Geert Wilders is genuinely concerned about Islam in the Netherlands. Of course he meets with a lot of resistance, but what facts does he have to back his position?

Well, facts like these: 80% of young Turkish Muslims believe that "there is nothing wrong with the jihad or holy war against non-believers" and 90% agree that "Dutch Muslims who fight in Syria are heroes".

These figures are rather typical of the countries in Western Europe. Can you see why some of us are concerned about growing numbers of Muslims in our midst? We really aren't being irrational you know.

An excellent 20 minute video update on the condition of the Netherlands regarding Muslims.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The FACTS about Muslims in Holland
The topic of Islam in the Netherlands is a very heated one. The political establishment and mainstream media do not want to talk about it and Geert Wilders claims that Islam is a great danger to the Netherlands. Let's finally settle things by looking at the facts!
#statisticsonmuslims #statisticsonislam #geertwildersislam #muslimpopulation #muslimsineurope #muslimpopulationeurope #muslimsinholland #islamstatistics #statsonmuslims #factsaboutmuslims #factsaboutislam
​
Sources: https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/terro...
https://www.aivd.nl/onderwerpen/terro...
https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/opini...
https://www.elsevierweekblad.nl/neder...
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2008/03/03/...
https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/marc...
https://www.google.nl/search?q=verwar...
https://www.wzb.eu/en/press-release/i...
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/th...

More "professionalism" mixed with some energetic back covering.

I have mentioned Dr Anwar Sahib before (here and here). Dr Sahib preached Antisemitism, promoted the subjugation of women & has some deeply troubling associations, even being accused of having ties to Osama bin Laden through his Wahabhism. He has also preached that Shi'a believe that they have to kill all Muslims (meaning Sunni Muslims as Shi'a aren't real Muslims in common Sunni understanding) to go to heaven.

Though removed from the Council of Ulema by FIANZ - The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (I'm still waiting for them to reply to my email) - he retained his position as Imam of his mosque. Which I suppose simply means that the mosque didn't have much of a problem with what he said and that no-one has held them to account.

He is back in the news once again for all the wrong reasons. Dr Sahib attended a Counties-Manukau Police Diversity event where he was welcomed both by Mr Rakesh Naidoo - who is New Zealand Police Inspector on secondment to the Human Rights Commission - and a senior, uniformed Police inspector.

So, yeah. Got a couple of problems with that.

Firstly, although the guy has now been thoroughly "outed" I have a problem with the Police Inspector who apparently was either unaware of the kind of man he was hosting or thought it necessary to subordinate his perfectly correct & reasonable concerns about hosting fundamentalist, Islamist, radical, Wahabhist (or Salafist, but they do differ a little)* leaders to the cultural touchstone of "community cohesion". I would have hoped that as a senior officer he might be expected to know top Muslim leaders in his patch who has been fingered as an inspiration for people joining ISIS. However that may be too much to expect.

Secondly, the Police state that "the invited organisations chose their own representatives to attend the event on their behalf.” This sounds like a teeny tiny little cop-out(!) to me - "please don't be annoyed with us, we didn't know who was coming!" But the hosts are still responsible for vetting the attendees they interact with. And by the way, which Muslim organisation chose this chap? Was it the Mosque of which he is the Imam - the Masjid at-Taqwa? Whichever Muslim organisation it was, one hopes that it is being very carefully scrutinised by the authorities. I won't hold my breath though. That wouldn't be inclusive would it?

Lastly however I have a real problem with Mr Rakesh Naidoo who works with Dame Susan Devoy in her role as Race Relations Commissioner. I met Mr Naidoo briefly at the Interfaith gathering I attended last year. He seemed a very nice man and I'm sure he is. However I have to question his judgment here. Surely he of all people knew exactly who he was chatting to in the video clip? Dame Susan had quite a bit to say in criticism Dr Sahib for his past Antisemitism - he had to know that and he had to have recognised the man. Even I did and I don't even have a responsible job supporting a top government appointee.

You seem happy to include this kind of person in your diversity outreach programme Mr Naidoo. Did you think you might win him over if people were nice to him? By the same token would you also welcome a neo-Nazi leader to such an event? If not, why not Mr Naidoo? What's the difference?

I include the full Police statement on the event in Robert Spencer's intro to the original Jihad Watch article. Honestly - do local authorities and Police all over the West employ the self-same person to write this simple-minded piffle? Somewhere in a sunny corner office in one of our great cities there is a one-man consultancy firm pounding out endless balderdash on "diversity, openness & inclusivity" that will be mindlessly regurgitated by gullible pen-pushers while in the real world hate preachers are being entertained at events they have no right to attend.

Gimme a break. 

This kind of willful blindness has been repeated ad nauseum in other Western countries who are currently experiencing far worse issues. It hasn't helped there and it won't help here.

​When are we going to learn?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
New Zealand: Police department welcomes imam who called Jews “the enemy” for Ramadan event
Anwar Sahib was removed from Federation of Islamic Associations in 2016 for anti-Semitic remarks. But the Counties Manukau Police department had no problem welcoming him for Ramadan. And one can sympathize: it is very, very hard indeed to find an imam who doesn’t have some kind of spot on his record, and so if outreach is the imperative, even a Jew-hater will have to do.

In response to the article below, the police issued a statement full of usual blather:
“Counties Manukau Police hosted the Ramadan event last week to foster better understanding of our growing Muslim community and to embrace the diverse communities that make up our society, with diversity being a core value of NZ Police. [Graeme: It seems though that a core value of the NZ Police is not protecting the public from Antisemites who may have had ISIS fighters come from their congregations] 

The Ramadan Iftar ceremony was an inclusive event and invitations were given out to all Islamic centres and Muslim organisations in our District, along with a number of service providers and race relations officials. The invited organisations chose their own representatives to attend the event on their behalf.

One of the purposes of the event is to strengthen relationships with the invited organisations and our Muslim community. We had around 140 members from our Muslim community attending the event and we have been inundated with positive feedback as a result of this event, which was the first of its kind held by NZ Police.”

And diversity. And inclusive. And blah. And blah. What’s a little Jew-hatred among friends? We’re all multiculturalists now.
_____________________
Disgraced Mohammad Anwar Sahib made welcome by Counties Manukau police,”
Whale Oil, June 11, 2018 (thanks to Carl):

It is appalling that a man like Dr Anwar Sahib should be treated with respect by both the police and a member of the Human Rights Commission given his recent anti-Semitic history.

We have written extensively about Dr Anwar Sahib. We were the first media in New Zealand to break the story that eventually led to him losing his position as secretary of FIANZ. For those of you who have forgotten what he did, here is a quick recap.

Sahib is the Imam who called Jews the enemy and said women shouldn’t leave the house without their husband’s permission. These are comments that he has not apologised for.

In fact when the story first broke he claimed that he had been quoted out of context. The incriminating videos were then removed by his mosque so that no one could see what context they were said in.

Fortunately, Whaleoil had anticipated the cover-up and had made copies which you can view here.

Our videos include one that shows that a Muslim woman went to the New Zealand Herald with an accusation that terrorism was being promoted at Sahib’s mosque. Instead of protecting their source, the New Zealand Herald journalist allowed Dr Anwar Sahib to learn her name and phone number….
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

* A better word here is simply orthodox, but that would be lost on most people so I'll employ the whole lexicon in the hope that everyone gets the point.

Is slavery to be laid squarely at the feet of white people and Western civilisation or Christendom? That's a common question. Let's see if we can clear this up.

A 20 minute video following on from this previous one on the matter.

​Kind of puts Roseanne Barr's tweet about Valerie Jarrett  - “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj” - into the shade doesn't it?


>>>>>>>>>>>
Below the hosts introduce the video:~
We move now into a very difficult area concerning slavery in Islam, and this has to do with the awful views expressed by prominent Muslim clerics concerning black people.

This was a difficult episode for Jay and Al Fadi to film, as they had to read quote after quote of famous Muslim scholars which demeaned and ridiculed black people, all before the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade, suggesting that the slavery of Africans by Arabs had much to do with the view Arabs had of Africans, much of which was racist and heinous. 

