is a protector of the social order, and it occurred to me that not much had really changed from the time of the Han dynasty 2,000 years ago to life after the Communist revolution. The bosses are now Communist bosses but they are still the bosses. Others praise them and obey - or else. This does provide social order, but at great cost. Where are the divergent opinions? Think of Tiananmen Square.

Growing enforced Western conformity of thought is going to stifle, not liberate, ideas & progress. We are becoming weaker by not encouraging original thought - or the freedom to think out loud. Even though some may choose to define me as one of these dreadfully small-minded Evangelical Christian fundamentalists mentioned in the video it seems to me that the basic worldview of the West, based upon the teachings of Christ, are responsible for the liberties we have. Western science arose among a people who believed that God is rational, purposeful and benevolent.  Because God was believed to be these things his Creation could be studied for patterns and was considered consistent & measurable.

Morally, despite all our disagreements we are inculcated with a Biblical worldview which includes the Old Testament proverb: “A person's wisdom yields patience; it is to one's glory to overlook an offence” and the New Testament which states "blessed are the merciful, blessed are the peacemakers" and "pray for your enemies, turn the other cheek". In essence we are to display these qualities, the old Book says, because those are the qualities of our God.

Conversely to prioritise victims over truth is a false paradigm that will lead us astray. The Church already has this in the form of Roman Catholic Liberation Theology which sees the Gospel as less “the good news for the poor” than “the good news of the poor”. Economic and social liberation have become more important than liberation from sin. As an evangelical missiologist I learnt that much RC thought and praxis leads Protestant missological thought & praxis. While it is imperative to have in mind the condition and needs of the poor and our own cultural blindspots regarding wealth we need also to be careful not to some extent imbibe the water of the Christian version of Marxism set out in Liberation theology. The current Pope has made this error.

In the Evangelical world (the one in which I would not spit in Mr Kanazawa’s burger even if I knew he was – gasp! – a believer in evolution) we have long had the idea of “redemption and lift”. Which is to say a man meets Christ (note how I didn’t say “attends church”) and sees his work, family & social responsibilities in a new way. He learns that it is not good spending all his money on his own pleasures, to the neglect of his family. He learns that “a wife of noble character is her husband's crown” and that “children are a gift from the Lord” and so begins serving them. He acknowledges his responsibility to give an honest day’s work for his employer and so on. Economic lift for the whole family inevitably arises. However to prioritise the secondary, economic aspect of “lift” while neglecting or even denigrating the primary issue that brought change – the man heard the gospel and had a change of heart, the "redemption" part – is to do a disservice both to God and the man.

Anyway, I found this clip useful, especially as it comes from someone with a foot in both Eastern and Western camps. It helps us fight against "Islamophobia" accusations and other supposed attitude crimes which merely serve to suffocate those who think Sharia is not good and attempt to say so.

​Islam is the religion with the bloody history, the bloody prophet and the bloody doctrines. We are not the problem simply for noticing this.