In the last(?) of this entertaining & informative series, we find out what inspired the whole thing and come up with our final evaluation of this "prophet".

Do NOT follow this guy. No matter how it might look at the start it will not end well.

Even James White agrees - yeah, Muhammad had some weird ideas...


>>>>>>>
On Day 30, Dennis, Giovanni, and Jamal fulfill their oath to follow Muhammad's teachings. 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

A fair exchange of ideas? An open discussion of the central tenets of Islam and central person of Muhammad? 
Why would any Muslim avoid such a discussion - abundantly confident as they are in the truth of their Faith?

​Why indeed.


>>>>>>>>>>>
On Day 29 of "Islamicize Me," the gang heads to the mosque for guidance, where the Sheikh challenges the Kafir King (Robert Spencer) to a public debate.
​​WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

A quarter of an hour on slavery in Islam and how it compares to the Western slave trade. What was the prophet's attitude to slavery? Two genuine experts shine some light on this contentious matter.

This is part 1 of the discussion (there is a fuller, 1 hour, discussion here) and I will try to post part 2 when it appears.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>
07-ISLAMIC SLAVERY - THE BIG LIE!
We now move into a completely new subject, that of Islamic Slavery.

We have been told that the only real slavery which existed was that of the European slave trade, or otherwise known as the Atlantic Slave Trade, and that this slavery was created and continued by Christianity.

What's more, we have been told that Islam doesn't have such a problem, that slavery is uniquely Christian and European.

Jay and al Fadi set the record straight here by returning to the historical record with the first of three episodes dedicated at looking at what the documents actually say.

​They want to delineate whether there was an even larger slave trade within Islam, and whether Muhammad freed slaves or actually enslaved them himself?

An homage to The Warriors, a cameo by James White and what seems to be a demonstration of the power of the Jinn. Just how do you beat this King of the Kafirs ... or the critics of this series?

The creators note:
​"A special shout-out to James White for supplying SAVAGE criticisms of Muhammad for this video! Of course, James White's ministry now compares us to Westboro Baptist Church for this epic, jihad-destroying series! But since we knew what we'd be facing when we decided to make 'Islamicize Me,' we forgive him!" 


>>>>>>>>>>>
On Day 28 of "Islamicize Me," the gang decides to take matters into their own hands, and terrorize the Kafir King himself, Robert Spencer!
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Or we forget who & what we are.

It's been wet and cold round here for far too long. Winter's unwelcome hand is only just starting to tighten its grip & I already have severe Cabin Fever. I need to be reminded that there is a Summer coming, I need some perspective - and there is someone who may need it even more.

Time for a diversion - or make that two! A slow one and a fast one. The slow one is a 4 minute relaxing clip with a couple of German friends riding my bike through the Italian Dolomites. Nice music, nice machines, a sunny day and gliding through amazing scenery.

​It reminds me how good life has been and how good it will feel again.

The second is of my Champion of the day. The great New Zealand road racer Bruce Anstey at the Isle of Man TT. After watching this I also feel glad to be alive. It's only 2 minutes long but ah! what glory!

Sunshine, a good mount, the wind and a battle! It's good to be alive! 

​All hail the King!

From the great Daniel Greenfield via Frontpage Magazine.


>>>>>>>>>>
Islamic Insanity in the Netherlands
When crazy is the new normal.  

  On a pleasant Wednesday in Schiedam, a Dutch city near Rotterdam’s sizable Islamic population, a 26-year-old Syrian refugee stood on a balcony waving an axe and shouting, “Allahu Akbar.”

The police arrived at the modernistic dark and gray building, limned in steel and glass, where the nameless Syrian was shouting about the supremacy of his religion and its axe to all others in Schiedam.

The Dutch cops tried to calm him down. Instead he attacked a police dog which later died of its injuries. After some failed attempts at negotiating his surrender, the Syrian was shot in the leg. Paramedics loaded him into one of two yellow ambulances dispatched for the occasion and maneuvering past a police Volvo took him off to be an even bigger burden on the taxpayers of the Netherlands.

Even before murdering a police dog, the Syrian refugee had been in contact with various aid agencies. By the time he’s done being treated, evaluated, counseled, tried, defended, prosecuted and judged, he will have cost the Netherlands enough money to feed an entire Syrian city for a day.

"It is certain that he had no religious motives," Mayor Lamers insisted. "The most important thing is that he first receives the right care, that also applies to his father. As soon as he is recovered, there will probably be a long-term admission to a clinic."

Make that two Syrian cities for a week.

But the most important thing isn’t stopping Allahu akbaring axmen. It’s seeing they get the right care.

"Honesty requires saying that there are more disturbed people walking around in Schiedam," the politician added. "That is why it is good that there is discussion at national level."

There’s a discussion. Just not the right one.

In May, Malek, a Syrian refugee, stabbed three people in The Hague while shouting, “Allahu Akbar.” 

The attack happened on Liberation Day when the country commemorates its liberation from murderous thugs who shouted, “Heil Hitler” and celebrates its new occupation by murderous thugs who shout, “Allahu Akbar.”

The Syrian had previously thanked the Dutch people for their hospitality by shouting, “Allahu Akbar,” and throwing pieces of furniture out of the window of his apartment and into the street. 

For months, he had terrorized his neighbors with loud Arabic music, “Allahu Akbar” cries and disturbing behavior. The police finally showed up, accompanied by police dogs and riot shields, and he was institutionalized. He was there for six weeks, married another patient, and was back on the street even though while in the hospital, the police had received a tip that he was planning a terrorist attack.

On the loose, Malek cut a man’s throat. He also stabbed two others. 

Police shot him in the leg, ruled out terrorism and blamed mental illness. His family is suing the hospital because Dutch taxpayers haven’t paid enough blood money yet.

In December of last year, Saleh Ali, a Syrian refugee wearing a keffiyah and waving a terrorist PLO flag, went up to a Jewish restaurant in Amsterdam, shouted “Allahu Akbar” and began smashing the windows. The police stood by and watched until he was done. And then they arrested him. 

Ali admitted to having fought with Jihadists in Syria. So the system decided that he needed a psychiatric evaluation because in the Netherlands, and the rest of Europe, smashing things while shouting, “Allahu Akbar” means that you need to spend some time in a white room talking about your mommy.

All three Syrian Muslim refugees had a habit of shouting, “Allahu Akbar” while doing threatening things in public. All three escalated their habits to violent attacks with weapons. Their violence, anger and threats were treated as signs of mental instability rather than religious fervor. But that may be because the former Calvinist stronghold has become an irreligious society incapable of understanding religion.

Less than a third of the Dutch believe in anything. Only 25% identify as Christian. 5% as Muslim. Only 13% of Catholics believe in the basic elements of Christianity.  So the numbers are even smaller.

The vast majority of the younger native population has no concept of religion. So is it any wonder that the “Allahu Akbar” violence of Muslim migrants is met with incomprehension and psychiatry?

  The Dutch were once on the front lines of religious wars. They still are today. But the difference is that much of the country no longer recognizes or understands religion.

Recent research claims that 40% of the Syrian refugees in the Netherlands are suffering from mental problems. 

Among Dutch people, it tops out at 14%. 

Are 40% of Syrian refugees really disturbed or verward, the Dutch term that loosely translates as confused? Or are Europeans unable to process behavior and values different from their own?

In Europe, brandishing an axe while shouting at the entire street would be a sign of mental illness. So would smashing restaurant windows or tossing furniture out of the window into the street.

But Syria isn’t the Netherlands. And the Middle East isn’t Europe.

Public displays of anger and violence are much less aberrant in the Middle East. The values of the burghers of Rotterdam are not those of a Syrian man in his twenties. Nor is their scrupulous lack of conviction in anything more than civility and good behavior a match for his religious convictions.

His cry of, “Allahu Akbar” is not mad, but a threat. He may be a penniless refugee here, but his religion is greater than theirs. And will subsume the tidy precincts of Schiedam, The Hague and Amsterdam.

Integration is not an option. But disintegration is.

78% of Syrians are unemployed and don’t intend to leave. The Dutch government solution is to improve mental health services at refugee centers. That raises the question of just who’s really crazy here?

Meanwhile in another experiment, Syrian refugees are being housed in empty prisons. At least until they commit enough crimes to be sent to an actual prison. Instead of more psychiatric evaluations.

Dutch voters have made it very clear that they don’t want more migrants. And relatively few asylum petitions are being approved. But that just means that Dutch cities are filling up with failed asylum seekers who can’t be deported, who will no longer be subsidized and are ticking time bombs.

If they want to stay, all they have to do is commit a crime and land in one of the famously cushy prisons.

The Netherlands boasts what its defenders call an innovative mental health system. And in its prisons, the inmates are getting keys to their own cells.

Again, who’s crazy here?

Given a choice between having to get a job or shouting, “Allahu Akbar” before taking an axe to a police officer, who is under orders to aim at the feet in the extreme scenario that he has to use his weapon, it’s an easy choice. And more of those Syrian refugees, who won’t be integrating, are making it.

Is it terrorism? Is it gaming the system? Why can’t it be both?

Islamic terrorists have shown a real talent for gaming the system. And gaming the system, like terrorism, is just finding chinks in the armor to exploit.  Welfare fraud and suicide bombing are different sides of the same coin. And in Europe, Jihadists have been known to finance their plots with dole money.

Just don’t call it crazy. When 40% of a population group is deemed loopy, that’s not crazy, it’s the new normal.

So you may find this - again - unpleasant. But if you stick around Islam long enough there is plenty more unpleasantness coming your way. Mauritania, that beacon of Islamic purity, conscientiously brings its previous law on death for blasphemy fully into line with Sharia.

This article, with introduction, via Pamela Geller.


​>>>>>>>>>
Muslim-Ruled Mauritania Adds Law Requiring Death Penalty for Blasphemy of Islam
By Pamela Geller - on June 11, 2018

It is little known and less discussed  that Muslim slavery of blacks accounts for 20% of the population of Mauritania. The continuing brutal horror of sharia rule is sanction and only leads to more Islamic savagery. The world is too busy persecuting the tiny Jewish state for trying to stay alive.

Mauritania Adds Law Requiring Death Penalty for Blasphemy of Islam
Persecution.org, June 10, 2018:
ICC Note: Mauritania’s already strict Islamic laws have become worse. According to Voice of the Martyrs, Mauritania passed a law in April that would punish any blasphemy of Islam with the death penalty. This removes an older law that allowed people to repent within three days of the charges. This adds to the already high level of persecution suffered by the small Christian population in Mauritania.

06/11/2018 Mauritania (Christian Post) – A missionary group that exposes Christian persecution has warned that new changes to Mauritania’s apostasy law means that the death penalty will now be an unavoidable punishment for all people who are found to have blasphemed against Islam, even if they repent.

Todd Nettleton of The Voice of the Martyrs told Mission Network News on Thursday that there is increasing worry among Christians in the African nation regarding the changes to the law made by the Mauritanian National Assembly on April 27, which removes the three-day window of opportunity for people to repent from blasphemy before they are punished.

“This new law sort of becomes more stringent — that three days to repent disappears. Everyone is going to be punished. Even if you do repent, you are still going to be punished. And in the case of blasphemous remarks or sacrilegious acts, according to the law, the death penalty is now mandatory,” Nettleton said.

“The other thing that was very fascinating to me is, in explaining this change in the law, the Minister of Defense said that ‘what we had before was actually in contradiction with official Sharia code, the official Sharia law. We want to be as close to the real Sharia law as possible, so we needed to eliminate that discrepancy between the two.’”
… 
[Full Story]

Geert Wilders is a commendable leading Dutch politician who seeks to defend Western freedoms and security. For this he has (naturally) been labelled far-right, populist (not sure when that became a derogatory term), racist (why of course) and . . . ta-da! . . . Islamophobic.

How to tell the truth about this chap? Well, as always a good place to start is to examine the character of his enemies. This general rule applies to anyone. Who is it that paints him as an enemy of cultural equanimity? Who's bringing law suits against him & publicly slandering his character? Oh - the media, the established & entrenched political class and academics eh? I like him already.

Secondly we could do something really outrageous these days - we could actually read & listen to what he has said to ascertain just how offensive it really is. Not what others say that he has said, what he himself has actually said. Now there's a radical thought.

Robert Spencer has written this article on Mr Wilders' recent talk at a rally for free speech in support of the gaoled Tommy Robinson. In the past Robinson has been imprisoned by the British government on the most trumped-up charges & Wilders has been denied access to Britain by that same government. Robinson was arrested, convicted and imprisoned in great haste but the law was technically quite correctly applied in all this. The problem was that the suspended sentence he was given for a previous "offence" was based on highly prejudicial grounds that signify yet again that he was being singled out for special treatment.

Both Robinson & Wilders oppose Islamisation & Sharia and both stand up for their non-Muslim compatriots. Interestingly while the British government did its best to close these guys down they decided it was perfectly OK to allow Islamic hate preachers free rein. Now that does seem inequitable doesn't it? However we already know I'm not smart enough to be a lawyer so perhaps it's best to just ignore me.

By reading this article we might get an insight into why the British government found them both so burdensome that they had to silence them. However perhaps the tide is turning & in the future such voices may not be so easily silenced. In any event, we owe them both a great debt.  

From Frontpage magazine.


>>>>>>>>>>>
Geert Wilders Puts the Political Elites On Notice
The people are rising up. Can the elites put the genie back in the bottle?  

Geert Wilders spoke at a massive rally for Tommy Robinson on Saturday. 20,000 people came out to call for Tommy’s release, and Wilders took the opportunity to put the political elites of Britain and continental Europe on notice.

“Our governments,” Wilders declared, “sold us out with mass immigration. With Islamization. With open borders. We are almost foreigners in our own lands. And if we complain about it, they call us racists and Islamophobes. But I say, no more! And what do you say? No more! And that’s right: enough is enough. We will not be gagged anymore. No more tyranny.”

It was extraordinary that the British authorities allowed Wilders into the country at all. Several years ago he was banned from entering the country, but although the ban was reversed on appeal, the British government recently banned Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone, Lauren Southern and Lutz Bachmann from entering, all for the crime of opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression, and thereby made it clear that it is more authoritarian and unwilling to uphold the freedom of speech than ever – at least when it comes to criticism of Islam, Muslim rape gangs, and mass Muslim migration.

Even worse, the bannings of Sellner, Pettibone, Southern, and Bachmann were just part of a long pattern. Pamela Geller and I were banned from entering Britain in 2013, apparently for life, also for the crime of telling the truth about Islam and jihad. Meanwhile, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.

The UK Home Office also admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”

Theresa May’s relentlessly appeasement-minded government also admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was welcomed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, the UK banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country.

​But now matters are coming to a head. Apparently British authorities decided that it would be too politically costly for them to bar Wilders again. And so he entered, and spoke, and gave them a strong dose of the reality that they are determined to ignore and deny.

Tommy Robinson is in prison today because he violated a court order demanding that he not film videos outside the trials of Muslim rape gangs. Clearly the government’s intent was to make sure that as few people as possible discovered the truth about its massive, years-long cover-up of those rape gangs, and refusal to prosecute the perpetrators. Theresa May and company obviously hope that other Britons who are furious about the sacrifice of thousands of British girls to the idols of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” will see what happened to Tommy, and be frightened into silence.

​The British government, in imprisoning Tommy Robinson, has shown itself willing to incarcerate people for having opinions that it considers unacceptable. That heralds the death of Britain as a free society and the beginning of an authoritarian police state there, unless this slide to totalitarianism is stopped now. British public figures, whatever criticism they have leveled against Tommy Robinson in the past, should be calling for him to be freed today, or else they will be exposing themselves as supporting the degeneration of Britain into a police state.

Wilders addressed this endeavor head-on, declaring: “We will not be silenced. We will not be intimidated. And we tell the governments, we are not afraid of you. We will never surrender. We will stand strong and do our duty. We will defend our civilization. And we will protect our people.” [Graeme: Do note that "our people" includes all races & religions that wish to live in accord with the norms of the host country - yes, even Muslims]

Wilders added: “And I tell you, to the governments. You can throw us in jail, but you will never defeat us. Because, my friends, for every Tommy whom you imprison, thousands will rise up. So take notice, Theresa May. Take notice, Dutch Prime Minister Rutte. Take notice, Mrs. Merkel or President Macron. Take notice: the future is ours and not yours. We will defeat you politically, because we, my friends, we are the people.”
​
If Wilders’ words don’t prove true, it will be because the death of free societies in Britain and Western Europe is truly at hand.

The horror.

I have to be careful because if there is one thing that upsets me it is stories like the following about the abuse of girls in Britain by the Muslim rape gangs. I find myself seething with anger at the horrific irresponsibility of those is authority who FOR YEARS DID NOTHING while all this was going on. Years & years of finding excuses not to act. Years of looking the other way. Years of seeking career advancement by pushing buzzwords like "diversity" and "inclusion" while simultaneously and knowingly sacrificing children to Molech. 

Yet how professional they seem! How smooth and well prepared for media interaction they are! For decades now the word "professional" has been almost a dirty word to me. In my experience it has so often been used as a cloak for incompetence or corruption by those in the old-boy network who reject accountability to the common man - those mere plebes. This article is a prime example of why I so detest such "professionalism". 

All this leads me to a point of absolute incandescent outrage where I find I may well write something that will betray my devotion to Christ. I owe him more than that. So I will simply place this gripping article by Douglas Murray on the Oxfordshire Muslim rape gangs (from the outstanding Gatestone Institute) for you to read without any extended comment.

I highly recommend taking a couple of minutes to view the videos he links to so that you can see the kind of "professionals" in the Council & Police that we are dealing with here. Unfortunately it takes very little imagination to visualise such people in positions of responsibility in our own, increasingly "professionalised" country. That too, is a tragedy.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rape Gangs: A Story Set in Leafy Oxfordshire
by Douglas Murray at the Gatestone Institute
June 3, 2018 at 5:00 am

• What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities to go on, doing nothing to stop them?
• ​Families of some of the abused girls related that they had tried consistently to raise the alarm over what was happening to their daughters, but that every door of the state was closed in their faces.
• If Britain is to turn around the disgrace of its culture of 'grooming gangs', it should start by changing the risk-reward ratio between those who identify these monstrous crimes and those who have been shown to have covered them up.

________________________________
Since the arrest of Tommy Robinson on May 25, the presence generally -- and incorrectly -- referred to as 'Asian grooming gangs' has been back in the news. This has reignited a debate about whether victims are getting justice and whether perpetrators are encountering it.

In all this at least one key element is missing. What price has been paid, is being paid, or might be paid at some stage, by all those public officials who tacitly or otherwise allowed these modern-day atrocities to go on, doing nothing to stop them? The policemen, politicians, council workers and others who were shown to have failed time and again. They have never been sentenced to prison for any of their oversights -- and perhaps criminal charges (not even charges of criminal negligence) could never be brought against them. It is worth asking, however, if any of these people's lives, career paths, or even pension plans were ever remotely affected by their proven failure to confront one of the greatest evils to have gone on in Britain. That is the mass rape of young girls motivated by adults propelled by (among much else) racism, religiosity, misogyny and class contempt.

Perhaps the post grooming-gang career of just one public official might help to answer that question. Her name is Joanna Simons. In 2013 she was the Chief Executive of the Oxfordshire County Council. She had been at the centre of that Council's 'care' programme for nearly a decade: that is, throughout the period in which the mass rape of local girls (subsequently investigated under the name 'Operation Bullfinch') was carried on. The barbarism, which was carried out by local men of what is erroneously described as 'Asian' origin, included branding one of the girls with an 'M' on her body. The abuser's name was 'Mohammed' and the Mohammed in question wanted people to know that this girl 'belonged' to him and as such was his property.

Others among the hundreds of local victims endured equally horrific abuse. A number were in the care of the local authorities. Among the stories that came out in the 2013 court case at the Old Bailey was that one of the girls was drugged and raped by a gang of men. She managed to escape and hail a taxi which drove her to the care home she lived in. Staff at the care home refused to pay the taxi fare, so the taxi driver took the girl straight back to the property from which she had just escaped, where the gang then raped her again. This is not a nightmare set in some far distant land, or even a town in one of the towns in the north of England which the London media rarely get to, but a story set in leafy Oxfordshire. Families of some of the abused girls related that they had tried consistently to raise the alarm over what was happening to their daughters but that every door of the state was closed in their faces.

After details such as the above came out in the criminal trial at the Old Bailey, Simons made a video, which was posted online by the Oxfordshire County Council. Over the last five years fewer than 2,000 people have watched this 48-second apology. But it deserves a wider audience. In it, Ms Simons looks into the camera and gives an apology to the people who the Council has let down, which tells a huge amount about the attitude that prevailed for years in Britain. From start to finish, everything about it is wrong. Its tone and content suggest that Ms Simons is apologising for a delay in local bin collections, or for delays in providing pavement-salt during inclement weather. Nothing about it fits the appallingness -- the sheer, unimaginable horror -- of what had gone on in leafy, lovely, dreaming-spires Oxfordshire on her watch.

When Simons subsequently appeared on the BBC's Newsnight, she faced some excellent questioning from the BBC's Emily Maitlis. Simons responded by saying not only that she was once again very sorry for the breakdown in services but also came with the reassuring message that she and her colleagues from the council in Oxfordshire 'have learnt a lot.' When Maitlis asked if Simons thought she should resign, Simons replied 'I have asked myself some very hard questions' but 'I'm not going to resign because my determination is that we need to do all that we can to take action to stamp this out.' When Maitlis asked Simons if she would resign if the victims or their families thought she should, Simons came up with one of those beautiful political dodges of not remotely answering the question, thus saying (louder than if she had actually said it) that she had no intention of resigning even if every victim and every family called on her to do so.

Perhaps there were other motives for her desire to stay in place. At the time that Operation Bullfinch broke, Ms Simons was receiving an annual salary of over £196,000, before other benefits were included. To put this into some context, the average annual salary in the UK sits at just over £27,000. The annual salary paid to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for running the country stands at just under £150,000 per annum. So for her pains at Oxfordshire County Council, Ms Simons was receiving a salary considerably higher than that of the Prime Minister and more than six times the average national salary.

Although she resisted pressure to resign in 2013, events moved on. A review into the whole case concluded that social workers and police had been aware of the abuse of hundreds of young girls in Oxfordshire since 2005 but that they had failed to investigate or even to record this as a crime.

In 2015, the Oxfordshire County Council chose to abolish Simon's role, apparently to save money. This decision, after some internal squabbling, was then reversed. Simons eventually stood down in 2015, at which stage she received a pay-off from the Council amounting to the sum of £259,000. Which, again to put this into context, is worth more than the price of the average house in the UK. The average UK house price in the year following Simons's pay-off was £220,000. So the investment most British people spend their working lives paying off could have been covered by Simons with a single year's haul.

Many people might assume that such a person would not reappear in public again, or would sit on their winnings and go away. But Oxfordshire did not lose Simons for long. Last July, the organisation which promotes tourism in the area -- 'Experience Oxfordshire' -- announced Joanna Simons as the new head of their board. A press release announcing her appointment quoted her citing her experience at Oxfordshire County Council as the qualification for taking up this role. She also said how much she was looking forward to 'helping to promote the wonderful place that Oxfordshire is to work, visit and live in.' The former chairman of the board, one Graham Upton, declared that Simons brought a 'wealth of experience' to the role.

Ms Simons is just one person -- one of the many people in the UK who for years turned a blind eye to the mass rape of young girls in their area. But of course these people are not in prison. They are rarely if ever vilified or even mentioned in the national press. They have not had their lives turned upside down. They have not been persecuted at every turn. Instead -- if Joanna Simons is anything to go by -- they have been able to keep their heads down briefly, cash in and then fall upwards again. If Britain is to turn around the disgrace of its culture of 'grooming gangs' it should start by changing the risk-reward ratio between those who identify these monstrous crimes and those who have been shown to have covered them up.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England. His latest book, an international best-seller, is "The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam."

Follow Douglas Murray on Twitter

Unfortunately Muhammad also said: "If anyone leaves his [Islamic] faith, kill him" [Sahih al Bukhari 6922].
​This later saying abrogates the earlier peaceful one.

Oops.

I suppose we'd better ignore that one too - it makes Islam look bad. Again.
And don't tell all the ex-Muslims who live in fear of their lives because they've left the Faith will you? They might get the wrong impression of Muhammad.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>
Islamicize Me Day 27: The Penalty for Failing Allah
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

The assassination attempt in the video is of course based on authoritative Islamic scripture.
Again.

Better to fight in the battle of ideas no?


>>>>>>>>>
​ISLAMICIZE ME DAY 26: JIHAD JUNIOR VS. THE KAFIR KING
On Day 26 of "Islamicize Me," the Halal Heroes send in their ultimate weapon to end the Muhammad cartoon contest. But will Jihad Junior be able to stand against the Kafir King (Robert Spencer)?
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

There's a bit of kerfuffle going on about the offensiveness and supposed inappropriateness of the Islamicize me series I've been reposting here. Fellow Evangelical James White is greatly troubled by this series. In truth there have been several moments where I have found myself feeling quite awkward at the nature & content. So why do I keep posting them?

I keep posting them because they accurately deal with real live scriptural references from sacred and authoritative Islamic sources. As such they cannot be easily dismissed by any Ulema & consequently by anyone else.

They are (hopefully) a complete embarrassment to such scholars and to Muslims as a whole. But they are also authoritative. While some may think them stupid and ridiculous, all have to acknowledge that there are extremely knowledgeable, scholarly Muslims who teach them. These same Sharia advocates also teach the necessity of jihad, the subjugation of women, the hatred of Jews & Christians, the rejection of Western concepts of freedom, the supremacy of the Muslim over all non-Muslims and other doctrines based on the same authorities.

That is a colossal  problem - such teachings destroy lives.

Robert Spencer writes the following article in response to James White's criticisms of the video series. He defends the series because stupid & dangerous doctrines of any religion should be called exactly that & we are doing everyone a favour by holding such ideas up to ridicule.

Now, whether a given Muslim wishes to believe these things and act on them - well that will dictate our response to them, not the mere fact that they call themselves a Muslim. It is the ideas we are criticising. 

Mr White also seems to have a concern - but this is unclear - that in response some Muslims might make uncomplimentary videos about some parts of the Bible. But we don't have to go to a Muslim preacher for that. Turning on the TV almost any night means seeing Christians & the Bible portrayed as objects of ridicule in everyday mainstream entertainment. I think I have good arguments in response (if anyone cares to listen) if my sacred scripture is taken out of context or otherwise distorted, but I have no right to be protected from being upset.

And do note the event that caused this series to be born in the first place. This satirical attack is in response to a real attempt at mass murder. Aren't we all glad that the Christians making this video series did not respond in kind and try to kill Muslims who have "insulted" Christ. They kill Christians and Christians respond with words.

These 2 very different responses are based upon two very different sets of Scriptures, two very different central figures and two very different Gods.

As you may know I always like to point out that among Jesus' last words as he hung dying on the cross for wrongs he had never committed was the prayer "Father forgive them, they don't know what they are doing". In comparison among Muhammad's last words (as he lay dying after prolonged poisoning by one of his sex slaves who had watched her close male relatives decapitated by the prophet) were "I have been made victorious through terror".

Should we ignore this because it makes Muhammad look bad?

Again, when Jesus was asked to describe the greatest commandment of God he replied "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself". Whereas Muhammad addressed this issue - as we found in the last Islamicize me video - by saying the highest desire he had for himself - and by extrapolation surely for his followers - was to be martyred repeatedly fighting in the cause of Allah.

Are we supposed to believe that such statements don't mean what they so plainly state? 

There are limits to being polite, we must be able to openly criticise this. As every single jihadi makes a point of highlighting, they do what they do based on the Sunna of Muhammad. Everything goes back to Muhammad. Everything. 

Additionally do note the Muslim Mr White has a close association with. This is very disturbing & evinces a level of gullibility unbecoming an academic. A Christian has an obligation to determine whether the Muslim Imam he is befriending is pro-Sharia & associated with the Ikhwan before defending him. If Mr White is not carrying out his own due diligence in this matter then how can he expect his criticisms to be taken seriously?

As for me, regardless of provenance, evil and idiotic teachings deserve to be mocked.


>>>>>>>>>>>
The “Islamicize Me” controversy: Is it wrong to mock Islam?​
by Robert Spencer

A controversy has broken out over the web series “Islamicize Me,” and I feel partially responsible. That’s not because I had anything to do with the conception of the series — I didn’t, although I am in it (stay tuned) — but because it was inspired by a real incident with which I was involved. David Wood tweeted:

            FUN FACT: “Islamicize Me” was inspired by the true story of Elton Simpson, Nadir Soofi, & Decarus Thomas, two of whom were converts to Islam. Simpson & Soofi were killed after launching an attack on @jihadwatchRS & @PamelaGeller. Wrong to mock?

Simpson and Soofi tried to murder Pamela Geller and me, of course, because we mocked Islam by staging the AFDI/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas on May 3, 2015. After that event I heard from a great many Christians, some of whom had been close friends, who remonstrated with me for daring to mock Muhammad and Islam, and saying that to do so was against the Christian requirement to charitable and respectful to all people. In that instance my responses centered around the fact that jihadis had previously murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, and that to submit to bullying only encourages more bullying, which would be bad for Christians and for society in general; “Islamicize Me” is different, however, in that it is not a direct response to violent intimidation.

This is a controversy among evangelical Christians, but it has a wider significance as well. And so enter the Christian apologist James White, whom I debated last year on the topic “Is True Islam Always Violent Islam?” — you can listen to that debate here. Dr. White and I have also had some unpleasant encounters revolving around his close friendship with Muslim Brotherhood imam Yasir Qadhi, whom he calls a “kindred spirit.”

White is exercised over “Islamicize Me” because he thinks it is both uncharitable and ineffective. He wrote this to David on Facebook:

         …With that in mind, then, please make sure your response is focused upon the real issue, which can be seen by simply reviewing a few texts (there are many more): 

“but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:15–16)

“But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.” (Ephesians 5:3–4)

“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them;for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.” (Ephesians 5:11–12)

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24–26)

Please explain how you can present in visual form what you did regarding, for example, breast-feeding, in light of these texts and their meanings.

Finally, please explain to us the functional disjunction you have made between attacking Islam and presenting the gospel. That is, there is nothing at all of the gospel in these videos. They are meant to mock and offend and shock, but they are not meant to provide the truth so that upon abandoning error the Muslim might know where to go and what to do. Possibly you believe people will then go and watch other videos and that should be enough. I have been very committed over the years to making sure the focus of my ministry to all groups, and to Islam as well, is gospel-focused and centered….

So here we have essentially two arguments:
1) Christians shouldn’t engage in “filthiness and silly talk,” but instead “be kind to all,” which White believes rules out mocking the ridiculous statements that are attributed to Muhammad in the Hadith;
and
2) Christians shouldn’t try to persuade Muslims of the falsity of Islam without presenting Christianity to them as well.

As for the first, I don’t accept White’s claim that the “Islamicize Me” series is the kind of “filthiness and silly talk” that St. Paul had in mind, or that it is actually uncharitable. Although it is full of slapstick, broad (some would say tasteless) comedy and satire, the intention of the series is absolutely serious: to show to Muslims and to all people of good will that the canonical texts of Islam contain a great deal of material that is absurd and inhumane. Since some Muslims are harming people on a daily basis because of those inhumane teachings, this is an effort that is charitable at its core — not all Christian charity can be equated with niceness, although many people today assume they are identical. The series could result in some people not acting upon those Islamic teachings and thus not harming others, and that is a good thing, and something that Christians should want.

And as for the second, in view of the fact that some Muslims do indeed harm other people every day on the basis of Islamic teachings, for anyone to decide to live in a manner other than by those teachings is a result that is for the greater benefit of all human beings.

In a video, White adds a third complaint:

   The prophets used mockery, but they were speaking from God, and when you become a prophet, let me know….But the other thing is, and this is a real problem in my perspective, and that is, this could be used in reverse. One of the things that keeps me from addressing, at least, certainly in that type of fashion, so much of what’s found in the Hadith is the fact that I know that we have to be able to consistently provide an answer for materials, for example, that are found in the Old Testament that many people find to be extremely troubling….

The idea that one should not imitate the prophets unless one is himself a prophet is novel, but the prophets weren’t perfect or infallible, so very well. His other argument is that if Christians use mockery, mockery will be used against them, although in a later video he vehemently denies this in a rambling, circular, logorrheic outpouring:

          The way it ended up getting twisted, and for twenty minutes, this straw man…Here is what it was twisted into: “James White says that we shouldn’t mock Muhammad because the Muslims might mock the Bible.  ... [Graeme: I'll spare you the bulk of this ramble] ... But if you don’t even acknowledge those things, then we’re putting ourselves in the position, they can do the same thing to us. And we’ve ceded the ground. ... 

That is a roundabout way of saying “if Christians mock the Qur’an, Muslims will mock the Bible,” but he denies that he means that, so we’ll give him his due. His complaint against “Islamicize Me” here is that it takes the worst possible interpretations of Islamic texts without examining the explanations Muslims have made for them — explanations that White himself grants are weak — and that this supposedly opens the door to Muslims putting the worst possible spin on Bible passages without acknowledging the explanations that are made for them.

White misses the mark here for several reasons: the first and most obvious is that numerous Muslim preachers and Islamic apologists already take Bible passages and put the worst possible spin on them. They have been doing this for years. It isn’t as if they’ve been holding off on doing so up to now, and are going to start because of “Islamicize Me.” In fact, it’s a staple of Islamic apologetics to dredge up long-forgotten passages of the Old Testament that neither Jews nor Christians apply literally and play tu-quoque games with them. But that is no excuse for Christians or anyone else to stoop to the same tactics, and what White misses about “Islamicize Me” is that it isn’t dealing in abstractions and hypotheticals, as a Muslim series would be if it criticized Christianity for Bible passages condoning slavery and saying things such as “Blessed is he who takes your babies and smashes them against a rock.” No Jews or Christians are pointing to those and other problematic Bible passages to justify bad behavior today; by contrast, what “Islamicize Me” depicts, albeit in a broadly satirical fashion, is all too real. There are Muslims today who are doing and teaching all the things that are depicted in the series. Absurd? Yes. Inconceivable? No. White is very unhappy about the breastfeeding episode, but there was an imam at Cairo’s venerable al-Azhar who was recommending this practice just a few years ago.

Finally, White is extremely annoyed because David Wood apparently didn’t watch his entire video criticizing the series, or read his book about the Qur’an. What is amusing about that complaint is that White said this:

     But what I was absolutely stunned about was that David Wood, who, in this very video, said that I can run circles around him in New Testament, in textual criticism, this type of stuff, went into this video and admitted twice that he had never listened to what I’d said about Islamicize Me. He didn’t either listen to Dividing Line, watch Dividing Line, he just didn’t do it, and yet thinks that he is going to be able to provide a meaningful, exegetically-based refutation of the exegesis I offered of these texts, and do so accurately? How does that work? He shows more respect for Shabir Ally than me.

Yet in this video (starting at 7:27), White sits next to his friend Yasir Qadhi and shakes his head sympathetically as Qadhi says that “the far right targeted” him, “you know, Spencer and Pamela Geller.” Qadhi falsely claims that Pamela Geller and I produced a “fabricated audio clip,” referring to this one; he claims that we selectively edited his remarks to take him “out of context” and make it appear as if he was endorsing jihad against non-Muslims. Qadhi then adds yet another lie, falsely claiming that Pamela Geller and I sicced lawyers on him when he tried to get the clip taken down. In reality, neither Pamela Geller nor I had anything to do with the production of that audio clip, and never had any litigious interaction with Qadhi, but when I told White this in several private emails as well as in a public postings at Jihad Watch, he responded with arrogant contempt and refused to correct the record.

White clearly has far more respect for Yasir Qadhi, a Muslim Brotherhood, pro-jihad, pro-Sharia imam, than he does for me. But now he is enraged because David Wood supposedly showed more respect for the Islamic apologist Shabir Ally than for him. Well, wouldn’t you?

Last Sunday I chatted to our wonderful congregation. The message is 17 minutes long and, wonders will never cease, was actually very well received.

The topic is: "What does God really want from us?"
The God of the Bible that is, not the very different god of Islam. 

A kafir turns to the beauty of Islam and is introduced to the highest good Muhammad knew.


>>>>>>>
Islamicize Me Day 25: Our Dhimmi Converts to Islam!
​On Day 25 of "Islamicize Me," the gang's dhimmi decides to become a Muslim, and the gang figures out a way to deal with the infamous Robert Spencer! 
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

We learn about the errors of the Shi'a and the gift of Taqiyya, or deception for the sake of Islam.

Or as one particularly prominent Shi'a has put it:
           [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani presented himself in the elections as a master of diplomacy, a master of rhetoric. He was very critical of [former president Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. His message was, “Ahmadinejad was stupid enough to be a wolf in wolf’s clothing, to expose his teeth and nails and alert the West. I can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have all the diplomatic and rhetoric skills to do so.”

Watch the clip now before YouTube takes it down as hate speech.


>>>>>>>>>
On Day 24 of "Islamicize Me," Giovanni and Dennis find out that Jamal isn't Sunni. He's Shia!

For the moronic YouTube interns who keep flagging these videos because you're too dumb to know that this entire series is satire . . . THIS IS SATIRE! DURRRRRRRR . . .

WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

UPDATE #2: YouTube have restored the original "hateful" video. How kind of them. It only took them a week to discover what everyone else knew immediately. When you look at it like that they're doing better than most government departments...
UPDATE: Hmm... the picture above turned out to be prophetic. Video has been removed by YouTube as "hate speech". Dr Wood has posted this in response:~
"For those of you who are asking about Day 23, YouTube removed it under a false claim of "hate speech." You can watch the video at Minds.com and try to figure out how anyone could conclude that the video contains hate speech. Here's the link: https://www.minds.com/media/851743617213239296"
______________________
​
We keep unraveling the sophistication of Islam with Dr Wood and friends. This time in regards to the Jews - you know the people who control the media, Hollywood, the world financial system, the global arms trade and all kafir governments (hey it's not my conspiracy theory!).

They "engage" with some "Black Hebrew Israelites" which is very interesting in itself.
These guys are having a lot of fun with this!
Enjoy :)
​

>>>>>>>>
On Day 23, the gang finds the realest Jews in the world preaching on a street corner. The Halal Heroes accept the challenge and do some preaching of their own!
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net
To learn more about the "Black Hebrew Israelites," be sure to subscribe to Vocab's channel, since he interacts with them regularly and has written a book on the movement: https://www.youtube.com/user/vocabmalone

A very useful interview with Dr Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum.

Compare the discussion below to the absurd statements coming out of one Islamic studies group where they go so far to call a significant proportion of American Muslims Islamophobic because they agreed with a survey's question that "Most Muslims living in the United States are more prone to violence than other people." Eighteen percent agreed with the statement, surpassed only by white evangelicals at 23 percent, while the general public averaged 13 percent.

Other survey results include: "I believe my faith community is more prone to negative behavior than other faith communities" received 30 percent approval from American Muslims but only 11 percent from the general public. Likewise, 8 percent of Muslims, as opposed to 6 percent in the general public, approved of the statement "Most Muslims living in the United States are less civilized than other people."  Both 12 percent of Muslims and the general public agreed with the statement "Most Muslims living in the United States are hostile to the United States." 

Islamophobic Muslims?
The pretentiousness is suffocating.


>>>>>>>>>
Interview: Islamism's War on the West
Savvy Street
June 5, 2018
Daniel Pipes (DP) kindly offered The Savvy Street, represented by Vinay Kolhatkar (VK), an engaging Q&A which contains some of his key insights into the phenomenon of Islamism.

VK: Does Islam's canon foment terrorism?
DP: I've stopped using the word terrorism, finding it meaningless because no two people agree on its definition. So, let me re-ask your question: Does Islam's canon foment jihadi violence? Yes. Islam is premised on (1) the superiority of Islam, (2) the need to spread its message, and (3) the legitimacy of force to do so. These fundamentals of faith have been apparent from Muhammad's time to the present, though not everywhere and not at all times.

VK: Is a gay-friendly, women-friendly, Islam possible?
DP: Of course. Every faith evolves. Centuries ago, who could have imagined homosexual and female Christian bishops? Looking at Islam's present tells us little about its future.

VK: How big is the intrusion of Islamism into the U.N.? What are the consequences of such intrusion?
DP: The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has 56 member-states (plus "Palestine"), 47 of which have a majority Muslim population. This is roughly a quarter of the United Nations membership and in the amoral game of give-and-take that lies behind most votes, that bloc can get nearly the entire 193 governments to back it or at least abstain on issues it cares about. Take the vote against moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem: 9 in favor, 128 against, 35 abstentions, and 21 not present. It also permits the forwarding of Islamist initiatives, such as U.N. General Assembly Resolution 16/18 adopted to prevent criticism of Muslims or Islam. This influence led to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres amazingly stating that "One of the things that fuel terrorism is the expression in some parts of the world of Islamophobic feelings and Islamophobic policies and Islamophobic hate speeches."

VK: How significant is the risk of Sharia law intrusions into Western legal systems?
DP: This process has already begun. For instance, polygamy has made rapid progress as a legitimate life-style option. While laws banning female genital mutilation are on the books, famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz has offered his services for a doctor to be tried for conducting FGM surgeries. Fashion houses have taken up hijabs and even jilbabs. Mosques manage to ban alcohol within a wide perimeter. First-cousin marriages proliferate, with attendant genetic problems. Interest-free banks grow.

VK: Do Islamists fund major political parties in the West? What is the impact of such actions?
DP: My organization, the Middle East Forum, has focused on precisely that question in the United States in its Islamist Money in Politics Project. The thousands of entries here, dating back to 1979, reveal many patterns. For example, 90 percent of Islamist donations go to Democratic candidates. Obviously, the goal of these donations is to make Islamism acceptable. The liberal-left being more sympathetic to this goal, it receives the bulk of the donations. And it's worked. Rare are the liberal-left voices anymore that stand up to Islamism.

VK: How can the West best deal with the threat of jihadi violence?
DP: By addressing the core ideas behind the resort to violence, such as: living by a medieval code, the superiority of Islam and Muslims to other faiths and believers, the validity of force and coercion to spread the faith, and the notion of God giving specific orders.

VK: What's the best way for the West to avoid seeping Islamization: open debate on Islam's canon calling for reform, exposing Islamist political donations, encouraging apostasy within Islam, immigration policies designed to uncover Islamists, or all these and more?
DP: I'd stay away from encouraging Muslims to leave Islam [Graeme: I wouldn't], but the other ideas are all good. However, there's a more fundamental priority, which is to convince the liberal-left that Islamism presents a threat. So long as this huge segment of Western populations largely remains blind to the Islamist threat, the measures you propose have limited utility.

VK: Is there something intrinsic to Islam that the Western mainstream media wishes to hide?
DP: Yes. The mainstream media, and the Establishment in general (what I call the 6Ps - police, politicians, press, priests, professors and prosecutors) pretend that the Sharia, a medieval law code that calls on Muslims to engage in actions deeply at odds with modern ways, does not exist. This leads them to the inane conclusion that living according to the Sharia is in opposition to Islam. The most spectacular instance of this is the absurd debate on the question whether jihad is Islamic, akin to asking whether the pope is Catholic. And in that discussion, the most extravagant statement was by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who said of the Charlie Hebdo attackers, "They're about as Muslim as I am."

VK: Are you familiar with the case of Tommy Robinson (U.K.)? Do you have a view on it?
DP: I spent much of a day with Tommy in December 2017 as he took me around his hometown of Luton. He is knowledgeable, draws a distinction between Islam and Islamism, and is a leader. Toffs should get over their class bias against him and the authorities must treat him fairly. I hope the outrageous treatment he suffered on May 25 – being arrested, denied a lawyer, tried, sentenced, and dispatched to prison, all within a few hours – serves as a wake-up call to the British public.

VK: What should be the U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia?
DP: Had you asked me this before 2015, I would have answered, keep a distance, bargain hard, root out the evil influence. Since the coming to power of King Salman and his all-powerful son Muhammad, however, I answer differently: Focus on helping Muhammad's radical reforms succeed.

VK: What's your view on the Iran nuclear deal?
DP: A scandalous attempt by the six participating governments to defer the problem of Iranian nuclear weapons for about a decade – to when current office holders will presumably no longer be in charge. It is an obnoxious farce.

VK: Did President Assad gas his own citizens or was that brought about by Islamic militant groups to foster an ousting of Assad?
DP: The Syrian regime has more than once gassed its subject population, full stop. More generally, however repugnant the Islamist groups, the regime has carried out the great majority of killings in Syria, both before and after the civil war began in 2011. It is a monstrosity.

VK: Thank you for your time, and for speaking truth to power. We wish you the best in your endeavors.

This is a half-hour interview with the prominent critic of Islam Stephen Lennon. He's recently been sentenced to 13 months prison for "breaching the peace" offences. His book Enemy of the State is really a must-read and his speech at Oxford University will also be very informative for those unacquainted with him. With all his faults, I support him. What he has to say needs to be listened to.

His first hand experience of growing up in East London & living in close proximity with Muslims is invaluable. It is also appropriate to note how he has changed the minds of several Muslims who have been both ignorant of what he actually says and of what their own faith actually states. If he could do it for them maybe he can do it for those non-Muslims who defend Islam in our midst.

Among his statements he claims that he wants the government to encourage & protect Muslims who want to leave Islam. So he has nothing to do with hating brown people or Muslims. He does however detest Islam. Perhaps he could be of some assistance to the Anglican Priest in the photo who is assisting local Muslims of the East London Mosque in their dawah. 
​
Be aware that, unlike the smiling Muslims in the photo who I'm sure are scrupulous with their public speech, there is some bad language. 


>>>>>>>>>>
TOMMY ROBINSON - LAST INTERVIEW BEFORE ARREST. May 23, 2018​
Interview with Tommy Robinson: on people who say it's too late, on himself at 18, on the many lessons he's learned, on some people saying he has the making of a great Prime Minister, on laughing though the situation is desperate, and on the huge change that has happened for him over the past 2 years, because he now can feel the massive support he has.

INTERVIEWER: ELSA To subscribe to her posts: http://WorldTruthSummit.com

Two days after the interview, on May 25th, Tommy was arrested again. This time, it was for (supposedly) disturbing the peace. He was going about his business of being a reporter - not on the side of those in power.

His arrest brings up thoughts of people like Gandhi and Mandela. Gandhi was arrested over and over. Mandela (unlike Tommy, a true danger) spent 27 years in prison. Both spoke out against those in power, and both demanded change.

There are major differences between Gandhi, Mandela and Tommy. Gandhi was a lawyer - well educated. Mandela was the son of a tribal leader - a prince, one might say.

Tommy is working class. In fact, the mainstream media has smeared him for his class background, for instance as a football hooligan.

Unlike Mandela and Gandhi, from the beginning Tommy has always been for peaceful protest.

He has also always been openly and strongly against racism as well as homophobia - against discrimination against individuals.

His protest has always been against an ideology, Islamic ideology, and against behaviors that violate human rights - like the "grooming" of indigenous British girls by largely Islamic rape gangs, and like the inaction, for decades, of the police, social workers and government officials.

Tommy Robinson, a man with the courage to keep speaking out, and with an amazing capacity to lead.

Within a couple of days of the arrest, over half a million people worldwide had signed the petition asking for his release. Protests erupted worldwide - Australia, Canada, Israel, France, Germany, as well as Great Britain, of course. 

I admit it: I have a weak spot for the Persecuted Church.

I think they are examples to Christians like me who like to get all cosy and forget that following Jesus means taking some lumps at times. Sometimes those lumps are very big indeed. I honour my persecuted brothers & sisters as very ordinary, flawed people (just like me) who speak out for Jesus & his gospel when the bullies are doing their best to shut them up. They are beaten, their churches & houses are burned; their families are brutalised and they themselves are tortured and even killed. Yet they love their Lord more than they fear the pain.

Furthermore regarding Islam we have to be aware that the religion was formed in a tribal context. I was chatting to a lovely couple the other day who had been missionaries in Papua New Guinea. They had been admitted into one of the Clans as, they said, it simply wasn't possible for the larger tribe to relate to them unless they could be identified as part of a group. If they weren't clearly part of a Clan the entire Tribe didn't know where they fitted or who they were accountable to. In a way they were non-persons unless they were part of a Clan.

The Clan looks after each other with food & other assistance - nothing was considered a personal possession. Members always supported the leaders of the Clan and above that the Tribe in any disputes. Members of the Clan also unquestioningly come to the aid of their fellows in the event of a fight. It's just a given. I see one of my group in a fight and I join in regardless of the realities of the problem. From what I was told there is little time given to analysis of the differences and the merits of contrary arguments - maybe my guy is in error this time, maybe we can compromise - no, my clan, my family, gets my total support. Full stop.

This way of viewing the world is a part of the very DNA of Islam.

How do you think democracy would work in this context? You've nailed it - it wouldn't. Think of the lines drawn on the map of Africa by the Old Powers to create one People out of groups who had only historic animosity for each other - how has Rwanda worked? Or Nigeria? Or Sudan? Ancient tribal allegiances are extremely difficult to dislodge especially when those differences are exacerbated by the tribes following different religions. It is the Fulani tribe who converted to war-like Islam who are attacking their Christian and pagan neighbours.

This is also why when democracy was introduced to Iraq after the war people voted along religious and tribal lines and the place fractured.

Increasingly we see this in the West too and not just in the retreat of individuals into like-minded groups. It also manifests itself when the "mob mentality" takes over and people stop thinking all together and start becoming violent.

Perhaps this is one reason why it is so very difficult to reason with many Muslims - at least with those who have not become largely Westernised and can manage critical self-reflection and awkward questions. Our own culture's devolution into the tribal mentality - with its rejection of critical thought and its willingness to hear people out because "my group is always right" - is producing a catastrophic feedback loop of white noise.

At what point do we sit back, look at the bigger picture and make a decision based on the long term good of the whole group? And failing that - at what point does our own democracy simply have to fail?

Robert Spencer introduces the following article regarding some Ugandan Christian preachers saying some things which some Muslims took to be a virtual declaration of war and so declared a real war in response. This is why I post about things like the trouble arising from the various Muhammad cartoon "controversies" and why I continue to post the videos in David Wood's Islamicize me series.

Are they offensive to some? Well OK, so be offended.
But answer words with words, arguments with arguments. Not with violence.
​
And make sure you're clear on the principles and not just unthinkingly contributing to a gangland war.

​
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ramadan in Uganda: Muslims declare jihad, attack Christian preachers, accuse them of “despising Islamic teachings”

Mr Spencer's introduction
“Mr Swaibu Malinzi, another Muslim, said since the preachers had ‘waged a war on Muslims’, they had also been forced to declare a Jihad against them.”

Last month, on May 3, the third anniversary passed of our Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest that was attacked by jihadis in Garland, Texas. In the wake of the attack, not a few Christians told me that I had done a terrible thing in co-organizing and speaking at the event. They claimed that Pamela Geller and I were gratuitously provoking Muslims, and brushed aside our response, which was that to bow to intimidation, in that case the threat of violence against those who drew Muhammad, would only encourage more intimidation.

Very well. But those Christians should take careful note of this incident. They thought that Pamela Geller and I were poking Muslims in the eye by holding our event in defense of the freedom of speech, and that we should have been more respectful. But these preachers in Uganda were simply preaching the Christian faith, and comparing it favorably to Islam, as Islamic preachers routinely compare Islam favorably to Christianity. Yet they still ended up being accused by enraged Muslims of “despising Islamic teachings at their crusade,” and ended up having a jihad declared against them.

The lesson is clear: some Muslims consider any expression of the Christian faith (as well as any expression of other non-Muslim religions) as provoking to Muslims. So all the good Christians who castigated us for holding our free speech event in Garland should be consistent. If their intention is to avoid provoking Muslims at all costs, they should close down their churches now and convert to Islam. It would be the tolerant thing to do.

“Police foil Christian, Muslim bloody fight,”
by Yazid Yolisigira, Daily Monitor, June 4, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

IGANGA- A group on Muslims have attacked Christians [sic] preachers, accusing them of “despising Islamic teachings at their crusade”.

The crusade that was presided over by Pastor Moses Saku, was organised by the Bible Evangelism Ministry, at Kigobero Grounds in Iganga Town.

It degenerated into chaos when a group of Muslims said the Born Again preachers were using the platform to ‘demoralise Islam’.

Pastor Saku, the Muslims alleged, told his congregation that ‘Christianity was far better than Islam’, to the irritation of some Muslims who were in attendance.

This prompted Police from Iganga Central Police Station to intervene.

Mr Ayub Waiswa, one of the Muslims, said they had from the onset of the crusade, warned the Christian preachers against making provocative statements.

Mr Swaibu Malinzi, another Muslim, said since the preachers had ‘waged a war on Muslims’, they had also been forced to declare a Jihad against them.

The preachers, however, dismissed the allegations as untrue and accused their Muslim counterparts of gagging them from telling people the ‘truth’.

“We have never abused Muslims or Allah but it seems they [Muslims] are concerned by the way we were highlighting the contradictions in the Koran,” Pastor Saku said….

The chaps clarify the confusion over Qur'anic ayahs on peace when there are also ayahs on warfare. Isn't this a contradiction?

​It all makes sense when you understand that essentially Muhammad taught that anything is permissible for the survival & extension of Islam. Be peaceful when you're outnumbered and fight when you're stronger.

​Simple really.


>>>>>>>>>>>
On Day 22 of "Islamicize Me," the gang asks their Sheikh a question about jihad, and learns the true wisdom of Allah and his messenger (Muhammad)!
WEBSITE: http://www.acts17.net

Fun with Islamic sacred scripture. 

Lots of fun.


>>>>>>>>>
​On Day 21, Jamal and Giovanni have once again been poisoned, so Dennis must go to the library to pee. Fortunately, Allah is the best of planners, and Dennis gets to share the message of Islam with two atheists!

Vlad Tepes has passed onto us the latest in the series by an undercover Jewish journalist who infiltrated various Islamic institutions, particularly in the USA & Europe. It's a brilliant must-watch bunch of videos. I have three previous ones here, here and here.

This one is described by the Gates of Vienna as the most chilling yet. I hope we pay particular attention to the dark figure of Erdogan and his influence not just in the Near East but in Europe. His goals & his links to the Ikhwan are a huge concern. Yet there are also apparently millions of Muslims entering Europe who hope to see Sharia become part of its laws & culture in the next couple of decades.

​The recently elected government of New Zealand wants to increase the number of migrants/refugees we take in over the coming years. How will they be any better at screening them than all those European governments?

What to do with all this disconcerting information? Look away? If we do we had better prepare more flowers & candles for the inevitable. 


>>>>>>>>>>>>
Muslim Brotherhood effect on Turkey and Germany
This is part of the Israeli series we have been running now and again about the Brotherhood’s subversive operations across the Western world to bring down democracy, and replace rule of law with sharia.

To be honest, an essay about the unstated implications of this documentary should be written here and now. And when time permits, which may be never at the rate at which events happen which require chronicling, I will try and write one. But I encourage people to think about what they see here and write down their thoughts in the comments.

One thing that does stick in my craw is how real fake passports can be obtained which pass any computer check in the world.

This means that Turkey or Germany or both are actually knowingly creating false documents for money for whatever religious Muslim who wants to make Hijra, and putting the necessary codes in the international data bases which confirm a passport is legit.

There are lots of other features that deserve analysis and exposure from this. Like the German civil servant who actually tells an illegal how to sneak in the rest of his family and bypass even the lax regulations that prevent him from just moving his whole tribe in to Germany right then and there with full government support.

Take your blood pressure meds before watching.